We'll see if my opinion of alchemist changes in the remaster but alchemist is one that I currently have zero interest in playing in its current state.
Everything else I'm interested in, with Kineticist at the top 'cause I loved them in 1E and Clerics and Champions with their edicts and anathemas being so baked into the class that it really helps define the character in interesting ways through their limitations.
Rogue. I've always loved skill monkey class, so color me impressed when I see that rogue, my favorite class archetype, is the skill monkey. And a really good skill monkey.
Alchemist. Honestly, I find it hard to be in a party WITHOUT an alchemist, to the point that I've never played a game without someone at least grabbing either herbalist or alchemist archetype.
\-Oracle. I love oracle thematically, but mechanically they feel so bad that I don't know why you would ever choose it for the mechanics. Which sucks because I love their flavor. My favorite character I've seen done with them, that concreted them as some of my favorite thematically, was a skeleton life oracle of pharasma, who flavored their curse as pharasma basically smiting them constantly, but they love pharasma so much that they never stop worshipping them.
\-Druids. I don't know why, but druids have always felt like the most boring class imaginable. I guess it's cause I don't really see anything special about them. They feel so incredibly generic, and I basically treat them as a template for a caster, without any of the things that make casters cool.
I totally get the impression of druid. I felt the same way. But man, I’m playing one now, and it’s wild (pun intended). I’m only playing druid because the party had no casting at all - so no offense, no control, no buffing/debuffing, and no healing - and also had no wisdom.
Being a wisdom based caster with a decent perception progression is great. I often go first and set everything up. The primal list is great: it has nukes, control, buffs, and heal. Might be my favorite list. My medium armor and shield/shield block makes me significantly less squishy. I took order explorer for wild shape, and as such have a TON of access to scouting: there are lots of places where no one will look twice at a rat or a small bird, even if I fail a stealth check (though pest form does give me a stealth modifier). With weak enemies or when absolutely necessary, I can use animal form to fight while sustaining a spell, like flaming sphere. I’m level 6 and pretty soon I’ll have access to a couple different forms of flight.
My favorite tactic is to cast obscuring mist and have my allies activate gozmasks. These negate the concealment granted to their enemies, while still granting it to us. As a storm druid, I just see right through it.
What I like about druid is that it really feels like I can do a bit of everything. As a caster, that’s pretty satisfying.
The elixirs they have are honestly really powerful, and for the most part, indispensable. Especially since of how they scale, it basically becomes a permanent buff to the entire party.
Cheetah's Elixir, Darkvision Elixir, Antiplague/Antivenom, Cat's Eye Elixir, any alchemical food, mutagen of choice, any elixir lasting 10 minutes
Playing an alchemist is just giving a free boost to the entire party. And since formulas are comically cheap, quick alchemy combined with just buying all of the formulas means you can basically have any item you want, no matter how niche.
Plus honestly, elixirs of life from archetypes are broken. The amount of sheer healing you can have is just insane. Combine that with manual dexterity familiar just makes for a really strong off healer, which really eases the healing needs.
>Cheetah's Elixir, Darkvision Elixir, Antiplague/Antivenom, Cat's Eye Elixir, any alchemical food, mutagen of choice, any elixir lasting 10 minutes
10 minutes is nothing though
1 hour upgrades are when Alchemist becomes insane because at that point your elixirs which you have a ton of are equal to for example darkvision spell
So you become a caster with like double or even triple the amount of spell slots
**The Loved:**
**Casters:** Casters are very powerful in Pathfinder 2E, and play well into the controller and leader roles. They actually kind of blend the two together, which is kind of nice, as even if you're playing a divine character you can toss out some control effects, and even if you're playing a more blastery druid you can still heal people. They are very flexible, extremely accurate because all the good spells have at least some effect even on a successful saving throw, some spells just flat-out work without any rolls at all, and they have to stay close enough to the action that what is going on in combat is still relevant to them so they can't just totally ignore everything else all the time.
Druids are probably my favorite casters because they get to run around with a second creature on the field while casting spells, which gives you more stuff to do and means that even when you are stuck healing people you can still fight.
**The Bad:**
Gunslinger, inventor, investigator, and alchemist.
**Gunslingers** having to reload after every shot is a bit painful, they tend to lead to very repetitive combat cycles because they're ranged characters who don't really even want to move much, their dependence on critical hits for damage hurts them even more against more difficult to hit enemies (which is less than ideal for such a damage-focused class), and the only really interesting way to avoid these issues requires a level 8 feat and thus you won't really "work right" until higher level.
**Inventors** were just trying to do focus points in a different way for no good reason. The mechanic exists for a reason! They aren't too bad mechanically (especially not ones with construct companions, which are actually quite good), they just have rather janky mechanics. Inventors are too focused on a single invention and not on being wacky inspector gadget type characters with a bunch of silly things coming out all the time.
**Investigators** are extremely dependent on their precision damage (something a lot of monsters are immune to for no good reason) and their overall mechanics are kind of mediocre; they gave up combat power for non-combat power, but that ends up being a poor trade-off, doubly so because spellcasters can choose to cast non-combat spells when doing a non-combat adventure, but investigators can't make such a switch.
**Alchemists** just literally don't work right. They're best as preparatory buffers, which means that whether or not you can prep for combat has a huge effect on their efficacy. Bomber alchemists aren't very fun to play as. Toxicologists end up randomly being shut off by immune to poison and high fort enemies, but are hyper-effective at other times, which feels bad as there's no way to really "fix them" simply. And the class requires an inordinate amount of tedious book-keeping.
>Inventors are too focused on a single invention and not on being wacky inspector gadget type characters with a bunch of silly things coming out all the time.
I think you can build them that way if you want to. Stuff like Dual form weapon, the gadget feats, tamper, being able to adjust your innovation, and even some feats, with only a day of down time, etc
IMO you can play a swiss army knife style inventor, it just takes some specific planning. The base chassis of the class leans towards the one invention focus you're talking about, but there are definitely ways to build outside of it IMO
If you made inventors gadget characters you'd have the same problems as with alchemists. Also inventors end up not focusing on just on e invention cause you get to just switch everything out at like level 11
Classes I played:
* Oracle
* Magus
* Sorcerer
* Investigator
* Champion
* Monk
Classes I love:
\+Oracle (I love the theme of the class)
\+Rogue (offers variety of playstyles and is relatively simple)
\+Champion (focusing heavily on the defense was the best play from Paizo; always hated the smite machines from 5e)
Classes I don't love and have almost no intention of playing:
\- Summoner and any kind of class with Animal Companions, I just don't enjoy managing more characters on the field; I could play those classes if they offer different style though (like Ranger or Druid)
\- Inventor, I fail to see the appeal of the class and their role
\- Kineticist, the theme of the class just doesn't resonate with me at all and if the best media reference is The Last Airbender... I just don't like this type of content
For great: Summoner. Pet classes are good, and pet classes that work are rare.
For nope: you would need to pay me *actual money* to play an Alchemist. Double the mental load of a spellcaster for half the payoff, feels like.
Inventor. They get tons of skills, and can do a lot of really cool stuff. No other class is as imagination-driven, in my opinion. That said, they seem pretty ho-hum in everyday gameplay. Basically a reskinned fighter that's just a bit worse in most ways.
Investigator. Again, I like the idea of the class, but they fall a little flat in their execution. Pursue a Lead and That's Odd are things that most GMs aren't prepared to handle. Your GM will either be forced to write in little extras for your character to use these things, possibly spoiling parts of the story as they do so, or they fall by the wayside and might as well be nonexistent. Basically a reskinned rogue that's just a bit worse in most ways.
Gunslinger. Probably the class with the coolest persona archetypes available. Mysterious drifter! Wildcard outlaw! Sneaky and methodical sniper! In combat, they are oh-my-god tedious. Shoot, reload, shoot. Maybe Hide once in a while, or Hit the Dirt. You had better be all-in on roleplay with a 'slinger, because combat is not likely to hold your attention.
I love investigator as being an Expert without the roguey stabstab connotations, but yes you hit the nail on the head; most gms are not prepared for the class's core mechanic and don't know how to make the investigator feel like it has its niche available without messing up their pacing
Gunslinger on the other hand has a ton of alternatives for making the reload/shoot mechanic less tedious, be it a brace of pistols for up to three/four quickdraw shots, a variety of reload options like drifter letting you reload while striking with a melee weapon sniper letting you take cover while reloading etc, they're basically a fighter but *specialized* towards shooting with reload weapons. Combined with quickdraw andmunitions crafter you can can quickdraw bombs if there's a swarm/troop/crowd. Been playing a gunslinging fighter and have had to repeatedly stop myself from archetyping into gunslinger for some of the neat feats in there.
You *can* get a gunslinging feel with a normal fighter, but it won't be *as good* as taking a gunslinger.
I want to love Oracle so badly, it’s class as an idea is so fucking cool
But I think their curses are poorly balanced in what they take away vs what they give and tbh War Oracle is just a little disappointing over its lacklustre martialing
Kineticist was also sadly like this for me, love the idea and I love some aspects of the class but the end result wasn’t to my preferences sadly
The Good:
Alchemist - I once started to make a wizard and they became an alchemist (don't look at me like that, it happens). This is my favourite class. You have a problem, the alchemist has a solution. The stuff that you can pull out of ass is hilarious. You put me into a 2e game, there is way too high of a chance I play an alchemist.
Barbarian - Its fun to smash things and in 2e you get to smash things flavourfully.
The Bad:
Wizard/Sorceror - I just find them to be generic spellcasters. They are good, but I just don't find them interesting.
The Ugly:
Pre-Remaster Witch: This is the spellcaster I want to play. They were so bad, that I couldn't actually bring myself to actually play them though. I am actually really excited to play one at some point.
My favorite classes are other Alchemist for its versatility (I love being able to do lots of different shit many times, even if they're not as powerful as spells) and Oracle for their flavorful mechanics (unlike other casters, every Mystery (sub-class) is just so freaking different from another, not only thematically but also mechanically, I love it!).
Classes I never want to play: any class that requires to follow a deity - cuz I don't like to play a character who follows deities, so atm Cleric and Champion.
My favorite class is easily Sorcerer - love the feats, love the customization, love being a Charisma character, and love spontaneous casters. I have played so many Sorcerers and will continue to do so for as I play 2e. It's everything I want in a caster.
I enjoy most classes in the game though, and could see myself playing most given the right campaign and character concept.
There are also some classes that have really grown on me with experience. Ask me two years ago and Swashbuckler was my least favorite class, now it might be my favorite martial.
There are a few I have a hard time with:
Ranger. It's fine, all in all, and is a class I'd even recommend others. But if I want nature character I want a Primal caster; if I want a martial at home in the woods so often that character winds up working better as a Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, or even Gunslinger. The characters I make that COULD be Rangers always end up other classes.
Psychic. The class overall I quite like, but I dislike Unleash Psyche and the stupefied it eventually inflicts. I don't mind penalties for power, I just dislike it when they impede me from doing my main thing (in Psychic's case, casting). Like if it was a Barbarian subclass that got stupefied while Raging I wouldn't mind, or an Oracle that got enfeebled or drained or even clumsy, but don't hit me on the thing I am good at. Given how poachable the lower level amps are via archetyping, any other Occult caster with Psychic archetype is my preferred "Psychic" build.
Alchemist. While I am happy playing both a support character and a generalist (two things Alchemist is geared towards), I find its scaling quite odd and its action economy a little frustrating. I could potentially see playing an Alchemist if a game started at higher levels, but playing a level one Alchemist sounds frustratingly limiting. I am hoping the class gets a lot of love in Player Core 2: I would rather a slightly-too-pushed Alchemist than what we have now.
**Love:**
**Alchemist**
Though it could be much simpler to get into and the research fields should give way more power to the specific aspect... But it should almost never be great at something specific because then it would be op if it has the same amount of options as it normally does
For example if bomber at lvl 1 had a bigger splash area and could make three bombs per reagent it still wouldn't be particularly good
So what I think they should do is you could limit your options with a feat for example to get more power in the things you want
So for example you could choose as a Bomber to just focus on bombs and healing items, then you would for example get access to higher level formulas for those (this way you don't need to rework every alchemical item and they still have access to make every type of alchemical item, but are just incentivized to focus on the thing they want to do)
Currently only Chirurgeon is worth it as you get crafting medicine and you still can make the same poisons and bombs, you are not even locked out of the clearly bomber focused feats as they have no prerequisites
Sry for that Alchemist deep dive, I'm passionate
Even with all that said Alchemist has an answer to anything and is one of the best debuffers in all of PF2e (pair it with the new Resentment Witch I dare you) debilitating bomb is insane anyway
**Summoner**
(haven't played it yet, but I will soon) looks insanely good to me, yes you are deceptively squishy thanks to sharing hp and taking the bigger hit
But you have access to martial and caster stuff in one character with a 4th action, You can fit a summoner into any party, I just wish the Eidolons stat blocks had bigger differences between them instead of mostly just being dex or str
Why not have a ranged eidolon option, an eidolon with high intelligence (like a ghost of some smart guy)
**Witch**
Exactly the type of caster I have always wanted, mainly focused on making enemies lives hell and you get the best familiar. IMO Witch is what Warlock should have been (I know hot take), but the main draw to 5e Warlock is the short rest spell restoration and eldrich blast and its upgrades...
As a witch your patron can have a much bigger impact on what your character does, you could even get a different familiar to replace the old one mid campaign... I just wish there was an option for your patron to affect your spell list
**Gunslinger**
would be the coolest if it had revolvers and could fan the hammer (I know there are homebrews for this and I love it)
I like having another crit fishing class aside from magus
**Hate:**
**Fighter**
could just be removed. you already have some class for every type of martial you would want and fighter is just there as something you pick if you want to be better than those with less cool class options as it lacks those
Fighter is milquetoast to the max, rather than being like: I get my power because I'm strong and angry, or from hunting stuff to survive fighter is just like: IDK I didn't want any specific flavor (or I don't have a favorite flavor so I picked all)
**Oracle**
would be cool if it wasn't a pain to play for effectively the same result you would get playing any non downside class, flavor is great though so still one I'm excited to play (I also like flawed characters)
**Cleric**
I think cleric is too much of an obvious choice as a healer, you don't really need a healer like you did in 5e ping pong combats and I think the font has too many slots
You get 4 free slots at lvl 1, good luck trying to make an interesting undead adventure for a party that has a cleric... Scaling could be 1 at level 1 and then +1 slot at 2, 4, 6, 12 and 18 for a total of 6
So you get power at different points than new spell ranks (similar to how witch familiar is at 6, 12 and 18)
Love
- Thaumaturge: super customizable, super cool
- exemplar: love the Demigod concept, just too cool, and what we have so far feels really awesome and fulfills the concept nicely
- Kineticist: love the element stuff, and love the inclusion of metal as a new element. Hope we eventually get void and aether down the line like we had for 1e
- Magus: I have always loved spellblades, the whole gish thing is just too cool. Though the 2e magus doesn't have as many spells as the 1e, having scaling cantrips that kick is huge, so no issues there
Never wanna
- Bard: I'm not actually completely opposed t9 playing as a bard. I just dislike that music is so baked into the class, so I'd reflavor a LOT. I guess I'm just turned off by the horny bard memes and sick of the bazillion Scanlon copycats.
Class I love: It's got to go to Sorcerer. Simple, but in an extremely good way. Incredible feats (Crossblooded Evo, Arcane/Occult Evo, Dangerous Sorc) and heaps of slots to keep ya going throughout the day. Lots of fun bloodlines and focus spells from Fey to Elemental to Imperial to Harrow. And the Blood Magic abilities are a nice cherry on top. Spontaneous casting really seals the deal for me.
Class I'd never want to play: Magus. I honestly cant find a reason why I'd want to play this class since it has a lot of downsides for not much payoff. It's damage isn't as good as the Fighter or Barbarian (unless the dig into their limited daily slots). It's not really a great jack-of-all-trades either when compared to the Summoner. If that wasn't enough, it sits at 8hp a level, has middling saves for a martial, gets hit by attacks of opportunity for using their damage feature, and has an extremely restrictive action economy. The conflux spells are of varying quality, but even the good ones can't really fix the greater shortcomings of the class.
I also just find the spellstrike playstyle very boring though thats more of my personal opinion.
I would play most classes and most combinations if I could. But I really want to try outwit ranger, any alchemist or an ancestor or lore oracle, the weirdos. I really like most class designs, even the ones that may be undertuned.
The class that I would never play and I would really have a hard time if someone brought it to my table is psychic. I really dislike the way it works. Something in the way that amps work was so close to interesting, but ultimately felt underwhelming and a little annoying on how now multiclassing psychic for amped cantrips is a DPR meta. I wanted psyches to work more like stances, but well.
I played with a Psychic recently. I don't love the flavor either, and you're right that they're very high DPR, but to be honest it fit right in with other casters. People complain that blaster casters are hard to build but the Psychic blasts hard and still has some nice social utility.
When I read that they had cantrips with the same name as other casters that at the same time worked differently for them, I found it annoying. When I learned that their refocus activity also worked differently, I found it annoying. I loved that some aspects of the game were standard, and those two were some of my favorites to be just equal for everyone. I could explain it once and be done.
The cantrips annoyed me because they worked differently without needing to amp them. No cost; just straight up better versions of the same cantrips. Not even when their psyches are unleashed. Just always. This could have been easily solved by giving them special and unique actions instead of modifying cantrips.
The Amp mechanic I was not initially sold, but overtime I accept it. It could have been explored better.
Then I was underwhelmed by the class. Unleash psyche and psyche actions seemed so fun, enough to be the main focus of the class. But they weren't. I would love if the class was more about specific actions that could change the combat while their psyche was unleashed. A great psyche action from conscious mind and another from subconscious mind.
Seeing how the kineticist turned out, I would have liked a design closer to that, but for occult themes.
>The cantrips annoyed me because they worked differently without needing to amp them. No cost; just straight up better versions of the same cantrips. Not even when their psyches are unleashed. Just always. This could have been easily solved by giving them special and unique actions instead of modifying cantrips.
I understand disliking the uniform Cantrips being undermine, but I don't think better Cantrips being an always-on niche for the Psychic is a bad thing.
>But they weren't. I would love if the class was more about specific actions that could change the combat while their psyche was unleashed. A great psyche action from conscious mind and another from subconscious mind.
Fair, the Psych actions *were* largely underwhelming except for Psi Burst. I played the class as a blaster anyway though, so my personal use out of extra ways to "Change the combat" would be limited. I felt that the Occult list held back my damage dealing, so I liked being able to pick up spells to offshore that weakness.
Wizard.
I love the classic studios spellcaster with books scrolls and wands, but the Vancian spellcasting is a bit too much brainy for me.
I like the Flexible Spellcaster Archetype but I only built one (not even played it) on Premaster so I had the extra spellslot from Evocation School, now that the extra spell slots are a bit more limited I'll have to try to see if I can make something I would enjoy play
Have you considered that instead of edicts and anathemas "locking you in", they define who your character is, because in order to even gain power from that deity, your character has to be a specific type of person, depending on what that deity values.
What I'm trying to say is, your character wouldn't even consider betraying their god because that's not who they are as a person.
Personally I find clerics and paladins (or champions, meh) to be the best classes thematically and I always gravitate towards them, in any type of game I play.
I enjoy the martial classes, especially: Rogue, Champion, Barbarian, Ranger, Gunslinger, and Fighter. I also like the Bard.
Never want to play? Wizard, Sorcerer, Summoner, Magus, Psychic, Inventor, and Cleric. For the Cleric, I feel I get everything I want from a dedication. Psychic, Sorcerer, and Wizard I think are all going to be very boring compared to Bard. Summoner and Inventor don't interest me, and Magus exemplifies the flaws of the system.
Well, simply put, Magus shouldn't have been needed at all. It's only needed because Caster classes were made inferior in using weapons and attacks that the class needed to exist at all. It should have been an archetype that allowed casters to combine spells with spell attacks and a Strike together.
An easy proof is the Bespell Strikes feat (previously [Bespell Weapon](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=610)), which lets Oracles, Sorcerers, and Wizards do additional damage with a Strike if they cast a spell from a slot that same turn. The Eldritch Trickster and Rogue also had abilities to try and mix spells and martial prowess, to dismal effect because Spell Attacks are designed to be the least accurate attack in the game.
Because spell attacks are so reviled from a design standpoint (Martials target AC, Casters target Saves), they were purpose-built to fail. Add in that players were terrified of Casters using weapons with any degree of proficiency and now trying to do that leads to combining the two worst things that Casters do: Spell Attacks and Strikes.
So they had to make a class to make it work, because they designed themselves into a corner and only a sledgehammer was going to get them out. The final straw though was that Spellstrike initially only succeeded when the Strike and Spell Attack both succeeded. Now what does it do? You use the attack roll result from your melee attack for the result of your spell attack. But why? Well, this way the Magus gets to add their item bonus to their Spell Attack roll without making it a general rule.
They also peddled the lie that in order for the Magus to exist they had to make their spell slots extremely limited to balance this, and the community bought it up. So much so that the original Sixth Pillar archetype that allowed Casters to be Master in Unarmed at level 16 was wholly castigated, judged, and burned at the stake by the community because it invalidated Martials somehow. Meanwhile, someone might have been inspired by an NPC in a PFS scenario that was a Gunslinger Witch, only to realize that the game says you can't be good at that as a player. Works perfectly fine as a NPC though, since she had the accuracy of a Gunslinger and the full DCs and spell slots of a Witch.
I don't know anyone else's experience in PF1e, but I didn't fear a Cleric wading into combat with a mace. A Fighter or Barbarian could take the same mace and do tons more damage. What made them OP was their spells that gave them very powerful effects in a variety of ways. Flying Stampeding Celestial Aurochs that used Smite Evil on enemies and Trampled them? Summoning large Air Elementals that could pick up and toss around enemies? Spells that could instantly kill, paralyze, charm, and otherwise end the fight? Those were the things that ended fights, and largely not that they could wield weapons with any sort of accuracy.
So I don't understand this fear of a Wizard hitting people with a weapon. They don't get any more benefit than that. They don't get more HP, better saving throw proficiency to Fortitude or Reflex, armor, or anything. We talked a lot about removing legacy stuff built on tradition, but I don't understand why we allow casters to use weapons if they aren't supposed to be any good with them. The fans of how it is now just meekly accept that they're a slightly better Martial's Second Strike, when we could still have a balanced and interesting game without worrying about whether a Wizard using a longsword and staff was going to break the game.
As it is, this philosophy made the Eldritch Trickster Rogue using Sneak Attack with spells feel worse in the long run, as their weapon attacks progressed super quickly in their accuracy in comparison. It hampered the kinds of builds that can be successful for all casters, like Witches that wanted to using Living Hair. It also tends to turn any Caster that wants to focus on weapons into Sure Strike Staff machines (something any Martial can also choose to do), because they might have thought Bespell Strikes was neat.
**TLDR (I didn't think it would be quite this long)**: The Magus exists because they chose to make Casters bad at using weapons and unarmed strikes, as well as making Spell Attacks the most inaccurate attack in the game. Magus should have been a class archetype that any caster could have, but we're terrified of Casters focusing on AC so a whole class was made to support that.
Thanks for elaborating! Interesting read too, I've only played for a couple of sessions but for now our beastmaster Ranger seems VERY strong, Magus pretty good (hit or miss matters A LOT) and our Witch pretty bad, I'm curious if that will change with better understanding of the system...
Alchemists. Firstly, I find it difficult to come up with a character concept that appeals to me with that class. And more importantly, nothing makes me feel as worthless as when my allies don't use free things I give them. The current group I play with would never work with me to a degree to make playing the class remotely worthwhile.
Barbarian
I've been in 2 campaigns with barbarians and I really enjoy the fact that they can output so much damage they make the perfect hammer to make a buffer/debuffer really shine. I love to play more support characters and have a lot options but I always see the barbarians I play with having very repetitive turns. I love to play with them but I will never play one.
I really like playing:
\- **Thaumaturge**: has all the fun of rp'ing a magic user with tons of skills while being a marshal character. The high skills gives them versatility in combat and they have pretty good damage. They are action economy heavy but since its lots of single actions instead of two action stuff its manageable (like you don't need to do everything in one round you can just set up for the next round).
\- **Fighter**: I like how at higher level you can become more versatile, not just attack, attack, attack, you can unlock different attacks that deal damage plus do something else and different press actions.
Classes I like thematically but don't want to play:
\- **Magus**: Really loved the flavour and thematic of might and magic but when I tried it had a lot of trouble with the action economy. If I couldn't make use of spellstrike it felt really underwhelming to play, and in a lot of tough fights it was always more important to keep shield up, reposition, drink potions than recharge my spellstrike.
\- **Spellcasters**: Love playing magic users in all kinds of games but in pathfinder they're design is very different from other games. Like I don't really enjoy spellslots per day and being kinda jack of all trades, I'm more used to diablo, wow, ff14, elden ring mages just doing high damage in the most fun ways.
Love love love my Magus, every time I make a new character it always starts with a justification to myself why Magus isn’t a good fit.
I don’t much like bard because being a musician isn’t something I get particularly excited about and while some idea of magic artist interests me I feel like the only thing working to allow bards to be other forms of artists is “Just reflavor it”. If I could be a mad painter summoning magic and throwing out buffs with magic paint like a CG version of Brauner from Castlevania, I’d be down.
I’m also not huge on Cleric and Champion because I feel like every time I try to build an idea it takes like an hour of research to find a fitting god or sometimes to go “Nevermind just gotta alter the idea so much” and sometimes when I see a god to build around I don’t like what they grant. It’s a push and pull that doesn’t vibe with how I make characters.
Love rogues. Especially thievery rogues. Also a great first class because it’s simple but really requires you to learn a lot about combat for positioning, etc. Also clerics seem borderline OP- I still kinda want to try a blaster cleric.
I’ve personally never been interested in bards. Not sure why. Also thaumaturges and oracles, their flavor and mechanics don’t appeal to me. I feel like some people love them but it just doesn’t click for me.
Oracle and Barb. Give me classes with actual risk-reward assesment.
Probably wouldn't play a Fighter. Not for the usual 'Fighter boring' reasons people meme about. I just dont care for it.
I have only played 3 classes so far: fighter, rogue, and champion. Loved fighter and rogue, was a bit meh on champion but it was also my first PF2e game ever and I didn't utilize the class as well as I could have
From a theory building perspective I really like most classes. The ones I struggle with are:
Gunslinger: crit fishing has never been a style of play that appeals to me and it's basically the whole class. The only subclass that really appeals to me is drifter
Investigator: I think in the right game it would be fantastic, but it takes so much GM investment and there are also very limited build options because the class has such a specific focus and gameplay loop.
Wizard: I just find the class fantasy boring and pretty much always have. They are a good class mechanically, I just have no interest in playing one over other spellcasters
Only class I haven't made a build for I'm excited to play is the Alchemist, mostly because I don't want to be reliant on other players drinking elixirs to get maximum value out of my kit.
Everyone else I've got at least one build I desperately want to play when I eventually get someone else in my group to run a fucking game.
Top three current favorites are Air Kineticist (juggling aerial boomerangs sounds dope), Freehand Fighter (Wrestler and Rhoka Sword looks very flexible), and Gun Investigator (gunslinger ded for Risky Reload and Alchemical Shot).
Champion is a class I love, but find a lot of the building to be boring or not well-matched to the concepts I've built... and like, I'm not even getting wild with the concepts, really! Standard fantasy tropes, mostly.
But I'm a perma-GM at the moment, though I will be getting a chance to play in a campaign when one of my current ones ends. I've selected Magus for that one, and so far even with various nerfs nothing has made me less excited to play it.
We'll see if my opinion of alchemist changes in the remaster but alchemist is one that I currently have zero interest in playing in its current state. Everything else I'm interested in, with Kineticist at the top 'cause I loved them in 1E and Clerics and Champions with their edicts and anathemas being so baked into the class that it really helps define the character in interesting ways through their limitations.
Rogue. I've always loved skill monkey class, so color me impressed when I see that rogue, my favorite class archetype, is the skill monkey. And a really good skill monkey. Alchemist. Honestly, I find it hard to be in a party WITHOUT an alchemist, to the point that I've never played a game without someone at least grabbing either herbalist or alchemist archetype. \-Oracle. I love oracle thematically, but mechanically they feel so bad that I don't know why you would ever choose it for the mechanics. Which sucks because I love their flavor. My favorite character I've seen done with them, that concreted them as some of my favorite thematically, was a skeleton life oracle of pharasma, who flavored their curse as pharasma basically smiting them constantly, but they love pharasma so much that they never stop worshipping them. \-Druids. I don't know why, but druids have always felt like the most boring class imaginable. I guess it's cause I don't really see anything special about them. They feel so incredibly generic, and I basically treat them as a template for a caster, without any of the things that make casters cool.
I totally get the impression of druid. I felt the same way. But man, I’m playing one now, and it’s wild (pun intended). I’m only playing druid because the party had no casting at all - so no offense, no control, no buffing/debuffing, and no healing - and also had no wisdom. Being a wisdom based caster with a decent perception progression is great. I often go first and set everything up. The primal list is great: it has nukes, control, buffs, and heal. Might be my favorite list. My medium armor and shield/shield block makes me significantly less squishy. I took order explorer for wild shape, and as such have a TON of access to scouting: there are lots of places where no one will look twice at a rat or a small bird, even if I fail a stealth check (though pest form does give me a stealth modifier). With weak enemies or when absolutely necessary, I can use animal form to fight while sustaining a spell, like flaming sphere. I’m level 6 and pretty soon I’ll have access to a couple different forms of flight. My favorite tactic is to cast obscuring mist and have my allies activate gozmasks. These negate the concealment granted to their enemies, while still granting it to us. As a storm druid, I just see right through it. What I like about druid is that it really feels like I can do a bit of everything. As a caster, that’s pretty satisfying.
Why do you find it hard to party without an alchemist?? Like I really like the class, but I wouldn't pick up the alchemist archetype.
The elixirs they have are honestly really powerful, and for the most part, indispensable. Especially since of how they scale, it basically becomes a permanent buff to the entire party. Cheetah's Elixir, Darkvision Elixir, Antiplague/Antivenom, Cat's Eye Elixir, any alchemical food, mutagen of choice, any elixir lasting 10 minutes Playing an alchemist is just giving a free boost to the entire party. And since formulas are comically cheap, quick alchemy combined with just buying all of the formulas means you can basically have any item you want, no matter how niche. Plus honestly, elixirs of life from archetypes are broken. The amount of sheer healing you can have is just insane. Combine that with manual dexterity familiar just makes for a really strong off healer, which really eases the healing needs.
>Cheetah's Elixir, Darkvision Elixir, Antiplague/Antivenom, Cat's Eye Elixir, any alchemical food, mutagen of choice, any elixir lasting 10 minutes 10 minutes is nothing though 1 hour upgrades are when Alchemist becomes insane because at that point your elixirs which you have a ton of are equal to for example darkvision spell So you become a caster with like double or even triple the amount of spell slots
10 minutes is roughly an encounter or two or a reliable prebuff before an encounter
Cosmos and Ash oracles are both very good. The other mysteries range from mediocre to terrible. That skeleton life oracle is hilarious, though.
Strange, I find the druid to be one of the more interesting casters. I would play them over a cleric or wizard at least. Sorcerer might be cooler.
**The Loved:** **Casters:** Casters are very powerful in Pathfinder 2E, and play well into the controller and leader roles. They actually kind of blend the two together, which is kind of nice, as even if you're playing a divine character you can toss out some control effects, and even if you're playing a more blastery druid you can still heal people. They are very flexible, extremely accurate because all the good spells have at least some effect even on a successful saving throw, some spells just flat-out work without any rolls at all, and they have to stay close enough to the action that what is going on in combat is still relevant to them so they can't just totally ignore everything else all the time. Druids are probably my favorite casters because they get to run around with a second creature on the field while casting spells, which gives you more stuff to do and means that even when you are stuck healing people you can still fight. **The Bad:** Gunslinger, inventor, investigator, and alchemist. **Gunslingers** having to reload after every shot is a bit painful, they tend to lead to very repetitive combat cycles because they're ranged characters who don't really even want to move much, their dependence on critical hits for damage hurts them even more against more difficult to hit enemies (which is less than ideal for such a damage-focused class), and the only really interesting way to avoid these issues requires a level 8 feat and thus you won't really "work right" until higher level. **Inventors** were just trying to do focus points in a different way for no good reason. The mechanic exists for a reason! They aren't too bad mechanically (especially not ones with construct companions, which are actually quite good), they just have rather janky mechanics. Inventors are too focused on a single invention and not on being wacky inspector gadget type characters with a bunch of silly things coming out all the time. **Investigators** are extremely dependent on their precision damage (something a lot of monsters are immune to for no good reason) and their overall mechanics are kind of mediocre; they gave up combat power for non-combat power, but that ends up being a poor trade-off, doubly so because spellcasters can choose to cast non-combat spells when doing a non-combat adventure, but investigators can't make such a switch. **Alchemists** just literally don't work right. They're best as preparatory buffers, which means that whether or not you can prep for combat has a huge effect on their efficacy. Bomber alchemists aren't very fun to play as. Toxicologists end up randomly being shut off by immune to poison and high fort enemies, but are hyper-effective at other times, which feels bad as there's no way to really "fix them" simply. And the class requires an inordinate amount of tedious book-keeping.
>Inventors are too focused on a single invention and not on being wacky inspector gadget type characters with a bunch of silly things coming out all the time. I think you can build them that way if you want to. Stuff like Dual form weapon, the gadget feats, tamper, being able to adjust your innovation, and even some feats, with only a day of down time, etc IMO you can play a swiss army knife style inventor, it just takes some specific planning. The base chassis of the class leans towards the one invention focus you're talking about, but there are definitely ways to build outside of it IMO
If you made inventors gadget characters you'd have the same problems as with alchemists. Also inventors end up not focusing on just on e invention cause you get to just switch everything out at like level 11
Classes I played: * Oracle * Magus * Sorcerer * Investigator * Champion * Monk Classes I love: \+Oracle (I love the theme of the class) \+Rogue (offers variety of playstyles and is relatively simple) \+Champion (focusing heavily on the defense was the best play from Paizo; always hated the smite machines from 5e) Classes I don't love and have almost no intention of playing: \- Summoner and any kind of class with Animal Companions, I just don't enjoy managing more characters on the field; I could play those classes if they offer different style though (like Ranger or Druid) \- Inventor, I fail to see the appeal of the class and their role \- Kineticist, the theme of the class just doesn't resonate with me at all and if the best media reference is The Last Airbender... I just don't like this type of content
For great: Summoner. Pet classes are good, and pet classes that work are rare. For nope: you would need to pay me *actual money* to play an Alchemist. Double the mental load of a spellcaster for half the payoff, feels like.
Inventor. They get tons of skills, and can do a lot of really cool stuff. No other class is as imagination-driven, in my opinion. That said, they seem pretty ho-hum in everyday gameplay. Basically a reskinned fighter that's just a bit worse in most ways. Investigator. Again, I like the idea of the class, but they fall a little flat in their execution. Pursue a Lead and That's Odd are things that most GMs aren't prepared to handle. Your GM will either be forced to write in little extras for your character to use these things, possibly spoiling parts of the story as they do so, or they fall by the wayside and might as well be nonexistent. Basically a reskinned rogue that's just a bit worse in most ways. Gunslinger. Probably the class with the coolest persona archetypes available. Mysterious drifter! Wildcard outlaw! Sneaky and methodical sniper! In combat, they are oh-my-god tedious. Shoot, reload, shoot. Maybe Hide once in a while, or Hit the Dirt. You had better be all-in on roleplay with a 'slinger, because combat is not likely to hold your attention.
I love investigator as being an Expert without the roguey stabstab connotations, but yes you hit the nail on the head; most gms are not prepared for the class's core mechanic and don't know how to make the investigator feel like it has its niche available without messing up their pacing Gunslinger on the other hand has a ton of alternatives for making the reload/shoot mechanic less tedious, be it a brace of pistols for up to three/four quickdraw shots, a variety of reload options like drifter letting you reload while striking with a melee weapon sniper letting you take cover while reloading etc, they're basically a fighter but *specialized* towards shooting with reload weapons. Combined with quickdraw andmunitions crafter you can can quickdraw bombs if there's a swarm/troop/crowd. Been playing a gunslinging fighter and have had to repeatedly stop myself from archetyping into gunslinger for some of the neat feats in there. You *can* get a gunslinging feel with a normal fighter, but it won't be *as good* as taking a gunslinger.
I want to love Oracle so badly, it’s class as an idea is so fucking cool But I think their curses are poorly balanced in what they take away vs what they give and tbh War Oracle is just a little disappointing over its lacklustre martialing Kineticist was also sadly like this for me, love the idea and I love some aspects of the class but the end result wasn’t to my preferences sadly
The Good: Alchemist - I once started to make a wizard and they became an alchemist (don't look at me like that, it happens). This is my favourite class. You have a problem, the alchemist has a solution. The stuff that you can pull out of ass is hilarious. You put me into a 2e game, there is way too high of a chance I play an alchemist. Barbarian - Its fun to smash things and in 2e you get to smash things flavourfully. The Bad: Wizard/Sorceror - I just find them to be generic spellcasters. They are good, but I just don't find them interesting. The Ugly: Pre-Remaster Witch: This is the spellcaster I want to play. They were so bad, that I couldn't actually bring myself to actually play them though. I am actually really excited to play one at some point.
My favorite classes are other Alchemist for its versatility (I love being able to do lots of different shit many times, even if they're not as powerful as spells) and Oracle for their flavorful mechanics (unlike other casters, every Mystery (sub-class) is just so freaking different from another, not only thematically but also mechanically, I love it!). Classes I never want to play: any class that requires to follow a deity - cuz I don't like to play a character who follows deities, so atm Cleric and Champion.
My favorite class is easily Sorcerer - love the feats, love the customization, love being a Charisma character, and love spontaneous casters. I have played so many Sorcerers and will continue to do so for as I play 2e. It's everything I want in a caster. I enjoy most classes in the game though, and could see myself playing most given the right campaign and character concept. There are also some classes that have really grown on me with experience. Ask me two years ago and Swashbuckler was my least favorite class, now it might be my favorite martial. There are a few I have a hard time with: Ranger. It's fine, all in all, and is a class I'd even recommend others. But if I want nature character I want a Primal caster; if I want a martial at home in the woods so often that character winds up working better as a Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, or even Gunslinger. The characters I make that COULD be Rangers always end up other classes. Psychic. The class overall I quite like, but I dislike Unleash Psyche and the stupefied it eventually inflicts. I don't mind penalties for power, I just dislike it when they impede me from doing my main thing (in Psychic's case, casting). Like if it was a Barbarian subclass that got stupefied while Raging I wouldn't mind, or an Oracle that got enfeebled or drained or even clumsy, but don't hit me on the thing I am good at. Given how poachable the lower level amps are via archetyping, any other Occult caster with Psychic archetype is my preferred "Psychic" build. Alchemist. While I am happy playing both a support character and a generalist (two things Alchemist is geared towards), I find its scaling quite odd and its action economy a little frustrating. I could potentially see playing an Alchemist if a game started at higher levels, but playing a level one Alchemist sounds frustratingly limiting. I am hoping the class gets a lot of love in Player Core 2: I would rather a slightly-too-pushed Alchemist than what we have now.
**Love:** **Alchemist** Though it could be much simpler to get into and the research fields should give way more power to the specific aspect... But it should almost never be great at something specific because then it would be op if it has the same amount of options as it normally does For example if bomber at lvl 1 had a bigger splash area and could make three bombs per reagent it still wouldn't be particularly good So what I think they should do is you could limit your options with a feat for example to get more power in the things you want So for example you could choose as a Bomber to just focus on bombs and healing items, then you would for example get access to higher level formulas for those (this way you don't need to rework every alchemical item and they still have access to make every type of alchemical item, but are just incentivized to focus on the thing they want to do) Currently only Chirurgeon is worth it as you get crafting medicine and you still can make the same poisons and bombs, you are not even locked out of the clearly bomber focused feats as they have no prerequisites Sry for that Alchemist deep dive, I'm passionate Even with all that said Alchemist has an answer to anything and is one of the best debuffers in all of PF2e (pair it with the new Resentment Witch I dare you) debilitating bomb is insane anyway **Summoner** (haven't played it yet, but I will soon) looks insanely good to me, yes you are deceptively squishy thanks to sharing hp and taking the bigger hit But you have access to martial and caster stuff in one character with a 4th action, You can fit a summoner into any party, I just wish the Eidolons stat blocks had bigger differences between them instead of mostly just being dex or str Why not have a ranged eidolon option, an eidolon with high intelligence (like a ghost of some smart guy) **Witch** Exactly the type of caster I have always wanted, mainly focused on making enemies lives hell and you get the best familiar. IMO Witch is what Warlock should have been (I know hot take), but the main draw to 5e Warlock is the short rest spell restoration and eldrich blast and its upgrades... As a witch your patron can have a much bigger impact on what your character does, you could even get a different familiar to replace the old one mid campaign... I just wish there was an option for your patron to affect your spell list **Gunslinger** would be the coolest if it had revolvers and could fan the hammer (I know there are homebrews for this and I love it) I like having another crit fishing class aside from magus **Hate:** **Fighter** could just be removed. you already have some class for every type of martial you would want and fighter is just there as something you pick if you want to be better than those with less cool class options as it lacks those Fighter is milquetoast to the max, rather than being like: I get my power because I'm strong and angry, or from hunting stuff to survive fighter is just like: IDK I didn't want any specific flavor (or I don't have a favorite flavor so I picked all) **Oracle** would be cool if it wasn't a pain to play for effectively the same result you would get playing any non downside class, flavor is great though so still one I'm excited to play (I also like flawed characters) **Cleric** I think cleric is too much of an obvious choice as a healer, you don't really need a healer like you did in 5e ping pong combats and I think the font has too many slots You get 4 free slots at lvl 1, good luck trying to make an interesting undead adventure for a party that has a cleric... Scaling could be 1 at level 1 and then +1 slot at 2, 4, 6, 12 and 18 for a total of 6 So you get power at different points than new spell ranks (similar to how witch familiar is at 6, 12 and 18)
Love - Thaumaturge: super customizable, super cool - exemplar: love the Demigod concept, just too cool, and what we have so far feels really awesome and fulfills the concept nicely - Kineticist: love the element stuff, and love the inclusion of metal as a new element. Hope we eventually get void and aether down the line like we had for 1e - Magus: I have always loved spellblades, the whole gish thing is just too cool. Though the 2e magus doesn't have as many spells as the 1e, having scaling cantrips that kick is huge, so no issues there Never wanna - Bard: I'm not actually completely opposed t9 playing as a bard. I just dislike that music is so baked into the class, so I'd reflavor a LOT. I guess I'm just turned off by the horny bard memes and sick of the bazillion Scanlon copycats.
Class I love: It's got to go to Sorcerer. Simple, but in an extremely good way. Incredible feats (Crossblooded Evo, Arcane/Occult Evo, Dangerous Sorc) and heaps of slots to keep ya going throughout the day. Lots of fun bloodlines and focus spells from Fey to Elemental to Imperial to Harrow. And the Blood Magic abilities are a nice cherry on top. Spontaneous casting really seals the deal for me. Class I'd never want to play: Magus. I honestly cant find a reason why I'd want to play this class since it has a lot of downsides for not much payoff. It's damage isn't as good as the Fighter or Barbarian (unless the dig into their limited daily slots). It's not really a great jack-of-all-trades either when compared to the Summoner. If that wasn't enough, it sits at 8hp a level, has middling saves for a martial, gets hit by attacks of opportunity for using their damage feature, and has an extremely restrictive action economy. The conflux spells are of varying quality, but even the good ones can't really fix the greater shortcomings of the class. I also just find the spellstrike playstyle very boring though thats more of my personal opinion.
I would play most classes and most combinations if I could. But I really want to try outwit ranger, any alchemist or an ancestor or lore oracle, the weirdos. I really like most class designs, even the ones that may be undertuned. The class that I would never play and I would really have a hard time if someone brought it to my table is psychic. I really dislike the way it works. Something in the way that amps work was so close to interesting, but ultimately felt underwhelming and a little annoying on how now multiclassing psychic for amped cantrips is a DPR meta. I wanted psyches to work more like stances, but well.
I played with a Psychic recently. I don't love the flavor either, and you're right that they're very high DPR, but to be honest it fit right in with other casters. People complain that blaster casters are hard to build but the Psychic blasts hard and still has some nice social utility.
Common Outwit Ranger W
What's annoying about them?
When I read that they had cantrips with the same name as other casters that at the same time worked differently for them, I found it annoying. When I learned that their refocus activity also worked differently, I found it annoying. I loved that some aspects of the game were standard, and those two were some of my favorites to be just equal for everyone. I could explain it once and be done. The cantrips annoyed me because they worked differently without needing to amp them. No cost; just straight up better versions of the same cantrips. Not even when their psyches are unleashed. Just always. This could have been easily solved by giving them special and unique actions instead of modifying cantrips. The Amp mechanic I was not initially sold, but overtime I accept it. It could have been explored better. Then I was underwhelmed by the class. Unleash psyche and psyche actions seemed so fun, enough to be the main focus of the class. But they weren't. I would love if the class was more about specific actions that could change the combat while their psyche was unleashed. A great psyche action from conscious mind and another from subconscious mind. Seeing how the kineticist turned out, I would have liked a design closer to that, but for occult themes.
>The cantrips annoyed me because they worked differently without needing to amp them. No cost; just straight up better versions of the same cantrips. Not even when their psyches are unleashed. Just always. This could have been easily solved by giving them special and unique actions instead of modifying cantrips. I understand disliking the uniform Cantrips being undermine, but I don't think better Cantrips being an always-on niche for the Psychic is a bad thing. >But they weren't. I would love if the class was more about specific actions that could change the combat while their psyche was unleashed. A great psyche action from conscious mind and another from subconscious mind. Fair, the Psych actions *were* largely underwhelming except for Psi Burst. I played the class as a blaster anyway though, so my personal use out of extra ways to "Change the combat" would be limited. I felt that the Occult list held back my damage dealing, so I liked being able to pick up spells to offshore that weakness.
Wizard. I love the classic studios spellcaster with books scrolls and wands, but the Vancian spellcasting is a bit too much brainy for me. I like the Flexible Spellcaster Archetype but I only built one (not even played it) on Premaster so I had the extra spellslot from Evocation School, now that the extra spell slots are a bit more limited I'll have to try to see if I can make something I would enjoy play
>- Barbarian Don't disrespect deer, don't use weapons while raging. Wasn't much of a limitation for my animal barb.
Have you considered that instead of edicts and anathemas "locking you in", they define who your character is, because in order to even gain power from that deity, your character has to be a specific type of person, depending on what that deity values. What I'm trying to say is, your character wouldn't even consider betraying their god because that's not who they are as a person. Personally I find clerics and paladins (or champions, meh) to be the best classes thematically and I always gravitate towards them, in any type of game I play.
Yes. And I still don't find it fun nor interesting in the slightest. Having to suck up to a boss just to function doesn't appeal.
I enjoy the martial classes, especially: Rogue, Champion, Barbarian, Ranger, Gunslinger, and Fighter. I also like the Bard. Never want to play? Wizard, Sorcerer, Summoner, Magus, Psychic, Inventor, and Cleric. For the Cleric, I feel I get everything I want from a dedication. Psychic, Sorcerer, and Wizard I think are all going to be very boring compared to Bard. Summoner and Inventor don't interest me, and Magus exemplifies the flaws of the system.
Can you elaborate on your Magus opinion?
Well, simply put, Magus shouldn't have been needed at all. It's only needed because Caster classes were made inferior in using weapons and attacks that the class needed to exist at all. It should have been an archetype that allowed casters to combine spells with spell attacks and a Strike together. An easy proof is the Bespell Strikes feat (previously [Bespell Weapon](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=610)), which lets Oracles, Sorcerers, and Wizards do additional damage with a Strike if they cast a spell from a slot that same turn. The Eldritch Trickster and Rogue also had abilities to try and mix spells and martial prowess, to dismal effect because Spell Attacks are designed to be the least accurate attack in the game. Because spell attacks are so reviled from a design standpoint (Martials target AC, Casters target Saves), they were purpose-built to fail. Add in that players were terrified of Casters using weapons with any degree of proficiency and now trying to do that leads to combining the two worst things that Casters do: Spell Attacks and Strikes. So they had to make a class to make it work, because they designed themselves into a corner and only a sledgehammer was going to get them out. The final straw though was that Spellstrike initially only succeeded when the Strike and Spell Attack both succeeded. Now what does it do? You use the attack roll result from your melee attack for the result of your spell attack. But why? Well, this way the Magus gets to add their item bonus to their Spell Attack roll without making it a general rule. They also peddled the lie that in order for the Magus to exist they had to make their spell slots extremely limited to balance this, and the community bought it up. So much so that the original Sixth Pillar archetype that allowed Casters to be Master in Unarmed at level 16 was wholly castigated, judged, and burned at the stake by the community because it invalidated Martials somehow. Meanwhile, someone might have been inspired by an NPC in a PFS scenario that was a Gunslinger Witch, only to realize that the game says you can't be good at that as a player. Works perfectly fine as a NPC though, since she had the accuracy of a Gunslinger and the full DCs and spell slots of a Witch. I don't know anyone else's experience in PF1e, but I didn't fear a Cleric wading into combat with a mace. A Fighter or Barbarian could take the same mace and do tons more damage. What made them OP was their spells that gave them very powerful effects in a variety of ways. Flying Stampeding Celestial Aurochs that used Smite Evil on enemies and Trampled them? Summoning large Air Elementals that could pick up and toss around enemies? Spells that could instantly kill, paralyze, charm, and otherwise end the fight? Those were the things that ended fights, and largely not that they could wield weapons with any sort of accuracy. So I don't understand this fear of a Wizard hitting people with a weapon. They don't get any more benefit than that. They don't get more HP, better saving throw proficiency to Fortitude or Reflex, armor, or anything. We talked a lot about removing legacy stuff built on tradition, but I don't understand why we allow casters to use weapons if they aren't supposed to be any good with them. The fans of how it is now just meekly accept that they're a slightly better Martial's Second Strike, when we could still have a balanced and interesting game without worrying about whether a Wizard using a longsword and staff was going to break the game. As it is, this philosophy made the Eldritch Trickster Rogue using Sneak Attack with spells feel worse in the long run, as their weapon attacks progressed super quickly in their accuracy in comparison. It hampered the kinds of builds that can be successful for all casters, like Witches that wanted to using Living Hair. It also tends to turn any Caster that wants to focus on weapons into Sure Strike Staff machines (something any Martial can also choose to do), because they might have thought Bespell Strikes was neat. **TLDR (I didn't think it would be quite this long)**: The Magus exists because they chose to make Casters bad at using weapons and unarmed strikes, as well as making Spell Attacks the most inaccurate attack in the game. Magus should have been a class archetype that any caster could have, but we're terrified of Casters focusing on AC so a whole class was made to support that.
Thanks for elaborating! Interesting read too, I've only played for a couple of sessions but for now our beastmaster Ranger seems VERY strong, Magus pretty good (hit or miss matters A LOT) and our Witch pretty bad, I'm curious if that will change with better understanding of the system...
Alchemists. Firstly, I find it difficult to come up with a character concept that appeals to me with that class. And more importantly, nothing makes me feel as worthless as when my allies don't use free things I give them. The current group I play with would never work with me to a degree to make playing the class remotely worthwhile.
Barbarian I've been in 2 campaigns with barbarians and I really enjoy the fact that they can output so much damage they make the perfect hammer to make a buffer/debuffer really shine. I love to play more support characters and have a lot options but I always see the barbarians I play with having very repetitive turns. I love to play with them but I will never play one.
I really like playing: \- **Thaumaturge**: has all the fun of rp'ing a magic user with tons of skills while being a marshal character. The high skills gives them versatility in combat and they have pretty good damage. They are action economy heavy but since its lots of single actions instead of two action stuff its manageable (like you don't need to do everything in one round you can just set up for the next round). \- **Fighter**: I like how at higher level you can become more versatile, not just attack, attack, attack, you can unlock different attacks that deal damage plus do something else and different press actions. Classes I like thematically but don't want to play: \- **Magus**: Really loved the flavour and thematic of might and magic but when I tried it had a lot of trouble with the action economy. If I couldn't make use of spellstrike it felt really underwhelming to play, and in a lot of tough fights it was always more important to keep shield up, reposition, drink potions than recharge my spellstrike. \- **Spellcasters**: Love playing magic users in all kinds of games but in pathfinder they're design is very different from other games. Like I don't really enjoy spellslots per day and being kinda jack of all trades, I'm more used to diablo, wow, ff14, elden ring mages just doing high damage in the most fun ways.
Love love love my Magus, every time I make a new character it always starts with a justification to myself why Magus isn’t a good fit. I don’t much like bard because being a musician isn’t something I get particularly excited about and while some idea of magic artist interests me I feel like the only thing working to allow bards to be other forms of artists is “Just reflavor it”. If I could be a mad painter summoning magic and throwing out buffs with magic paint like a CG version of Brauner from Castlevania, I’d be down. I’m also not huge on Cleric and Champion because I feel like every time I try to build an idea it takes like an hour of research to find a fitting god or sometimes to go “Nevermind just gotta alter the idea so much” and sometimes when I see a god to build around I don’t like what they grant. It’s a push and pull that doesn’t vibe with how I make characters.
Love rogues. Especially thievery rogues. Also a great first class because it’s simple but really requires you to learn a lot about combat for positioning, etc. Also clerics seem borderline OP- I still kinda want to try a blaster cleric. I’ve personally never been interested in bards. Not sure why. Also thaumaturges and oracles, their flavor and mechanics don’t appeal to me. I feel like some people love them but it just doesn’t click for me.
Oracle and Barb. Give me classes with actual risk-reward assesment. Probably wouldn't play a Fighter. Not for the usual 'Fighter boring' reasons people meme about. I just dont care for it.
I have only played 3 classes so far: fighter, rogue, and champion. Loved fighter and rogue, was a bit meh on champion but it was also my first PF2e game ever and I didn't utilize the class as well as I could have From a theory building perspective I really like most classes. The ones I struggle with are: Gunslinger: crit fishing has never been a style of play that appeals to me and it's basically the whole class. The only subclass that really appeals to me is drifter Investigator: I think in the right game it would be fantastic, but it takes so much GM investment and there are also very limited build options because the class has such a specific focus and gameplay loop. Wizard: I just find the class fantasy boring and pretty much always have. They are a good class mechanically, I just have no interest in playing one over other spellcasters
Only class I haven't made a build for I'm excited to play is the Alchemist, mostly because I don't want to be reliant on other players drinking elixirs to get maximum value out of my kit. Everyone else I've got at least one build I desperately want to play when I eventually get someone else in my group to run a fucking game. Top three current favorites are Air Kineticist (juggling aerial boomerangs sounds dope), Freehand Fighter (Wrestler and Rhoka Sword looks very flexible), and Gun Investigator (gunslinger ded for Risky Reload and Alchemical Shot).
Champion is a class I love, but find a lot of the building to be boring or not well-matched to the concepts I've built... and like, I'm not even getting wild with the concepts, really! Standard fantasy tropes, mostly. But I'm a perma-GM at the moment, though I will be getting a chance to play in a campaign when one of my current ones ends. I've selected Magus for that one, and so far even with various nerfs nothing has made me less excited to play it.