New classes, what could they be

And I don't need to go through my GM as gatekeeper to play what I want to play.

Unless you are playing in a PFS game, your GM can gatekeep anything at all in their game, even if it doesn't have a "rare" or "uncommon" tag.

The tags are there to help the GM make decisions about how your character fits in the story they're trying to tell. But lack of a specific tag does not ever mean that the GM is required to accept your character at their table.

Maybe it's just at my table...but the general approach we take is:

Common = go for it
Uncommon = ask...likely to be ok...but ask
Rare = ask...and it very much depends.

I'd hazard a guess that it's not just at my table though.

I'm not just a player. I'm a GM too and take the same approach.

Again, it's nice to have toys that everyone gets to play with.

I'm surprised to get so much disagreement, but either you're all the vocal minority or I am.

I think Rare for a class means "if you have more than one in your party, expect headaches for the GM ".

I mean, it really depends on why its rare. If its rare entirely because of theme and it could be common with some mild reflavoring, then thats not great, but if its rare because it explores a mechanical space that only a rare class could explore, then I'm much more forgiving, as having that niche filled could be very useful. But again, it depends on what exactly it is.

I'm curious how much the GMs in your group work with players ahead of time on character creation? Do you also do a Session Zero with all the characters before starting the adventure?

Maybe it's just at my table...but the general approach we take is:

Common = go for it
Uncommon = ask...likely to be ok...but ask
Rare = ask...and it very much depends.

I'd hazard a guess that it's not just at my table though.

I'm not just a player. I'm a GM too and take the same approach.

Again, it's nice to have toys that everyone gets to play with.

I'm surprised to get so much disagreement, but either you're all the vocal minority or I am.

This sounds exactly how I think most people use it, and likely results in people playing what they want. So I don't understand your statement of rare making it so many people won't be able to play it.

We don't have a rare class yet, so will be interesting to see what they show mechanically and thematically for such an option.

I hope the Rare tag coincides with truly canon-shaking events (deity-death as mentioned) AND really brings something new and innovative to Pathfinder. Something that will rwally shake up gameplay and inspire folks to tell new and interesting stories.

While slightly not-that-innovative, I would like to see a Harrower. It is fairly Golarion-centric after all.

I think a new divine class that has a dead god would be…killer.

Applied_People wrote:

Maybe it's just at my table...but the general approach we take is:

Common = go for it
Uncommon = ask...likely to be ok...but ask
Rare = ask...and it very much depends.

This sounds exactly how I think most people use it, and likely results in people playing what they want. So I don't understand your statement of rare making it so many people won't be able to play it.

Exactly.

I'm not trying to be snarky. I have an entire separate alias for that.

That process is what I have seen in all of my non-PFS games too... And I have personally played an Android and an Automaton character. I have also played along side of others in our group playing Gunslinger, Inventor, Gnoll, and Orc.

So I am just legitimately not understanding the sentiment. Why would a Rare tag on a class mean that it is unlikely that a great many players would not be able to play with the class?

What are all the hints again?

3 vowels, 3 syllables, and what are the word hints he used??

Well...let's say my rare = "very much depends" = 50% chance DM says no.

My group plays APs. So 1-2 years later, I have another 50/50 chance to play the Rare class. If all of us want to play Rare class X...chances are 4 of us get a no. Else, not so Rare. Whereas, we all want to play Bards, Rogues, Fighters, etc. GM shrugs and says, "eh."

Anyway, seems people aren't bothered by this and that's fine.

But I don't think I'm saying anything radical.

GMs act as gatekeepers for access to the Rare tag. Logically, this limits access to Rare stuff more so than Common stuff.

I'd rather have more Common classes before a Rare class. That's all.

Given the hints and what was stated about syllables and vowels, I think the following words/names brought up in this list thus far are most likely to fit the criteria:

Animist
Apostate
Ascendant
Ascetic
Aspirant
Avatar
Avenger
Channeler
Chronicler
Commander
Confessor
Conjurer
Crusader
Demigod
Enchanter
Exemplar
Exorcist
Godcaller
Harrower
Heretic
Incarnate
Invoker
Paragon
Punisher
Seneschal
Spellthief
Symbiont
Warmaster

When you add in what little we have learned so far about the book, what with the death of a god and so forth, I think we can pare it down to religious names with hierarchical connotations, and philosophical words like:

Animist
Apostate
Ascendant
Ascetic
Aspirant
Avatar
Avenger
Channeler
Confessor
Conjurer
Crusader
Demigod
Enchanter
Exemplar
Exorcist
Godcaller
Heretic
Invoker
Paragon
Punisher
Seneschal

I don't think the designers would risk using names of past D&D classes, unless they are used in common parlance more often (like fighter or crusader) or risk anything associated with a major IP (like something owned by Marvel or DC). Furthermore, looking at Michael Sayre's posted hint about writing the words seneschal, weaver, broken, and destiny for a project, which could be this secret book with these new classes, the following jump to my attention:

Animist
Apostate
Ascendant
Aspirant
Avatar
Confessor
Crusader
Demigod
Exemplar
Exorcist
Godcaller
Heretic
Paragon
Seneschal

"Broken" and "fate" makes me think of Apostate and Heretic.

Seneschal makes me think of Ascendant, Avatar, Confessor, Crusader, and Exemplar.

Lost Omen

We found him

Given that Avatar is the name of a spell I doubt it's going to be a class' name.

Given that Avatar is the name of a spell I doubt it's going to be a class' name.

It does have three vowels tho’…

;)

Perpdepog wrote:

Given that Avatar is the name of a spell I doubt it's going to be a class' name.

It does have three vowels tho’…

;)

So does hamburger.

And banana.

Other options:
Africa
Piano
Happiness
Eleven
Animal
Wednesday
Chipotle
Jessica
Business

Business class kinda sucks though. Still not enough leg room on those flights.

Posting for the sake of this thread, to: today's blog post seemingly confirmed that Starfinder 2e is launching with Envoy, Mystic, Operative, Solarian, Soldier, and Witchwarper (which has absorbed the Precog's time stuff).

Given that those classes are explicitly designed to work with and be distinct from PF2 classes, it's a safe assumption the two newcomers don't step on any of those toes.

wonder if the witchwarper or mystic are being changed to absorb the other missing casters.

... With both mechanic and technomancer getting the axe that means SF would launch with nobody who values Int unless one of the other casters are changing, which feels a little weird to me.

wonder if the witchwarper or mystic are being changed to absorb the other missing casters.

... With both mechanic and technomancer getting the axe that means SF would launch with nobody who values Int unless one of the other casters are changing, which feels a little weird to me.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if one or both of Mystic and Witchwarper had a choice of class stat, the way Psychic does.

... With both mechanic and technomancer getting the axe that means SF would launch with nobody who values Int unless one of the other casters are changing, which feels a little weird to me.

Much as I like the witchwarper, losing the two tech-based classes (at least initially) is exactly the opposite approach I want for a sci-fantasy setting….ahem…ruleset. Actually, I don’t really value the magic in SF at all, so….

[/threadjack]

Well...let's say my rare = "very much depends" = 50% chance DM says no.

My group plays APs. So 1-2 years later, I have another 50/50 chance to play the Rare class. If all of us want to play Rare class X...chances are 4 of us get a no. Else, not so Rare. Whereas, we all want to play Bards, Rogues, Fighters, etc. GM shrugs and says, "eh."

Anyway, seems people aren't bothered by this and that's fine.

But I don't think I'm saying anything radical.

GMs act as gatekeepers for access to the Rare tag. Logically, this limits access to Rare stuff more so than Common stuff.

I'd rather have more Common classes before a Rare class. That's all.

If you all four want to play the same class, would you not just talk about it as a group? You seem very reticent about the concept of just talking to your friends you play with about something as simple as this. Do they just ban rare things for the sheer fact of being rare with no context?

I'm partly with applied_people. I've seen new classes being limited by GMs. A rare class will often be forbidden in all tables where the GM doesn't know the game or the class much.
But that doesn't mean the class is not worth the paper. Some concepts don't fit into beginner tables but do in more experienced ones. The game is now quite mature so I don't think it needs more options for beginners.

I just realized what one of the new classes is going to be. I can't believe I didn't see it before, I'm so foolish.

PERPDEPOG

I just realized what one of the new classes is going to be. I can't believe I didn't see it before, I'm so foolish.

PERPDEPOG

My god, it's full of stars...

Oh shoot, wait, new NEW mystery classes mean I get to cross my fingers very hard and hope we get a Bloodmage of some kind because it's an archetype I have been craving since I played Secret world years back. Nothing ever did scratch that itch.
Very very wishful thinking, I know, since it has pretty much no precedent in Golarion except maybe the Bloatmages but it's just not the same.

Perpdepog wrote:

I just realized what one of the new classes is going to be. I can't believe I didn't see it before, I'm so foolish.

PERPDEPOG

My god, it's full of stars...

Please colonel Manstrong, restrain yourself!

Anyway my money are on a warlord equivalent and necromancer

Do keep in mind that the playtest Psychic was slated as uncommon before being bumped down to being common.

I think if this class is rare then there's probably a very good reason for it (if it's something like a Demigod), but playtest feedback could damn well bump it down to Uncommon (though probably not any more than that).

I guess I feel there are other, more universal concepts I'd like to see developed before digging into niche classes (shaman, shifter, inquisitor & medium all come to mind quickly). And I don't need to go through my GM as gatekeeper to play what I want to play.

By contrast, I think it's cool that we got to explore the whole gunslinger/inventor thing and play around with that part of the world without having to hold back and walk through every possible common class first. I think it was the right time for those classes.

In particular, to me the most important part about order of class releases is the way that each class is a way for Paizo to explore a bit more of the space and come to understand how to flex and stretch the system without breaking it. You've noticed how the first few classes were a bunch of casters who were structurally very similar on one side, and a bunch of martials who were structurally very similar on the other? You've noticed how as they progress, they keep innovating further and further away from that mold? That's not by mistake.

Inventor gave us a character who had access to both standard martial attacks and spell-like two-action abilities. Experience with that made the path easier for Magus and Summoner, who did the same with actual spells. Experience with those two helped give them datapoints about blurring the lines between caster and martial, making Psychic much more possible... and psychic's forays into a pure caster who wasn't so tied to their spell slots helped pave the way for kineticist.

So yeah. Maybe the thing that comes next on that winding progression is Rare, and they haven't gotten all the common classes out yet. Sure. That just means that the Common classes to come will be made better by the Rare class that went before, rather than vice versa.

Ah. Of course. Take it literally.

It must be a mystery class.

Ah. Of course. Take it literally.

It must be a mystery class.

Time for the Mystery People.

Other options:

[...]
Wednesday

I'd have gone with a different hint if it was "Wednesday". I've been on the forums long enough to understand what rulings like "sometimes Y" can do to a community.

PossibleCabbage wrote:

Other options:

[...]
Wednesday

I'd have gone with a different hint if it was "Wednesday". I've been on the forums long enough to understand what rulings like "sometimes Y" can do to a community.

I suppose that means we should also ignore 'w'

I was contemplating ideas for class niches and class names again on my drive to work this morning and lamenting how Necromancer won't work with the hints we have. But, then I thought about that old video game where you control minions and it occurred to me that the very name of that game fits the criteria for the hints we have for class names and as a class it could focus on minion control as a reinterpreted power set rather than exclusively using existing minion rules. Necromancer could be a subclass for it, too.

The game is Overlord.

Rarity is a tool not a bludgeon.

Plenty of people banned Gunslinger in P1 without Rarity.

That had a lot to do with the mechanical power that gunslinger could bring. With dual wielding pistol builds doing some insane stuff, especially because of touch AC.

Then there was also the narrative issue to contend with, since sometimes it wasn't an appropriate location or even not using the Golarion setting for guns to appear.

Rarity tags aren't supposed to reflect mechanical power, but truly how often they appear in the world. But that hasn't been 100% true. And people's understanding of it isn't 100% either.

I saw all this to say...I think uncommon tag on gunslinger and inventor work fine, they are okay in appropriate campaigns and whether it's appropriate will depend on your GM. The same will probably be true of a rare tagged class.

LandSwordBear wrote:

Perpdepog wrote:

Given that Avatar is the name of a spell I doubt it's going to be a class' name.

It does have three vowels tho’…

;)

So does hamburger.

No, wait: Hamburglar! That must be it!