What classes does Pathfinder 2e not yet have that you would like to see?

My answer, and one that occurred to me because of comments by @Kichae@lemmy.ca in this thread is the warlock.

In my view, the key aspects of the warlock are:

It must have a patron which controls its access to magic
Its magic must be of a sort that, to an outsider, could easily be confused for a wizard or sorcerer
Nevertheless, the mechanics of its magic must feel very different to play from a wizard or sorcerer

D&D 5th edition does this well with its spell slots being short rest based and always at maximum level, but far more limited in number than typical slot casters. It casts many of the same spells as a wizard rather than having an entirely different system like Pathfinder's Kineticist or (presumably) runesmith, but by preparing and casting in completely different degrees to the wizard. Whether Pathfinder did it "slotless".

The Witch is probably the "best" option for a warlock-like experience so far, and the description of the witch as having a patron is probably the biggest reason I think we'll never actually get a warlock. But the witch does a very poor job of feeling like a warlock. I don't want a pet, or to cast spells through a familiar. The actual spell progression is too vanilla. And way too many of the feats are too explicitly "witchy", like cackle, cauldron, living hair, and eldritch nails.

4

Im curious why your conception of a warlock must be able to be confused with a wizard or sorcerer from an outside perspective. That has never been an aspect of warlocks in 5e that I valued, or something I particularly wanted to emphasize.

To me, a warlock character could be made using any number of classes present in pf2, including the aforementioned sorcerer, wizard and witch, but also the psychic or oracle. The fantasy of having a patron is not something that must be expressed mechanically IMO, because it ultimately boils down to "you have a connection with this powerful NPC and you need to consider their wants/needs/demands or else there may be consequenses"

3
- why your conception of a warlock must be able to be confused with a wizard or sorcerer from an outside perspective
  
  To me those three classes form a little triangle of being the "main" arcane spellcasting classes. Wizards cast through study. Sorcerers are just naturally magical. And warlocks get their spells through a patron. But all are general spellcasters, unlike, say, the nature flavour of a druid, religious flavour of a cleric, or the martial side of the magus.
  
  The oracle is, in terms of its subclasses and feats, really good for this (with some reflavouring of the Mysteries to be applied to a specific individual patron, which is explicitly not what Mysteries are in the text). Its biggest problem mechanically is the core class using the divine spell list rather than arcane. And unfortunately that's a pretty big drawback to making the warlock fantasy work. But the bigger problem is the whole design of the Mysteries.
  
  The fantasy of having a patron is not something that must be expressed mechanically
  
  I just fundamentally disagree with this view. The patron of a warlock is critical to the warlock fantasy for me. It's like suggesting you could play a rogue fantasy by being a fighter with high dex and a finesse weapon. Like, yeah...you could. But having a proper class that more accurately represents the fantasy would be so much better.
  
  2
I feel the magus might help in terms of using a magic weapon or raise a tome as a shield. could just roleplay the patron element. still to bad they did not take the oportunity to expand the witch options to have something like a tomb or weapon. maybe give them the effect like teleporting to your hand but they have to have them when casting.

1
- I know the bladelock was extremely popular with the Reddit D&D community, but to be honest it's never super interested me. I like it existing as an option, but the magus is far too focused on that niche to work as a warlock. And using the tomb as a shield strikes me as just silly.
  
  2
Warlock is traditionally the male equivalent of a Witch, which is probably reason enough to believe the class is never coming. It's just... here already. This is their vision for it. A few more focus spells, and a couple new archetypes is probably the best we can hope for.

The 5e-style class fantasy is probably always going to be in Psychic+Witch.

1
- The problem is that, as mentioned, the witch is just a really, really bad class to use for the warlock fantasy. Aside from the fuzzy claim that warlocks are just male witches, and the fact that the witch has a thing it calls a "patron", there's basically no upside to using the witch class to play out the warlock fantasy.
  
  And if I'm being honest, I don't really see how the psychic helps with the warlock fantasy at all.
  
  1

there are actually more now than I had ever expected.

3

Right? I thought Paizo said they were gonna be slowing down, now they're dropping all these new playtests back to back to back

2
Yeah the two new most recently announced were a big surprise, and that's definitely part of what triggered me to post this. With as many as they've got, it's kind of surprising that they're still adding more. What more do you think they could add?

1

I’d like to see a dedicated beastmaster class where their pet does most of the damage and their main job is buffing their pet and/or debuffing its target.

I’d also like to have a real summoner who does more than just cast summon animal. It would be cool if their abilities were all summoning-based, like a 2 action ability that could summon swarms for a single round and the swarm would do a little damage plus a debuff, like blinded or sickened or whatever.

3

Ooh yeah. Seems like the necromancer could be a good test bed for a style of class design that would also work for that summoner idea.

1

Every class I want is represented in game. A lot of my favorites are bit more scuffed than I would've liked, but they're there. new classes like Runesmith and Exemplar are what gets me excited for 2e now. I dunno, maybe a Rivethun class, a Prophet of Kalistrade class, and an Esoteric Knight? Mining the lore and old prestige classes for new ways of play appeals.

2

Personally, I'm really not a fan of when Pathfinder hard codes in its lore into the mechanics, so classes like those would not be welcome to me. I don't play in their world and it's not nearly generic enough for me to be comfortable using in my own world without either altering some mechanics or altering my world. In the CRB, dwarven clan daggers spring to mind as something I wish wasn't a core assumption of the dwarf ancestry. (Though at least it's little more than a ribbon unless you first choose to take a feat related to it.)

I'm reminded of when D&D added gravity- and time-mages based on the lore of that famous live stream group. Newer classes are easy enough to ignore, thankfully, so it's not a huge deal to add and I don't exactly resent them being there for people who do like it. But they were such dumb concepts in my mind it was annoying to see development effort spent on them rather than something more usable.

3
- I do kinda get that. I'm beyond disinterested in the Blood Hunter & Illrigger on the D&D side of the coin. I just think Paizo's got all their bases covered as far as setting agnostic classes go.
  
  2