| 17 people marked this as a favorite. |
This may not be a popular suggestion, but it feels like there are enough classes in the game now, and so many newish ones to support with additional content, that trying to jam 2 in every new class book is going to lead to newish classes remaining pretty shallow with options, especially with ones like commander and runesmith basically getting a totally unique thing that doesn’t share or play nice with any other class. I like the idea of new classes having a unique mechanic and not being just a hybrid of X and y options, but, like the kineticist, I think having only one new class per book, with more support options for other classes and deeper class options for the featured class feels like it will be better for however many books come out after Impossible.
As it stands, it is hard to imagine either commander or Runesmith getting many new options past the books they come out in.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
I expect classes getting new options to be the exception, not the rule; just something that happens when a flavorful little addition helps with the theme of the book and fills out a bit of space. I don't think expanding existing class options is a conscious high priority of the dev team.
However, I think the more practical reason to slow down to one class a year is to stave off edition burnout and the subsequent pf3. I'd rather the pace slow down so it takes longer to get to that critical mass of bloat that makes onboarding new players impossible.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I expect classes getting new options to be the exception, not the rule; just something that happens when a flavorful little addition helps with the theme of the book and fills out a bit of space.
Right, but getting those new options upfront with a new class would be much better, especially as the appropriate thematic book for them might have already been published. Having even 1.5x the book space for a new class gives a lot more room for giving a class' depth upon its release than a current model.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I expect classes getting new options to be the exception, not the rule; just something that happens when a flavorful little addition helps with the theme of the book and fills out a bit of space.Right, but getting those new options upfront with a new class would be much better, especially as the appropriate thematic book for them might have already been published. Having even 1.5x the book space for a new class gives a lot more room for giving a class' depth upon its release than a current model.
Fair enough, beefier class releases would be another benefit to single class books
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure they've gone on record saying that new classes sell books. You're probably stuck relying on 3pp for any sort of significant amount of class content for existing ones.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd love to see broader support for existing classes, but given how reticent Paizo has been to provide much support I'm not sure this tradeoff would play out this way, though it's definitely something I wouldn't mind them considering more in the future.
Seems the way PF2 is structured, there isn't a lot of room for additional feats on classes. You already have feats competing against each other and there is usually an obvious best pick or two.
With the action economy and short fights, you have to have things that work fairly quick.
New classes allow a whole new class with unique abilities and feats that might fit into some niche better than adding content to old classes with known superior options already in place. A lot of the new classes are variations on the base classes as it is. That seems to be the best path to add new usable content to the game.
The kineticist with its five elements was perfectly suited to a ton of class feats since they act as spells. Not sure what other classes would allow that much content. Maybe a new psychic could do it if they made the psychic more like the kineticist with a lot of cool mental abilities suited to their various psychic abilities.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would much rather see classes given more options than see new classes. I would very much like to see an options book loaded with new feats for classes, new impulses for kineticists, new ancestry feats (especially since there are still a lot of ancestries with very few 9+ feats), and maybe even new optional rules, or a Daggerheart like section that talks about using narrative tools in a PF2 game.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yes, please, some slowdown for new classes and more options for existing classes, especially some of the newer ones with unique mechanics like Kineticist. More class archetypes as well, those help porting over old 1E character concepts.
I honestly think this glut of something like six new base classes per year is very quickly going to lead to burnout. I remember very well that by Occult Adventures in 1E many of my players were just done with the constant churn of new base classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Honestly, no more classes...
More options for the existing classes...
I am not suggesting that the 2 classes per book structure used so far has been bad, just that we are hitting a point where there is so much material already that if something like a gun focused runesmith or a nature focused commander option was going to be released, it would have happened in a previous book and probably won’t come up again, so it makes sense to me to be more thorough with the newer classes and make sure that the new classes are released in a bit more of a complete state than past ones.
Yes, please, some slowdown for new classes and more options for existing classes, especially some of the newer ones with unique mechanics like Kineticist. More class archetypes as well, those help porting over old 1E character concepts.
I honestly think this glut of something like six new base classes per year is very quickly going to lead to burnout. I remember very well that by Occult Adventures in 1E many of my players were just done with the constant churn of new base classes.
... Six? I'm really not following the math there, unless you're counting Starfinder's core classes. It's generally been two classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think shifting to 1 class books, and adding more options for existing classes, would be a natural transition to make. The older classes get more to play with and the new classes get more room to come out swinging.
I'm personally burnt out from playtesting multiple classes anyway, and tend to focus on one of the two each time a playtest cycle comes up.
I'd also love to see more optional systems built out and actually playtested, instead of slapped into each AP willy nilly. Could start leaning into building up support for various genres rather than relying on them being made up ad hoc.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I will mention that as a small sample size, we may not necessarily be representative of the larger Pathfinder community, but I too would like to support single-class expansions over two-class expansions for a few reasons:
All of which is to say: I can definitely agree with the data that says classes sell, though if that is the case, hopefully featuring one brand-new class each time will continue to sell just as well, if not better. With this latest expansion, it took a heroic effort to transform the Guardian into something worth justifying as an entire class in their own right, and I would rather avoid that class's same rocky playtest period in the future if possible.
I also share the opinion of you all. Two classes per rulebook is too much. Initially, when the system was just released, it made sense, but now it risks oversaturating the system.
May this can be my sensation due to Kineticist. But one class alone gives me the feeling that it can be better developed than two. It leaves more space for it and creates greater "pressure" for it to be well-designed and interesting, after all, it's the only class in that book.
Perhaps Paizo will still opt for two classes per book, not only to reduce this pressure, but also to reduce the risk of releasing a book with a class that many people don't like and having difficulty selling the book. But I don't think that classes are the main reason for sales anymore, since the classes are published in full in AoN/Nexus.
Kineticist was a success story in this regard, in my opinion. It is a class much loved by the community, obviously there are those who dislike it and its critics, but of the non-core classes it is the one that seems to be the most successful alongside the magus, both due to its unique mechanics and because it is a very well-crafted class.
So I think it's time to slowdown now.
I'm not for less player options in general to avoid bloat or what have you, no. If there was a trade such as one class and a spattering of other player options to make up for it, then that would be great, yeah.
Personally there are classes and concepts I'm still hoping get put in the game, so slowing content would lessen my chances for getting said options. But I do love a lot of existing options and would love to see them expanded, and I feel that there are a lot of concepts that don't need a whole new class, just tweaking of existing ones (class archetypes).
I think Paizo has made the choice of using new classes to explore new mechanical ideas. This is similar to how they used to include new archetypes for existing classes in their previous works.
Instead of a class getting a new archetype that completely changes how they played, or fulfilled a new niche for that class, instead they are taking that idea and turning it into its own bespoke class.
I don't know how I feel about it, personally. Reducing it down to 1 class and creating more options for existing classes could be fun. But at the same time, I feel like Pathfinder would rather you have 50 classes to pick from, and each class is relatively simple to figure out and play, than to have 30 classes, but each one having an alt mode essentially.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hmm... I wonder how Rage of the Elements has sold compared to similar books. Did having only one class make it less appealing to the casual buyer?
That's not information I expect Paizo to share, but I bet it plays a role in Paizo's thoughts on this matter.
... Six? I'm really not following the math there, unless you're counting Starfinder's core classes. It's generally been two classes.Yes, please, some slowdown for new classes and more options for existing classes, especially some of the newer ones with unique mechanics like Kineticist. More class archetypes as well, those help porting over old 1E character concepts.
I honestly think this glut of something like six new base classes per year is very quickly going to lead to burnout. I remember very well that by Occult Adventures in 1E many of my players were just done with the constant churn of new base classes.
Apologies, time really passes more quickly as you get older (I'm turning 50 on Monday, oy very). The release of War of Immortals seems just like it happened a few weeks ago.
I'm pretty sure, though, that the Necromancer and Runesmith might still come out this year, which would make it four new base classes this year, independent of Starfinder.
... Six? I'm really not following the math there, unless you're counting Starfinder's core classes. It's generally been two classes.Yes, please, some slowdown for new classes and more options for existing classes, especially some of the newer ones with unique mechanics like Kineticist. More class archetypes as well, those help porting over old 1E character concepts.
I honestly think this glut of something like six new base classes per year is very quickly going to lead to burnout. I remember very well that by Occult Adventures in 1E many of my players were just done with the constant churn of new base classes.
Apologies, time really passes more quickly as you get older (I'm turning 50 on Monday, oy very). The release of War of Immortals seems just like it happened a few weeks ago.
I'm pretty sure, though, that the Necromancer and Runesmith might still come out this year, which would make it four new base classes this year, independent of Starfinder.
Well its July and we don't even know the name of the book they'll appear in. Haha
The Impossible playtest stated it was "for an as-yet-unannounced book to be released in 2026".
Also there's no way they'd do another mainline release this year when Monster Core 2 is coming out in November.
I can't say I have strong feelings on this one way or another, less classes/more class options likely wouldn't sway me to buy a book more or less than I would in the first place due to things like the books themes interesting me or not. In a way I prefer class bloat over option bloat within classes because having more mechanically interesting classes catches my eye more than having piles of feat options.
Not to say I don't like new options, new subclasses and class archetypes for existing classes interest me the most, ways to nudge the baseline mechanics or role of a class are great to see. Feats themselves interest me distinctly less, but if they're around to accentuate subclasses or archetypes then I can be swayed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably what makes more classes sell more books is that some people will be interested in one but not the other and vice versa.
We're also going to get more new classes from Starfinder 2e. Not that every SF2 class will work in Pathfinder without the tech you find in space, but some of them surely will (the operator and the solarian for example.)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think there are two pain points with Pathfinder 2E which are not served well with the focus on new base classes but would benefit from releasing more optiz for existing classes.
The first is getting out the main character options of 1E into 2E. I'm talking about the most popular options like the Skald. This particular often requested class option could better be done with a class archetype for the Bard, rather than a full new base class.
The second one are classes like the Kineticist, which do not interact well with the main chassis of Pathfinder 2E, but are popular and versatile enough to merit expanding on, be it through more impulses for existing elements or new elements altogether.
But also existing classes like the Wizard would get much benefit out of more variety in their class feat choices. Sure, some min-maxers might not see the point, since they are set in their "optimal build" mindset, but you always see off-the-wall builds popping up on Reddit.
Two makes sense. Increases the chance someone will buy the book, allows for thematic ties to be explored, gives a better bang for your buck, etc. I would also like more options for existing classes, but there are inherent diminishing returns to these.
A book I would pay for is something like Pathfinder Unchained with some classes like the Summoner redone in a way that breaks things a little by making the summoned eidolons more like the creatures they imitate.
I really like the unchained book that let the designers design a few classes closer to what you want them to be versus a focus on balance.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hope they will go with what works for them. If they have two class ideas that developers are interested in doing, great. If they only have one passion class and another would be to fill the quota, then hold off on the second class and fill more archetypes, class feats and options for older classes that fit.
I understand that rehashing and fixing older content doesn't bring in the money, but when I get an option that makes a new build or fleshed out a character concept to work it makes me glad I purchased that new book.
Yes, please, some slowdown for new classes and more options for existing classes, especially some of the newer ones with unique mechanics like Kineticist. More class archetypes as well, those help porting over old 1E character concepts.
I honestly think this glut of something like six new base classes per year is very quickly going to lead to burnout. I remember very well that by Occult Adventures in 1E many of my players were just done with the constant churn of new base classes.
Many APs provide additional class options, like the recent publication of the School of Magical Technology in To Blot Out the Sun for the Shades of Blood AP. Not to mention the archetypes and class options in Howl of the Wild, War of the Immortals (rulebooks), Tian Xia Character Guide, Divine Mysteries, Rival Academies (setting books), etc.
The "glut" of base classes is lower than the amount of other options being published.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We're also going to get more new classes from Starfinder 2e. Not that every SF2 class will work in Pathfinder without the tech you find in space, but some of them surely will (the operator and the solarian for example.)As for classes that'd work well in Pathfinder, I'd say all of them work for the most part except for the Mechanic, Operative, and Soldier, of which you can only use use subclass each in a Pathfinder game. For other classes you might at most have to ban a handful of feats that won't apply, or grant stuff too early, like the Mystic's Wild Bond feat But the classes would be extremely limited for the following reasons:
-Mine Mechanic: Because the tech trait is balanced around getting a little extra power but being vulnerable to glitching, only the mine mechanic could reasonably be used in Pathfinder, as there won't be many justifications for enemies to abuse this weakness.
-Striker Operative: Striker Operative would be the only one that can function in Pathfinder, as Operatives as a whole only get their best proficiencies with Analog and Tech ranged weapons (believe it or not, a gun from Pathfinder is not considered a gun for the purpose of an Operative), of which all Pathfinder weapons are Archaic. Even then, an Operative in Pathfinder would only get its proficiency with melee weapons, as if the operative picked up any archaic ranged weapons, they would not get the proficiency, even if they were still simple weapons. For a GM, it might be worth making a home rule to change their training from guns (analog and tech ranged weapons) to ranged weapons in general, especially since guns define ranged weapons with the analog and tech trait regardless of whether it is conventionally a gun. (A starknife might be considered a gun when thrown, and there is also an advanced form of crossbow that is considered a gun. But whether or not a thrown analog melee weapon is considered a gun is probably gonna be a matter of brief debate, and we'll know for sure which...
I could see a mechanic from a place like alkenstar using clock work variants of mines/turrets/robots. A bit of a tricky fit but I think it could be done.
Operative could in theory use black powder guns so something along the lines of a gun slinger.
Solider is the main class that would be rough to make work. Close combat fighter maybe but otherwise probably not a great fit just due to the types of weapons needed.
What classes could they add stuff too?
Wizard. Wizard could always use some upgraded schools. An unchained wizard divorced from the current paradigm would be great too with spontaneous casting and any school-type attachment. More Thesis would be nice as well. Some that give some bang for the buck.
Champion: Champion base chassis is great. Feats could use some punching up. They have some boring, useless feats.
Magus: Add some magus feat options.
Sorc: Could use some more cool feats using the bloodline. Explosion of power is the main useful one right now.
Psychic: Really needs some better feats. They probably need a full rework.
Animist: This class looks very feat lite. They could use more feats.
Witch: Maybe witch could use some feats.
Oracle: Could use some more feats and mysteries. Maybe rework some of the weaker focus spells.
What other classes have weak or limited feat options?
What classes could they add stuff too?
What other classes have weak or limited feat options?
Kineticists would use 6 more feats/impulses per element, ways to treat their blasts as Strikes or Spells and more composite feats, in addition of the Void and Aether elements.
Inventors really need more innovations for ranged weapons. Seriously, have a tier 1 innovation to add Double Barrel, tier 2 with Capacity 2 and tier 3 with Repeating.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not that expanding classes that have weak or limiting options isn't a good thing, but in my opinion more character concepts are the main thing new options should be striving towards. Of course making every thing fun and balanced should also be a main goal, so making new options for weaker classes would also be nice.
I would personally love to see some more blanket ways of altering classes. A class archetype that could apply to all full casters that 'gishifies' them would be wicked, giving them an HP bump, raising weapon and armor proficiencies, lowering spell proficiencies and giving bounded casting would be cool to me.
Class archetypes like captivator (plz remake soon) but for other subtypes of magic would be awesome.
Some form of (adaptive) shifter would be very cool.
That's the sort of stuff I'd like, other than just, more kineticist options
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going against the trend here, I'd like everyone to remember Paizo's output towards the end of 1e where plenty of classes were released, and because everyone knew the system so well they were (mostly) absolute love letters to 1e.
Some of the most fun I had with 1e was with those later classes such as the Kineticist, Mesmerist,Medium and Occultist even if some of them were so fiddly and complicated they needed software to run. (Ah Herolab you made the Occultist with its dozens of moving parts, floating bonuses, and discrete daily power pools sing)
I like it when Paizo gets experimental and tries things out. You can see the blueprint for 2e in the Occultist and especially the Vigilante class. You have these basic chassis that you build upon and choose how you want to build your character, and the Vigilante had seperate pools of combat and social/skill powers to round out characters and make players feel OK with picking something cool and flavourful instead of thinking they would be hurting the party if they didn't hyperfocus on combat. This is pretty much how we ended up getting skill and class feats siloed separately.
While like most people I'd like expanded options for existing classes (look at how well the Divine spell list has rounded out/expanded over the years) i don't think that throttling down the new classes is the way to do it.
if it was not for the tech trait. the main barrier was the tech trait being disproportionately powerful in Pathfinder as it's a justification for more potent power with an easy exploit.
I'm not sure I agree with the premise. Tech trait gear isn't really that remarkable in SF2. During the playtest it never struck me or any of the groups I played with/people online interacted with that the tech trait was a meaningful balance point at all.
|
What classes could they add stuff too?
Wizard. Wizard could always use some upgraded schools. An unchained wizard divorced from the current paradigm would be great too with spontaneous casting and any school-type attachment. More Thesis would be nice as well. Some that give some bang for the buck.
Champion: Champion base chassis is great. Feats could use some punching up. They have some boring, useless feats.
Magus: Add some magus feat options.
Sorc: Could use some more cool feats using the bloodline. Explosion of power is the main useful one right now.
Psychic: Really needs some better feats. They probably need a full rework.
Animist: This class looks very feat lite. They could use more feats.
Witch: Maybe witch could use some feats.
Oracle: Could use some more feats and mysteries. Maybe rework some of the weaker focus spells.
What other classes have weak or limited feat options?
Magus NEEDS duel wielding support. Come on, it'd be so cool.
constructor inventor is one of the worst class/subclass combos in the game and suffers from numerous mechanical problems.
The drone mechanic being okayish by comparison doesn't really seem like a commentary on the tech trait. It's not even that much stronger overall and has a bunch of its own problems too.
Beastmaster rangers and animal order druids also blow the construct inventor out of the water, the tech trait doesn't really seem relevant here at all.
The problem with only one new class is that the popularity of the book that one class is in suffers
If it is…unpopular? At least with two you are doubling your chances.
I therefore offer an alternative:
“Would it be ok to just get 6-8 classes moving forward in new books after the Remaster?”
This would of course mean having to go back and add some more classes to Battlecry and anything else printed after PC2.
And this way, just maybe, I might find a new class that is interesting and mechanically satisfying.
Going against the trend here, I'd like everyone to remember Paizo's output towards the end of 1e where plenty of classes were released, and because everyone knew the system so well they were (mostly) absolute love letters to 1e.
Some of the most fun I had with 1e was with those later classes such as the Kineticist, Mesmerist,Medium and Occultist even if some of them were so fiddly and complicated they needed software to run. (Ah Herolab you made the Occultist with its dozens of moving parts, floating bonuses, and discrete daily power pools sing)
I like it when Paizo gets experimental and tries things out. You can see the blueprint for 2e in the Occultist and especially the Vigilante class. You have these basic chassis that you build upon and choose how you want to build your character, and the Vigilante had seperate pools of combat and social/skill powers to round out characters and make players feel OK with picking something cool and flavourful instead of thinking they would be hurting the party if they didn't hyperfocus on combat. This is pretty much how we ended up getting skill and class feats siloed separately.
While like most people I'd like expanded options for existing classes (look at how well the Divine spell list has rounded out/expanded over the years) i don't think that throttling down the new classes is the way to do it.
I very much agree with this. Classes are the only way we get unique and interesting new mechanics like the Commander’s tactics or the Necromancer’s thralls. As long as Paizo has good ideas for new classes I’m on board.
Honestly my preference would be to reduce the number of archetypes being added to the game. They’re often very fun and flavorful, but most releases include a decent number of them and we already have a couple hundred. Cutting a couple in each book would leave a lot more page space for new class options.
Magus NEEDS duel wielding support. Come on, it'd be so cool.What classes could they add stuff too?
Wizard. Wizard could always use some upgraded schools. An unchained wizard divorced from the current paradigm would be great too with spontaneous casting and any school-type attachment. More Thesis would be nice as well. Some that give some bang for the buck.
Champion: Champion base chassis is great. Feats could use some punching up. They have some boring, useless feats.
Magus: Add some magus feat options.
Sorc: Could use some more cool feats using the bloodline. Explosion of power is the main useful one right now.
Psychic: Really needs some better feats. They probably need a full rework.
Animist: This class looks very feat lite. They could use more feats.
Witch: Maybe witch could use some feats.
Oracle: Could use some more feats and mysteries. Maybe rework some of the weaker focus spells.
What other classes have weak or limited feat options?
What we need is "emotional spellcasting", exactly how psychic spellcasting worked in Occult Adventures.
Basically, some spellcasters substituted both verbal AND somatic compenents with emotions, removing the need to gesture and/or speak. The drawback is how any emotion-based and mind-affecting effects neutralized those spells, IIRC.