There are twenty-five classes listed on Archives Of Nethys right now, the last two of which are the Animist and the Exemplar from War Of Immortals. The next two are the Commander and the Guardian, from Battlecry! I know that there are two after that, the Necromancer and the Runesmith, to be published in (I think) some book with Impossible in the title which has not been announced yet (GenCon 26?) That makes a total of twenty-nine. Will there be more?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope so! Guardian and Commander turned out great and Runesmith and Necromancer are both promising, so there is clearly still design space and thematic niches left for them to explore. I personally would love to see a Shifter class as I don’t think we quite have anything that covers that fantasy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And that's not even counting the Starfinder2e classes that are mathematically compatible and may only need theme changes in order to play.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yep, 37 if we add SF2 and its two playtest classes to the count. Personally, that number irritates me on account of it being prime; I want to neatly sort everyone into cute, equally-sized parties. So if the next book after necro/smith could just do one class, that'd be great.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Probably... but it isn't like this question could ever get a "no" answer. You wouldn't paint yourself into a corner declaring that you're not going to write more classes, even if you have no current plans for any.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Classes sell books. I'm pretty sure that as long as Second Edition is still in active development, we can expect about two classes each year. That's been their business model so far, at least.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
We still need a fully Wisdom based spontaneous caster Paizo! ASlso a Wisdom Psychic would be cool as all can be! However I would be alright with a book dedicated to giving new content to every class instead of just a new class or two and limited additional content for other classes.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
We still need a fully Wisdom based spontaneous caster Paizo! ASlso a Wisdom Psychic would be cool as all can be!
I really think that Paizo just doesn’t give a lot of credence to filling in gaps like “Con-based Martial” or “Dex-based Primal Caster” or “Prepared Strength-based Gish”. It does seem like the biggest driver is narrative power - not in the sense of “narrative agency” but in terms of what stories is Paizo trying to tell or trying to enable the fan-base to tell. Tying the classes to thematic releases seems to be the go, and I applaud that in terms of letting creativity be the driver rather than filling in boxes.
I do see that there are certain boxes left unfilled that just make sense to fill from a game-mechanics point of view, and it isn’t as if you can’t tell awesome and meaningful stories with those missing pieces. That just isn’t the focus of Paizo’s strategy.
Personally I want Paizo to keep trying new and interesting ideas insofar as new classes go. I almost liked the playtest Guardian, and have seen snippets that it might be something I can like. Of the recent releases, I haven’t liked the Exemplar, Animist, Commander, Necromancer or Runesmith, either because of theme, mechanics or in most cases both, but I do remain hopeful.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
However I would be alright with a book dedicated to giving new content to every class instead of just a new class or two and limited additional content for other classes.
This remains an ongoing issue across both editions of Pathfinder. Lack of support. It really is a massive shame.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
We still need a fully Wisdom based spontaneous caster Paizo! ASlso a Wisdom Psychic would be cool as all can be! However I would be alright with a book dedicated to giving new content to every class instead of just a new class or two and limited additional content for other classes.
Congratulations! You've been randomly selected from our many applicants to have your wish granted in an approximate fashion! Wisdom-based, spontaneous, and with plenty of psychic flavor to boot, the Mystic is just what you're looking for! The only catch? It's a Starfinder 2e class that might be just a little overturned for Pathfinder. Stay tuned for the Starfinder GM Core for official system crossover advice!
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope so! Guardian and Commander turned out great and Runesmith and Necromancer are both promising, so there is clearly still design space and thematic niches left for them to explore. I personally would love to see a Shifter class as I don’t think we quite have anything that covers that fantasy.
I'm sorry. you need to be more specific.
What doesn't the Wildshape Druid have to cover that fantasy.| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope so! Guardian and Commander turned out great and Runesmith and Necromancer are both promising, so there is clearly still design space and thematic niches left for them to explore. I personally would love to see a Shifter class as I don’t think we quite have anything that covers that fantasy.I'm sorry. you need to be more specific.
What doesn't the Wildshape Druid have to cover that fantasy.
I think the desire is for a class that's fully focused on shapeshifting (so no spells), allowing you to fight just as well as any other martial.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope so! Guardian and Commander turned out great and Runesmith and Necromancer are both promising, so there is clearly still design space and thematic niches left for them to explore. I personally would love to see a Shifter class as I don’t think we quite have anything that covers that fantasy.I'm sorry. you need to be more specific.
What doesn't the Wildshape Druid have to cover that fantasy.
Wildshape Druid isn't a very good martial. It's still a full caster that relies on that for its power. It's really versatile, but it doesn't fulfil the fantasy of "turn into a dinosaur and smash things" because it's not very good at the "smash things" part vs any actual martial.
What folks want out of Shifter is to shift the class power away from spellcasting so it can feel more like a martial. That's required because if you just beefed up its melee ability while leaving full spellcasting it would be overpowered.
However I would be alright with a book dedicated to giving new content to every class instead of just a new class or two and limited additional content for other classes.This remains an ongoing issue across both editions of Pathfinder. Lack of support. It really is a massive shame.
Yeah this is what we really need. Too many things get added in one book and then basically don't exist in terms of new content. Ancestries are REALLY bad for it, but classes are bad for it too. Even back when they were adding class feats in APs, it was only really to core classes.
And that's before we even get into something like Mythic where some classes (Kineticist, Summoner, Magus) don't interact very well with it and were clearly not taken into account.
Seeing Thaumaturge get something in Battlecry is a great example of the right direction to go.
I definitely don't think we need a new class just for the sake of "a wisdom spontaneous caster". That's just checking a checkbox. Classes should bring something unique to the table. PF2 has generally been pretty good about this.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shifter!
I hope so! Guardian and Commander turned out great and Runesmith and Necromancer are both promising, so there is clearly still design space and thematic niches left for them to explore. I personally would love to see a Shifter class as I don’t think we quite have anything that covers that fantasy.I'm sorry. you need to be more specific.
What doesn't the Wildshape Druid have to cover that fantasy.
The Druid character from the D&D movie seemed to play far closer to a PF1 shifter than any typical D&D or PF2 class.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I would like to see in a Shifter class: starting perhaps with the ability to manifest a shape's natural weapons (e.g. claws for a Big Cat shifter), then adding at higher levels the ability to shift into that shape, then later more shapes ending with four or five different shapes from, well, the entire Bestiary. :-)
That's the basic chassis, and off the top of my head. I haven't thought much beyond this but there's probably a lot that could be considered.
I have to say that I didn't like the PF1 Shifter much. As I recall, I thought it was too... clunky, I guess. It seemed like it was just sort of thrown together rather than thoughtfully designed. Others probably reacted differently. :-)
Note: if you group the creatures in the Bestiary(ies) as say Folk (playable Ancestries), Animals (mundane creatures, not magical, not mythological or fanciful), Beasts (magical, mythological or fanciful creatures), Ethereals, Undead, Other (this is one possible grouping, I may have missed something), I'd say Shifters should be limited to Animals. Being able to shift to some other Folk (or another appearance of your own Folk) would be interesting, but may be too unbalancing. Being able to shift into Beasts would be cool, but again perhaps too unbalancing. OTOH, the possibilities for infiltrating an army of orcs or dragons, for just one example, are certainly intriguing. :-)
I would like to play a Druid with Owlbear shape, though apparently some god went through and removed all of Golarion's Owlbears a while ago. :-)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I would like to see in a Shifter class: starting perhaps with the ability to manifest a shape's natural weapons (e.g. claws for a Big Cat shifter), then adding at higher levels the ability to shift into that shape, then later more shapes ending with four or five different shapes from, well, the entire Bestiary. :-)
I'd like Paizo to attempt giving the class a full shapeshift from level 1. I don't want to have to play as an animal instinct barbarian for the first few levels until I have earned the right to play a shifter.
One of the problems with the class-based system design is that you end up having to shoehorn all the myriad concepts of which players can conceive into whatever classes you have available. Too often there's no good fit.
I don't think you can solve that problem within such a system -- you'd end up with way too many classes for players to handle. A skill based system is better, but even then you'll probably have to add skills to support your concept, and then again you end up with information overload.
|
|
I feel like the "Shifter" conversation pops up a lot because it's one of the only Pathfinder 1e classes that has a distinct and evocative fantasy.
It seems a lot more like the design philosophy of Pathfinder 2e to try to adapt "a shape-shifting, modular martial class" rather than some of the clumsy class A + class B designs. (Which is why I don't think we're getting "Slayers" or "Arcanists" ever).
However, by this point in Pathfinder 2e design, I think it's also clear that they don't really seem interested in adapting anything else from PF1E besides the broad strokes. We got Thaumaturges and Animists, not Occultists and Shamans.
I think the broad strokes of "modular martial class that shapeshifts and uses unarmed strikes" will probably be reinterpreted into a brand new class. It might be a Pathfinder class with an animal theming, or a Starfinder class with a nanobots theming.
We did get "Slayers" in War of Immortals. It's just called Avenger now and is a Rogue subclass.
And to be fair, Animist also has a bit of Medium in it too.
Starfinder 1e had the Nanocyte (although it was less a shapeshifter, and more a "Nanomachines, son!") and the Evolutionist (which was basically a Druid with no spells and the forms they took didn't have to be just Beasts).
Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if Shifter was made into a class archetype or something. But maybe I'm wrong.
Some things I'd personally like to see though?
Archetypes for Mutagen and Bombs!
Why are there archetypes for Elixirs, Poisons, and Foods; but not for Mutagen or Bombs???
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the problems with the class-based system design is that you end up having to shoehorn all the myriad concepts of which players can conceive into whatever classes you have available. Too often there's no good fit.
I personally feel it's often the opposite: for any given concept, there's usually multiple ways of achieving it within the system. It's just that despite this, there's still this all-consuming desire to have a ready-made, prepackaged class that is explicitly called the thing you want it to be called, and nothing less will do for some players. You could have a stealthy, agile character who's lethal with a shuriken, packs a bunch of smoke bombs, and even uses a bit of magic to turn invisible and teleport around, but because that character wasn't built using a bespoke class called the Ninja, they're not a real ninja. It's the flipside to class-based design where it creates a desire for ready-made classes to satisfy very specific character concepts, even when those characters can already be built using existing options.
With that said, I do think there are still niches left to explore, and a proper shapeshifting class is one of them. Battle forms in PF2e are mostly just tools to let casters approach, but not quite match martial classes in martial power for a given time, while the Shifter fantasy many players seem to want is that of a class with martial-grade combat power who can shapeshift both fully and partially for utility purposes mainly (which also makes them distinct from, say, an Animal Instinct Barbarian, who uses their Rage to power up). My suspicion is that we may get this class not necessarily through Pathfinder, but through Starfinder with the Evolutionist, who's all about harnessing portions of other things to transform and improve themselves in a multitude of ways, and not just animals either.
Though I am curious to see what new classes they make now that a majority of them from PF1e are now full classes or archetypes thematically or mechanically, I am curious to see more class archetypes to expand on the existing classes too. Something like a Skald could be neat as a class, but I'd love to see if they bring it in as a class archetype instead.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
One of the problems with the class-based system design is that you end up having to shoehorn all the myriad concepts of which players can conceive into whatever classes you have available. Too often there's no good fit.I personally feel it's often the opposite: for any given concept, there's usually multiple ways of achieving it within the system. It's just that despite this, there's still this all-consuming desire to have a ready-made, prepackaged class that is explicitly called the thing you want it to be called, and nothing less will do for some players. You could have a stealthy, agile character who's lethal with a shuriken, packs a bunch of smoke bombs, and even uses a bit of magic to turn invisible and teleport around, but because that character wasn't built using a bespoke class called the Ninja, they're not a real ninja. It's the flipside to class-based design where it creates a desire for ready-made classes to satisfy very specific character concepts, even when those characters can already be built using existing options.
Agree. I realized at level two that my thaum build was a ninja. Good at sneaking, diplomacy, single handed hidden blade, could do mild magics from scrolls, able to climb with acrobatics, versatile skill selection, action efficient for movement and parry when needed.(FA with Acrobat and Spirit Warrior.)
A classless system suffers heavily from having to make sure no combo is too good, without tons of guide rails like PF2s multi class it ends up meaning everything has to be very subpar.
Some people have character building or conceptualizing methods that just don't mesh well with a class based system.
There's certain archetypes, like acrobat, spirit warrior, wrestler or beast master, that really open up a lot of options to your character build. They broaden what your character concept can be beyond your class in significant ways, I hope we continue to get more such archetypes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Classes sell books. I'm pretty sure that as long as Second Edition is still in active development, we can expect about two classes each year. That's been their business model so far, at least.
Yep, while I would personally prefer no new classes and additional content/support for existing classes....classes seem to be what help sell books, based on things Paizo employees have said on the forum (I didn't read this first hand, but have seen many others saying it).
So it seems unlikely they'd stop publishing new classes, since at least to Paizo that translate to sells.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What I would like to see in a Shifter class: starting perhaps with the ability to manifest a shape's natural weapons (e.g. claws for a Big Cat shifter), then adding at higher levels the ability to shift into that shape, then later more shapes ending with four or five different shapes from, well, the entire Bestiary. :-)I'd like Paizo to attempt giving the class a full shapeshift from level 1. I don't want to have to play as an animal instinct barbarian for the first few levels until I have earned the right to play a shifter.
They may be way more open to it now than they have been in the past. The astrazoan ancestry from the new galaxy guide for SF2 is a shape changer species they let fulfill the fantasy. It starts with an amazingly good base shape shifting capability and adds feats to do even more interesting stuff with the ability.
If they are willing to do that in an ancestry I think they could very well go all in on a shifting class.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have one problem with the discourse around the "Shifter" class.
DEFINE SHIFTER!
So I see people who talk like you have just the one shape to shift into, which frankly we have archetypes for.
I see others who want it to be more like Beastboy or, the Druid from the D&D movie. they want to be able to turn into any (non-humanoid) animal,and the focus is being animals.
Frankly, I want it to be more like Mystique or Morph where the focus is on shapeshifting, turning into animals, and other people, and on occasion objects, and otherwise warping your body.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
My definition of a shifter is a martial class that is encouraged to take on different forms to suit different tasks inside and outside of combat. They should be a dynamic, bag-of-tricks class with utility and skill challenge tools rivaling casters.
I think taking on a single form and staying in it is better handled by other options. For example, an animal instinct barbarian can already be very closely flavored that way.
I think shapeshifting into other humanoids is fine, but shouldn't be the focus. I think the priority should be to enable becoming: animals > elementals > monsters/creatures > other humanoids.
I have one problem with the discourse around the "Shifter" class.
DEFINE SHIFTER!
So I see people who talk like you have just the one shape to shift into, which frankly we have archetypes for.
I see others who want it to be more like Beastboy or, the Druid from the D&D movie. they want to be able to turn into any (non-humanoid) animal,and the focus is being animals.
Frankly, I want it to be more like Mystique or Morph where the focus is on shapeshifting, turning into animals, and other people, and on occasion objects, and otherwise warping your body.
Well, as you note we already have stuff that generally achieve the goal of turning into 1 specific creature. A great example is dragon or animal barbarians (although dragon barbarians have to wait until higher level to do it).
And druid class covers the 2nd thing of just wanting to turn into "animals".
The shifter class should cover the 3rd idea. And I think it can be achieved by having some different sub classes that special into turning into other humanoids, animals, and occasionally objects, and only partially transforming your body. Though I think all that should be accessible to any Shifter, you would probably need to specialize into one and dabble in the others.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have one problem with the discourse around the "Shifter" class.
DEFINE SHIFTER!
I think this is an excellent question to ask, as it should help refine the discussion. In my opinion, there are three main character types a Shifter should be able to cover:
In my opinion, it is possible to have all three in one class, provided it's structured appropriately, though the last bit I think would probably be much better-served by a dedicated Evolutionist class, which exists in Starfinder.
|
|
I'd want shifter to be a martial that can fully polymorph or partially morph into a variety of shapes by default. I'd definitely prefer mostly primal shapes, maybe even dragons but weird things like oozes or other aberrations could be cool too.
I think the animal instinct barbarian does fine for a single shape shifter and more instincts could just be added if necessary.
If a player doesn't want to play a barbarian but wants to change into a single shape, that's what the shifter archetype can be for.
|
|
and the three responses I get explain why I made that comment.
TO BE CLEAR
None of the three ideas I've heard are at all bad, or things I wouldn't want a class for.
Personally I'm with Claxon on what a Shifter class should be (or at least that's a class I want more than the concept posed by WatersLethe)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My hopes for a shifter are to make it similar to the adaptive shifter from 1e. You can morph your body into a bunch of specific animal parts, such as growing quills for ranged attacks, regeneration, different traversal speeds, defenses, etc. There's really no end of inspiration for things like that if you just look at all the crazy stuff animals can do.
Current polymorphing is fine for a backup option but it doesn't hold a candle to an actual martial.
All that said, even though shifter is probably my next most wanted class, it does seem like one paizo is reluctant to make. Both shifter and evolutionist (not exactly the same thing but some similar themes) came at the end of their respective editions' ends, and neither were very well received as far as I can tell. I think they're wicked, evolutionist is still my favorite starfinder class. My guess is that everyone has their own vision of how their ideal 'monster' should get to work and are disappointed when they can't build the exact thing they were hoping for.
Reading through all the Shifter talk made me realize for the first time that the way I built/played a (1e, "chained") Synthesis Summoner years back was probably very close in style to what some folks want from the theme/archetype (with the need for some heavy reskinning). The ability to pick and choose the features you want out of a pool of options (from attacks, to movement types, resistances, and even size), with evolution spells allowing you to temporarily modify those options on the fly.
It was a ton of fun to play and very flexible in and out of combat, and I leaned almost fully into the martial aspects of it. Of course the class and archetype were overtuned, and had the potential to overshadow teammates if one doesn't ignore large swaths of the chassis (the rest of the condensed spell list, summons, pounce + tens of natural attacks, etc.).
Too bad the 2e Summoner seems to have lost that flexibility, and the Synthesis build now looks like more of a hindrance than benefit.
|
|
My definition of a shifter is a martial class that is encouraged to take on different forms to suit different tasks inside and outside of combat. They should be a dynamic, bag-of-tricks class with utility and skill challenge tools rivaling casters.
That's crossing one of the systems true red lines.
A martial focused kineticist is best you can expect here.
The kineticist is probably a good rough template for the Shifter to begin with.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
My definition of a Shifter is: something I want discussed in a different thread.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have one problem with the discourse around the "Shifter" class.
DEFINE SHIFTER!
So I see people who talk like you have just the one shape to shift into, which frankly we have archetypes for.
I see others who want it to be more like Beastboy or, the Druid from the D&D movie. they want to be able to turn into any (non-humanoid) animal,and the focus is being animals.
Frankly, I want it to be more like Mystique or Morph where the focus is on shapeshifting, turning into animals, and other people, and on occasion objects, and otherwise warping your body.
The Wild Shape parts of the 3.5 Druid. That's it. By the end it had numerous forms it could turn into and they were quite capable of being on the front line. The D&D Movie Druid would also be an example.
Make something focused around that (a Druid Class Archetype would probably work, but a full class is also fine).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to be blasphemous and say new things that have nothing to do with PF1.
Lets get more gish options that blur the weapon and casting proficiency lines. More martials with focus abilities. Take some inspiration from more modern fantasy. Something mixing FF red mage chainspell, magus double spell strike and Battlezoo dragon mage Spell echo. A martial class that can self buff with economy boosters to make that viable, so many books I read have gish characters that it's hard to not think this is becoming more the norm. A spell casting front line class, not good with weapons but able to mix armor and magic to control the battlefield, do magic damage and take hits. Perhaps a curse eater type theme with a class that triples down on things like Brutal bully and Flamboyant cruelty, able to inflict debuffs and consume them for greater effects and a big damage boost.
There's still room for lots of new ideas, so I hope they don't slow down and get more experimental. We just have to hope for fixes and expansions on all the parts that have already released.
I'm going to be blasphemous and say new things that have nothing to do with PF1.
Lets get more gish options that blur the weapon and casting proficiency lines. More martials with focus abilities. Take some inspiration from more modern fantasy. Something mixing FF red mage chainspell, magus double spell strike and Battlezoo dragon mage Spell echo. A martial class that can self buff with economy boosters to make that viable, so many books I read have gish characters that it's hard to not think this is becoming more the norm. A spell casting front line class, not good with weapons but able to mix armor and magic to control the battlefield, do magic damage and take hits. Perhaps a curse eater type theme with a class that triples down on things like Brutal bully and Flamboyant cruelty, able to inflict debuffs and consume them for greater effects and a big damage boost.
There's still room for lots of new ideas, so I hope they don't slow down and get more experimental. We just have to hope for fixes and expansions on all the parts that have already released.
A problem with spell casting and armor in PF2, is that armor, even heavy armor (assuming you can get your proficiency to scale with your base, as Sentinel does) at best your getting +1 AC. While you can reduce your Dex to go with it...that makes you bad at aiming attack spells. And again, you only end up with +1 AC over what you would have had.
The best way to be an "armored caster" is to play a champion, and take a spell casting dedication. But then you're light on actual spell by comparison.
And playing a gish is pretty viable as a fighter with a casting dedication. Especially if a fight is going to go more than 4 rounds, the buff investment can be worth it, even if it means your first turn is to cast a spell and then move.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
A problem with spell casting and armor in PF2, is that armor, even heavy armor (assuming you can get your proficiency to scale with your base, as Sentinel does) at best your getting +1 AC. While you can reduce your Dex to go with it...that makes you bad at aiming attack spells. And again, you only end up with +1 AC over what you would have had.
The best way to be an "armored caster" is to play a champion, and take a spell casting dedication. But then you're light on actual spell by comparison.
And playing a gish is pretty viable as a fighter with a casting dedication. Especially if a fight is going to go more than 4 rounds, the buff investment can be worth it, even if it means your first turn is to cast a spell and then move.
... Huh? What PF2 caster is aiming attack spells with Dex?
You know what, my bad. That was a big brain fart conflating PF2 and PF1.
But my general point remains, you can wear heavy armor....and you'll be +1 AC over what you could have achieved otherwise.
You can use a lower dex, meaning you can increase another ability score (probably strength to counteract the penalties from heavy armor) but I just really don't think its worth it.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My definition of a shifter is a martial class that is encouraged to take on different forms to suit different tasks inside and outside of combat. They should be a dynamic, bag-of-tricks class with utility and skill challenge tools rivaling casters.
That's crossing one of the systems true red lines.
A martial focused kineticist is best you can expect here.
The kineticist is probably a good rough template for the Shifter to begin with.
I feel the red line is Martial = best damage against single target vs Caster = best total damage against multiple targets.
Not utility or skill challenge.
My definition of a shifter is a martial class that is encouraged to take on different forms to suit different tasks inside and outside of combat. They should be a dynamic, bag-of-tricks class with utility and skill challenge tools rivaling casters.
That's crossing one of the systems true red lines.
A martial focused kineticist is best you can expect here.
The kineticist is probably a good rough template for the Shifter to begin with.
I feel the red line is Martial = best damage against single target vs Caster = best total damage against multiple targets.
Not utility or skill challenge.
I don't know. At high level absent the need to preserve spells for later, casters can be best single target damage too. The critical hits and critical miss save effects for casters can lead to some brutal damage and effects. Not like the old days, but still pretty insane.
A caster using Quicken Spell on a boss can do some pretty nutty damage. I would say that is one of the few overpowered feats on the Animist is the feat that let's them quick 3 to 4 times a day.
Martials do the most consistent damage from round to round in my opinion. Their damage is free, consistent within a range, and almost totally reliant on striking and property runes.
Spells scale higher at higher level, often have powerful riders, and far more versatility than martial class abilities.
It's like they kept the PF1 paradigm for casters and martials, but widened what martials do and increased the floor and brought the ceiling down quite a bit for casters.