Advanced Class Guide Playtest is Live!

Hey all, this is a modified version of what I posted during the Mythic Playtest. It was well received there, and I’ve adapted it to the ACG playtest.

A year and a few weeks ago, Sean posted a blogpost by Monte Cook about what good playtesting feedback is. It has since been lost to time, but here are my notes from reading it.

I’m not the end-all-be-all for what Paizo wants from this, but here are my thoughts on the topic, as well as what I took away from the above blog post from Monte.

• You are not the lead designer. Jason is.
  
• Ignore typos and grammatical errors. That’s not what they want to playtest. They want you to test the rules.
  
• Give feedback, not opinions. If you don’t like the idea of the new classes, then don’t just say that. It’s not too helpful as that ship has sailed long ago.
  
• You’re still not the lead designer. Jason is still the lead designer. That’s his job.
  
• Don’t make houserules for it and then give feedback with those rules influencing your perceptions. Think of it like a recipe site. You go there to find a recipe, and you see a 1 star review for a pasta recipe you’re looking at. The review states that the cook substituted ice cream for butter, and marmite for pesto sauce. Surprisingly, the cook found the recipe to be absolutely horrible. But this review isn’t helpful. It’s helpful for a pasta recipe that includes ice cream instead of butter and marmite instead of pesto sauce. But that’s not the recipe they were reviewing. At all. The recipe they were reviewing had butter and pesto.
  
• Remember that the point of the playtest is to work out all the kinks so that you don’t have to make houserules about the classes.
  
• Play the game, see what happens. A lot of problems seem like they’ll exist in pure theorycrafting, but don’t really show up in actual play. Keep this in mind.
  
• If you can, try to playtest multiple different power-levels of the game. How these new, advanced classes work out could be a lot different between a group consisting of synthesist god-tank-pouncers, zen archers, optimized God wizards, and AM BARBARIAN and a group consisting of a sword and board paladin, a rogue rapier-duelist, a cleric of healing and love, and a sorcerer focusing on illusions.
  
• Core! Core is great because it sets the base-line level of power. It’s fine if you play some tengu with 5 natural attacks at first level or some aasimar that through various rules hoops has some feats meant for tieflings, but if you find that with the new classes you’re making a completely ridiculous character, consider how much of that is due to the new classes versus the non-core rules. In fact, keep that in mind with core rules as well.
  
• I believe that the default assumption in the game is 15 point buy with the core races and the balanced option for wealth by level. Testing at this point is a great way to test.
  
• These classes aren’t going to be perfect. They might have serious flaws. But that’s what the playtest is for. Designing is hard, doubly so for a base class.
  
• Positive feedback is immensely preferred to negative feedback. See Sean’s post here for a bit on that. But suffice to say, positive feedback is more helpful because it fosters a helpful environment. It’s the difference between working together and stand-offishly stating your “factpinions” as gosepl. If you ever start a sentence that follows this form, you’re doing it wrong: “<feature X> is the worst thing I’ve ever seen and here’s how I would change it to make it <(balanced, useful, cool, english)>.”
  
• Despite saying that positive feedback fosters an environment of working together, we aren’t working together to make the classes. Jason is still the lead designer of Pathfinder. The odds are probable that you aren’t. Our job, insomuch as it can be called that, is to playtest and report in an unbiased fashion to let them sift through the results.
  
• PFS play is useful because it provides a set, known standard of rules. It’s a great environment for testing, as theoretically it’s run the same everywhere. But that doesn’t mean that home games aren’t useful. In fact, home games can provide very useful information, as sometimes restricting options is a great way to see how these classes do. Core and APG only, no Golarion line crunch? That’s going to present a vastly different playtest result than if done in PFS. Keep this in mind, and try to list your playtest parameters out at the beginning of any playtest reports you give. If someone were to come up with a basic form for all playtest feedback, that’d be solid, and I would recommend everyone use it, just to make sifting through information easier.
  
• Try to keep track of die rolls. This will help differentiate between the cases such as where a Skald can never hit due to class based abilities or he can’t hit due to bad rolls.
  

There are going to be a lot of posts about the Monk/Brawler, and also the Rogue and the ACG classes. There are going to be a lot of divergent opinions on those two topics, and part of the point of the playtest is to get feedback. But keep in mind that the more noise there is, the more effort the design team has to go through to get their much needed signal.

Oh yea, and have fun :)

And I'm here...

It begins.

Woooooo!

Huzzah! Now to spend an hour trying to download the materials!

Excellent :-p to see what I can make out of these. Been making weird characters leading up to this... I actually made an excellently scary fighter rogue oddly...

For reference to prior conversations:

Thread where we have been discussing this Playtest since August 28th.

now if only I could get past "Personalizing... Click link again in 10 seconds to download"

Now, if it would just download it after I personalize it....

Personalize...come on personalize....

The Waiting! IT BURNS!!!!

downloading!!!

Someone is in the server room with a fire extinguisher right?

It has begun..

Got it! :D

My initial impressions

Arcanist doesn't feel much different than Sage bloodline sorcerer, it really doesn't feel unqiue. I'd like to see significant changes in this class. Currently it's just an alternate sorcerer that gives you less than either sorc or wizard. - I want it to look a lot more like Shaman.

Bloodrager - Primarily a fighter-type, but you use your rage more intelligently, you can use it to pick up certain spells or feats for the situation. A couple of these bloodlines look very interesting, overall I think the class achieves a combat focused hybrid (like paladin) very well.

Brawler - Honestly, it doesn't look that interesting. It's trying to be a full BAB monk, but really doesn't do that well. Hopefully we as playtesters can make some of these abilities really interesting

Hunter - "The" Animal companion class. it does this very well, I like it. I have to see this one in action to say a lot more. It really does interesting things with the animal companion.

Investigator - I'm really happy with this class. It's the ultimate skillmaster, it can even inspire itself! as a combat role it's a little more nebulous. So far I really like what i see, however.

Shaman - I love this class, everything the arcanist should be. Feels unique and interesting, beautifully mends elements of both oracle and witch, and really blends them together into something that feels unique.

Skald - Giving rage powers to those who can use them better. This is very interesting. My initial thoughts are positive, something I'll have to try a bunch of different paths with.

Slayer - a Lot of people want to play rogue's for the sneak attack and/or killing of things side. This is the class for them, it blends those elements really well, and makes a legitimate fighter. you trade slower sneak attack for better atk bonus and special rules. Feels like an excellent class.

Swashbuckler - I LOVE IT. The flavor of gunslinger showmanship, coupled with a good parry ability. This is amazing. It's hard to speak to it from a power perspective, as it's very unique, but certainly is a fun and interesting class.

Warpriest - Interesting blend of cleric and fighter. You trade spellcasting for a lot of combat useable "pseudo spells" being able to augment your armor or weapon to suit your needs is very powerful, also the domains are very cool, and add a lot of flavor to the class. This is a pretty great way to go about things if you want to play a holy man, and still get up in there.

I can't wait until I can actually download the thing. -_-

Great googly-moogly, I can't decide between testing the Investigator or Swashbuckler first!

I have a question (or perhaps a set of questions) that doesn't seem to fit in with the existing messageboards; it's based on observation, not playtesting, and relates to all of the classes). Are racial favored class options being considered as a part of the playtest, and if so, what assumptions should we use:
-Should we assume that no races currently have favored class options for the new classes, or
-Should the two "base" classes be used (either combined, or by requiring a character to choose one) to determine favored class options, or
-Will the final product have new options for favored class bonuses?

Some immediate questions which sprang to mind when skimming the document ...

Will the Shaman class eventually get Spirits which will support all currently available Oracle mysteries? As it stands, there are more Oracle mysteries in Ultimate Magic (including some of my favourites), not to mention Golarion setting products like People of the North, Inner Sea Magic, AP 71/RoW 5, and Faiths and Philosophies.

Similarly, will the Warpriest's blessings class feature eventually support the Void and Scalykind domains from the Inner Sea World Guide?

In general, my reaction is: looks good! :)

Releaze ze houndz!

It all looks well considered to me. I'd like to try out most of the new classes.

The rogue looks to be completely obsolete now, losing out to the Investigator and the Slayer at skills/support and sneaky fighting respectively. Not sure if that's a good thing or a bad thing.

Wow...
Nice.
The Shaman looks amazing.
The Slayer looks amazing.
the others just look great ;)

Arcanist doesn't feel much different than Sage bloodline sorcerer, it really doesn't feel unqiue. I'd like to see significant changes in this class. Currently it's just an alternate sorcerer that gives you less than either sorc or wizard. - I want it to look a lot more like Shaman.

The bit you may have missed, at least in terms of mechanics (since Vancian casting is so arbitrary that there's almost no thematic change), is that the class works like a sorcerer that can change spells known every day.

Bloodrager - Primarily a fighter-type, but you use your rage more intelligently, you can use it to pick up certain spells or feats for the situation. A couple of these bloodlines look very interesting, overall I think the class achieves a combat focused hybrid (like paladin) very well.

Having full BAB and Mighty Rage along with spellcasting makes me wonder how many players would use this as a more complex but more potentially powerful drop-in replacement for the normal barbarian.

Also, take a look at the Arcane bloodline. Free blur and haste while raging? Yes, please!

Brawler - Honestly, it doesn't look that interesting. It's trying to be a full BAB monk, but really doesn't do that well. Hopefully we as playtesters can make some of these abilities really interesting

The sad part is that in terms of fitting into the rest of the system, it's a better monk than monk. Can actually use armor with brawling enchantment, gets free special attack types without having to deal with ki points, can spontaneously get an entire feat tree in the middle of a fight by spending an action (and gets enough martial bonus feats to cover the necessities in the first place), etc.

Hunter - "The" Animal companion class. it does this very well, I like it. I have to see this one in action to say a lot more. It really does interesting things with the animal companion.

I like the pet thing... but animal focus X/day feels like an annoyingly fiddly thing to keep track of. I'd rather see the class given access to a limited list of talents, of which it can only know a few but have a "until you switch to a different one" duration.

Also, there should really be some kind of way to give allies teamwork feat benefits.

Investigator - I'm really happy with this class. It's the ultimate skillmaster, it can even inspire itself! as a combat role it's a little more nebulous. So far I really like what i see, however.

This class looks to me like a better drop-in replacement for rogue in many, many cases. Same sneak attack, almost as many talents, 6+Int but inspiration talents can give you +1d6 to a bunch of skills all the time, and then on top of that the class gets extract.

Shaman - I love this class, everything the arcanist should be. Feels unique and interesting, beautifully mends elements of both oracle and witch, and really blends them together into something that feels unique.

I wish they just hadn't named the class feature "hex". Witch hexes aren't the same thing!

Skald - Giving rage powers to those who can use them better. This is very interesting. My initial thoughts are positive, something I'll have to try a bunch of different paths with.

This class seems interesting to me but quite possibly a lot clumsier in play than on paper, because allies who are benefiting from rage can't cast spells or the like. If you have a party with fighter/cleric/rogue/wizard, that's two out of four who will be refusing the rage benefit; make it magus/warpriest/investigator/arcanist and that's nobody who will actually want to rage.

Slayer - a Lot of people want to play rogue's for the sneak attack and/or killing of things side. This is the class for them, it blends those elements really well, and makes a legitimate fighter. you trade slower sneak attack for better atk bonus and special rules. Feels like an excellent class..

This is my favorite of the bunch; it blends elements of both fighty types and the rogue without being obviously better to me than one or the other.

What it's missing is parkour talents, because otherwise it would be excellent for pretty much any Assassin's Creed character (complete with thematic compatibility with going "f&~& it" and just murdering everybody in sight when stealth fails).

Swashbuckler - I LOVE IT. The flavor of gunslinger showmanship, coupled with a good parry ability. This is amazing. It's hard to speak to it from a power perspective, as it's very unique, but certainly is a fun and interesting class.

The class looks interesting, though the way the deeds are clustered together at specific levels feels odd. The table would look less empty if they were spread out a little.

The main objection I have, though, is "why isn't this a fighter archetype?". The skeleton of the fighter class (including bravery and bonus feats) shines through enough that I could easily picture this as an archetype writeup instead.

Warpriest - Interesting blend of cleric and fighter. You trade spellcasting for a lot of combat useable "pseudo spells" being able to augment your armor or weapon to suit your needs is very powerful, also the domains are very cool, and add a lot of flavor to the class. This is a pretty great way to go about things if you want to play a holy man, and still get up in there.

This looks to me like a drop-in replacement for paladin in many cases. It's more flavorful, better fitting for many deities, and, with channel energy and 6th level spells, more capable in the long run.

Page 41: "Daring-do" should be spelled "derring-do".

Some more first impressions. I went into the packet looking for what the hybrid classes do differently than the core classes and why you should still play the new classes.

Arcanist-I agree that it is one of the more bland of the classes. It just seems to be Wizard with pseudo sorcerer powers. Which I guess is fine. There is still a reason to play a Sorcerer if you still want the bloodlines, but don't want to lose spells. Straight Wizards get more preparation and spells, so there is a reason to still play a Wizard. I'm just not sure if either of the above reasons are good enough to still have the Sorcerer and Wizard classes.

Bloodrager-Love this class. It fills a much needed gap for an arcane-ranger esque class. And it doesn't straight out steal anything from the barbarian or sorcerer. Bloodlines are similar but different enough. I think it does need it's own spell list though. But where is arcane strike? That feat actually seems to have a purpose now!

Brawler-Again, very generic. Like the Arcanist, it has nothing unique to it. And on top of that, it desperately wants to do Combat Maneuvers well, and it just can't.

Hunter-It's okay. Bonus Teamwork Feats when working with the Animal Companion is very nice. I think it needs it's own spell list though. I'm not into the whole idea of "use this spell list except for these levels which you can't use." It's done better here than with Bloodrager though.

Investigator-I like the theme, but can't imagine it will see much use. Very good for a low combat campaign though. It's the ultimate skill monkey.

Shaman-I loved it at first, but now I merely like it. I think there should be more of a focus on just one spirit for the main class. Wandering Spirit is a good idea for an archetype though. I think it should pull spells from the Witch spell list. Three classes pulling from Cleric seems too much.

Skald-I love Skald. A really interesting and unique class based on a pretty natural combination.

Slayer-The killy Rogue. Lower Sneak Attack damage, but higher BAB and HP. It's okay.

Swashbuckler-All the flash of a Gunslinger, with the melee prowess of a Fighter. Not a tank, but he doesn't have to be. He's Captain Jack Sparrow. Savvy?

Warpriest-I like the Warpriest, a lot. It can enter combat with the best of them, but doesn't step on any ones toes. At first I thought having both enchanted armor and weapons was too much, but neither is individually as strong as the paladin's divine bond. It doesn't have the striking power of Smite Evil or the spell power of the Magus. I think it works. Also needs it's own spell list.

Are we going for Errol Flynn exclusively here? I ask because not all swashbucklers used piercing weapons. Can you also clarify whether I can actually use that buckler I'm proficient with without loosing class features?

Can Bloodrager take DD? How does that work? Been meaning to try a barb (only core class I've never played, not even in 3.5) but could never bring myself to do it. I think I want to try a Bloodrager/DD now, but I'm not quite sure how the bloodline thing works together, if at all.

It looks as if they don't unfortunately, I'm just not sure though.

Maybe it would progress the blood rager's dragon bloodline instead of the sorcerer version?

so far if I had to put ratings on classes (5 stars) I would have,

Arcainist: 2 stars, see my post in the Arcainist class discussion for details.

Bloodrager: 4 stars, better then I expect may have jumped from one of the lowest in ranking to the highest.

Brawler: Can't rate due to little interest but check it out.

Hunter: 4 stars, great man with best friend team play here, not my style but I know people who would like it. :)

Investigator: 3 stars, while the class abilities work out well the chances for any solo play fall flat as it's main unique power relies on helping others. So excellent for team players, but not for solo ones. I hope there will be an archetype available for solo players (Private Investigator?)

Shaman: 3 stars, looking good, liking the powers though I will more clearance was given in how its Spirit Magic and Wandering Spirit abilities interact with each other.

Skald: 4 stars, Rocked my world. :)

Slayer: 4 stars, abilities look good. Was more of a stalk and kill type instead of the outright kill type that I expected.

Swashbuckler: 4 stars, looks good and seems to work well, however its complete reliance on piercing weapons bothers me a bit (I'm more of the slash and crush type). but nothing that a Dervish or Aldori dueling feat can't fix! :)

Warpriest: 4 stars, want to be a divine warrior without the honor code? Well this class fits the bill! while it's doesn't have lay on hands or mercy, it does gain some other cleric powers to compensate.

These classes are freaking awesome.

That is all.

at first glance I am upset (and surprised) to see that while the shaman is a wisdom based caster, all of the spirit abilities are based on charisma. Is this intentional or is it copy/paste from the charisma based oracle holdover.

Can Bloodrager take DD? How does that work? Been meaning to try a barb (only core class I've never played, not even in 3.5) but could never bring myself to do it. I think I want to try a Bloodrager/DD now, but I'm not quite sure how the bloodline thing works together, if at all.

It looks as if they don't unfortunately, I'm just not sure though.

A Bloodrager can take DD. Know(arcane) 5 ranks, speak draconic and cast 1st level Arcane spells without preparation.

By RAW, since they're not a sorcerer, what bloodline they have is irrelevant, they gain the draconic bloodline using just their DD levels.

I'd let them advance the Bloodrager version if they wanted.

I've read through about half the classes, skimmed all of them.

I agree the arcanist seems odd, it felt like you wanted to hybrid both full arcane spellcaster classes and this was what you came up with. I plan on reading it again to see if I can figure out if the stuff you drop is worth the stuff you get. I almost feel it's a wizard with some sorc abilities. Of course it also might take all the advantages of both clases and just weaken the number of spells known. Again, just first read through.

The hunter is by far my favorite. It's pretty close to what I see the ranger to be and ranger is my favorite class.

I am reading warpriest right now, but it looks like it might be my battle cleric setup.

In my group of RL friends who've read the guide, Slayer, Swashbuckler, Brawler, Warpriest and of course Hunter are the favorites out of the gate.

Shaman interests me but it's a large amount of info, so it feels like it's a new class. I have just skimmed it, it's next on the real deep read.

Well time to start the marathon campaigns...

Where do we post feedback again?

http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/pathfinder/pathfinderR PG/advancedClassGuide

There's the playtest discussion area.

Arcanist- Not bad but it feals like it needs something.

Bloodrager- Not my cup of tea but still somewhat interesting. I would really have liked a class that focuses completely on the sorcerer bloodline powers.

Brawler- I actually really like this one, especially it's ability to gain benefits of combat feats for 1 minute.

Hunter- I like this one but I feel it is missing something. I would like to see an archetype or feats for magical beast companions.

Investigator- I like it, might need some minor tweeking but still good.

Shaman- I like it's abilities but the only problem I have is it's spell list being form the cleric list, personally this one might need it's own spell list.

Skald- Not real big on this one unless I was playing an angry rock star/punk rocker.

Slayer- Alignment for this one should read any non-good. I was never fan of assassin classes but it least it lives up to it's name.

Swashbuckler- I like this one, it fills a niche that was really needed.

Warpriest- This one isn't bad, I do really like it's modified domain abilities.

Just a quick observation for here.

The classes are okay but some need a LOT of work to not make power gamers ignore other options. Most could be either split into 2 classes or combined with another to make a good balanced class with plenty of options. Some, like the Warpriest, could be alternate classes of just a single base class.

Okay. Here are my initial thoughts.

First, the Playtest is only until mid-December? Wait, what? I'll be lucky to use some of these once as my groups don't meet that often and they're currently finishing off with the Clocktower in Magnimar (Runelords). Though it's a shame it didn't come sooner, some of these classes would have been interesting for the Skinsaw Cultists to have used.

Second, using pre-established spell lists feels... cheap. Like this was rushed. Now admittedly we've been ranking about wanting this now, so maybe it was. Perhaps these spell lists are placeholders until the next part comes out. I'm hoping this is the case.

The Arcanist sounds quite interesting, to be honest. If Paizo were to relaunch Pathfinder, I'd almost suggest the Arcanist replace both the Wizard and the Sorceror. This "hybrid" is an interesting combination of the two. There are some confusing aspects

The Bloodrager seems interesting and I'll be including one in the group I'm siccing on the PCs for a side-story. I do find it amusing the jokes about "I'm so angry my heart stopped!" came true with the Undead path. ;)

I'm not sure about the Hunter. This is a bit bare-bones so it feels like something is missing.

I agree with Dragon78 that the Shaman needs its own spell list, much as the Witch and Inquisitor got their own lists. This was played up as akin to the Mystic Theurge so for the Shaman to become just another Divine Caster diminishes him, especially as Shamans in 2nd edition AD&D had both wizardly and priestly abilities. So too should this Shaman.

The Skald seems interesting and I'll be siccing one on the group as part of the side-encounter and playtest.

The Swashbucker... wow. I think this is the winner. Seriously, this looks like the character that a lot of work and effort was put into. It shows. This is a much more viable alternative to the Duelist. That said, we need several more methods of regaining Panache.

The Warpriest... well, first it needs its own dedicated spell list. Honestly. Right now it's more of a gestalt class of fighter and cleric. Having a more military bent for its spells and perhaps a somewhat more limited selection.

I may run a Slayer against my PCs as well as part of the side adventure. Otherwise I don't have much of an opinion though I'm glad to see several non-spellcasting classes.

The Brawler seems... okay. I've no real opinions formed but may run one to see how it works.

Finally I've absolutely no thoughts on the Investigator... but part of that is that I'm not into the Alchemist so my prejudices are showing. ;)

First found an error- shaman gets called a witchin the first paragraph on its familiar.

Second have a few questions that pop up to me.
Does a spirit familiar get bith the spirit and wandering spirits familiar power?
Do all of these classes count as the two base classes for favored class bonus and prereqs? Aka can a arcanist take wizard discoveries? Or a shaman accursed hex?

Third comments .
Kinda worried about the shaman using charisma on all its powers and then wisdom for spellcasting (actually more annoyed that it isnt int and charisma at least being a witch oracle)
I really like the investigator, think it will be interesting.
The slayer I am a little bugged that it is a ranger rogue then gets less skills than either. That might me being a little ocd though lol.
Somehow the skald being a poet... but then just makes people angry with his music sounds a bit odd thematically to me. I mean if it was like a warchanter or something like that it would make more sense to me.
I do feel the arcanist is a bit bland, though is pretty sweet for prestig classing...

This is just what I got for now will read more in depth later...

One observation on the Bloodrager…..

I think it needs to be clearer whether bloodrage powers can only be used while bloodraging or at any time.

Maybe in the section describing bloodrage there needs to be a line saying "Bloodrage powers can be used at anytime unless the individual power's description specifically states it can only be used while bloodraging".

Or the opposite if most powers can only be used while raging.

Under Bloodrager Bloodlines, there is this:

When a bloodrager enters his bloodrage, his

transformation often takes on physical characteristics of
his bloodline. Unless otherwise specif ied, he only gains
the effects of his bloodrage powers while in a bloodrage;
once a bloodrage ends, all powers from his bloodline
immediate cease. Any that cause a physical change revert
to normal when the bloodrage ends

Under Bloodrager Bloodlines, there is this:

Quote:

When a bloodrager enters his bloodrage, his

transformation often takes on physical characteristics of
his bloodline. Unless otherwise specif ied, he only gains
the effects of his bloodrage powers while in a bloodrage;
once a bloodrage ends, all powers from his bloodline
immediate cease. Any that cause a physical change revert
to normal when the bloodrage ends

But there are some powers that unnecessarily add "when you bloodrage" (some of the dragon ones), that could be confusing as most don't say "when you bloodrage".

At 16th level, when you bloodrage, you grow a long tail.

Why not just say "At 16th level you grow a long tail" if the power only manifests when you rage. Some people may think that given some powers specifically say "when you bloodrage" (and I don't mean the ones that say things like "once per bloodrage") if it doesn't say that then you can use the power any time. Given the semantic contortions displayed in some threads on the forums it wouldn't hurt to be perfectly consistent in the descriptions.

Somehow the skald being a poet... but then just makes people angry with his music sounds a bit odd thematically to me. I mean if it was like a warchanter or something like that it would make more sense to me.

I would say it fits, though. Skalds were lorekeepers (and many were warriors themselves), after all. I think what this hybrid attempts to do is better meld with a more martially focused party.

What is to stop you from refluffing the Skald as a Warchanter?

at first glance I am upset (and surprised) to see that while the shaman is a wisdom based caster, all of the spirit abilities are based on charisma. Is this intentional or is it copy/paste from the charisma based oracle holdover.

I noticed that as well, I think it's a formatting artefact.

One small thing I noticed, in the Shaman section for Life Spirit. The level 3 spell you get is spelled Naturalize Poison, I think it's supposed to be Neutralize Poison.

What is to stop you from refluffing the Skald as a Warchanter?

I would see a warchanter as more of a hybrid of fighter/bard, cavalier/bard, or even barbarian/oracle than barbarian/bard. Personally, in the historical sense, I think skald is much more representative of a barbarian/bard than the title warchanter. Also warchanter more seems like it should be for large armies, not a small party. As well as this, this title reminds me too much of the warchanter prestige class from Complete Warrior in 3.5, and I didn't really care for that one, because it was a ridiculously OP'd bard prestige, especially when you got combine songs.

Swashbuckler - I really like the look of it.

Some thoughts:

1. Maybe start with panache points equal to CHA mod + 2, so low level Swashbucklers have a few more tricks per day - unless, as someone suggested above, there are more ways of getting points back.

2. Given Swashbucklers are famed as much for fighting as for deeds of skill and daring, I think Swashbuckler's Edge should be granted at a lower level and a more advance version at higher levels. i.e. Derring-do at 1, Swashbuckler's Edge at 8 and then at level 15 grant a deed to spend panache points to take 20 on a skill check for some heroic acrobatics and the like.

3. As Swashbucklers were also famed for their way with the opposite sex, perhaps the skill-based deeds should be expanded to include Diplomacy and Bluff when dealing with the opposite sex and maybe also Intimidate for dealing with the same sex.

4. I think they should also get the feat Dirty Trick for free.