"I want to say I learned something valuable today
Alas, my murdered remains are incapable of learning anything."
Hey, this week I'm going to distribute Pathfinder's arguably bloated number of classes into simple categories. I'm doing this because I have some suspicions on how the game is designed and I want to see if they pan out. This may not feel like it has a point right now, but(like the racial research) it will later.
I'll try to explain the reasoning of where things go, but some of these are going to be such obvious choices that they're not gonna come up. This isn't a tier list, after all. In fact, keep that in mind since this doesn't make any commentary on how good a class is or what you can do with it. There's a lot of freedom in Pathfinder, and you can get some funky stuff going with your class if you're clever with how you're building. These are just some broad categories of how they're generally going to function and how they're intended by the designer. I'm judging a lot based on how much utility a class gets, which I'm defining as abilities that are useful outside of combat. Skill bonuses, spell lists, rogue powers, things like that.
I'm also not including the pre-unchained versions of Barbarian, Rogue, or Summoner. You're obviously not intended to run both versions concurrently in a game, and I doubt the changes would alter their category anyway.
Finally, Vigilante is being a difficult little boy, and will be getting a talking to below.
Pure Fighter
Members: Barbarian, Fighter, Cavalier, Gunslinger, Shifter, Bloodrager, Brawler, Swashbuckler, Samurai
This category features the classes that are majorly intended for physical combat. Most of them have some sort of out-of-combat utility, but it's sparse compared to other classes. I want to stress, Pathfinder is fairly different from 3.5 in this regard: virtually every class gets some amount of utility, even if it's 4+INT skill points and a nice skill list. Fighter is the only true example of a class that gets nothing but fite. All of these classes also have 1:1 attack bonus. If they have a spell list, they're here because their entire spell list is filled with things that are generally only useful in combat. Looking at you, Bloodrager.
Utility Fighter
Members: Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Avenger Vigilante, Kineticist, Slayer, Antipaladin
These classes have a 1:1 AB, but more utility than our above category. Mostly it means they have a spell list that can potentially be used outside of combat, but there's also things like Slayer and its access to rogue talents and excellent skills. Kineticist is here for a special reason. They have 3:4ths attack bonus and use supernatural abilities, but the majority of what they're good at is still combat. When they do get utility, it's generally on the level of the category staples Paladin and Ranger: something nice, but not a large amount of it.
Non-Caster Hybrid
Members: Rogue, Stalker Vigilante, Ninja
This is one of the two multi-role categories. Generally, they have 3/4ths attack bonus and a mix of utility powers as well as combat powers. Your primary focus is going to be whatever you decide to lean into, but you'll still be good at the other thing. They also don't have spells in a traditional sense, only getting the occasional spell-like or supernatural ability. Honestly, this category only exists because I wanted to draw a line between spellcasting utility characters and non-spellcasters. As you can see, this category has rogue, a rogue variant, and a class that's intended to be like rogue.
Half Caster
Members: Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Magus, Summoner, Medium, Mesmerist, Occultist, Spiritualist, Hunter, Investigator, Skald, Warpriest
These classes are generally multi-role classes which also cast spells. Most of them have 3/4ths AB, 1-4 or 1-6 spell level spellcasting, and a host of utility powers. They're another category that strongly leans toward your primary focus being extremely mutable. These classes get a little bit of everything, and while their spell lists aren't always versatile, they're almost always useful.
Full Spellcaster
Members: Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Wizard, Oracle, Witch, Psychic, Arcanist, Shaman
This category is somewhat strict. 9th level spells only. Attack bonus can vary, but it's not going to be great. You're going to be casting spells most of the time, and your spell selection is entirely what drives what role your character fills. We're not making a commentary on utility vs. combat here, because it's all decided by spell selection, which is vast in a game like Pathfinder. Some of them can still wade into melee combat, but it's still going to be spell centric, with a focus on buffs.
@}-,-'--
Before we continue, I want everyone to pat me on the back for deciding not to put Shifter in a category of its own called "bad" or something.
I think the thing I was curious about is obvious. Almost half(sixteen out of forty) of Pathfinder's classes are designed with versatility in mind, most of them getting "a little of everything" including spells. There's probably a lot of reasons for it. Even though there's plenty of pure combat classes up there, only one of them really, genuinely has fuckall to do outside of combat: Fighter. Everyone else has something, even if it's a few nice skills or a power or two they can pick. Nobody likes sitting out, and the vast majority of Pathfinder's classes are designed so that, if you ever have to "sit out" of a scene, it's your own choice.
Maybe gaming has changed. Maybe we're just all getting older and we understand that a wide breadth of things we're "pretty good" at is usually more helpful to problem solving a few things we're "super awesome" at. I don't know for sure what's happened to our demographic, but I can tell you most PNP gamers I know are around my age.
It's also a safe way to design a class. No judgment here, but creating a more codified role for a class means it's going to be judged solely on its ability to do that thing. It's gonna be compared to other classes that do that thing, and if designed poorly it may just be redundant. It's easier to end up creating a dud of a class. If Mesmerist or Alchemist end up being bad at melee combat(they're not), so what? They can still be built to do a giant amount of other things. Staring at people, throwing bombs at them. Et Cetera.
Hopefully this will at least help people inform choices. The middle categories are all classes that can easily fill multiple roles, with a gold star going to Investigator and Bard for being damn good at it. Of course, it's not a crime to want something straightforward. Having a small list of good options is something I prefer sometimes. There's also a lot of classes that let you throw into one style of play and still get a little bit out of the other side, with a special mention here going to Vigilante. Basically, because of Vigilante Specialization, you're picking between a warrior type and a rogue type. They're in different categories up there solely because Stalker, the rogue style specialization, has a TON of utility powers only it can take. It's also one of the few options in the game that alters your base attack bonus.
Speaking of that, will archetypes alter where the classes lie? Not really, but some let you wiggle a lot. Cardinal lets a cleric sacrifice one of their domains and their base attack bonus for extra skills and utility, but he still remains a full caster. I think things like this or Phantom Rogue are great for customization. Without going to far into it, though, I don't think any class gets more than one or two of these. A lot of the time, I'd say archetypes are best applied for flavor.
