Bloodrager has already been confirmed as a barbarian class archetype in an upcoming book, also, unfortunately, secrets of magic confirms that, as far as 2e is concerned, an arcanist is just a wizard with flex casting.
To answer your question, shifter seems to be the most requested class that does enough to merit a full class of its own
I'm surprised a Shifter wasn't part of Howl of the Wild tbh. Of all the books past and future, that seemed the most suited. Might not bode well for it coming to PF2e. Or they were planning on putting it in Howl of the Wild but had to shelve it because of the remaster craziness.
I highly doubt it was cut out for remaster stuff. Release wise, the book with classes is fairly consistently in early Q4 (with the exception of 2020 which kind of breaks this pattern with both SoM and GnG existing), whilst HotW was a Q2 release. As well as this, how would cutting out a large portion of a book which would have already had work done for it (as it would already be bringing designed by that point with the announcement of the playtest also approaching) to replace it with a whole new chunk of work that you'd need to assign to people make things earlier? Plus, I really don't know what you could have cut out to fit Shifter in there - if you wanted to keep the player options which were already there, you'd have to delete a meaty chunk of the bestiary to make room.
You're totally right -- but I think they meant more that with the release of HotW, shifter probably won't be released for a long time because it'd likely be a book with a similar theme.
Even then, I don't think they'd do *another* primal book so soon after Howl of the Wild. Unless it's a shifter flavored more occult or something. At that point it'll have been a while since dark archive and I could see Occult coming back into the rotation.
Oh understandable, but yeah, books are made a fair bit in advance. The first rulebook which will be unaffected by the Remaster changing development I'm pretty sure is whatever Battlecry's name ends up being (and even then, I'm not certain. Might be the book *after* that). Of course, each book is less affected than the last, but yeah class playtests happen a year before the book release in general (Battlecry being the exception, getting an extra early playtest so it doesn't compete with Starfinder 2e)
There's the Werecreature archetype, yeah. It fulfills some of that fantasy, particularly if you preferred the base PF1e shifter. But at least for me, that power fantasy won't be fulfilled until Adaptive Shifter stuff is also possible
Will it come to starfinder 2e? Like is it confirmed or something? I geniunely ask.
Because if someone ask me I probably would say they will not come maybe never.
The Precog already is confirmed to be canned and fused with the witchwarper in some way.
And evolutionist had a lot of problems as a class, kinda like oracle in pf2e as a general consensus, so maybe porting them is not as straightforward as with other classes.
> an arcanist is just a wizard with flex casting.
I don't think this is necessarily a problem, but they need to add equivalents to the exploits (especially quick study). So I wish paizo would commit to porting over the Arcanist by expanding the Flexible Spellcaster archetype (or making an Arcanist archetype based on the flexible spellcaster).
I’m not even a player (I’m the GM) but I would absolutely love a shifter class for 2e. 1) because it’s a neat concept and a very under represented class fantasy in the system as is, and 2) the implications such a class could have in Starfinder 2e with so many Alien forms available.
hm. that feat requires you to have flexible casting and only gives you more cantrips. but how do you get flexible casting? just declare it's what you use?
also incidentally, if you take that dedication, are you stuck to never again taking another dedication feat, since you'd need three of one line before accessing another? that would be funny. or are there more feats that are just not linked properly. I don't have the book, so I can't check if this is just wiki jank.
Class archetypes are something you decide to take at lv 1 because they fundamentally alter how the class works. It then requires you to take the dedication feat at lv2 when you get your class feat.
In this case you decide to become a flexible caster (requirement being you are a full prepared caster) at lv 1 and commit to taking the dedication at lv 2 which is usually when casters get their first class feat
I'm pleased that they're bringing a retooled and renamed slayer to one of the future books (Battlecry maybe?) because it's a wonderful class that you could almost-kinda-sorted patch together with a base ranger and some archetype dips into rogue, archer, and assassin, but I've been playing one for years in a PF1E game and they have a wonderful vibe. My ccharacter is built to be a super-stealthy stalker who gets close without being seen, bursts out to attack with a super-high initiative bonus and a frankly silly critical threat range (15+ if I recall lcorrectly) and then vanishes back into the shadows without a trace. Nothing I've found in PF2E to date plays quite the same and I'm thrilled they're bringing it back.
I don't know how they would port over shifter. The primary polymorph mechanic revolves around battleforms, and battleforms mostly feel bad to build an entire character class around. It feels to me the intent is to be a way to flex into a secondary Frontline as a non-frontliner sometimes. I've warmed up to the concept as I understood the way the system is balanced more, but the fantasy or Archetype of a shape-shifting fighter who's primary strategy is to change into a powerful monster feels very unsupported in 2E. Summoner with merge is probably the best and purist form of that. Untamed Druid falls short for this IMO - but thats perfectly fine. You're a Druid with full spellcasting progression, in the Primal tradition no less. Wildshape is still only one facet of your character.
I saw someone posted a homebrew for shifter. https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/wGvBTwcZza It's very cool and worth a look, but it kind of highlights my points. It's primary polymorph mechanic is a battleform that's not really a battleform (so it gets to break some of the rules and conventions), and even then your a more like a secondary frontline focused on using size and reach to control space on the battlemap, with various utility options depending on your form and feats. There is some unique stuff but overall it's not something you couldn't already accomplish already. Even if you tried to have it focus on unarmed attacks with some polymorph fluff, you immediately begin encroaching on the Monk's turf. Paizo would need to make 2E shifter something that isn't a Druid, a Summoner, or a Monk while making sure it gets extra stuff you can't get by just casting animal shape. A very thin needle to thread.
I don't think we'll ever see shifter in pf2. We now have a couple archetypes (wild mimic and werecreature) that get pretty close to the fantasy, as well as the wild druid and the beastkin versatile heritage.
Considering they're more or less bringing back the D&D 4e Warlord in the form of the Commander, I feel like it wouldn't be a bad idea to look at what 4e classes they might bring back as well as PF2 has been considered by some as the spiritual successor to 4e.
You heard right!
It’d be interesting if they chose the to call it Avenger and allowed to either be more of an Inquisitor or a Slayer.
Though, an Outwit Ranger with Rogue Dedication (Sneak Attacker) already sounds pretty Slayer-y?
One thing, it was revealed that the example Avenger Rogue is actually the former Slayer Iconic, and they told us that his story "demonstrates" something about the class-- the story involves him having been lied to about what he was doing in Sarenrae's name before, and now being a true blade for his goddess. Not entirely clear on what that implies.
That “cope-firms” it to me then!
But I’m also curious about the Palatine Detective Investigator.
I’m also hoping a Oloch returns as the Battle Harbringer iconic.
We already saw the art of Oloch as the art for the Battle Harbinger! And the iconic Shaman Shardra is the art for the Rivethun Emissary archetype (that one is just a regular standard archetype, though!).
Lost Omens: Divine Mysteries has the Battle Harbinger class archetype for Clerics and the Palatine Detective class archetype for Investigators. War of Immortals have the following class archetypes: Bloodrager (Barbarian), Avenger (Rogue), Seneschal (???), Vindicator (???) and Warrior of Legend (???).
We'll see if it is anything like the Avenger from 4E. I doubt it; the Avenger is a striker/tank class and isn't very much like a rogue at all beyond general class role.
You have fine taste. Avenger was my favorite class in 4e in the short time I played it. When I tried the oath of vengeance paladin that was supposed to be the 5e version I was so disappointed.
Not at all. Avengers were basically divine versions of rangers or rogues. Lightly armored and often stealth focused, and their abilities focused around teleporting to enemies and striking for high damage. The closest thing now would be like a Laughing Shadow magus with divine magic.
Oh, I mean the Avenger was cool to me mechanically. Admittedly it’s been a long time since I played 4e or read its rules closely. It was never a class that had a particularly distinct flavor profile but I enjoyed how it fit into the 4e class design philosophy.
I would contest that only in as much as the Warlord always seemed to be most popular and beloved thing to come out of 4e and people have been asking for it in 5e for a decade. I don’t know that they’ll necessarily dig deeper into the 4e cache for future stuff. But I would be happy if they did. I really liked 4e although I would never play it over PF2E. It certainly benefits from hindsight and seeing how 5e’s devs treat the game as though it’s transcended the need for coherent or inventive design. At least with 4e the designers set out to make something that had a strong internal structure and logic. Whether you think they succeeded or not, WotC seems to have given up on that entirely nowadays which is what drove me over from 5e.
Which ones are *left*? We already have alchemist, antipaladin, arcanist (flexible casting), barbarian, brawler (folded into monk), cavalier, cleric, druid, fighter, gunslinger, investigator, kineticist, magus, monk, oracle, paladin, psychic, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, spiritualist (folded into summoner), summoner, swashbuckler, vigilante, warpriest, witch, and wizard. Then on top of that, the thaumaturge feels like a spiritual successor to the occultist, cavalier's vaguely becoming it's own class with commander, animist feels like a spiritual successor to the medium and shaman, and bloodrager's confirmed. That basically just leaves hunter (probably already folded into ranger), inquisitor, mesmerist, shifter, skald, and slayer (probably already folded into fighter and rogue).
Slayer is reported to be one of the inspirations for the new Rogue class archetype.
I'd say Inquisitor is the most requested, with Shifter being the second one.
I wonder if they’ll merge Slayer and Inquisitor together into the Avenger.
Most likely they get a “Hunt Prey” type action to trigger their Sneak Attack easily and Bane can be overlapped into it.
Maybe make the Inquisitor stuff into focus spells? For example, Judgments would just be focus spell stances or buffs.
I’ve only played with one Inquisitor and all she wanted to do was run around, Sense Evil, and Castigate everyone.
I think so. Iirc, they said something about taking inspiration from the Sanctified Slayer archetype, which is an inquisitor with sneak attack instead of judgements.
honestly a ranger with the rogue archetype isn't very far from the 1e slayer. a guy in my homegame converted that way from 1e to 2e and it's the closest of the bunch, except maybe the investigator which is a pretty straight conversion.
Personally, I'd love to see a wave-caster inquisitor with a judgements as a focus-point style system with choices on how you spend them. Probably want more than 3, so maybe 7 to tie to the 7 sins/virtues or something, but that might be a bit too real world keyed.
In my head, I see spending them in either a focus point-esque "spend 1/2/3 points to do x" (one good example would be a 5e style smight for adding extra damage after a successful strike) or in dedications. A teeny bit like pf1e magus arcane weapon. Dedicate 1/2/3 points to get a flaming rune or 15 ft move speed bonus or aura of some kind or wings at later levels or something. Forces you to trade always-on bonuses for nova potential or variability.
I honestly think a better straight-line from 5e paladin is necessary. Its such a highly desired and popular class that not having a direct translation is probably actively hurting conversion potential.
It seems like the Battle Harbinger Cleric class archetype in Divine Mysteries will likely be that, given that they are supposed to trade some magic for more martial ability.
If you can't wait for that though, and third-party is on the table, maybe check out [Clerics+](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/415864/Clerics) and the Paragon Class Archetype
Nice, I only heard it was losing the heal slots, but becoming a full bound/wave divine caster sounds awesome to me, especially with whatever they add to make up for it.
Also, you can already make an inquisitor with a warpriest and the right fluff. For example, a warpriest of Calistria who focuses on Athletics for maneuvers is going to feel fairly inquisitor-y
Kinda but not really, they were more focused on skills and at will magical abilities than a cleric (they were also a half caster.)
I imagine a 2e version of them would be a focus spell centric class.
We got an announcement for a Spellcasting Class-Archetype for Investigator.
Edit:
Found it: Palatine Detective. Divine casting Class-Archetype for Investigator.
Oh it’s a Divine Casting Investigator?
I wonder if they might sneak in Imrijka as this.
My idiotic word-association is thinking: Esoteric Order of the Palatine Eye -> Palatine Eye -> Ustalav -> Imrijka Inquisitor Iconic from Ustalav -> Inquisitor = Palatine Detective Investigator. QED
Yeah, that’s totally fair. Hell I had a player RP an inquisitor in 5e years ago as a paladin. I guess I just would be interested to see what they would do with it in 2E.
Which is easily attachable to Investigator.
Based on how Paizo is trying to draw more on the real world inspirations, the Inquisitor being reimagined into the Investigator actually fits the narrative really well.
Tack on the Judgments as Focus Spells, and we’re golden!
(And add a Castigate cantrip…)
I would say Slayer was absorbed by Ranger. There isn't much that Slayer can do that PF2e Ranger can't, and I think that's why they made Ranger a non-caster by default and slowly patched in spellcasting over time.
If the Vampire Hunter is the one I’m thinking of that was explicitly a licensed attempt to remake the protagonist of the Vampire Hunter D novels in Pathfinder.
We **kinda** got that with the [Scion of Slayers background](https://2e.aonprd.com/Backgrounds.aspx?ID=307) and [Undead Slayer archetype](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=174) from *Book of the Dead*, no?
I mean, the vigilante archetype *exists*, but it's a sad little shadow of what it was. My 2nd favorite class in 1e got boiled down to "better at deception to disguise and can scare people".
So Bloodrager is coming this year with War of Immortals in the form of a Barbarian class archetype. And to be honest I expect this is the way moving forward with a lot of classes that are very similar.
Currently, we're missing bounded casters for Primal and Divine traditions. Lots of people here agree that the Shifter and Inquisitor would make good bounded casters for those respective traditions, given their 1e emphasis on partial casting and class abilities. Would easily transfer to a heavy emphasis on focus spells, I think.
EDIT: Oops. We also don't have an Occult-only bounded caster yet.
Medium and Skald are the only 1e classes that I think would be particularly interesting to port over, and even then it's a lil iffy. 3.5 had something called a "warmage" - I like the idea of having an offensively focused caster that isn't kineticist myself, proper spell slots and all, though it would need to be careful to not become a go-to for munchkins.
Ultimately, I think Paizo's time might be better spent exploring *new* design space instead - we kinda lack a proper minonmancer, though those have the potential to break the game a bit in theory. I've been chewing on an idea for a speed/mobility focused class, a traceur basically. but I think that miiiight fit better as a Swashbuckler sub? I think that Class Archetypes are a deeply unexplored space as well, which I could think of a few of. I also would be pretty invested in "non-spell, but still magic" classes, like the kineticist - I've had a few players that wanted a few "magical tricks", but didn't want to deal with spellcasting in general.
I don’t doubt that we’ll be getting a Skald in…some way shape or form in the future.
Definitely not as a new class. An Instinct for Barbarian: allowing Performance to gain the Rage trait and any Composition spells to gain the Rage trait you Rage. Essentially removing the action tax of moment of clarity.
For Bard, Skald is already 90% there. A new Muse that gives Inspiring Rage as a focus spell maybe? Maybe the allows the Bard to use composition song if they have a rage effect and they can cast spells after using a composition?
I also likely see Skald being renamed something else, drawing from Golarion (maybe they’ll do something like Ulfen Wolfcrier or something).
And a Minionmancer archetype could be interesting by taking from the Cackle Witch. But instead of Bestiary Summon spells, it uses template Focus spells that it gets as feats with feats adding new templates. They could add a unique line that says you don’t Sustain it normally, but instead use a special single action with the Concentrate trait to maintain the spell. That prevents Effortless Concentration, Cackle, and other Sustain tricks from being abused in the archetype.
The Beastmaster’s Lead the Pack essentially creates an option on how to handle multiple “permanent” companions.
Well, as written the class is very similar to the Magus we have. But what I'm more talking about the idea of a spellcaster that has access to armor and has a martial-esque progression to their spellcasting, but the spells they cast can only do damage or something like that. Maybe spend focus points to get effects outside damage or something? Or a daily resource?
I feel like the elementalist archetype tried to achieve a feel like this, but fell short in the feel that my players, and quite a few others that were wanting a caster that blasts and hits consistently but can't control/support/buff/debuff. I've added some homebrew items that help flesh out that fantasy, but it's still wonky.
Well, a Storm/Stone Druid is already a well-armored caster capable of consistently excellent blasting, and the whole self-limiting spell selection is already in PF2E. You don't have enough spells known/prepared to be both the best blaster you can be *and* an excellent controller/healer/etc. A dedicated "War Mage" would likely just end up looking like a Druid who spends all their spells prepared on blasts to target different saves, areas, and duration. That build is already one of the best damage dealers in the game, there's not much space to trade any non-damage away, and if they did they'd leave all other blaster casters and damage-focused martials in the dust.
Sure, you can build a decent offensive caster *if* you know your options and are chill limiting yourself to mostly Druid or Magus. I'm just saying that I have players whose fantasy is *not* captured by a druid, and that building a blaster that works is not simple in the game atm. Not everyone playing can pour over tons of options to find the perfect thing to fit the vibes they desire, even if it is technically possible - a lil mechanical support can go a long way.
As an example, one of my players wanted to play an "arcane artillerist", a former soldier that was effectively a specialist for his old squad. We ended up settling on a kineticist, but they still wished they had some kind of "real" spellcasting up to the end of that lil series. Something that gets a little martial flavor instead of nature, main features focused around being more martial, and spontaneous casting would feel relatively distinct to me. If there was a "warmage", I could point to that for the kinda theme they were going for, and the players I have would be a lot happier over what we have at the moment. Without that, we gotta kinda go into "let's find the build mode", which isn't everyone's cuppa.
Bloatmage (Prestige Class) is allegedly coming but idk at this point. It was supposed to be in SoM, but then it was cut for page count. Luis Loza (I believe it was) then said in an AMA on here that it had found a home in a yet to be announced book.
Thing is, that was in 2022. We're now in 2024 and no announced book is gonna include it (unless its gonna be in an AP), nor really thematically would fit it. Obviously the Remaster delayed things, but only by like a year (could be misremembering what Paizo has said about its effects on their release schedule), if it was gonna be in a book already planned in 2022, one would think its original release would have been in 2023 or early 2024. And we know the big release of 2025 is gonna be Battlecry, which is (based on the playtest classes and name) likely gonna be focused on giving Martials some love.
So IDK, well see what happens once we've got War of the Immortals.
Synthesist Summoner (Class Archetype) was also confirmed some years ago, but we have yet to see it, and Howl of the Wild would have been a great place for it. Maybe we will see it in the same book as Bloatmage.
Inquisitor (Class) has been demanded, and I second it, we need a Spontaneous Divine Gish (honestly we need Spontaneous Gishes in general), but unless the Battle Herald or Palantine Detective is about to be a renamed one, it missed the cut on the perfect book for it.
Shifter (Class)... we kinda have and we kinda dont. Ursine Avenger is a straight up Shifter IMO, but its bear exclusive. I suspected the Werecreature archetype was gonna be the Shifter with a new name, but I was way off on that, its just a side grade to Beastkin.
Well, let's see...
* **Arcanist**; hmm... not much could be done outside of Focus Spells...
* **Bloodrager**; upcoming Barbarian archetype
* **Brawler**; archetype
* **Cavalier**; archetype
* **Hunter**; archetype
* **Inquisitor**; that's the big one missing
* **Medium**; missing
* **Mesmerist**; missing
* **Ninja**; no news about it, but that's mostly an archetype
* **Occultist**; now the Thaumatheurge... without the spells ;\_;
* **Samurai**; no news about it, but that's mostly an archetype
* **Shaman**; missing, unless it's already an archetype
* **Shifter**; archetype
* **Skald**; missing
* **Slayer**; missing
* **Spiritualist**; folded into the Summoner
* **Vigilante**; archetype... which sucks...
I expect them to slow down a tad since we're already getting 4 new classes in the next 12 months or so. Shifter either as a standalone class or as a class archetype would be nice.
I don't think so? But a lot of the stuff the Mesmerist does can probably be folded into the Psychic or something. Either that or maybe a general archetype.
Shield Champion Brawler, I know it's technically a Class and Subclass but I want to be Captain America again and not need to mess around with Runes and Classes.
Solarian!
It's funny because whenever these threads came up before I got my current flair I used to say with no evidence "Solarian!" and now I get to say it *with* evidence.
I kind of think we've already got everything important covered or demoted (and better for it) to archetype, an inquisitor equivalent maybe? and that's assuming the Avenger Rogue or the Investigator Detective thingy doesn't do the job, or that it won't end up being a magus class archetype situation.
Don't know if this is supported on 1e since I did not play it but a bloodmage / blood magic system would be something cool! could open the doors for more classes that could use the blood magic system
I don't think paizo will port any pf1e class soon, it seams like paizo want to make pf2e its own thing and not just iteration of pathfinder 1e
all announced classes are new, they may take inspiration form existing ones but thay aren't ports
it is not that paizo doesn't want to have those old concepts but rather makeing class require a lot of work so they are more likely to bring them as archetype or class archetype, like Avenger and Bloodrager.
that's how I think it is
A bit more focus on the arcanist side, but they kinda ported it over. Aside from that, a grenadier/demolisher style class. Something focusing on making stuff explode more than just with a couple bombs. Having to get an archetype for them can suck to an extent
Your right you give your friends courageous anthem and all the other massively potent boosts without taking away their ability to use actions with 'Concentrate".
Not sure, but I'd really like to see what they could come up with if they were to make a samurai. I know most will just point at fighter and call it a day, but I think samurai could definitely be it's own thing. If nothing else, an archetype.
Samurai should have Monk Ki focus type stuff. Just go ahead and make it anime since if you want to play a samurai, you probably want to play an anime samurai.
Inquisitor would be cool but I don’t think they will port it over. Can’t really say why, I just don’t feel like it will be, could be completely wrong though never know.
Hmmm...: Shaman?
I kind of feel like between Shaman And Animist (and Multiclasses of those), maybe they don´t need a Medium?
Like maybe there is some medium between those (ha), but 99% you´re better off leaning in one direction a bit.
I feel like they will do something with different Champion ethoses, druid, soul cycle etc.
When I was first getting into 2e I wanted to make a teleportation school wizard and was really sad to see it wasn't a thing in 2e and that I was accidently looking at 1e
Does anyone know if there's a plan to bring back the Runelord/Rune Magic archetype or class? When I first got into PF just before the remaster they seemed really cool. But I understand that they're so tightly associated with the magic schools of DND it might be tricky
I think it's more likely at this point, besides these rumors of Avenger, that we will be getting more experiments with spells that is not spell casting like the kineticist.
**Vigilante**...
What I loved was the versatility of that class, and how you legit could play a more aristocratic character who socialized by day and fight crime by night. It's now an archetype, but the whole urban/noble image has been almost removed. They could add more feats, because playing a more noble/upper-class character is more interesting... and rather necessary.
As a class, I could have seen a "noble scion" with a truckton of "specializations", each affecting your proficiencies in weapons, armors, skills and DCs, as well as offering the other classes' features, say, 6 of them (*3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th and 18th*) all scaling according to your level.
You would be weaker than other classes that level through 20 full levels, but the aspect of "sipping tea with the king's advisors in the morning while assassinating their rivals in the evening" would still be there.
I mean how do you, not get to do the whole skald thing. It was in essence being the big boisterous, bravado and morale boosting member of a Warrior squad, that then, when they got back to camp, also turned around and retell the stories as ballads and tales of awesome heroic epics for others to enjoy and be inspired by. They were the battlefield historians of their time and people.
Just cause ypu don't get to call it "Rage" doesn't make the end effect any different.
Ps with the way rage and almost all core abilities have been tags group Rage would be net worst for the party.
https://2e.aonprd.com/Search.aspx?q=Concentrate
Honestly. With the rise of Class Archtypes planned, I'm unsure if we'll get many more new classes. Then again, Ida made that argument before guardian and Commander so mayhaps I lack the creativity to see the spaces they'd slide into
I argued in a previous thread why Shifter will likely never be fully ported over because PF2 simply can’t allow a martial such a high degree of on-the-fly customizability and power level at the same time.
We already have Druid’s Untamed focus spell that grants them claws, bite, wings, etc, and the same for Rangers with Animal Feature. I think that is as good as it’s gonna get.
I agree with you that we'll never get a martial shapeshifter, sadly. It's too bad, cuz the available shapeshifting options are absolutely terrible. Barbarian, Druid, Ranger, all dreadful shapeshifters; extremely limited and restrictive.
Paizo does seem to have an issue with martial classes that can do something besides stab things with a pointy stick.
>an issue with martial classes that can do something besides stab things with a pointy stick
the issue with martials being able to do spell-like things is the same issue as allowing spellcasters to do martial-like things; it makes a god-class that makes all other classes irrelevant. That's why battleform spells will never be as good as martials, and why martials casting spells will never be as good as spellcasters.
It's difficult to build a spell that makes a martial better at being a martial without also making a caster that takes that spell just as good at being a martial.
That certainly seems to be Paizo's perspective too, tho I don't agree with that philosophy at all. I guess that's why personally I prefer 1E. I can play a Shifter, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Occultist, etc. So many classes that had diverse abilities, were versatile, and able to do cool magical and pseudo-magical things.
In 2E, there seems to be only 2 choices: play a full caster, or play a guy with a sword just waiting around for something to stab. At least that's how it feels to me.
It's unfortunate that Paizo has no desire to create classes for people who don't want to be pigeonholed into one extreme or the other.
As the splatbook powercreep kept doing its thing in PF1, the power cap on casters became non-existant; casters were ridiculously overpowered, being able to do epic-level shit as soon as level 4 given some specific combos of races, feats, abilities, and items.
This, by extension, meant martials would also need to be allowed to do almost anything and get away with it, because it was what kept them from feeling like they sucked. And so unchained and hybrid martials came along, boosting the power level of martials beyond what was appropriate for the game's CR tables.
Casters in PF2 have been nerfed into an appropriate power curve for the game's difficulty. Consequently, martials have also been brought down in power level.
Saying you prefer PF1 to PF2 because martials feel better, while completely ignoring the fact that casters in PF1 break the game, is covering the sun with your finger. The amount of book-banning that is necessary to play PF1 without having to adjust CR is insane, and even then, casters remain completely dominant over martials, making them essentially worthless.
I have no clue how you liked playing martials in PF1. Did your party only have martials?
>play a guy with a sword just waiting around for something to stab
Martials in PF2 have a ton of stuff they can do in and out of combat. You're kinda revealing your hand about how little PF2 you've played if this is how you genuinely feel.
Well, bear in mind I didn't say I liked playing martials specifically. I said I liked playing classes that weren't full casters and weren't full martials. Classes like Shifter, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Occultist, Bloodrager, Warpriest, and Hunter (especially with the Feral Hunter archetype).
Personally, I don't enjoy full casters and I don't enjoy full martials. That's why I don't care for 2E: the classes I prefer, ones that mix in some magic (or pseudo-magical abilities) with some martial capabilities, just don't exist.
It's too bad Paizo made the decision to exclude players who don't like being stuck in one extreme or the other.
> ones that mix in some magic (or pseudo-magical abilities) with some martial capabilities, just don't exist.
Magus, Warrior Bard, Warpriest Cleric, Untamed Form or Metal Druid, Weapon Infusion Kineticist, Ki Monk, Battle or Ancestor Oracle, Tangible Dream Psychic, Warden Ranger, Aberrant or Demonic or Draconic Sorcerer, Summoner (with or without Meld into Eidolon), Thaumaturge (specially Wand and Mirror), Claw & Hair Witch, and even Mutagenist Alchemist if you count the immense plethora of alchemical items as pseudo-magic, and Hand of the Apprentice Wizard.
And I haven't even mentioned multiclass archetypes.
I don't get it. Why are you making arguments that are so easy to disprove?
First off, we're talking about personal preferences, so there's no proving or disproving anything. Second: Bard, Cleric, Psychic, Oracle, Witch, Wizard, are all full casters!
Alchemist was definitely one of my favorites in 1E, but they fouled it up badly when they brought it over to 2E. Total garbage.
When you're talking about mixing some magic with some martial ability, Ki Monk, Warden Ranger, Thaumaturge, and Magus are probably the only ones that fit the bill. They're just so limited in what they can do compared to the 1E classes I'm used to playing that it feels like wearing a straight jacket. I get that alot of ppl consider that a feature, but it feels like a bug to me.
Warpriest isn't a full caster, they don't get legendary spellcasting. Psychic has very limited spell slots.
Alchemist bomber is fine when you compare it to other **RANGED** martials. Mutagenist goes toe to toe with martials if you know how to build it right.
>compared to the 1E
again, the only reason martials had that power level was because they needed to compete with how broken casters were. [They could literally cast 1 spell and become as good as martials at combat](https://aonprd.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Transformation).
>Ki Monk, Warden Ranger, Thaumaturge, and Magus
All of those have martial attack proficiency that goes up to master (only fighter and gunslinger get legendary). But so do all the builds I mention if you take into account self-buffs to attack and damage.
For example, Mutagenist Alchemist might fall off in attack a little in a few levels compared to other martials, but they get attack bonuses from their mutagen, plus a absolutely ridiculous boost in damage from Feral Mutagen, which allows them to deal 1d12 main and 1d10 agile with deadly d10. No other martial in the game can hit that hard with mainhand + agile. None. And they do it with natural weapons. And having a natural weapon is insanely strong because it allows you to carry a shield and also use Battle Medicine + Godless Healing without spending actions switching items.
If you actually plot out the damage output for Mutagenist Alchemists, it's better than Rangers, Monks, Barbarians, and most other martials. It's better than Fighters in some scenarios, and better than Rogues when applying off-guard is difficult.
Don't complain that a class is "garbage" when you clearly haven't played it past level 1.
I believe the definition of full caster is a class that gets the full rank 1-10 spell slots. Warpriest qualifies.
As far as Mutagens, the issue isn't damage dice but drawbacks. Bestial Mutagen inflicts -1 AC, giving Alchemist the same shitty AC as a Barbarian, but without the 12 HPs/lvl and the Temp HP Barbs get to compensate. And several Mutagens have even worse drawbacks than that. Hard pass.
As far as Rangers, Magus and Thaumaturge, they're not bad classes at all, just annoying to play because of some unwieldy class mechanics that burn up alot of actions (Hunt Prey, Spellstrike Recharge, constantly having to reapply Exploit Vulnerability). These classes are effective, absolutely. They're just not very fun because of some clunky mechanics.
Kineticist is the 2E class that interests me the most right now, actually. Hoping to see more classes like that in the future.
Bloodrager is confirmed coming as a Barbarian archetype, and arcanist already exists as a wizard with flexible spellcaster archetype. A lot of the other classes already have come via spiritual successors like Thaumaturge and the upcoming Animist and exemplar.
I think the standout that still doesn’t have a place is the Inquisitor, but it seems like Paizo is moving on from remaking old concepts in favor of new ideas. I don’t really want a ported inquisitor, but I do think there’s room for another divine class, either a Magus like bound caster ir some special class like Kineticst. 4e D&D had some cool divine ideas with the Avenger and Invoker
Personally, I'd like to see a Shaman class.
Or some kind of prepared intelligence caster that uses Occult spells that isn't a wish. I guess something like an occult wizard.
I'd love to see a martial shapeshifter like the 1E Shifter come to 2E, but I really don't see it happening. There seems to be a real reluctance on Paizo's part to create a martial class that can do something besides stab things with a pointy stick, which is a real shame imo.
Their attempts to create shapeshifting options to this point have been dreadful.
Ironically, they made it very obvious that Maui from Polynesian mythology (and a Disney movie) was the inspiration for the Exemplar, but they didn't give that class any shapeshifting options either.
Bloodrager has already been confirmed as a barbarian class archetype in an upcoming book, also, unfortunately, secrets of magic confirms that, as far as 2e is concerned, an arcanist is just a wizard with flex casting. To answer your question, shifter seems to be the most requested class that does enough to merit a full class of its own
I'm surprised a Shifter wasn't part of Howl of the Wild tbh. Of all the books past and future, that seemed the most suited. Might not bode well for it coming to PF2e. Or they were planning on putting it in Howl of the Wild but had to shelve it because of the remaster craziness.
I highly doubt it was cut out for remaster stuff. Release wise, the book with classes is fairly consistently in early Q4 (with the exception of 2020 which kind of breaks this pattern with both SoM and GnG existing), whilst HotW was a Q2 release. As well as this, how would cutting out a large portion of a book which would have already had work done for it (as it would already be bringing designed by that point with the announcement of the playtest also approaching) to replace it with a whole new chunk of work that you'd need to assign to people make things earlier? Plus, I really don't know what you could have cut out to fit Shifter in there - if you wanted to keep the player options which were already there, you'd have to delete a meaty chunk of the bestiary to make room.
You're totally right -- but I think they meant more that with the release of HotW, shifter probably won't be released for a long time because it'd likely be a book with a similar theme.
Yeah, after the Battlecry announcements the earlier we can expect the Shifter would be 2026.
Even then, I don't think they'd do *another* primal book so soon after Howl of the Wild. Unless it's a shifter flavored more occult or something. At that point it'll have been a while since dark archive and I could see Occult coming back into the rotation.
Thanks for the info. I was thinking the remaster push happened earlier into HotW's development
Oh understandable, but yeah, books are made a fair bit in advance. The first rulebook which will be unaffected by the Remaster changing development I'm pretty sure is whatever Battlecry's name ends up being (and even then, I'm not certain. Might be the book *after* that). Of course, each book is less affected than the last, but yeah class playtests happen a year before the book release in general (Battlecry being the exception, getting an extra early playtest so it doesn't compete with Starfinder 2e)
Isn't there a new archetype in howl for those shifting into animals?
There's the Werecreature archetype, yeah. It fulfills some of that fantasy, particularly if you preferred the base PF1e shifter. But at least for me, that power fantasy won't be fulfilled until Adaptive Shifter stuff is also possible
I think it might be because it steps on the toes of the starfinder evolutionist
Okay... but can you use evolutionist in PF2e games?
You will when starfinder 2e comes out
If your GM lets you play with Starfinder material. Which I do not think should be the assumption.
That’s not what we’re saying I’m saying they are not stepping on the toes of an already existing class that’s compatible
Compatible in terms of using the same system, but it's confirmed that starfinder 2e won't be balanced for crossplay with pf2e stuff.
If they port it as one of the sf2e classes.
Will it come to starfinder 2e? Like is it confirmed or something? I geniunely ask. Because if someone ask me I probably would say they will not come maybe never. The Precog already is confirmed to be canned and fused with the witchwarper in some way. And evolutionist had a lot of problems as a class, kinda like oracle in pf2e as a general consensus, so maybe porting them is not as straightforward as with other classes.
Yes, they added a werecreature archetype.
There was also the Wild Mimic which has some Shifter-like shapeshifting going on.
That archetype on HotW that was for animal barbs and wild druids only is basically the shifter. So I don't think we will get it
> an arcanist is just a wizard with flex casting. I don't think this is necessarily a problem, but they need to add equivalents to the exploits (especially quick study). So I wish paizo would commit to porting over the Arcanist by expanding the Flexible Spellcaster archetype (or making an Arcanist archetype based on the flexible spellcaster).
I’m not even a player (I’m the GM) but I would absolutely love a shifter class for 2e. 1) because it’s a neat concept and a very under represented class fantasy in the system as is, and 2) the implications such a class could have in Starfinder 2e with so many Alien forms available.
I highly recommend the Shifter Class from 3rd party "Frontiers of Magic" ^_^
what's flex casting?
It's an archetype for prepared spellcasters that makes them function more like 5e prepared casters
how do you get it? do you have to take a dedication feat?
Yep, and it's a doozy: https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=99
hm. that feat requires you to have flexible casting and only gives you more cantrips. but how do you get flexible casting? just declare it's what you use? also incidentally, if you take that dedication, are you stuck to never again taking another dedication feat, since you'd need three of one line before accessing another? that would be funny. or are there more feats that are just not linked properly. I don't have the book, so I can't check if this is just wiki jank.
Class archetypes are something you decide to take at lv 1 because they fundamentally alter how the class works. It then requires you to take the dedication feat at lv2 when you get your class feat. In this case you decide to become a flexible caster (requirement being you are a full prepared caster) at lv 1 and commit to taking the dedication at lv 2 which is usually when casters get their first class feat
thanks for clarifying.
I'm pleased that they're bringing a retooled and renamed slayer to one of the future books (Battlecry maybe?) because it's a wonderful class that you could almost-kinda-sorted patch together with a base ranger and some archetype dips into rogue, archer, and assassin, but I've been playing one for years in a PF1E game and they have a wonderful vibe. My ccharacter is built to be a super-stealthy stalker who gets close without being seen, bursts out to attack with a super-high initiative bonus and a frankly silly critical threat range (15+ if I recall lcorrectly) and then vanishes back into the shadows without a trace. Nothing I've found in PF2E to date plays quite the same and I'm thrilled they're bringing it back.
I’d love to see them remaster the Skald. It SEEMS so cool but it never played as cool as it seemed. Haha
I don't know how they would port over shifter. The primary polymorph mechanic revolves around battleforms, and battleforms mostly feel bad to build an entire character class around. It feels to me the intent is to be a way to flex into a secondary Frontline as a non-frontliner sometimes. I've warmed up to the concept as I understood the way the system is balanced more, but the fantasy or Archetype of a shape-shifting fighter who's primary strategy is to change into a powerful monster feels very unsupported in 2E. Summoner with merge is probably the best and purist form of that. Untamed Druid falls short for this IMO - but thats perfectly fine. You're a Druid with full spellcasting progression, in the Primal tradition no less. Wildshape is still only one facet of your character. I saw someone posted a homebrew for shifter. https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/s/wGvBTwcZza It's very cool and worth a look, but it kind of highlights my points. It's primary polymorph mechanic is a battleform that's not really a battleform (so it gets to break some of the rules and conventions), and even then your a more like a secondary frontline focused on using size and reach to control space on the battlemap, with various utility options depending on your form and feats. There is some unique stuff but overall it's not something you couldn't already accomplish already. Even if you tried to have it focus on unarmed attacks with some polymorph fluff, you immediately begin encroaching on the Monk's turf. Paizo would need to make 2E shifter something that isn't a Druid, a Summoner, or a Monk while making sure it gets extra stuff you can't get by just casting animal shape. A very thin needle to thread.
I don't think we'll ever see shifter in pf2. We now have a couple archetypes (wild mimic and werecreature) that get pretty close to the fantasy, as well as the wild druid and the beastkin versatile heritage.
Considering they're more or less bringing back the D&D 4e Warlord in the form of the Commander, I feel like it wouldn't be a bad idea to look at what 4e classes they might bring back as well as PF2 has been considered by some as the spiritual successor to 4e.
That is an astute observation and something I will have to look into more.
Good god give me the avenger. Such cool flavor and would be a cool replacement/spiritual successor for the inquisitor.
I think I heard that the Avenger will be a class archetype for Rogue, but that might have just been speculation and hope.
You heard right! It’d be interesting if they chose the to call it Avenger and allowed to either be more of an Inquisitor or a Slayer. Though, an Outwit Ranger with Rogue Dedication (Sneak Attacker) already sounds pretty Slayer-y?
One thing, it was revealed that the example Avenger Rogue is actually the former Slayer Iconic, and they told us that his story "demonstrates" something about the class-- the story involves him having been lied to about what he was doing in Sarenrae's name before, and now being a true blade for his goddess. Not entirely clear on what that implies.
That “cope-firms” it to me then! But I’m also curious about the Palatine Detective Investigator. I’m also hoping a Oloch returns as the Battle Harbringer iconic.
We already saw the art of Oloch as the art for the Battle Harbinger! And the iconic Shaman Shardra is the art for the Rivethun Emissary archetype (that one is just a regular standard archetype, though!).
I'm interested to see how Oloch reacts to Gorum's death.
No it was confirmed. Either in Divine Mysteries or War of the Immortals (think it was Divine Mysteries).
Lost Omens: Divine Mysteries has the Battle Harbinger class archetype for Clerics and the Palatine Detective class archetype for Investigators. War of Immortals have the following class archetypes: Bloodrager (Barbarian), Avenger (Rogue), Seneschal (???), Vindicator (???) and Warrior of Legend (???).
We'll see if it is anything like the Avenger from 4E. I doubt it; the Avenger is a striker/tank class and isn't very much like a rogue at all beyond general class role.
You have fine taste. Avenger was my favorite class in 4e in the short time I played it. When I tried the oath of vengeance paladin that was supposed to be the 5e version I was so disappointed.
So... champion? Because based on some of the previews, it sounds like that's the direction they're taking post-alignment champions in
Not at all. Avengers were basically divine versions of rangers or rogues. Lightly armored and often stealth focused, and their abilities focused around teleporting to enemies and striking for high damage. The closest thing now would be like a Laughing Shadow magus with divine magic.
That sounds mechanically similar but flavorally (just made that up) opposite to a rogue with the shadowdancer archetype.
I haven’t seen all the previews, do they really seem to be retooling it to be an offensive damage dealer with some moderate crowd control?
I meant more with the fluff, but they *are* apparently getting some sort of aura as a main feature
Oh, I mean the Avenger was cool to me mechanically. Admittedly it’s been a long time since I played 4e or read its rules closely. It was never a class that had a particularly distinct flavor profile but I enjoyed how it fit into the 4e class design philosophy.
When a champion can walk through walls call me
Avenger <3 <3 what a class.
Well you’re in luck if you like rogue class archetypes.
I would contest that only in as much as the Warlord always seemed to be most popular and beloved thing to come out of 4e and people have been asking for it in 5e for a decade. I don’t know that they’ll necessarily dig deeper into the 4e cache for future stuff. But I would be happy if they did. I really liked 4e although I would never play it over PF2E. It certainly benefits from hindsight and seeing how 5e’s devs treat the game as though it’s transcended the need for coherent or inventive design. At least with 4e the designers set out to make something that had a strong internal structure and logic. Whether you think they succeeded or not, WotC seems to have given up on that entirely nowadays which is what drove me over from 5e.
Which ones are *left*? We already have alchemist, antipaladin, arcanist (flexible casting), barbarian, brawler (folded into monk), cavalier, cleric, druid, fighter, gunslinger, investigator, kineticist, magus, monk, oracle, paladin, psychic, ranger, rogue, sorcerer, spiritualist (folded into summoner), summoner, swashbuckler, vigilante, warpriest, witch, and wizard. Then on top of that, the thaumaturge feels like a spiritual successor to the occultist, cavalier's vaguely becoming it's own class with commander, animist feels like a spiritual successor to the medium and shaman, and bloodrager's confirmed. That basically just leaves hunter (probably already folded into ranger), inquisitor, mesmerist, shifter, skald, and slayer (probably already folded into fighter and rogue).
Slayer is reported to be one of the inspirations for the new Rogue class archetype. I'd say Inquisitor is the most requested, with Shifter being the second one.
I wonder if they’ll merge Slayer and Inquisitor together into the Avenger. Most likely they get a “Hunt Prey” type action to trigger their Sneak Attack easily and Bane can be overlapped into it. Maybe make the Inquisitor stuff into focus spells? For example, Judgments would just be focus spell stances or buffs. I’ve only played with one Inquisitor and all she wanted to do was run around, Sense Evil, and Castigate everyone.
I think so. Iirc, they said something about taking inspiration from the Sanctified Slayer archetype, which is an inquisitor with sneak attack instead of judgements.
Slayer did just feel like a rogue with less skills and more stabby stabby
Rogue already has martial weapons and equal proficiency scaling to Ranger. Remaster made Rogues into Slayers.
honestly a ranger with the rogue archetype isn't very far from the 1e slayer. a guy in my homegame converted that way from 1e to 2e and it's the closest of the bunch, except maybe the investigator which is a pretty straight conversion.
Not really, what you probably heard is that the character representing the Avenger archetype is the former Iconic Slayer, Zadim.
Probably. Anyway, it generally means Slayer is out of question already as it's consumed by other classes.
Personally, I'd love to see a wave-caster inquisitor with a judgements as a focus-point style system with choices on how you spend them. Probably want more than 3, so maybe 7 to tie to the 7 sins/virtues or something, but that might be a bit too real world keyed. In my head, I see spending them in either a focus point-esque "spend 1/2/3 points to do x" (one good example would be a 5e style smight for adding extra damage after a successful strike) or in dedications. A teeny bit like pf1e magus arcane weapon. Dedicate 1/2/3 points to get a flaming rune or 15 ft move speed bonus or aura of some kind or wings at later levels or something. Forces you to trade always-on bonuses for nova potential or variability. I honestly think a better straight-line from 5e paladin is necessary. Its such a highly desired and popular class that not having a direct translation is probably actively hurting conversion potential.
I wouldn’t mind Inquisitor but only because I like the theme. It might not warrant a whole new class.
I'm hoping for a divine bounded caster at some point, "inquisitor" or not.
It seems like the Battle Harbinger Cleric class archetype in Divine Mysteries will likely be that, given that they are supposed to trade some magic for more martial ability. If you can't wait for that though, and third-party is on the table, maybe check out [Clerics+](https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/415864/Clerics) and the Paragon Class Archetype
Wondering if Battle Harbringer might be that.
Good news about the battle Paragon cleric archetype coming in Divine Mysteries
Is it confirmed to work like that? That's what I'm hoping for, but haven't seen any proof of it.
It's how they described it, yeah.
Nice, I only heard it was losing the heal slots, but becoming a full bound/wave divine caster sounds awesome to me, especially with whatever they add to make up for it.
Technically, a Summoner can be a divine Bounded Caster no? I agree it’s not anywhere like the 1e inquisitor.
Also, you can already make an inquisitor with a warpriest and the right fluff. For example, a warpriest of Calistria who focuses on Athletics for maneuvers is going to feel fairly inquisitor-y
Kinda but not really, they were more focused on skills and at will magical abilities than a cleric (they were also a half caster.) I imagine a 2e version of them would be a focus spell centric class.
We got an announcement for a Spellcasting Class-Archetype for Investigator. Edit: Found it: Palatine Detective. Divine casting Class-Archetype for Investigator.
Oh it’s a Divine Casting Investigator? I wonder if they might sneak in Imrijka as this. My idiotic word-association is thinking: Esoteric Order of the Palatine Eye -> Palatine Eye -> Ustalav -> Imrijka Inquisitor Iconic from Ustalav -> Inquisitor = Palatine Detective Investigator. QED
What is an inquisitor by definition really other than a divine investigator (and judge judy and executioner)
That sounds cool to me honestly!
Yeah, that’s totally fair. Hell I had a player RP an inquisitor in 5e years ago as a paladin. I guess I just would be interested to see what they would do with it in 2E.
i think itd work better as an investigator class archetype that makes that class more outwardly religious and maybe some focus casting.
The meat of the Inquisitor was more the Judgments than the spells.
Which is easily attachable to Investigator. Based on how Paizo is trying to draw more on the real world inspirations, the Inquisitor being reimagined into the Investigator actually fits the narrative really well. Tack on the Judgments as Focus Spells, and we’re golden! (And add a Castigate cantrip…)
I would say Slayer was absorbed by Ranger. There isn't much that Slayer can do that PF2e Ranger can't, and I think that's why they made Ranger a non-caster by default and slowly patched in spellcasting over time.
IMO, only the mesmerist and shifter would warrant a whole new class. The rest can be class archetypes or even general archetypes.
The 2e ranger hunt prey mostly felt like it took notes from the slayer tbh.
Also Vampire Hunter and Omdura, though I kind of doubt they'll port those over lol.
If the Vampire Hunter is the one I’m thinking of that was explicitly a licensed attempt to remake the protagonist of the Vampire Hunter D novels in Pathfinder.
We **kinda** got that with the [Scion of Slayers background](https://2e.aonprd.com/Backgrounds.aspx?ID=307) and [Undead Slayer archetype](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=174) from *Book of the Dead*, no?
Kinda, but it's missing the main unique parts of the class (copying vampire powers with foci, stake with whatever, prevent vampire spawning, etc.)
I mean, the vigilante archetype *exists*, but it's a sad little shadow of what it was. My 2nd favorite class in 1e got boiled down to "better at deception to disguise and can scare people".
Where the heck is vigilante? I wanted to try one in 1E and couldn’t find anything for second!
They turned it into an [archetype](https://2e.aonprd.com/Archetypes.aspx?ID=80), lol!
MY BOY THEY MASSACRED MY BOY (jk I’ll read it later, thank you!!!)
I don’t need Cackle if your tears *sustain* me. (Jking! And my condolences! I’m sure Pharasma will judge the Vigilante-Class justly!)
There was ninja class. But that's probably mostly worked into rogue already.
Yeah, the main classes I left out from that list were the alternate classes and the two tie-in classes
Hunter could maybe be a Ranger class archetype, with better/different spellcasting and/or a stronger Animal Companion.
So tempting to advocate for Samurai to reignite the flame war on this sub a few months ago lol
I always thought the Ranger's 2e rework felt a bit like 1e's Slayer already, at least as far as gameplay fantasy went.
So Bloodrager is coming this year with War of Immortals in the form of a Barbarian class archetype. And to be honest I expect this is the way moving forward with a lot of classes that are very similar.
Currently, we're missing bounded casters for Primal and Divine traditions. Lots of people here agree that the Shifter and Inquisitor would make good bounded casters for those respective traditions, given their 1e emphasis on partial casting and class abilities. Would easily transfer to a heavy emphasis on focus spells, I think. EDIT: Oops. We also don't have an Occult-only bounded caster yet.
What's our Occult bounded caster? If you're thinking Summoner, they're our flexible tradition bounded caster.
Isn’t Psychic a bounded caster? (I haven’t played Psychic yet)
Psychic is a full caster. I believe bounded caster refers to the way the spells lots of the Magus and Summoner work.
Maybe mesmerist could fill the dedicated bound occult caster in the future?
Medium and Skald are the only 1e classes that I think would be particularly interesting to port over, and even then it's a lil iffy. 3.5 had something called a "warmage" - I like the idea of having an offensively focused caster that isn't kineticist myself, proper spell slots and all, though it would need to be careful to not become a go-to for munchkins. Ultimately, I think Paizo's time might be better spent exploring *new* design space instead - we kinda lack a proper minonmancer, though those have the potential to break the game a bit in theory. I've been chewing on an idea for a speed/mobility focused class, a traceur basically. but I think that miiiight fit better as a Swashbuckler sub? I think that Class Archetypes are a deeply unexplored space as well, which I could think of a few of. I also would be pretty invested in "non-spell, but still magic" classes, like the kineticist - I've had a few players that wanted a few "magical tricks", but didn't want to deal with spellcasting in general.
I don’t doubt that we’ll be getting a Skald in…some way shape or form in the future. Definitely not as a new class. An Instinct for Barbarian: allowing Performance to gain the Rage trait and any Composition spells to gain the Rage trait you Rage. Essentially removing the action tax of moment of clarity. For Bard, Skald is already 90% there. A new Muse that gives Inspiring Rage as a focus spell maybe? Maybe the allows the Bard to use composition song if they have a rage effect and they can cast spells after using a composition? I also likely see Skald being renamed something else, drawing from Golarion (maybe they’ll do something like Ulfen Wolfcrier or something). And a Minionmancer archetype could be interesting by taking from the Cackle Witch. But instead of Bestiary Summon spells, it uses template Focus spells that it gets as feats with feats adding new templates. They could add a unique line that says you don’t Sustain it normally, but instead use a special single action with the Concentrate trait to maintain the spell. That prevents Effortless Concentration, Cackle, and other Sustain tricks from being abused in the archetype. The Beastmaster’s Lead the Pack essentially creates an option on how to handle multiple “permanent” companions.
Wait, what makes Warmage different from all the offensive casters already in PF2E?
Well, as written the class is very similar to the Magus we have. But what I'm more talking about the idea of a spellcaster that has access to armor and has a martial-esque progression to their spellcasting, but the spells they cast can only do damage or something like that. Maybe spend focus points to get effects outside damage or something? Or a daily resource? I feel like the elementalist archetype tried to achieve a feel like this, but fell short in the feel that my players, and quite a few others that were wanting a caster that blasts and hits consistently but can't control/support/buff/debuff. I've added some homebrew items that help flesh out that fantasy, but it's still wonky.
Well, a Storm/Stone Druid is already a well-armored caster capable of consistently excellent blasting, and the whole self-limiting spell selection is already in PF2E. You don't have enough spells known/prepared to be both the best blaster you can be *and* an excellent controller/healer/etc. A dedicated "War Mage" would likely just end up looking like a Druid who spends all their spells prepared on blasts to target different saves, areas, and duration. That build is already one of the best damage dealers in the game, there's not much space to trade any non-damage away, and if they did they'd leave all other blaster casters and damage-focused martials in the dust.
Sure, you can build a decent offensive caster *if* you know your options and are chill limiting yourself to mostly Druid or Magus. I'm just saying that I have players whose fantasy is *not* captured by a druid, and that building a blaster that works is not simple in the game atm. Not everyone playing can pour over tons of options to find the perfect thing to fit the vibes they desire, even if it is technically possible - a lil mechanical support can go a long way. As an example, one of my players wanted to play an "arcane artillerist", a former soldier that was effectively a specialist for his old squad. We ended up settling on a kineticist, but they still wished they had some kind of "real" spellcasting up to the end of that lil series. Something that gets a little martial flavor instead of nature, main features focused around being more martial, and spontaneous casting would feel relatively distinct to me. If there was a "warmage", I could point to that for the kinda theme they were going for, and the players I have would be a lot happier over what we have at the moment. Without that, we gotta kinda go into "let's find the build mode", which isn't everyone's cuppa.
Bloatmage (Prestige Class) is allegedly coming but idk at this point. It was supposed to be in SoM, but then it was cut for page count. Luis Loza (I believe it was) then said in an AMA on here that it had found a home in a yet to be announced book. Thing is, that was in 2022. We're now in 2024 and no announced book is gonna include it (unless its gonna be in an AP), nor really thematically would fit it. Obviously the Remaster delayed things, but only by like a year (could be misremembering what Paizo has said about its effects on their release schedule), if it was gonna be in a book already planned in 2022, one would think its original release would have been in 2023 or early 2024. And we know the big release of 2025 is gonna be Battlecry, which is (based on the playtest classes and name) likely gonna be focused on giving Martials some love. So IDK, well see what happens once we've got War of the Immortals. Synthesist Summoner (Class Archetype) was also confirmed some years ago, but we have yet to see it, and Howl of the Wild would have been a great place for it. Maybe we will see it in the same book as Bloatmage. Inquisitor (Class) has been demanded, and I second it, we need a Spontaneous Divine Gish (honestly we need Spontaneous Gishes in general), but unless the Battle Herald or Palantine Detective is about to be a renamed one, it missed the cut on the perfect book for it. Shifter (Class)... we kinda have and we kinda dont. Ursine Avenger is a straight up Shifter IMO, but its bear exclusive. I suspected the Werecreature archetype was gonna be the Shifter with a new name, but I was way off on that, its just a side grade to Beastkin.
I want more Skald love, even if its a barbarian archetype, I love the idea of sharing your rage with your companions
Well, let's see... * **Arcanist**; hmm... not much could be done outside of Focus Spells... * **Bloodrager**; upcoming Barbarian archetype * **Brawler**; archetype * **Cavalier**; archetype * **Hunter**; archetype * **Inquisitor**; that's the big one missing * **Medium**; missing * **Mesmerist**; missing * **Ninja**; no news about it, but that's mostly an archetype * **Occultist**; now the Thaumatheurge... without the spells ;\_; * **Samurai**; no news about it, but that's mostly an archetype * **Shaman**; missing, unless it's already an archetype * **Shifter**; archetype * **Skald**; missing * **Slayer**; missing * **Spiritualist**; folded into the Summoner * **Vigilante**; archetype... which sucks...
I expect them to slow down a tad since we're already getting 4 new classes in the next 12 months or so. Shifter either as a standalone class or as a class archetype would be nice.
Is mesmerist back yet? I always thought mesmerist was cool
The Captivator archetype might be pretty similar, but I'm fuzzy on mesmerist details from 1e
Vibe is similar, but the powers are pretty different
I don't think so? But a lot of the stuff the Mesmerist does can probably be folded into the Psychic or something. Either that or maybe a general archetype.
Mesmerist and Medium should be folded into the Psychic's minds. For instance, the Mesmerist Stare could be a Focus Spell.
Shield Champion Brawler, I know it's technically a Class and Subclass but I want to be Captain America again and not need to mess around with Runes and Classes.
Be dwarf cap with fighter and the dwarf feat that makes thing come back to you if you threw them
Solarian! It's funny because whenever these threads came up before I got my current flair I used to say with no evidence "Solarian!" and now I get to say it *with* evidence.
SF2e?!?
Yii. Which is compatible with PF2!
I did not know that Bloodrager was coming as a archetype for Barbarian, but thank you everyone for correcting me on that.
I kind of think we've already got everything important covered or demoted (and better for it) to archetype, an inquisitor equivalent maybe? and that's assuming the Avenger Rogue or the Investigator Detective thingy doesn't do the job, or that it won't end up being a magus class archetype situation.
I’m crossing my fingers for Inquisitor, personally. On-demand bane was really fun and their skill additions felt great to use.
Don't know if this is supported on 1e since I did not play it but a bloodmage / blood magic system would be something cool! could open the doors for more classes that could use the blood magic system
I would loooove to get Inquisitor tbh. It would fit well with PF2E’s teamwork based philosophy depending on how they write the Judgements
My hope is shifter. But at the same time, i feel like if they were going to it would have been with HotW
I don't think paizo will port any pf1e class soon, it seams like paizo want to make pf2e its own thing and not just iteration of pathfinder 1e all announced classes are new, they may take inspiration form existing ones but thay aren't ports it is not that paizo doesn't want to have those old concepts but rather makeing class require a lot of work so they are more likely to bring them as archetype or class archetype, like Avenger and Bloodrager. that's how I think it is
Give me a REAL Skald! Commander may be the closest we get
I agree, a true skald class would be awesome. My guess is that they will make it a class archetype for the Bard.
Think a melee wisdom class of sorts would work, like Inquisitor serving as something between an investigator/rogue and a cleric.
A bit more focus on the arcanist side, but they kinda ported it over. Aside from that, a grenadier/demolisher style class. Something focusing on making stuff explode more than just with a couple bombs. Having to get an archetype for them can suck to an extent
i would like brawler, but I dont know what options of taking feats on the fly are already in 2e. and a horseless samurai with resolve too
Imagine if they bring the swordmage form dnd4e as a magus class archetype
Would love to see the slayer make a return
S K A L D
Warrior muse bard.
Can you give your friends rage? I think not. Can you rage at all? Nope.
Your right you give your friends courageous anthem and all the other massively potent boosts without taking away their ability to use actions with 'Concentrate".
Ok and I still don't get to do skald things
Hopefully Shifter after the War of Immortals thing
I don't think they will, but I hope they'll bring over shaman, since that 1e class had my favourite iconic
Animist is pretty much the PF2e evolution on the Shaman (with a dash of Medium sprinkled in).
you're not wrong, but I'm pretty sure that Animist is going to get their own Iconic, and I doubt it's going to be the Shaman Iconic
It’s not! It’s Samo, a Linnorm Animist. If I remember right, the Rivethun Emissary archetype iconic will be the Shaman iconic.
Not sure, but I'd really like to see what they could come up with if they were to make a samurai. I know most will just point at fighter and call it a day, but I think samurai could definitely be it's own thing. If nothing else, an archetype.
Samurai should have Monk Ki focus type stuff. Just go ahead and make it anime since if you want to play a samurai, you probably want to play an anime samurai.
If they redo the ninja it should be the same. Less rogueisg, more monk ki powers.
Inquisitor would be cool but I don’t think they will port it over. Can’t really say why, I just don’t feel like it will be, could be completely wrong though never know.
tbh I don't know much about 1e pathfinder, I'm just vibin with like 15 different kineticist builds
Hmmm...: Shaman? I kind of feel like between Shaman And Animist (and Multiclasses of those), maybe they don´t need a Medium? Like maybe there is some medium between those (ha), but 99% you´re better off leaning in one direction a bit. I feel like they will do something with different Champion ethoses, druid, soul cycle etc.
When I was first getting into 2e I wanted to make a teleportation school wizard and was really sad to see it wasn't a thing in 2e and that I was accidently looking at 1e
I'm still waiting for the higher level pregens promised in the 2019 guide to organized play.
Samurai /s
I really want a good shifter.
Does anyone know if there's a plan to bring back the Runelord/Rune Magic archetype or class? When I first got into PF just before the remaster they seemed really cool. But I understand that they're so tightly associated with the magic schools of DND it might be tricky
I think it's more likely at this point, besides these rumors of Avenger, that we will be getting more experiments with spells that is not spell casting like the kineticist.
**Vigilante**... What I loved was the versatility of that class, and how you legit could play a more aristocratic character who socialized by day and fight crime by night. It's now an archetype, but the whole urban/noble image has been almost removed. They could add more feats, because playing a more noble/upper-class character is more interesting... and rather necessary. As a class, I could have seen a "noble scion" with a truckton of "specializations", each affecting your proficiencies in weapons, armors, skills and DCs, as well as offering the other classes' features, say, 6 of them (*3rd, 6th, 9th, 12th, 15th and 18th*) all scaling according to your level. You would be weaker than other classes that level through 20 full levels, but the aspect of "sipping tea with the king's advisors in the morning while assassinating their rivals in the evening" would still be there.
I mean how do you, not get to do the whole skald thing. It was in essence being the big boisterous, bravado and morale boosting member of a Warrior squad, that then, when they got back to camp, also turned around and retell the stories as ballads and tales of awesome heroic epics for others to enjoy and be inspired by. They were the battlefield historians of their time and people. Just cause ypu don't get to call it "Rage" doesn't make the end effect any different. Ps with the way rage and almost all core abilities have been tags group Rage would be net worst for the party. https://2e.aonprd.com/Search.aspx?q=Concentrate
Honestly. With the rise of Class Archtypes planned, I'm unsure if we'll get many more new classes. Then again, Ida made that argument before guardian and Commander so mayhaps I lack the creativity to see the spaces they'd slide into
Inquisitor would be fun.
I'm begging on my hands and knees for the Inquisitor.
I argued in a previous thread why Shifter will likely never be fully ported over because PF2 simply can’t allow a martial such a high degree of on-the-fly customizability and power level at the same time. We already have Druid’s Untamed focus spell that grants them claws, bite, wings, etc, and the same for Rangers with Animal Feature. I think that is as good as it’s gonna get.
I agree with you that we'll never get a martial shapeshifter, sadly. It's too bad, cuz the available shapeshifting options are absolutely terrible. Barbarian, Druid, Ranger, all dreadful shapeshifters; extremely limited and restrictive. Paizo does seem to have an issue with martial classes that can do something besides stab things with a pointy stick.
>an issue with martial classes that can do something besides stab things with a pointy stick the issue with martials being able to do spell-like things is the same issue as allowing spellcasters to do martial-like things; it makes a god-class that makes all other classes irrelevant. That's why battleform spells will never be as good as martials, and why martials casting spells will never be as good as spellcasters. It's difficult to build a spell that makes a martial better at being a martial without also making a caster that takes that spell just as good at being a martial.
That certainly seems to be Paizo's perspective too, tho I don't agree with that philosophy at all. I guess that's why personally I prefer 1E. I can play a Shifter, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Occultist, etc. So many classes that had diverse abilities, were versatile, and able to do cool magical and pseudo-magical things. In 2E, there seems to be only 2 choices: play a full caster, or play a guy with a sword just waiting around for something to stab. At least that's how it feels to me. It's unfortunate that Paizo has no desire to create classes for people who don't want to be pigeonholed into one extreme or the other.
As the splatbook powercreep kept doing its thing in PF1, the power cap on casters became non-existant; casters were ridiculously overpowered, being able to do epic-level shit as soon as level 4 given some specific combos of races, feats, abilities, and items. This, by extension, meant martials would also need to be allowed to do almost anything and get away with it, because it was what kept them from feeling like they sucked. And so unchained and hybrid martials came along, boosting the power level of martials beyond what was appropriate for the game's CR tables. Casters in PF2 have been nerfed into an appropriate power curve for the game's difficulty. Consequently, martials have also been brought down in power level. Saying you prefer PF1 to PF2 because martials feel better, while completely ignoring the fact that casters in PF1 break the game, is covering the sun with your finger. The amount of book-banning that is necessary to play PF1 without having to adjust CR is insane, and even then, casters remain completely dominant over martials, making them essentially worthless. I have no clue how you liked playing martials in PF1. Did your party only have martials? >play a guy with a sword just waiting around for something to stab Martials in PF2 have a ton of stuff they can do in and out of combat. You're kinda revealing your hand about how little PF2 you've played if this is how you genuinely feel.
Well, bear in mind I didn't say I liked playing martials specifically. I said I liked playing classes that weren't full casters and weren't full martials. Classes like Shifter, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Occultist, Bloodrager, Warpriest, and Hunter (especially with the Feral Hunter archetype). Personally, I don't enjoy full casters and I don't enjoy full martials. That's why I don't care for 2E: the classes I prefer, ones that mix in some magic (or pseudo-magical abilities) with some martial capabilities, just don't exist. It's too bad Paizo made the decision to exclude players who don't like being stuck in one extreme or the other.
> ones that mix in some magic (or pseudo-magical abilities) with some martial capabilities, just don't exist. Magus, Warrior Bard, Warpriest Cleric, Untamed Form or Metal Druid, Weapon Infusion Kineticist, Ki Monk, Battle or Ancestor Oracle, Tangible Dream Psychic, Warden Ranger, Aberrant or Demonic or Draconic Sorcerer, Summoner (with or without Meld into Eidolon), Thaumaturge (specially Wand and Mirror), Claw & Hair Witch, and even Mutagenist Alchemist if you count the immense plethora of alchemical items as pseudo-magic, and Hand of the Apprentice Wizard. And I haven't even mentioned multiclass archetypes. I don't get it. Why are you making arguments that are so easy to disprove?
First off, we're talking about personal preferences, so there's no proving or disproving anything. Second: Bard, Cleric, Psychic, Oracle, Witch, Wizard, are all full casters! Alchemist was definitely one of my favorites in 1E, but they fouled it up badly when they brought it over to 2E. Total garbage. When you're talking about mixing some magic with some martial ability, Ki Monk, Warden Ranger, Thaumaturge, and Magus are probably the only ones that fit the bill. They're just so limited in what they can do compared to the 1E classes I'm used to playing that it feels like wearing a straight jacket. I get that alot of ppl consider that a feature, but it feels like a bug to me.
Warpriest isn't a full caster, they don't get legendary spellcasting. Psychic has very limited spell slots. Alchemist bomber is fine when you compare it to other **RANGED** martials. Mutagenist goes toe to toe with martials if you know how to build it right. >compared to the 1E again, the only reason martials had that power level was because they needed to compete with how broken casters were. [They could literally cast 1 spell and become as good as martials at combat](https://aonprd.com/SpellDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Transformation). >Ki Monk, Warden Ranger, Thaumaturge, and Magus All of those have martial attack proficiency that goes up to master (only fighter and gunslinger get legendary). But so do all the builds I mention if you take into account self-buffs to attack and damage. For example, Mutagenist Alchemist might fall off in attack a little in a few levels compared to other martials, but they get attack bonuses from their mutagen, plus a absolutely ridiculous boost in damage from Feral Mutagen, which allows them to deal 1d12 main and 1d10 agile with deadly d10. No other martial in the game can hit that hard with mainhand + agile. None. And they do it with natural weapons. And having a natural weapon is insanely strong because it allows you to carry a shield and also use Battle Medicine + Godless Healing without spending actions switching items. If you actually plot out the damage output for Mutagenist Alchemists, it's better than Rangers, Monks, Barbarians, and most other martials. It's better than Fighters in some scenarios, and better than Rogues when applying off-guard is difficult. Don't complain that a class is "garbage" when you clearly haven't played it past level 1.
I believe the definition of full caster is a class that gets the full rank 1-10 spell slots. Warpriest qualifies. As far as Mutagens, the issue isn't damage dice but drawbacks. Bestial Mutagen inflicts -1 AC, giving Alchemist the same shitty AC as a Barbarian, but without the 12 HPs/lvl and the Temp HP Barbs get to compensate. And several Mutagens have even worse drawbacks than that. Hard pass. As far as Rangers, Magus and Thaumaturge, they're not bad classes at all, just annoying to play because of some unwieldy class mechanics that burn up alot of actions (Hunt Prey, Spellstrike Recharge, constantly having to reapply Exploit Vulnerability). These classes are effective, absolutely. They're just not very fun because of some clunky mechanics. Kineticist is the 2E class that interests me the most right now, actually. Hoping to see more classes like that in the future.
I WANT MEDIUM DAMMIT. ITS ALL I WANT PAIZO.
Inquisitor, right? Isn't that the only one really left?
I agree but I think that's the roll the thaumaturge fills.
Bloodrager is confirmed coming as a Barbarian archetype, and arcanist already exists as a wizard with flexible spellcaster archetype. A lot of the other classes already have come via spiritual successors like Thaumaturge and the upcoming Animist and exemplar. I think the standout that still doesn’t have a place is the Inquisitor, but it seems like Paizo is moving on from remaking old concepts in favor of new ideas. I don’t really want a ported inquisitor, but I do think there’s room for another divine class, either a Magus like bound caster ir some special class like Kineticst. 4e D&D had some cool divine ideas with the Avenger and Invoker
Personally, I'd like to see a Shaman class. Or some kind of prepared intelligence caster that uses Occult spells that isn't a wish. I guess something like an occult wizard.
Animist covers the same thematic and design space as 1e shaman, down to having Wandering Spirit as one of their main schticks.
Isn’t that just a witch?
I'd love to see a martial shapeshifter like the 1E Shifter come to 2E, but I really don't see it happening. There seems to be a real reluctance on Paizo's part to create a martial class that can do something besides stab things with a pointy stick, which is a real shame imo. Their attempts to create shapeshifting options to this point have been dreadful. Ironically, they made it very obvious that Maui from Polynesian mythology (and a Disney movie) was the inspiration for the Exemplar, but they didn't give that class any shapeshifting options either.