| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So once Impossible Magic releases at GenCon, the brand new classes of Necromancer and Runesmith will make the total number of P2E classes to 29.
The biggest reason we are at an odd number of classes is because the Kineticist was released in a book with no other classes, unlike every other class which released with at least one other.
Since 30 would be such a nice round number, it feels like Paizo should make a big deal out of it.
So what kind of class would you like to see for the 30th?
Since every other none-core book that has had new classes, has had classes that all fit a theme, what would you think the theme of the book would be?
I think the 30th class should be a class focused on shapeshifting; altering there body to various battle forms depending on the situation, using utility forms during exploration, and perhaps even being able to shift other people to buff alllies during combat or debuff enemies. I would imagine this class could take cues from 1E’s Shifter and Starfinder 1E’s Metamorph.
The book would be themed around the outer planes.
|
So the reason Kineticist was on it's own was that it was a CHUNKY class what with all the impulses that had to be printed with it.
Further, most people associate shapeshifting with Primal magic, so connecting it to the outerplanes wouldn't make a great deal of sense from that perspective. Though I would be eager to hear your justification for outerplanes.
to make this class a Shapeshifter, I would do something similar to the Kineticist. They can shapeshift for combat easily, but they have to memorize Shapes. So they would learn feats like "Friend-Shape: you transform into an adorable pet-like creature. Your stats in this shape are adjusted like so..."
"Bear Shape: You take on a combat form of a bear like creature. your stats are adjusted like this."
"INfiltrator shape" you take on the appearance of someone who likely belongs in the current environment."
And you are limited to only the Shapes you have Shape Feats for.
breaking down the shape changing into "Alchemo-Shapes" changing the nexture or physical properties of your body. "People Shapes" which are more disguise style things, and about giving you bonuses to stealth, deception, or persuasion. "Snarling Shapes" which let you turn into animals and dinosaurs" combat shapes with an emphasis on control and support. "Monstrous Shapes" which would be combat and utility shapes with a focus on cc and aoe. "Dino-Shapes" which are combat Shapes focused on big damage and more.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd quite like to see the Shifter done justice in 2e, and dedicating two classes' worth of space could be a good way to give the class as much room as it needs to explore the full extent of what shapeshifting can offer. Even with just one class's worth of space, dedicating the other half to expanding existing classes with new subclasses and feats would be most welcome in my books.
In addition to this, I think there's room for brand-new classes that we haven't seen before: an extremely talented designer I know is developing a class who's all about deploying structures for damage, defense, and utility, and the mechanics I've seen her develop integrate beautifully into 2e, while feeling really fresh as well. I've also been homebrewing a fortune-telling class, and I think the concept of an occult caster who's all about making predictions and bending fate to their will is a niche that's well worth exploring beyond just the Harrower archetype. I do think Paizo ought to release the Shifter in some form or another, as they're by far the most-requested class at the moment, but beyond that there's a huge number of different concepts that don't exist all that often in other tabletop games and could be done really well in Pathfinder.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think that the main point the we didn't saw a Shifter until now is because of the books thematics.
I don't think that the Paizo designers chooses the book thematic around the classes but the opposite. So while we don't have a rule book centered around shapeshifting or nature (Lost Omens series books doesn't count and it's what make me think why they didn't put a Shape Shifter class in the HotW?) we won't see this class sooner.
Instead, makes more sense to try to guess what will be the next thematic rulebook that we will get and then what class will come with it.
We already have:
- A rulebook about war: Battlecry!
- A rulebook about divine/mythic conflicts: War of Immortals
- A rulebook about "nature": Howl of the Wild
- A rulebook about elemental planes: Rage of Elements
- A rulebook about treasures: Treasure Vault
- A rulebook about occult: Dark Archive
- A rulebook about undeads: Book of the Dead (That IMO was the rulebook that Necromancer class should come in...)
- A rulebook about "steampunk": Guns and Gears
- A rulebook about magic: Secrets of Magic Impossible Magic
The other rulebooks are game mechanics focused or some kind of bestiary.
So what the theme do you think that the next rule book should have and what the classes you expect from such book?
Maybe a rulebook about alchemy with some more alchemical related classes?
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'll voice a likely unpopular opinion that I don't think the Shifter needs to be its own class, at least not as it was presented in 1E in being someone who transforms parts of themselves into more animalistic forms. If anything it can be a Druid Class Archetype that makes them more martial-focused as opposed to caster-focused like the Battle Herald does for Cleric.
And if they were ever going to bring a class back by popular demand, it would've been the Inquisitor which is instead a class archetype in 2E through the Vindicator.
Plus with Animal Instinct Barbarians, Beastkin versatile heritage, Werecreature Archetype, etc there just isn't as much of an empty niche for "someone who transforms parts of themself to fight more like an animal" that feels justifiable for a whole new class to fill.
Now I do like Teridax's idea for a fate-bending class that hits the flavor more acutely than the Oracle currently does, plus it'd be cool to have a class that interacts more with Circumstance modifiers and the Fortune/Misfortune system.
I had a similar idea where it was a variant-Tradition caster and either Intelligence or Wisdom with their "Medium" being the source of Attribute and Tradition (Chronomancy = Arcane/Int, Revelation = Divine/Wis, Astrology = Occult/Int, Geomancy = Primal/Wis)
I would be totally fine with a shifter or divine bounded caster of some sort (since I think vindicator kinda works like the inquisitor for this edition, as much as I don't like that archetype). I think I would be fine with a bounded caster in general since I feel Starfinder 2e had the perfect opportunity to make most of its casters bounded casters but instead went for the more "traditional" caster class design.
I'm not asking for the shifter to be a bounded caster though. I think shifter should be a martial with magic-flavored abilities.
What could a Shifter archetype or a Shifter class archetype bring that the Druid MC Dedication (Untamed Form) cannot ?
This might be the biggest point against the return of the Shifter.
Archetypes (and specially class archetypes) tend to be heavily restricted by the their lower power budget when compared to a class. The most basic concept of a shifter can be achieved with the druid multiclass, but so is the concept of tank with a ton of classes and archetypes and yet we still got guardian, a leader-type character with bard and marshal yet we got commander, a martial/caster gish with any martial + any caster dedication but we got magus, etc.
A shifter class could potentially shift between multiple animal forms, or potentially mix benefits from them into a sort of chimeric style, or as potentially borrow features that are usually unique to monsters as well. If you get creative it could also become a sort of blue mage that learns abilities from monsters as well, kinda like a more fun and powerful version of wild mimic. Also, and probably the most important thing people want, is a shapechanger that doens't rely on spells to do it.
I would love shifter if it's done more like kineticist than a half caster.
But I do feel like more non mystical classes would be welcome as well. We could use another skill monkey type class, some kind of trickster or similar. And yeah, I know rogue exists but given the way guardian came out, I think we can make classes that fill specific niches with really fun mechanics.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What could a Shifter archetype or a MC Shifter dedication (if a Class) bring that the Druid MC Dedication (Untamed Form) cannot ?
This might be the biggest point against the return of the Shifter.
It probably would be an Untamed Form version of fighter like archetypes like mauler or archer. Something that allows any class to get the druids Untamed Form feats with just 2 levels higher with any class.
Many players who want to play with a class like that. The main problem is due how the Battle Forms works the only real advantage will be to get fighter proficiency into the Battle Form attacks.
That's why maybe a full class makes more sense. A martial shape-shifter class who allows mixing many creatures abilities via feat with fighter like combat feat without so many restrictions that battle forms have. Something like eidolon meets fighter with a bit more uniq things.
I am salivating over a full 2e shifter class.
IMO, a shifter could be similar to an animal instinct barbarian with two major differences:
1) not focused on raging to morph; and
2) able to choose which animal morph effect (likely from a limited subset that they "learn" as they increase in level) they manifest at the start of each combat (possibly with the option to switch in the middle and/or manifest two animals partially).
My unlikely hope is Shifter or its replacement (should we get one beyond what we have) being Arcane, or at least not Primal-exclusive. We have Druid for Barbarian for Primal shapeshifters, and it would be really nice to bring in some other flavor as well.
With the Hellfire Crisis, I think a book on the outer planes might be worth exploring. Plus it'd open up room to finally do a chapter on Planes as they are in Starfinder, once Pathfinder 2E has all of its planes covered in detail.
Though I'm not sure what classes would be thematic for that.
Though I do have one brief idea for a new class idea. So perhaps a divine bounded caster like a magus. Except they are more dependent on an infusion of latent power like a sorcerer or oracle, something that Nephilim might gravitate to. Yet neither would they be godlike like an exemplar. And while Battle Harbinger Cleric does exist, that still requires you to worship a god, whereas in this case, you don't need to follow a god. Limited spell capability, but their powers are in harnessing fiendish, celestial, or other outer powers. Say a celestial nephilim could take the class to basically become like a warrior angel, or warrior fiend. Perhaps it could even be a way for a cambion to fully embrace becoming devil-like while not necessarily becoming unholy sanctified, whereas an empyrean can become full-on angel while remaining a prick.
Though, that can also just be an archetype, where something else can be the proper class. just putting out ideas as they come.
Paizo. Make the Omdura in 2e as the 30th class. It'd be so funny to see.
What could a Shifter archetype or a MC Shifter dedication (if a Class) bring that the Druid MC Dedication (Untamed Form) cannot ?
This might be the biggest point against the return of the Shifter.
Fully focused on shape shifting that works differently than the form spells that druid does. Druid and other similar classes that get access to Form spells require them to balance against the wide array of options being a full casters offers them.
Take that budgetary power, and put it instead entirely upon shapeshifting. Unlimited form and duration at the cost of the same explosive power that a spell rank might offer, as well as feats focused on improving yourself.
Paths that can focus on forms of Elements, Spirits, Eldritch Creatures, and Beasts, to give you a large pool of different ways to full-fill the fantasy of a martial who changes their form to fight.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus with Animal Instinct Barbarians, Beastkin versatile heritage, Werecreature Archetype, etc there just isn't as much of an empty niche for "someone who transforms parts of themself to fight more like an animal" that feels justifiable for a whole new class to fill.
TBH I think one of the biggest failings of the 1e Shifter (other than it being horrible) was that they decided to make it animal/druid themed when that was already the most active space for shapeshifting themes. Druids are kind of lame in 2e, so there's less of a risk of the Shifter being completely overshadowed, but the thematic overlap would still be a problem.
If we see something shifter-y in 2e I think it'd help a lot of it wasn't, by default immediately adjacent to the druid and animal barbarian.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll second the notion that if the Shifter is to be realized in 2e, it really should not be locked to the primal tradition. As much as the game desperately needs more primal magic-users, locking the shapeshifting class to the primal tradition is bound to make it look like a worse Druid, while depriving it of the many things you could do with shapeshifting across traditions: a Shifter ought to have the option to shift not just into animals and beasts, but also aberrations, fiends, celestials, even constructs and dragons of any tradition. Any creature that you could think of an eidolon for is also a creature that I think players would want a Shifter to transform into, and that I think runs the gamut of magic traditions, not just primal magic.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, I'd rather have "a dedicated primal martial or gish" than a shifter. It could maybe do some shapeshifting stuff, but that's a fantasy I enjoy. Like the Warden was my favorite D&D4 class.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll second the notion that if the Shifter is to be realized in 2e, it really should not be locked to the primal tradition. As much as the game desperately needs more primal magic-users, locking the shapeshifting class to the primal tradition is bound to make it look like a worse Druid, while depriving it of the many things you could do with shapeshifting across traditions: a Shifter ought to have the option to shift not just into animals and beasts, but also aberrations, fiends, celestials, even constructs and dragons of any tradition. Any creature that you could think of an eidolon for is also a creature that I think players would want a Shifter to transform into, and that I think runs the gamut of magic traditions, not just primal magic.
That makes a pretty good case for the Synthesist as its own martial-centric class archetype, too, rather than making a whole class to do something similar.
Though I also think others have a good point of opening the "Shifter" idea to a broader archetype that potentially anyone could take just to fulfill that particular power fantasy.
Honestly if I were to want anything at all for a new class, it'd be another crack at the slot-less caster ala the Kineticist but making it better defined as a caster, rather than being stuck in limbo with its own bespoke "impulse action" that receives so little support through things that apply only to Strikes or only to Spells. (Honestly, my dream remake of a Psychic not stuck to the page count of Dark Archives would be in that vein)
That makes a pretty good case for the Synthesist as its own martial-centric class archetype, too, rather than making a whole class to do something similar.
I do think the Synthesist ought to exist as a class archetype as well. I do think the fantasy of "you can embody this otherworldly creature you're connected to" is fundamentally different from "you have an amazing ability to shapeshift," though, so I'd say both have room to coexist.
Though I also think others have a good point of opening the "Shifter" idea to a broader archetype that potentially anyone could take just to fulfill that particular power fantasy.
Honestly if I were to want anything at all for a new class, it'd be another crack at the slot-less caster ala the Kineticist but making it better defined as a caster, rather than being stuck in limbo with its own bespoke "impulse action" that receives so little support through things that apply only to Strikes or only to Spells. (Honestly, my dream remake of a Psychic not stuck to the page count of Dark Archives would be in that vein)
I do agree that the Kineticist could be better-accommodated to work with the rest of the game's actions; it really doesn't work to have special-cased actions when most character options assume you'll either be Striking or casting spells. In a hypothetical PF3e, I'd quite like slotless casting to be the default as well, with spell slots building off of that rather than the reverse, as I think that would make magic much easier to implement.
With regards to the Shifter, I personally don't think the class needs to be a caster by default, not even a wave caster: although shapeshifting is generally thought of as magical (not to Starfinder's astrazoans, though), I don't think battle forms or the equivalent really mesh well with spells to begin with, and the stats you need to accommodate battle forms really well I think are inherently in conflict with the tradeoffs you need to make to be even a half-decent spellcaster. Although I can see a Shifter gaining access to spells if they take feats for them, I'd rather the class's central power budget be fully allocated towards giving them the best chassis to accommodate shapeshifting well, as well as abilities related to their transformations that let them embody the shapeshifter fantasy better than any battle form spell. This is also why I think an archetype wouldn't necessarily do the character fantasy justice, even if you could certainly cover a lot of cases by giving a tradition-unspecific variant of untamed form and the feats to take battle form spells across traditions.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'll voice a likely unpopular opinion that I don't think the Shifter needs to be its own class, at least not as it was presented in 1E in being someone who transforms parts of themselves into more animalistic forms. If anything it can be a Druid Class Archetype that makes them more martial-focused as opposed to caster-focused like the Battle Herald does for Cleric.
And if they were ever going to bring a class back by popular demand, it would've been the Inquisitor which is instead a class archetype in 2E through the Vindicator.
Plus with Animal Instinct Barbarians, Beastkin versatile heritage, Werecreature Archetype, etc there just isn't as much of an empty niche for "someone who transforms parts of themself to fight more like an animal" that feels justifiable for a whole new class to fill.
Now I do like Teridax's idea for a fate-bending class that hits the flavor more acutely than the Oracle currently does, plus it'd be cool to have a class that interacts more with Circumstance modifiers and the Fortune/Misfortune system.
I had a similar idea where it was a variant-Tradition caster and either Intelligence or Wisdom with their "Medium" being the source of Attribute and Tradition (Chronomancy = Arcane/Int, Revelation = Divine/Wis, Astrology = Occult/Int, Geomancy = Primal/Wis)
As a huge Shifter believer, I think both of your objections miss something important.
1.) The Shifter was an explicitly martial class. I find it highly unlikely that a Druid class archetype would remove spell casting and give it a martial chassis. That's just beyond the scope of a class archetype.2.) The Shifter could take on aspects of several different creatures, and later aspects of multiple different creatures simultaneously. None of your alternatives can do either of those things, except a Druid's Untamed Form, a notably okay combat ability when invested in with feats. But a martial you ain't.
While shifters have history I'm much more interested in a class that has a static form that allows them to function more like a monster, with as many callbacks to actual monster design as possible. This lets you play directly with existing ideas like grafts, fleshweaving, and mystical bloodlines, without having to shove it sideways into a class with its own features. As the class gimmick you give them a cooldown system to play that plays into ye olde 1d4 round recharge powers. You can then tack on being able to change forms as a subclass or feat tree.
Well Armorclad isn't really a martial cleric that "everyone wants". The Doctrine is basically the Warpriest but changing the focused progression into weapon proficiency to armor proficiency.
They basically change:
- The Armorclad's First Doctrine to give Heavy Armor in place of the Warpriest's First Doctrine that gives expert proficiency in Fortitude.
- The Armorclad's Second Doctrine to give expert in Fortitude in place of the Warpriest's Second Doctrine that gives trained in all martial weapons (you still trained in your deity weapon due First Doctrine).
- Third Doctrine of both are almost equal except that Armorclad only get expert in simple weapons and in your deity weapon.
- Fourth Doctrine of both are equal.
- Fifth Doctrine of both are equal.
- The Armorclad's Final Doctrine gives master proficiency in all your armors in place of the Warpriest's Final Doctrine that gives master in all weapons martials or below and your deity weapon.
This doesn't makes the cleric a martial that heals that "everyone wants", just an option to make a better cleric focused in heal and support that gains a most useful defensive proficiency instead of a martial support that you probably won't use at all.
The problems are that the option that Paizo made to allow a true martial cleric, the Battle Creed doctrine/class archetype, fails into meets this ideal of martial that heals because they trade the divine focus heal/harm to bless/bane like auras that don't heighten turning it way worse and limiting the idea of martial cleric with good heals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would rather a shifter have no spell slots, just a mechanic for shifting that has limits on use. Use all your own stats, just gain a forms special abilities and movement. Feats for leaning more doppelganger. Feat lines for general roles, like a stealth line for ambush predators, a tanking line for bruiser creatures, etc. Perhaps each role line requires a subclass, so you pick what sort of role your shifter leans into early on, that way you can't mix and match so those base powers could be stronger.
Depending on how in-depth it gets, a primary focus could be mixing form abilities. Similar to Thaum getting new implements or Kin getting new elements, a class set advancement that lets you gain certain abilities you use with any form. The class needs to stand out as more then just a were creature with one form, more then a druid that can take multiple forms. It needs to be an apex predator, mixing evolutions to create something new. Having certain abilities that you always have in all your forms could accomplish making it feel different enough from current options.
You could be a failed flesh craft experiment, absorbed some form of primal magic, delved too deep into occult knowledge, have some shape changer blood in you, anything that would explain why your physical form is fluid enough to become other things.
Also forms should work just like your regular body, able to speak and do all your usual actions.
A few things I'd enjoy seeing:
A magical trickster class. Something a little more harmoniously integrated than "skill class with a caster archetype welded on", and a little more skill/trick oriented than "Bard uses Performance for a few other skills".
A merchant class. Another items class, covering some of the non-alchemical consumables or getting temporary on-level gear. It'd be nice to have it key off charisma to set it further apart from Alchemist and Runesmith. It might not be feasible to do a good job with this using item categories that weren't designed around it, but it's a type of class I'd still enjoy seeing.
Any kind of build-a-monster class. Synthesist would be wonderful, but I'm okay if it's better to just pull the concept out into its own thing. If it needs to be uncommon or rare, understandable. Sometimes, you just want to put your feats into "being something" rather than "doing something".
|
|
What about some kind of magical martial? Like the Champion or the Exemplar, but not tied to the divine. a Primal version of this could easily be a class-archetype for the ranger, or even just a new Ranger's Edge.
The occult... well that's just already the Thaumaturge.
but Arcane? a warrior bursting with arcane power. I think something like a teleport focused class would be a good idea. with build options to make them a dodge-tank, a DPR fiend, or a utility class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not sure how helpful it was in the OP to mention a shapeshifting class as the entire thread then focused on Shifters. Which I have no interest in. ;p
What should the class be? Something heretofore unseen, with interesting gameplay mechanics that don’t completely invalidate any particular meta, but show that the designers can still produce something to shake up tactical battles AND narrative tropes.
What should the book be? (Given that Paizo has, for Second Edition, completely wedded the setting with the ruleset) Something that pushes the envelope of what Golarion is going through, both in its own history and our IRL experience of the release schedule. I don’t need an “event” or “arc”, just something to whet the appetite and make me want to play the game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Primal gish is my like, main want right now. Primal feels like the most underexplored type. Druid is the only dedicated primal caster. Kineticists have primal themeing but also lean into it in an very specific way.
A primal martial that leans into primal spaces more broadly could be really cool, or a primal gish... we haven't had a new bounded caster since 2021. Not necessary per se but territory that hasn't been touched in a while.
I would love shifter if it's done more like kineticist than a half caster.
But I do feel like more non mystical classes would be welcome as well. We could use another skill monkey type class, some kind of trickster or similar. And yeah, I know rogue exists but given the way guardian came out, I think we can make classes that fill specific niches with really fun mechanics.
Eyyy I got what I was hoping for! Probably. We'll see when the daredevil and slayer drop properly.
Question answered! The current Paizo Live has revealed the upcoming playtest: The Daredevil and the Slayer.
From what we know so far, Daredevil is an in-your-face combattant, while Slayer, not precisely based on the 1e Slayer, is a single-target monster hunter that can mark foes and then incorporate pieces of their bodies into their equipment.
As for the book they're in, I'm now kind of hoping for a Darklands-focussed exploration book.
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would never have guessed Swashbuckler 2 and Ranger 2 in a million years.
Alright, the big question for these new class is "what's gonna be the theme of the book?". Guardian and commander were in the "war" book, fitting for the two classes, necromancer and runesmith are apparently going to be in a "secret of secret magic" book, also somewhat fitting, but what would unite these two?
Personally, I'm feeling a PF2e version of ultimate intrigue/some kind of urban book, purely based on vibe.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slayer seems to take an Investigator approach to something that Thaumaturge was kind of given as the best fit for before, the monster hunter. They can designate a quarry, taking ten minutes. They get bonus damage with their signature weapon and various tracking/knowledge bonuses against the quarry, but we saw a lot of their other options work against other enemies. When they take down their quarry, they can take a trophy to empower their gear. Notably, they had support to reaction-quicken for one round on any enemy going down *or* their quarry getting crit- good for mowing through mooks or tackling a boss.
Daredevil seems geared towards addressing how bad it can sometimes feel to use a maneuver and then attack. They get risky action compression for movement and maneuvers, which gives adrenaline. Adrenaline empowers maneuvers (get damage for shoving an enemy into a wall or larger creature/obstacle) and reduces the MAP for Press actions. The class then gets Press actions to upgrade their attacks with.
I'm intrigued by the class choices. I'm sure the book will bring it all together, but the announcement was out of left field.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Slayer seems to take an Investigator approach to something that Thaumaturge was kind of given as the best fit for before, the monster hunter. They can designate a quarry, taking ten minutes. They get bonus damage with their signature weapon and various tracking/knowledge bonuses against the quarry, but we saw a lot of their other options work against other enemies. When they take down their quarry, they can take a trophy to empower their gear. Notably, they had support to reaction-quicken for one round on any enemy going down *or* their quarry getting crit- good for mowing through mooks or tackling a boss.
Daredevil seems geared towards addressing how bad it can sometimes feel to use a maneuver and then attack. They get risky action compression for movement and maneuvers, which gives adrenaline. Adrenaline empowers maneuvers (get damage for shoving an enemy into a wall or larger creature/obstacle) and reduces the MAP for Press actions. The class then gets Press actions to upgrade their attacks with.
Man I really don't know how to feel about that. I'm sure in practice they'll turn out interesting enough and probably not too problematic, but both of those descriptions really feel like they're heading into already traveled design space or even like, addressing problems other classes have but as a new class instead.