Non-Core Pathfinder Classes; Your Opinions?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.

First of all, I've never started a topic on these boards before, so I'm deeply sorry if I say anything offensive or if I'm putting this in the wrong way.

Pathfinder continues to grow, and as part of that, it's brought out quite a large number of new classes to the iconics. Advanced Player's Guide gave us the Alchemist, Cavalier, Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner and Witch. Ultimate Combat gave us the Gunslinger, Ninja and Samurai. Ultimate Magic brought the Magus into being. And Advanced Class Guide is looking to give us the Arcanist, Bloodrager, Brawler, Hunter, Investigator, Shaman, Skald, Slayer, Swashbuckler and Warpriest.

That's a lot of new content. But I was curious; what do people think of these various additions to the Pathfinder class array? Which ones do you like, dislike, think could have been done better, etcetera?

Since it's only fair, here are my answers to the question I'm asking.

Alchemist: I'll be honest, I'm not really a big fan of the Alchemist. I just never honestly saw the point in it. It's basically a class revolving around potion-brewing, with a little treading on the Barbarian's heels via its Mutagen feature. Ultimate Magic made it a little more attractive, but still, I would probably never play one myself. I suppose if you were determined to run a caster-free game it's a good finangle, but, yeah, honestly I see the Alchemist's various bombs and the like as something better off folded into the Gunslinger, or else used as part of a more "Mad Scientist" typed class.

Cavalier: When I first saw this class, I immediately skipped over it. My first thought was "if a player wants to be a Knight in Shining Armor sans Spells, why not just be a Lawful Good Fighter with the right feats?" But, when I actually took a second look, I found myself pleasantly surprised. The fact that it doesn't overemphasize the Cavalier's steed, to the point that the class is useless if not mounted, helped a lot, as I've heard was the case with 3.5's Knight base class and Cavalier prestige class. In all honesty, the class's focus on buffing party members and debuffing enemies through non-magical means actually reminds me a lot of 4e's Warlord class.

Inquisitor: ...I just cannot, for the life of me, see the point of this class. It's a powerful archetype and all, but I just can't get behind it. I can never really figure out what an Inquisitor actually does when combat rolls around - I guess it's sort of a cleric-spell-casting Rogue. It's very odd because I've seen 4e's Avenger, I can easily imagine fluffing one up as member of their church's inquisition (or an equivalent organization - Warhammer's Witchfinders, for example), and come up with plenty of ideas for that, but trying to do the same for Pathfinder's actual Inquisitor class leaves me... well, stumped.

Oracle: On the one hand, I shouldn't think much of the Oracle, since it's literally a Divine analogue to the Sorcerer. But on the other hand, I find the Oracle really, really cool. I like the class's fluff and I like it's crunch support, something that I find is generally the case for Pathfinder classes vs. 3.5 classes. The Curse motifs are cool, without overly impairing the class in the name of flavor, and the Mysteries they choose really emphasize the difference between two Oracles.

Summoner: Yeah, I know it's cliché on these boards, but I'm not a Summoner fan. It just seems like a glorified, over-specialized version of the Conjurer specialist. Even the Eidolon, which could be very cool and fluffwise actualy is, fails to really make the class useful. If a Pathfinder 2e came out and the Conjurer killed the Summoner and took the (upgraded and less confusing) Eidolon for itself, I'd be quite happy.

Witch: Packed with juicy characterization, flavorful without being too weak or too powerful, the Witch is one of my favorite classes to be added to Pathfinder, and I think the gem of the APG. The fact it's the first time a D&D setting has included a "Red Mage" type base class further cements its approval in my mind.

Gunslinger: Gun-wielding characters in fantasy RPGs are a controversial element. All things in consideration, though, I'm very happy with the Gnslinger's existence and I applaud Paizo for including it. The Grit system was unexpected, but works out quite nicely, giving players a reason to really "play up" the Gunslinger properly, as opposed to the fun-killing "I sit way, way in the back and snipe at the bad guys" that gun-wielders tend to get stereotyped as in such settings.

Ninja: If I'm honest, my first impulse when presented with the Ninja was to recoil as needless Japanophile pandering. The Monk kind of gets by on tradition and unique place, but the Ninja is basically a Rogue with Japanese flavor added on top. Forcing myself to take a look revealed what's actually a pretty decent class, crunchwise, but still, I probably would rather have had a Ninja archetype for the Rogue than a full-fledged class. I mean, I could easily reskin the Ninja's crunch for a more mystical sort of assassin class, but I just don't get it being so essential to do "magical Japanese Rogue" as an independent class.

Samurai: Remember what I said about the Cavalier and the Ninja? Yep; this is another class where, though investigation has revealed decent crunch, I just don't see a point behind it as an independent class. Pathfinder's archetype system means that the Fighter could *easily* have represented the Samurai. Kudos to Paizo for being smarter than 3.5 and not making the Samurai yet another Alignment Restricted class, though, even if this is one example where I could kind of see a suggestion of aiming to be Lawful as appropriate. And that's rare from me, since I'm not a huge fan of the 9-grid character alignment system.

Magus: My favorite class in Pathfinder, hands down. I have always been a huge Gish fan, ever since I first cut my teeth back on AD&D. I love 4e's Swordmage, and I love Pathfinder's Magus. I will confess to being a little disappointed at the spell selection, but I guess that's a side effect of coming from 4e's "every caster has unique spells" perspective, and I certainly find the ones that the Magus has very unique. The Bladebound archetype in particular is one of my favorites in the game.

Arcanist: Honestly, I find myself puzzled about my feelings for this class. I do like the basic idea, and arcane casters have always been my favorite. But, at the same time, I find the execution of the idea kind of blah. Good crunch, just... not very exciting. I really don't know how I feel about it, to be honest.

Bloodrager: Once I actually took a look at it, this class really caught my attention. I find the idea very interesting, especially because it reminds me of the Irish myths of the Riastrad, or "warp-spasm", a rage that actually mutated and transformed the berserker. Honestly, I feel the Bloodrager could be more interesting by focusing on that side of it, rather than by making it another melee-ranged spellcaster like the Magus. Either way, I like it a lot, and it even gives me ideas for 4e and its Hybrid Classing rules, especially since the Sorcerer and Barbarian there can mesh pretty well.

Brawler: Truth be told? This is one of the ACG classes I'm least looking forward to. No matter how hard I try, no matter what angle I look at it from, all I see is a Monk stripped of that pesky "must always be Lawful" rule that I've always hated, and with less Eastern flavor to its mechanics. So, yeah; I would rather see a unarmed combat-focused archetype for the Fighter and simply strip the Monk of its Alignment Requisite than see this class.

Hunter: I don't know, I just don't find this class very interesting. The fact it reminds me a lot of the World of Warcraft class called the Hunter - especially as it was portrayed in WoW's short-lived D20 tabletop game - doesn't help. I'd never want to play one myself.

Investigator: Strangely, even though I'm not an Alchemist fan myself, I really, really like the Investigator. It just seems so very suited for an urban-set game, and with a little fluff-work I could easily see an Indiana Jones or Laura Croft-styled adventurer-archaeologist character being built on the Investigator class's crunchwork. Definitely one of the more promising classes coming.

Shaman: Being a hybrid of the Witch and the Oracle, I find myself strangely ambivalent towards the Shaman. It's an interesting idea, I suppose, but I just can't get into it.

Skald: I'd probably never play a Skald myself, but the "barbarian bard" archetype is an old one and I suppose it's handled pretty well. It looks promising so far, but it's just not my area of interest.

Slayer: Another medicore idea, from my point of view. The combination of the Ranger's Tracking ability and the Rogue's Back Stab certainly makes for a lethally effective crunch-combo, but honestly I think a refluffed Ranger or Rogue already does this class just fine. I guess it works if you absolutely need 100% crunch support for your bounty hunter, but I don't care for it much at all.

Swashbuckler: Ordinarily, I probably would have asked "why not just make this a fighter archetype?" But, looking at what they've done for it, I really do like the Swashbuckler as a class on its own merits. It meshes up with the archetype it's drawing from so very well that I can easily see places for it in games I might be inclined to run.

Warpriest: Alongside the Brawler, this is the class I find least interesting in the ACG. Either it's a beefier Cleric, or it's an attempt to create a non-Alignment Restricted variant of the Paladin. There's just... nothing here to really excite my attention, and I can't help the feeling it owes a large part of its existence to Pathfinder's retaining the idea of Alignment Restricted classes. Which is my big problem with the Brawler, as well.


IMHO

Alchemist: Interesting class. Lot's of neat abilities. The whole thing just doesn't click for me at the moment. The game is not worse for it.

Cavalier: Has interesting combos and a lot of trap options. No real desire to play one. I prefer Samurai. Mounted combat rules have problems and mounts have trouble fitting in dungeon. The game is not worse for it.

Inquisitor: It has powers that last for the duration of combat. I won't touch the class. I have similar problems with some cavalier orders. "Combat" duration is too meta and should not be in the game. My personal bias against "combat" duration prevents me from evaluating the class

Oracle: Thank you paizo.

Summoner: Needed class. Fills it's own unique niche. Eidolon is a tad strong.

Witch: Good, sleep hex is a little dis-balancing though.

Gunslinger: I know nothing about this class.

Ninja: Aka rogue that buys a ring of evasion and can turn invisible. Yeah we can work with that. This class has more build flexibility than rogue.

Magus: super solid clash. Damage is swinging with spell crits. That probably should not be a thing, just saying.

Idc about classes that aren't out yet.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Not familiar with the Class Guide. I like all the others, though I've got a soft spot for the Inquisitor.

The Ninja and the Samurai are really just major archetypes for the Rogue and Cavalier, respectively

QuietBrowser wrote:
Inquisitor: ...I just cannot, for the life of me, see the point of this class. It's a powerful archetype and all, but I just can't get behind it. I can never really figure out what an Inquisitor actually does when combat rolls around - I guess it's sort of a cleric-spell-casting Rogue. It's very odd because I've seen 4e's Avenger, I can easily imagine fluffing one up as member of their church's inquisition (or an equivalent organization - Warhammer's Witchfinders, for example), and come up with plenty of ideas for that, but trying to do the same for Pathfinder's actual Inquisitor class leaves me... well, stumped.

I'm not sure what you're confused about here. The general idea behind the inquisitor is to have a more skilled divine caster. They have a variety of things to do out of combat, including some pretty incredible interrogation potential. Their Intimidate and Sense Motive can easily go sky-high, they get Diplomacy and Bluff as class skills as well, and they can Detect Lies several times a day as an immediate action (in response to something that sounds suspicious!). They do church inquisition just fine.

Monster Lore and Track also make them decent monster hunters, a la Van Helsing.

In combat they work pretty much like a melee cleric or paladin in that they might activate a buff (Judgement or Bane being big ones) and then typically wade in swinging - though archer inquisitors work too. Monster Lore helps them identify what they're fighting (necessary for Bane) and Solo Tactics adds a little more complexity to their battlefield positioning, mostly being adjacent to or flanking particular allies.

Got a fantastic monk-inquisitor team in a game I'm in right now, with the Monk tripping and getting AoO from Vicious Stomp and the Inquisitor taking his own AoO with Paired Opportunists.

EDIT: Oh, and their easy sky-high intimidate makes anything that gives you fast or area demoralize, like Blistering Invective, loads of fun.


Magus is my one true love and if I could only play one class for the rest of my life it would be Magus, hands down. I would even be kinda happy I'd have an excuse to play a bunch of Magi. I think the class does have certain problems though, particularly how it really lends itself to one specific build (Dervish Dance Intensified Shocking Grasp). I think if they gave it better low level blasting spells, better low level support for armour, and some incentive to use high crit mod weapons, the class would lend itself much better for versatility.

Witch is probably the only class out of the whole lot I really don't like. Thematically I don't see what the Witch really covers that the Wizard or Sorcerer doesn't- aside from those flavour hexes like Child Scent or Cook People that I can't really see players taken even if it fits their concept.

Mechanically is where I really object to the class though. Save or Suck is just an awful mechanic - either it fails in which case the Witch wastes a turn and has no fun or it succeeds and the whole encounter is over in a really anticlimactic way. Sure the Witch could cripple mooks but can't the big beefy fighter just go around 1-shotting mooks anyways?


Huh. I see... thank you, Weirdo, I may have been skimming the Inquisitor class too quickly. I guess I just sort of passed over the skill-monkey aspects in flavor of the class attributes. I've done it a disservice, then. Thank you for correcting me.

You have a point about the Save or Suck thing, Desidero. I kind of reconciled myself to considering Save or Suck as just something that has to be put up with as part of Pathfinder's rules.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
QuietBrowser wrote:
Alchemist: I'll be honest, I'm not really a big fan of the Alchemist. I just never honestly saw the point in it. It's basically a class revolving around potion-brewing, with a little treading on the Barbarian's heels via its Mutagen feature. Ultimate Magic made it a little more attractive, but still, I would probably never play one myself. I suppose if you were determined to run a caster-free game it's a good finangle, but, yeah, honestly I see the Alchemist's various bombs and the like as something better off folded into the Gunslinger, or else used as part of a more "Mad Scientist" typed class.

I had mixed feelings about the Alchemist when I first read about it. Throw Anything and Bombs seemed to shoehorn the Alchemist into a "Mad Bomber" character type while mutagens presented a "Mr Hyde" alternative. Sure, you can indeed specialize in either of these two paths, and be very effective at what you do, but I discovered, with time and playtesting, that the Alchemist can be so much more. Ever heard of the Witcher? There's no better class than the Alchemist to mechanically simulate Gerald of Rivia. Since extracts can be used in heavy armor, playing an Alchemist is a bit like playing a self-buffing Eldritch Knight (Fighter/Transmuter) with no Arcane Spell Failure chance, more skills, poison use and energy damage-dealing, debuffing and battlefield control blast spells (bombs). Thanks to his 4 skill points/level, a usually high Int, a good selection of class skills, utility spells like invisibility and such, the Alchemist can easily fill up the "Rogue" slot in any given party. Need to unlock this particularly well locked door? Quaff a Dex-boosting mutagen and a Cat's Grace extract or potion you crafted and look at the Rogue cry (alchemy bonuses stack with enhancement bonuses). Furthermore, thanks to his ability-scores-altering class features, which are much more customizable than the Barbarian rage by the way, the Alchemist also makes the perfect 5th wheel of the party. The guy playing the Fighter in your party could not show up for the game tonight? No problem, just quaff a Str-boosting mutagen, an extract/potion of enlarge person and an extract/potion of Bull's Strength and crush opponents with DR\- under your mighty blows. The Wizard just ran out of fire spells to burn those annoying trolls? No problem, you have enough bombs to reduce them to cinder. Finally, the Infusion discovery let you buff your allies in never seen before ways. Truly, the Alchemist is a Jack or all trades at his core: whether you choose to focus on a specific aspect of the class, or try to expand even further his versatility, is up to you.


Maerimydra wrote:
Thanks to his 6 skill points/level, a usually high Int, a good selection of class skills, utility spells like invisibility and such, the Alchemist can easily fill up to "Rogue" slot in any given party.

Nice point about the witcher, but alchemist get 4+int per level.


Marthkus wrote:
Maerimydra wrote:
Thanks to his 6 skill points/level, a usually high Int, a good selection of class skills, utility spells like invisibility and such, the Alchemist can easily fill up to "Rogue" slot in any given party.
Nice point about the witcher, but alchemist get 4+int per level.

True. I corrected my mistake in the post above, thanks!

Liberty's Edge

QuietBrowser wrote:
Alchemist: I'll be honest, I'm not really a big fan of the Alchemist. I just never honestly saw the point in it. It's basically a class revolving around potion-brewing, with a little treading on the Barbarian's heels via its Mutagen feature. Ultimate Magic made it a little more attractive, but still, I would probably never play one myself. I suppose if you were determined to run a caster-free game it's a good finangle, but, yeah, honestly I see the Alchemist's various bombs and the like as something better off folded into the Gunslinger, or else used as part of a more "Mad Scientist" typed class.

Alchemists are the Mad Scientist class. In addition to being The Witcher class as mentioned above. It's the class for being a mad genius who uses something other than conventional spellcasting, and quite good at what it does.

QuietBrowser wrote:
Inquisitor: ...I just cannot, for the life of me, see the point of this class. It's a powerful archetype and all, but I just can't get behind it. I can never really figure out what an Inquisitor actually does when combat rolls around - I guess it's sort of a cleric-spell-casting Rogue. It's very odd because I've seen 4e's Avenger, I can easily imagine fluffing one up as member of their church's inquisition (or an equivalent organization - Warhammer's Witchfinders, for example), and come up with plenty of ideas for that, but trying to do the same for Pathfinder's actual Inquisitor class leaves me... well, stumped.

In addition to the skill thing mentioned above, I'll note Bane, Judgment, and a very solid selection of buff spells make Inquisitors some of the scariest self-buffers in the game (along with alchemists, amusingly enough). A 6th level Inquisitor can easily add +4 to hit and +4+2d6 to damage, as well as a choice of +2 AC, +2 to-hit, +3 damage, +2 to all saves, Fast Healing 3, or one of several other benefits, all with a single round of buffing. And it only gets better as they rise in level.

They're really very cool on all sorts of levels.

Sovereign Court

Alchemist I'm not a huge fan. The bombs seem a bit limited compared to full arcane casting. I don't like the mutagens as a standard class feature; why is EVERY standard alchemist a Hyde? That said, I suppose the alchemist could be a decent stand-in for the wizard if you want a slightly more low-fantasy game, like Ravenloft.

Cavalier Not a big fan. I think this should be something fighters do with 2-4 feats, not an entirely separate class. Alas, mounted combat is horribly screwed up.

Gunslinger Guns are nice, and I like the general flavour of the class, Grit and the swaggering social class skills and all. But it feels like you have very little flexibility in feats, too many mandatory feats.

Inquisitor I wasn't a fan at first, mostly because of the name. When you say "inquisitor" I think of a stern bureaucrat, not a holy ninja. That said, this class is a nice toolbox. You can make that bureaucrat, and you can also make that holy ninja. It's a much more customizable holy warrior than the paladin. The spell list has a nice flavor with the many "pronouncement" spells like the Litanies and Blistering Invective.

Magus I'm on the fence about this. The idea of a warrior-wizard appeals to me, but I hate giving up complete spellcasting. I think the part I like least is that they use spellbooks. It feels to me like they should've been less weighed down with that sort of thing. But I think I'm happy this class was added.

Oracle I like the oracle a lot in theory. Limited spell selection means that an oracle of a death god won't be casting 95% the same spells as an oracle of a life god. The revelations have some funky things in them. I wish there were more curses to choose from.

Summoner I don't like it. I suppose that if they made Haste a level 3 summoner spell instead of level 2 (access at level 7 instead of 4), that'd be an improvement. I detest the casual way their monster summoning is so much better than that of conjurer wizards. I'm fairly sure that the full-round casting time of summon spells is good for game balance, and makes spellcasting more stressful/exciting.

Maybe the summoner should be part of a series of Major Wizard Archetypes, each focusing on a different school. Give us the summoner as the Extreme Conjuration Wizard, give us a real Arcane Necromancer that isn't horribly outclassed by divine casters, give us a Lord of Lies illusionist that makes illusion a sexy school, a Thrallherd-like enchanter, an arcane-shapechanging Transmuter and so forth.

Because I do think there's room for an arcane pet class, it just needs a lot more R&D.

Witch I'm mostly a fan. The spell list just oozes flavor, and I like a lot of the hexes. I think the Slumber hex needs rework, because it's too "hard". I'm not convinced it's OP, but it only works with a really good GM who can handle it well. Maybe trade it out for a hex that allows you to do something against plants/constructs/undead/oozes. I'm also a bit scared of just how big a point of failure the familiar is.

===

Ninja A medium-fantasy rogue, instead of the normal low-fantasy rogue. A step in the right direction, but still too cautious design at levels 5+.

Samurai About as exciting at the cavalier. Not.

Antipaladin Dumb name.
===

Arcanist I feel like I should be excited, but I'm not, not really. It looks like finally getting away from that silly old vancian spellcasting without losing wide spell choice. But it's just a bit bland, compared to either school specialization or bloodlines. Also, the way you can cherrypick school powers and bloodline powers seems both clumsy and too easy.

Bloodrager I'm excited about the Aberrant and Abyssal bloodragers. The other bloodlines seem a bit weak compared to those. I do like the idea of barbarians flying around under their own power, relying on their own buff spells. Definitely flavorful, just needs a bit more work on the bloodlines. Also, interaction with Dragon Disciple needs to be explained.

Hunter I like the idea of using Teamwork feats with your animal companion. Seems more appropriate than an inquisitor using "solo" tactics with his teammates.

Investigator I like this one best of all. This is much more the alchemist that I wanted than the original alchemist class. I don't think it'll be very powerful in combat, but that's not what it's for. As an improved rogue and more appropriate alchemist, I like this concept.

Brawler, Swashbuckler Seems too low-fantasy compared to the bloodrager, arcanist and war priest.

Shaman Not sure what I think about this. I think I like Kobold Press' spontaneously casting shaman better. There's quite some new design here though. I do think there was a niche for a nature-spellcaster that doesn't wildshape. (Wildshape is nice, but it does tend to steal all the attention.)

Skald I like most of it, but I have my doubts about Raging Song. It's clause prohibiting "concentrated" activities (just like Rage) might mean that it's not as good for the whole party as ordinary bardic performance.

Slayer Well, it's a more ferocious combat rogue. If that's what you wanted, this is it.

War Priest At first glance, looks quite OP.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

My views on the various classes:

Alchemist: Love the class, though not a fan of the mutagen portion of it. Was hoping for an archetype that got rid of it. I enjoy the bombs aspect of the class, and their discoveries are pretty nice. The new "Healing Bomb" from Magical Marketplace, while a nice addition, I don't know about it's usefulness.

Cavalier: I have no experience with the class, and have played with one person who had a cavalier character, but played it as a fighter and used NONE of its abilities. Not a fan of mounted combat. Overall, I find it kinda meh.

Gunslinger: Haven't played it.

Inquisitor: At first, I saw no reason for the existance of this class. But reading about it here, I can see that this class could be quite fun.

Magus: Not a fan. Just everything about this class I do not like.

Oracle: One of my favorites, as I enjoy spontaneous casters, and was hoping for a divine sorcerer. Don't care for many of the curses, and they need to come up with a wider selection. Not a fan of any archetype, and was hoping for a dual-revelation archetype similar to the crossblooded sorcerer. Overall, I like this class.

Summoner: Haven't played it, but have played with those who have a summoner character. I like the concept of the eidolon, but some of the options are a bit much. I have no problem with the class, but can see why some would (the power of the eidolon, as well as flooding the combat with lots of summoned monsters). I wouldn't mind trying one out.

Witch: Not a fan. The concept isn't bad, but I don't care for the hexes.

Ninja: I like the class, but the name is what most seem to hate about it, and what gets it disallowed by most. I enjoy many of the ninja tricks, and think this class could have just been rolled into the rogue to make it better.

Samurai: Haven't looked into it. A mountless cavalier is what it seems. No desire to play one.

Antipaladin: Yeah, no. The name is rather stupid.

ACG classes: I didn't get to test them, but a quick perusal has Bloodrager, Hunter, Skald, and Slayer to be the ones I am looking forward to. The shaman is one I don't care for, as I am not a fan of the witch.


I don't get the hate for the Anti-Paladin. You guys are aware that the Anti-Paladin has been around for quite a while right?..


Ascalaphus wrote:
Alchemist I'm not a huge fan. The bombs seem a bit limited compared to full arcane casting. I don't like the mutagens as a standard class feature; why is EVERY standard alchemist a Hyde? That said, I suppose the alchemist could be a decent stand-in for the wizard if you want a slightly more low-fantasy game, like Ravenloft.

Unless you have taken levels into the Master Chymist class, your mutagen does not turn you into a Hyde, at least not more than the rage class feature of the Barbarian. Mechanically speaking, it's only a free Bull's Strength/Cat's Grace/Bear's Endurance potion mixed with a Barkskin potion with an increased duration. Is it the -2 penalty to a mental stat, or the fluff associated with this class feature (according to the APG, the mutagen makes the Alchemist more bulky) that bothers you so much? I mean, the mutagen class feature, or its suggested fluff, is so much more easy to ignore than, let's say, the bomb class feature. In my current campaign, I have a player that almost never use his mutagen, focusing entirely on his bombs and extracts. Meanwhile, in another campaign where I play a ''switch-hitter'' Alchemist, I rely heavily on my mutagen for melee combat.

Shadow Lodge

i think all of the newer clesses are better designed, and very easily over powering, then the original 3.5 classes.

alchemist: great class i havent ever played one as a PC only used them as NPCs in my games.

cavalier: is very powerful and makes playing a small sized character actually a good thing, small sized cav on a dog mount can charge through with dragon style and 4x smash on people.

inquisitor: a better version of a ranger, but for the life of me something about this class just turns me off, but its a great class, but i cant bring myself to play one...

ninja and samurai: both awesome, i love playing these classes, very powerful but not over powering.

magus: who hasnt had an entire encounter ruined by a crit fishing shocking grasp dervish magus? it really sucks, i have to meta them just to let my bbegs live long enough to challenge one.

Advanced Classes:
bloodragers: arcane and abyssal are to powerful as written, with very little effort you can build either one to be a powerhouse that over shadows the core classes, the unkillable(i think thats what its called) and undead bloodlines are very balanced and i like them very much.

brawlers are completely unnecessary, and are over shadowed by lorewardens, tetori, unarmed fighters, brawler barbs, and maneuver master monks.

war priests: are a monk players wet dream, as written they are substantially better then monks at combat, and will make most people who want unarmed combatants very happy. it also lets lite weapons get a massive damage boost by 20th level, dual dagger players will be happy to swing great swords at 20 lol. and 6th level divine spell casting to boot! I LOVE THIS CLASS

all the other ACG classes are very blah to me.


K177Y C47 wrote:
I don't get the hate for the Anti-Paladin. You guys are aware that the Anti-Paladin has been around for quite a while right?..

I must say that I would have preferred the Antipaladin as a class of its own, instead of a reverse copy-paste of the Paladin (I like Aura of Despair though). But anyway, I prefer playing a Fighter/Cleric or a Fighter/Inquisitor with the alignment and the code of conduct of my choice rather than being forced to play the paragon of Lawful Good or Chaotic Evil. The Warpriest is the class from the ACG that I'm the more looking forward to.


TheSideKick wrote:


war priests: are a monk players wet dream, as written they are substantially better then monks at combat, and will make most people who want unarmed combatants very happy. it also lets lite weapons get a massive damage boost by 20th level, dual dagger players will be happy to swing great swords at 20 lol. and 6th level divine spell casting to boot! I LOVE THIS CLASS

all the other ACG classes are very blah to me.

Even better they make Captain America: get throwing shield, WF Shield, and you can throw DX (D10 at level 8 I think) shields multiple times a round (at least 3 as free actions are suggested to be limited to 3), and then add BAB shield throwing.


The Witch class is God's gift to fantasy roleplaying.

That is all.


My thoughts are simply that too many of these extra classes are concepts better covered by playing the core classes, or as archetypes. When a concept can be covered by what's in the rulebook you don't need them.

Antipaladin.
NPC class only in my games.

Alchemist.
Don't like it. I don't see the need for this class. I'd rather play an arcane caster focusing on crafting and potions. Should have been a wizard archetype.

Cavalier.
Unless your game is more wilderness based than usual this class is pointless. Most games are too dungeon, city and planes based to make this class worthwhile.

Gunslinger.
Tech levels aside I find this class too powerful. Ditch touch attacks and it might be better.

Inquisitor.
When you have the cleric already this class seems superfluous.

Magus.
Though not too bad I dislike the concept behind this. If you want to play a fighter wizard type then multiclass a fighter and wizard/sorcerer. It seems to me to cater simply to players who don't want to lose out by multi-classing.

Ninja.
My dislike of oriental fantasy aside, this is another class that would have been better as a rogue archetype. Otherwise just play a rogue.

Oracle.
Love it. Don't see the need for the curses though. 3.5 Dragonlance had a sorcerer type cleric (Mystic?) and it worked fine without a disadvantage.

Samurai.
Same issues as Cavalier.

Summoner.
I've tried these and I find them broken. Summoning as a class feature makes things much too easy for the party. This and gunslinger are the only ones I've banned.

Witch.
Unnecessary concept when the you have the sorcerer class.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eryx_UK wrote:

My thoughts are simply that too many of these extra classes are concepts better covered by playing the core classes, or as archetypes. When a concept can be covered by what's in the rulebook you don't need them.

Antipaladin.
NPC class only in my games.

Alchemist.
Don't like it. I don't see the need for this class. I'd rather play an arcane caster focusing on crafting and potions. Should have been a wizard archetype.

Cavalier.
Unless your game is more wilderness based than usual this class is pointless. Most games are too dungeon, city and planes based to make this class worthwhile.

Gunslinger.
Tech levels aside I find this class too powerful. Ditch touch attacks and it might be better.

Inquisitor.
When you have the cleric already this class seems superfluous.

Magus.
Though not too bad I dislike the concept behind this. If you want to play a fighter wizard type then multiclass a fighter and wizard/sorcerer. It seems to me to cater simply to players who don't want to lose out by multi-classing.

Ninja.
My dislike of oriental fantasy aside, this is another class that would have been better as a rogue archetype. Otherwise just play a rogue.

Oracle.
Love it. Don't see the need for the curses though. 3.5 Dragonlance had a sorcerer type cleric (Mystic?) and it worked fine without a disadvantage.

Samurai.
Same issues as Cavalier.

Summoner.
I've tried these and I find them broken. Summoning as a class feature makes things much too easy for the party. This and gunslinger are the only ones I've banned.

Witch.
Unnecessary concept when the you have the sorcerer class.

Don't ignore the mechanic and flavor differences, though. Witch Hexes make them play very differently from other casting classes. It COULD have been working into an existing class, but it would have to be chopped down in order to fit, and ultimately the same could be said of everything other than "Fighting Man" and "Magic User".

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

@Eryx_UK: Wow. I could not possibly disagree with you more on most of those. It's rare to see a post you disagree with so utterly on so many different things.

So! On to my own opinions of the classes:

Antipaladin

Not appropriate for non-Evil PC groups, obviously. Otherwise, pretty cool, if slightly less powerful than the Paladin.

Alchemist

Awesome class. Thematic and fun without generally being broken. Potentially slightly problematic mechanically in bursts due to Fast Bombs allowing an unreasonable amount of damage as Touch Attacks in around, but that can be worked around.

Cavalier

Great class with a lot of flavor and pretty solid mechanics. I'm not sure how balanced the Orders are, but it's still solid. People vastly overestimate both how reliant on their mount a Cavalier is and how difficult getting a mount to fights is in most campaigns. Squeezing rules, and fights not actually taking place in 5' corridors that often combine to make that much more workable than people seem to think.

Gunslinger

Very fun class and solid mechanically in and of itself. Making touch attacks with firearms is seriously problematic, though. The rules are not designed to deal with people who can do that round after round. A GM can work around it, but it's a problem.

Inquisitor

I love this class. A Divine Rogue/Bard to the Paladin's Fighter.Plus self-buffing and knowledge, and social skills...really this is just great.

Magus

Very solid both mechanically and thematically. TWF with a sword and spell is just cool, and it lets you make Elric of Melnibone...what's not to like?

Ninja

As others have noted could be a Rogue archetype...except it is a Rogue Archetype. That's really all alternate classes are: more in depth archetypes. And I don't mind the flavor per se (though I mind that the Asian-flavored thing wound up flat-out mechanically superior).

Speaking of which, there is a serious mechanical problem with Ninja: It is flat-out, unambiguously, better than Rogue. That's not a balance problem with other classes given how much Rogue sucks, but it's a problem. And one that would've been easily solved if they'd just given Rogues a Ki Pool trick that was worth a damn and made the lists interchangeable. Luckily, this is easily House Ruled.

Oracle

Great mechanics, great flavor. I love the Curses and the cool effects and flavor they bring (Legalistic is likely my favorite for a host of reasons).

Samurai

See Cavalier. Because of the whole 'alternate classes are archetypes' thing. So yeah.

Summoner

Potentially problematic both mechanically and thematically. I'm with James Jacobs and wish they'd given them a companion list like Druids only with different Outsider types instead of kinds of animal rather than the weirdness we got. I also wish it admitted to being a 9-level caster and had the mechanics to go with that, rather than doing things like getting Haste as a 2nd level spell. A few spells a level or three early is fine if done properly (see Bard for an example), but Summoner takes it way too far.

All that said, I think a lot of the really broken stuff has to do with people not understanding the rules more than it does the class actually being broken, and I do like the theme if you flavor your Eidolon appropriately, and would still absolutely allow them in my games.

Witch

Great theme, great mechanics. I love Hexes and I love the way Witches work otherwise too. Their spell-list is also wonderful for theme. Once again, what's not to like?


While I would not say I like them all, I would have no reason to ban any of them at my table, except perhaps the Summoner due to power level and 'lets play a few rounds of Mario Kart while Fred does his turn'. There some I would not play because of personal preferences, of course.

I have no objections, at all, to there being multiple ways to realize a character concept, and anything can be reflavored.

Shadow Lodge

Zhayne wrote:
While I would not say I like them all, I would have no reason to ban any of them at my table, except perhaps the Summoner due to power level and 'lets play a few rounds of Mario Kart while Fred does his turn'.

I've played with one summoner and am currently GMing for another, and I haven't noticed them taking longer than the other PCs.

Don't seem OP either.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ellis Mirari wrote:
Don't ignore the mechanic and flavor differences, though. Witch Hexes make them play very differently from other casting classes. It COULD have been working into an existing class, but it would have to be chopped down in order to fit, and ultimately the same could be said of everything other than "Fighting Man" and "Magic User".

To elaborate on the distinct mechanical options that make these classes worthwhile as stand-alones:

An alchemist archetype for the wizard would probably swap out the bonus feats for Brew Potion, swift/instant alchemy, and maybe poison use, resistance, and immunity. Then the school benefit would be swapped for either a mutagen or bombs, or a watered-down version of both. The wizard wouldn't be as good in melee with a mutagen as the alchemist due to lower BAB, HD, and no armour proficiency, and most of the fun of bombs comes from discoveries. Quite simply, the wizard's 9 levels of spellcasting are too powerful to accommodate what makes the alchemist interesting to most people.

While a witch's familiar and hexes might be possible to model as a bloodline, a witch thematically should have a very different spell list from a sorcerer, and that's difficult to do with an archetype.

The summoner's entire purpose is the eidolon - it's the "arcane combat pet" class. And since the summoner and wizard are the two classes most frequently accused of being overpowered, I can't help but think that giving an eidolon to a wizard would be unbalanced without either stripping the wizard of all non-casting abilities and maybe adding diminished spellcasting, watering down the eidolon, or both. And watering down the eidolon makes it hard for people who want to play the eidolon as being more interesting than the summoner - as was the case for the first summoner/eidolon I saw in play.

And they're big enough fantasy concepts that they can stand alone, compared to the Siege Mage, Zen Archer, or other archetypes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemist: I like the class. Its generally played as a warrior type class or a bomber class. The bomber version can be pretty OP in things like society where you know you have 4 encounters. Its pretty well balanced if you run an 8-13 encounter system though. Its pretty fun, and I've played one and would like to play another some day, maybe a switch hitter type.

Cavalier: I'm fine with the cavalier. Its not one I'd probably ever play, but because of horse master training feat (or whatever) it lets mounted barbarians/fighters actually work, so thats what I think is best about it.

Inquisitor: Inquisitor is an awesome edition and well balanced with skills, combat and magic utility. I really like it.

Oracle: I LOVE the oracle. I suspect its probably on the broken side of things, especially with elf/aasmir FCB's. I'm playing three oracles in society right now, and each one is extremely different, which I like in a class.

Summoner: I like the class, but I think it is highly unbalanced, except for the First worlder, which is probably what the class should've looked like. I use my Eidilon as a rogue and summon monster for combat so mines not so bad, but I've both played in and GM'd games where no one else in the party had fun because one of these guys were there.

Witch: I like the concept of the witch, but unlimited, scaling saves or dies just don't work for me. Drop a few hexes: (misfortune, sleep, icy tomb, perhaps even cackle) and its a fine class thats still very powerful without ruining the game for everyone.

Gunslinger: I'm ok with the class, but gun mechanics are terrible. Hi, I do as much as a fighter does per hit, but I'm firing at range against an ac 25 points less as a full BAB class. Even the Dev who made it said it doesn't work for PF, and in fact was not originally designed for PF. The class itself is rather weak after level 5 (except the pistolero archetype) and benefits greatly from leaving the class after 5.

Ninja: I like the ninja, but its just another sign to me that Paizo hates rogues. Still on the weak side mechanically.

Samurai: It seems fine I guess, I'm not really familiar enough with it one way or another.

Magus: Another Nova Class. It tends to be very powerful for things like society play, but using 8-13 encounter days brings this to a normal class. I DESPISE the scimitar/dex magus, but just because of the 25 or so I've seen through out society, roughly 20 of them used that build. I think theres something wrong with a class when nearly everyone playing one you encounter looks like a clone from the last guy.

Arcanist: This class is awesome, maybe too awesome. Using some for BBEGS in my campaign and they just wreck stuff! Love it.

Bloodrager: Great Flavor and decent execution. I'd really like to see it work with Dragon Disciple though. There are a few other solid bloodlines though, and I'm playing one right now, though hes only level three. Also, I'd like to see a way to take them into rage prophet.

Brawler: I think its a nicely built class mechanically, but I'm not very excited about it myself.

Hunter: It'd probably be a fine class if the summoner didn't exist and there wasn't the oracle FCB to advance an animal companion several levels, which is much more powerful than what this class does. All in all I think its a little on the weak side and failed to deliver on what it was supposed to.

Investigator: I REALLY wanted to love this class, but it pretty much failed on mechanics 101. Sad:(

Shaman: I like it, this is closer to what the witch should have been. Has good flavor and balance.

Skald: AWESOME! Really, it will depend a lot on your party composition, but I love this guy. I've been using them for bosses in my campaign, and having a bunch of mooks became raging pouncing maniacs is REALLY awesome! I don't think I'll end up playing one unless its for a campaign, because party composition is so important to him, which is pretty random in society play.

Slayer: Its a good class, solid mechanically. I still like the ranger better, but some people like the slayer better. I think its well done, though I'm not crazy about him. I could see myself dipping into it for some builds.

Swashbuckler: I like the swashbuckler...just please paizo...for the love of god...let other weapons do dex to damage. I can't beg you enough. When I start seeing 100 of these guys all with scimitars it will make me gouge my eyes out. I tend to think the free improved critical at level 5 is too powerful, especially since everyone using it currently is a 15-20 threat range.

Warpriest: Love it! A well done class IMO!


Alchemist: Really love it, especially for NPC's.
Cavalier: A bit "meh". Kinda neutral.
Inquisitor: Love it. Really awesome in all ways. One of my favorite classes.
Oracle: Nice, but I wouldn't play one myself.
Summoner: Don't like at all. Far too many exceptions to the rules, balance issues etc.
Witch: Really nice.

Gunslinger: Don't like it thematically, mostly. I don't mind guns but I dislike the gunslinger - it feels to wild west for me.
Ninja: Basically rogue+. I let my rogue player get all extra benefits of Ninja in addition to the rogue stuff (but only one talent every two levels)
Samurai: Meh.

Magus: It seems to draw heavily to a certain cookie cutter build, a "one build to rule them all" basically, which I dislike. Other than that, best gish attempt I've seen so far in 3.x+.

Arcanist: From what little I know, seems to be a wizard turned to eleven. Weaker at low levels, stronger at high. I'll not allow this.
Bloodrager: Seems cool.
Brawler: Don't really care.
Hunter: Don't know enough to say.
Investigator: Seems like a good replacement for the rogue.
Shaman: Don't know enough to say.
Skald: Don't know enough to say.
Slayer: Seems nice enough.
Swashbuckler: Seems nice.
Warpriest: I like this, if nothing else because perhaps then people will stop whining about "paladins of all alignments".


I don't have much of an opinion yet on them...but our group is going to start a new campaign soon. The last one was core only, but now that we have all the books, we'll be trying the new classes as well.

I'm actually hoping someone will try the summoner as all the talk on the boards have me curious about it.

Personally, I think the Inquisitor looks interesting, and as I have wanted a new OA book, love that the Ninja and Samurai are in PF currently.

Liberty's Edge

Under A Bleeding Sun wrote:
Investigator: I REALLY wanted to love this class, but it pretty much failed on mechanics 101. Sad:(

Note: They've explicitly said they're fixing this. The final version of Studied Combat is going to be a lot more effective.

This also reminds me that I forgot the ACG classes:

Arcanist

Honestly haven't looked over it in too much detail (so...many...moving...parts). Seems shiny from what I have seen.

Bloodrager

Great flavor. Shaky mechanics. Way too back-loaded, with something like half the Class Features only cropping up above 12th, and the delayed Bloodline spells are particularly awful. Slightly odd spell list. Unbalanced bloodlines...I could go on. Hopefully a lot of this will be fixed in the final version.

Brawler

Interesting. Probably the blandest of the ACG classes, though. I'll have to look at the finished product and maybe play one before I know how I feel.

Hunter

A bit weak. Druids have a full Animal Companion and the same BAB and HD...which means their other class Features need to make up for not only 7th-9th level casting, but Wild Shape as well. At the moment, I don't think they do, quite. I'm not sure it's necessary thematic space, either. Ranger is already Druid + Fighter...why do we need a 2/3 Druid 1/3 Fighter?

Investigator

Thematically, I think I may want to have this class's babies. Mechanically too with the exception of Studied Combat, which is currently pretty terrible. They've explicitly said they'd fix that, though, so I'm still awaiting this class with bated breath.

Shaman

First, I dislike this as a Class name for the same reason I'd dislike Priest...it's too much of an in-world term already referring to many different classes to make a good Class name. Second...I don't think this Class draws enough from the Witch. Beyond being a prepared caster with a Familiar (which isn't exactly distinctive to the Witch) they don't seem to really have any Witch-like traits. Sure, their powers are called Hexes, but they have precious little similarity to actual witch hexes, being more similar to Revelations. Also, I think it's weird and off-putting that what's ostensibly a Witch/Oracle combo casts spells with wisdom and off the Druid list...

Maybe this'll all be fixed (well, except the name) by the time the book comes out.

Skald

Lovely flavor, solid mechanics, though quite party dependent. Sadly, I will likely never play one, as I can't think of anything I'd want to do with one (aside from giving the whole party Pounce) that I couldn't have more fun with, and very likely do better, as a Bard.

Slayer

Solid flavor and mechanics. I'm totally giving this one a try at some point. Probably as the stereotypical Conan-esque mercenary warrior, which (along with assassin) this class seems made for.

Swashbuckler

I'm more than a bit in love with this class. It could stand a few improvements which I hope make it into the final version, but it looks seriously fun and thematically awesome and pretty good mechanically to boot.

Warpriest

Good mechanics and flavor. Not really my thing, though. Any Warpriest concept I had, I'd probably rather do as a Paladin or Inquisitor.

Shadow Lodge

Only classes I can complain about non-core are the Cavalier, and Brawler. Cavalier because I don't like the fact that for non-small PCs, mounted combat=no going indoors to do stuff, and Brawler because as much as I like unarmed fighting, it just seems boring as is. Beyond that I think Paizo did a great job with non-core[and core] classes.

Liberty's Edge

EvilPaladin wrote:
Cavalier because I don't like the fact that for non-small PCs, mounted combat=no going indoors to do stuff,

Unless your doors and corridors are made for Tiny Sized creatures this is simply untrue. See the Squeezing Rules. Fighting is problematic for a mount in 5 foot corridors, but traveling is not. Low doorways are potentially a problem if you happen to be in a Halfling village or something...but not otherwise.


Alchemist: One of my favorite classes. I love the bomb throwing and just the range of different things you can do. Sure, spells can do it better, and often to other people. But I've turned alchemists into everything from front line combatants to woodland hermits to poison crafting and bomb throwing leaders of thieves guilds. Cognatogen is also fun. Instead of a Hyde type, you get a brain-Hyde.

Cavalier: Some people love them. I've always been really so-so about them. The focus around mounted combat irks me. However, I've come to love them with the addition of the Huntmaster archetype.

Gunslinger: While many people are completely anti-gun in their fantasy settings... I love it. As long as you restrict it to early (musket style) firearms only. I've used Gunslinger for a few different roles. I actually did a mix of mysterious stranger/paladin at one point and had a blast with it.

Inquisitor: Another enjoyable one. A bit more slanted towards combat, but it has enough skill potential to turn into a skill monkey. I wish the teamwork feats were just bonus combat feats, but that's really my only complaint about the class.

Magus: I've never played one. I've designed quite a few that I intended to play, but I've never been able to actually play one. I think they look pretty cool. I enjoy using them as villains in my campaigns though.

Oracle: Really a sorcerer version of the cleric, but with added flavor. I think the curses could have used a bit of working, maybe give some bonus a bit earlier than they do. But I do like the class a lot. Half orc metal oracle probably being my favorite. Was a great front-line bruiser.

Summoner: I don't like them. Not for thinking they're overpowered. But just because of their bond with the Eidolon. Being able to see through their eyes, dismiss them instantly. And having no downfall to just treating them like crap... I've seen too many Eidolon's turn into trap finders and little else. Pretty annoying.

Witch: I like it, but I'm honestly done with the Slumber Hex. I'd love to see a single witch that's built without it. Alas, that's yet to happen.


It baffles me the amount of people that think that the Cavalier is completely useless without a mount. What's worse is when people think the Samurai version is useless without the mount. It literally gets a mount and only one other very very minor ability regarding mounts. That's it.

That being said, here's my opinions on all the classes:

Alchemist: I think this is a well-designed class that is both capable, has a specific niche flavor-wise and also is effective mechanically. I like the fact that you can make lots of different builds work with it.

Cavalier/Samurai: I've had good experiences with this class. One of my players plays this class and loves it. He pulls out a mean tank that uses Bodyguard along with the Order of the Dragon's Aid Another bonus to give pretty massive bonuses to AC on his allies surrounding him, while being able to move the party around using teamwork feats and class abilities, and give a bonus to anyone else attacking his Challenged target. Not to mention, he deals a good amount of damage by himself.

I actually think this class works a lot better as the mundane no-magic warrior than the Fighter class. It has a lot more tools to work with and you can have many different character themes based around all the Orders that it has. It's not as strong as the top martials, but it's still pretty good.

Inquisitor: If there's any class that's pretty much perfectly balanced, I think it's the Inquisitor. Honestly, a lot of the 3/4 BAB 6 caster level classes are in a good position balance-wise.

Oracle:I think this class is a favorite among my table. It has a really nice theme going and is able to pull off many roles effectively. The problem I believe is the balance between Mysteries. Some are really powerful, but others are much weaker.

Summoner:I love the concept of this, but I can't say much balance-wise since I've never had one before. The dual character concept is pretty neat and you can have so many cool stories with it. Mechanically speaking it seems to be overloaded. Many powerful spells cast at earlier levels than any other class, combined with a powerful front-liner and two turns per round seem to make this class extremely powerful. Not to mention it has two Archetypes that are just awful design-wise. The Synthesist breaks a lot of game rules and requires a FAQ to understand completely and the Master Summoner rewards horde summoning, which slows down games and makes challenging it difficult. That Archetype also steps on other Conjurer spellcasters.

Witch:I like the way this class works. It's a pretty powerful debuffer that isn't as powerful as a Wizard but still holds its own. I'm not sure if it really required a unique spell list. It would have been cool if it used the Druid spell list instead. Then we'd have all three 9 level spell lists being shared among multiple classes. Not sure how well that'll work balance-wise though for the Witch.

Magus:I really like this class because it brings together magic and weapons in a really nice fashion and pulls it off well. Plus it has some really cool Archetypes like the Bladebound to go with it. One thing I think should be changed is Spellstrike taking the crit range of the weapon. This pretty much shoe-horns the Magus into using the Scimitar. Having spells use a universal x2 modifier or also being improved by a higher crit multiplier would open up weapon choices for the Magus.

Gunslinger:I don't think this class is bad necessarily, but I have gripes with the gun system. It's overly complicated, and the Gunslinger essentially just removes the downsides of using guns. This seems to make it so that guns have to be used by Gunslingers or they'll suck, and I think it would have been better if guns were another weapon system that could just be picked up by any martial, rather than being made especially for one class. I actually think it's pretty good balance-wise, except for the ridiculousness of double-barreled guns. Take those away and Gunslingers are in a good spot.

Ninja:This is pretty much a better Rogue, which is a good thing. Unfortunately it still has the fundamental problems of a Rogue which is low BAB, no bonus to hit and an unreliable damage increase in Sneak Attack. As I've actually played one I found the Ninja really only had two extremes: I kill stuff that can't see through my invisibility, or I'm useless. There wasn't much in-between. The over-reliance on invisibility makes it difficult to play at high levels where so many monsters can just see through it.


In a round-a-bout way, the ninja does have a sort of bonus to hit at lower levels. His ability to turn invisible will usually lower an opponent's AC (flat-foot is usually lower than full), which effectively translate to a bonus to hit...


Antipaladin
No evil characters in our campaign.

Alchemist
I don't care for the class.

Cavalier
A welcome addition although I prefer Rogue Genius's Talented Cavalier.

Gunslinger

Cool class, but does not fit my campaigns.

Inquisitor
Not a fan of the class.

Magus
Fills a niche. Welcome in my game.

Ninja
No place for it in my current campaign setting, but there is in another campaign that I am considering. On the other hand, it looks better than the rogue (and the boards seem to confirm this). I am not keen on that or a few of its class abilities.

Oracle
I don't care for the curse, but I like the concept overall. I am waiting to see Rogue Genius's take when they do the Talented Oracle

Samurai
To me, a samurai should be a Cavalier archetype.

Summoner
Not a fan.

Witch
When I compare it to Green Ronin's Witch for 3e, it just falls flat for me. I am waiting for Owen to update the GR Witch for Pathfinder.

Bloodrager
Don't care for the flavor or mechanics. It also has no place in my campaign.

Brawler
Conceptually, it might have a place within one or two cultures of my campaign. However, the playtest mechanics did nothing for me. Will wait to see the final version before passing final judgement.

Hunter
Although I don't like Hunter for the name of the class, it would fit into my campaign.

Investigator
Conceptually, I like the class except for the alchemy. However, it just does not fit my campaign setting.

Shaman
I wanted to like this class and it was the class I was most anticipating given that the Shaman is a classic archetype and I don't care for the Druid shaman archetype. However, like the PF Witch, the playtest version of the Advanced Class Shaman pales in comparison to its Green Ronin counterpart. I will will wait for the Owen to update Green Ronin's Shaman to Pathfinder

Skald
Another class that I was anticipating and, as with the Shaman, I found the playtest version disappointing. The skald is archetype I have wanted to see, but I don't like the focus on rage songs and rage powers. Assuming the final version stays the same, it won't be included in my campaign. I will look for a third party class or archetype to fill the niche.

Slayer
I wish this was called hunter. Other than that, I like the class. I have wanted a non-casting Pathfinder Ranger for my setting this fits my campaign nicely.

Swashbuckler
The third class I was anxious to see upon getting the playtest and, unlike the Shaman and Skald, I am not disappointed with the Swashbuckler. It is my second favorite of the Advanced Class Guide right after the investigator. Better, unlike the Investigator, it fits my home campaign.

Warpriest
Not a fan of the class name. I am torn with this class. I like that is a divine warrior that can cast spells at first level (I never liked the Paladin and Ranger having to wait a few levels to gain 0 level spells). I also like the spell progression. However, with regards to the rest of the class, I prefer the approach taken with Green Ronin's Holy Warrior with the exception that the Holy Warrior has a Paladin's spell progression.


Lyra Amary wrote:
As I've actually played one I found the Ninja really only had two extremes: I kill stuff that can't see through my invisibility, or I'm useless. There wasn't much in-between. The over-reliance on invisibility makes it difficult to play at high levels where so many monsters can just see through it.

This is why I still prefer a feint rogue. That and I want more than just one advance rogue talent.

Greater invisibility is nothing to turn your nose at, but I prefer a more constant baseline than, "Oh poop it doesn't rely on sight for detection" or "Oh poop it has blind-fight".


What stops you from making a feinting Ninja?


Desidero wrote:
What stops you from making a feinting Ninja?

Having to pick between skill mastery, opportunist, and crippling strike.

You need the first two for a feint build and the last one is just really nice to have.

Feint is also really feat intensive (deceitful, skill focus(bluff), combat expertise, improved feint, greater feint). Then picking up other talents and needed feats makes the build very tight. Very difficult to fit into a ninja's build when they are grabbing vanishing trick.

I'm sure someone could do it, but I'm not seeing it.


Antipaladin:
Serves no purpose as a class in pathfinder when the paths, modules, and character creation are focused around making good characters. There's the problem that antipaladins are weaker than their counter part as well.

Alchemist:
Alchemists are thematically cool, great switch-hitters, moderately versatile, and are an excellent addition to any party; however, half of the time people build them to deal ridiculous amounts of SA or bomb damage that leads others to dislike the class.

Cavalier/Samurai:
The Mounts should be more adaptable to the terrain their in and should be stronger. These classes could be Fighter/Paladin archetypes.

Gunslinger:
The pathfinder touch attack mechanics are striped directly from 3.5, and therefore are broken; this leads to an interesting situation where you have to find ways to increase touch ac or negate one of the gunslinger's main mechanics without causing the caster in the party to fail hitting the opponents the majority of the time with rays. There defenses might be too high.

Inquisitor:
The class feels strong enough mechanically, but looks pathetic when compared to a war oracle.

Magus:
Feels like the spiritual successor to the duskblade, but feels moderately gimmicky if it attempts to keep up dealing the damage other characters are doing in combat.

Ninja:
The class is an attempt to fix the mechanics of a rogue, but still relying drastically on the mentality of the creation of the rogue, which is terrible.

Oracle:
Oracles are excellent because they're like favored souls, but done right.

Summoner:
This class is very polarizing in the community, primarily because the class is easily abused, has access to powerful spells earlier than it should, slows down combat, and feels like the spiritual successor of the Codzilla druid.

Witch:
They are thematically cool, but really serve no purpose as being an actual class, they could of been an oracle, wizard, and/or sorcerer archetype. They lack versatility of other spell casters and their abilities can feel useless really fast in some encounters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Eryx_UK wrote:

My thoughts are simply that too many of these extra classes are concepts better covered by playing the core classes, or as archetypes. When a concept can be covered by what's in the rulebook you don't need them.

Antipaladin.
NPC class only in my games.

Alchemist.
Don't like it. I don't see the need for this class. I'd rather play an arcane caster focusing on crafting and potions. Should have been a wizard archetype.

Cavalier.
Unless your game is more wilderness based than usual this class is pointless. Most games are too dungeon, city and planes based to make this class worthwhile.

Gunslinger.
Tech levels aside I find this class too powerful. Ditch touch attacks and it might be better.

Inquisitor.
When you have the cleric already this class seems superfluous.

Magus.
Though not too bad I dislike the concept behind this. If you want to play a fighter wizard type then multiclass a fighter and wizard/sorcerer. It seems to me to cater simply to players who don't want to lose out by multi-classing.

Ninja.
My dislike of oriental fantasy aside, this is another class that would have been better as a rogue archetype. Otherwise just play a rogue.

Oracle.
Love it. Don't see the need for the curses though. 3.5 Dragonlance had a sorcerer type cleric (Mystic?) and it worked fine without a disadvantage.

Samurai.
Same issues as Cavalier.

Summoner.
I've tried these and I find them broken. Summoning as a class feature makes things much too easy for the party. This and gunslinger are the only ones I've banned.

Witch.
Unnecessary concept when the you have the sorcerer class.

I think I agree with everything you said here ...

- The Oracle is the ONLY class that has a chance of tempting me away from a 'core classes only' GM ruling. It offers something the core classes don't, with a lot of flavour.
- I think I could create most, if not all, of 'witch' characters I'd have in mind using either Druid, Wizard or Sorcerer (or Oracle); possibly with the addition of a handful of extra spells to recreate minor hexes. Therefore the witch class seems pointless to me.
- Antipaladin makes sense to exist if you have Paladin, but not a big fan of adventuring with evil characters - just not for me. Would definitely use for a NPC.
- Magus - again, make a fighter/sorcerer or fighter/wizard multiclasser. Removing the somatic components from a few selected extra spells, so they could be cast in armour, would make this viable without needing a whole new class.
- Inquisitor - I think you can do pretty much all of this with a specialist cleric.

I'm not a fan of Class bloat; I don't see the need for so many when a bit of tweaking of spells and a few extra well-designed feats would do most of the same thing.


Ok, what is with everyone saying the witch could be done with an Archetype? The Witch is NOTHING like the wizard, sorcerer, or the oracle. Sure it cast spells, but it's spells are drawn from a familiar, not some stupid book (like wizards). Additionally, the patrons are pretty cool and flavorful. Oh, and the hexes are actually pretty cool. They are things that none of the arcane spell casters can really replicate in the way the witch does.

Also, HOW THE BLOODY HELL DOES THE CLERIC DO THE INQUISITOR JOB??? Last I checked Clerics don' get:

4+int mod skills
Ability to drop detect lies on a dime
Monster lore which is pretty much bardic knowledge, but just for the most useful knowledges....
get a bonus to things like sense motive.
bane ability on demand
and judgments (which are just cool and flavorful).

As for the Magus, JUST SHUT IT. The people suggesting that just multi classing fighter-wizard really don't know what they are talking about... Sure, EK becomes viable... eventually... But he tends to stay fallen behind the Magus for a while. Additionally, no other Gish builds can ACTUALLY dual-weild a spell and sword, of which is actually a popular trope...

Honestly, I hate when a GM says they are limiting classes to CRB only... All that means is that the GM is too non-proficient to understand the other classes, is too close minded and dislikes a class purely over petty things (like disliking the Ninja class because "its too asian" when you can simply rename is Assassin, Sulk, or anything else), Or the GM has poor system knowledge and believes the other classes are "too OP"... (which is funny because most of the powerhouse classes came from the CRP i.e. Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Barbarian, and Paladin)...

Liberty's Edge

K177Y C47 wrote:

Also, HOW THE BLOODY HELL DOES THE CLERIC DO THE INQUISITOR JOB??? Last I checked Clerics don' get:

4+int mod skills

Actually, it's 6+Int Mod skills on an Inquisitor. Which only reinforces your point, which I agree with entirely.

They're right behind Bards and Rogues/Ninjas and right above Rangers in terms of skill classes. And thus above every other skill class in the game (though Int based classes can come close).

The idea that Clerics, who are tied for worst skill-class with Fighters and Paladins, can match that is ridiculous on the face of it. Inquisitors do as different a thing from Clerics as Bards do from Wizards. Comparing them as anything more than "They both have Divine Spells and work for a God." is so amazingly incorrect I lack the vocabulary to properly express it.

Liberty's Edge

Ascalaphus wrote:
ShamanI think I like Kobold Press' spontaneously casting shaman better.

Heh - me too!!! :)


Deadmanwalking wrote:

@Eryx_UK: Wow. I could not possibly disagree with you more on most of those. It's rare to see a post you disagree with so utterly on so many different things.

I understand that. I know that this is an aspect of the game where I'm in the minority. But for my money any concept can be made with the rulebook classes that other than Oracle I see no point to the extra ones, even taking into account mechanical differences.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
K177Y C47 wrote:

Ok, what is with everyone saying the witch could be done with an Archetype? The Witch is NOTHING like the wizard, sorcerer, or the oracle. Sure it cast spells, but it's spells are drawn from a familiar, not some stupid book (like wizards). Additionally, the patrons are pretty cool and flavorful. Oh, and the hexes are actually pretty cool. They are things that none of the arcane spell casters can really replicate in the way the witch does.

Also, HOW THE BLOODY HELL DOES THE CLERIC DO THE INQUISITOR JOB??? Last I checked Clerics don' get:

4+int mod skills
Ability to drop detect lies on a dime
Monster lore which is pretty much bardic knowledge, but just for the most useful knowledges....
get a bonus to things like sense motive.
bane ability on demand
and judgments (which are just cool and flavorful).

As for the Magus, JUST SHUT IT. The people suggesting that just multi classing fighter-wizard really don't know what they are talking about... Sure, EK becomes viable... eventually... But he tends to stay fallen behind the Magus for a while. Additionally, no other Gish builds can ACTUALLY dual-weild a spell and sword, of which is actually a popular trope...

Honestly, I hate when a GM says they are limiting classes to CRB only... All that means is that the GM is too non-proficient to understand the other classes, is too close minded and dislikes a class purely over petty things (like disliking the Ninja class because "its too asian" when you can simply rename is Assassin, Sulk, or anything else), Or the GM has poor system knowledge and believes the other classes are "too OP"... (which is funny because most of the powerhouse classes came from the CRP i.e. Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Barbarian, and Paladin)...

Wow, this is obviously important to you.

My approach to RPGs is much more about role-playing and feel/concept than mechanics. For that reason I don't want to overload with rules or content. I don't want to have eight manuals to learn or refer to during gameplay when one or two will do.
For me - and presumably some of the others that are not keen on the additional classes - this is a personal preference for playing. I wouldn't say that my approach is better or worse than someone who wants to have a choice of twenty or thirty classes and races to pick from - the fact that I prefer one way and you prefer another should be no problem unless we're sat at the same gaming table - and then probably still won't be a problem unless I'm GMing. As a player, I can build from core classes and you can pick from any you like, and it wouldn't affect the play.

So, when I say I can create a witch as an oracle, sorcerer, wizard or druid, I'm talking about my mental image of how a witch should be, not the game mechanics of the witch class - because the concept is more important to me, personally, than the mechanics. (In fact, the Druid class is pretty close to my PERSONAL mental concept of a how a witch should be).

Some of the Inquisitor's specialties can be reproduced by other classes.
- want more skills? Get higher intelligence (or multiclass with Rogue). An Int of 14 gives a cleric as many skills as a 4+Int skills class with an Int of 11.
- want better Sense Motive? You have high wisdom anyway as a Cleric, and you can put skill levels in Sense Motive and choose either the Alertness feat (+2 to Perception and Sense Motive) and/or the Skill Focus feat (+3 to chosen skill)
- monster lore - unless you have high Int AND Wis (and optimisers probably don't have high Int here), this doesn't really offer anything more than any other class with Knowledge Nature and Knowledge Dungeoneering.
- other characters get Discern Lies anyway, Sense Motive is an alternative before they do. How many times are you expecting to need Discern Lies anyway? (Yes, it's nice that Inquisitors get it a little earlier).
- the bane ability is nice, but there are plenty of other ways to get bonuses against specific classes of creatures, starting with the Ranger's preferred enemy at level 1.
- the judgements are nice combat bonuses, but there are plenty of other ways to get combat bonuses (feats, magic weapons, buff spells) that aren't necessarily limited in uses per day.
None of which, to be honest, are that relevant to me personally in the details - the important thing is that I can reproduce the FEEL of an inquisitor-type idea I might have in mind, rather than the actual mechanics. And for me, I feel I can do that with the core classes and a bit of creativity.

Sorcerer/Fighters and Wizard/Fighters CAN cast spells with a weapon in one hand, both hands, or even pinned, AS LONG AS that spell has no somatic component; there's not a huge list of these but easily enough to be useful - particularly at higher levels. And Bards can cast any of their spells while in light armour. Personally I'd think adding a few more, well-balanced, non-somatic spells (or adjusting existing spells) would be easier and more flexible than needing a whole new, rather specific, class for this. Some of the existing spells without somatic components are pretty useful already - Blindness for example, only has a verbal component, which means it can even be cast in Heavy Armour and wielding a two-handed sword, and it's a second level spell that can cripple pretty much any opponent that fails a Fortitude save.


sgriobhadair wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:

Ok, what is with everyone saying the witch could be done with an Archetype? The Witch is NOTHING like the wizard, sorcerer, or the oracle. Sure it cast spells, but it's spells are drawn from a familiar, not some stupid book (like wizards). Additionally, the patrons are pretty cool and flavorful. Oh, and the hexes are actually pretty cool. They are things that none of the arcane spell casters can really replicate in the way the witch does.

Also, HOW THE BLOODY HELL DOES THE CLERIC DO THE INQUISITOR JOB??? Last I checked Clerics don' get:

4+int mod skills
Ability to drop detect lies on a dime
Monster lore which is pretty much bardic knowledge, but just for the most useful knowledges....
get a bonus to things like sense motive.
bane ability on demand
and judgments (which are just cool and flavorful).

As for the Magus, JUST SHUT IT. The people suggesting that just multi classing fighter-wizard really don't know what they are talking about... Sure, EK becomes viable... eventually... But he tends to stay fallen behind the Magus for a while. Additionally, no other Gish builds can ACTUALLY dual-weild a spell and sword, of which is actually a popular trope...

Honestly, I hate when a GM says they are limiting classes to CRB only... All that means is that the GM is too non-proficient to understand the other classes, is too close minded and dislikes a class purely over petty things (like disliking the Ninja class because "its too asian" when you can simply rename is Assassin, Sulk, or anything else), Or the GM has poor system knowledge and believes the other classes are "too OP"... (which is funny because most of the powerhouse classes came from the CRP i.e. Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Barbarian, and Paladin)...

Wow, this is obviously important to you.

My approach to RPGs is much more about role-playing and feel/concept than mechanics. For that reason I don't want to overload with rules or content. I don't want to have eight manuals to learn or refer to during...

I was actually incorrect... The Inquisitor has 6+int skills... so in order for the Cleric to BEGIN to match that, he would need an int of 18.... vs the inquisitor's 10...

As for the witch part, the witch class though brings the with feel to forefront. Flight, Cackling, gaining spells from his familiar and some dark and unknown power? That all sounds very witch-y for me... Much more so than a person who learns spells from books and walks around with spell books...

As for the sense-motive part, The inquisitor is literally one of the best at sense motive... kinda hard to beat his bonus to it...

As for the detect lies part, he can use detect lies without having waste spell slots. Preparing the spell detect lies just weakens you, and having to wait till the cleric prepares the spell is just... kinda weird for an interrogation...

Yes I know the EK can cast a spell OR full-attack, but he cannot do both... He is not dual-weilding spell and sword as many people imagine it. He is a guy who drops spells from a distance, and when the enemy is close, hits them with his sword. He is not the guy crushing people with a mace in one hand and blasting people with the other. For many people, that is what they want.

As for the Blindness/Deafness thing.. you are aware you are asking something to fail a fort save... from a 2nd level spell... Beyond early levels, the spell sucks... Heck, at early levels, you would be best spamming sleep or Color spray...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

That you can get a square peg into a round hole with enough bashing (read: Using a cleric to create many of the inquisitor concepts) doesn't mean it isn't better to get a round peg (read: using the inquisitor).

Of the new classes, the only ones I felt could easily have been made archetypes while retaining their flavor is ninja (archetype of rogue) and samurai (archetype of cavalier). The cavalier itself I think could have been made as an alternate class to fighter.

That said, I could see witch as an alternate class to wizard. Some witch concepts can be done through druid or wizard or cleric, but far from all. I do feel that the witch fits better for many witch concepts.

Inquisitor is very distinct from all other classes. If I was forced to make it as an alternate class or archetype, I wouldn't base it of the cleric, but rather the ranger, switching around spell list, and ditching favored enemy and animal companion for inquisitor abilities. That said, I feel it's much better served by it's own class, and is in fact one of the classes I think is most well-designed in the game, even though I'm not that keen on playing one.
And it's a class that succeeds at being MAD, which I love. I think more classes should be MAD in such a great way as the inquisitor; no stat is an obvious dump stat for the class, any stat can give real, noticeable benefits, yet it's abilities are strong enough to compensate for it's MADness, unlike in the case of the monk.


Though I disagree with Ki77y Cat about witches not dealing with spellbooks. Personally I think a witch having a large book of recipes for her spells could be very fitting; I'd have preferred if the witch got to choose between a familiar (benefit: having a familiar) and a spellbook (benefit: cheaper to replace, can make backups).


Ilja wrote:
Though I disagree with Ki77y Cat about witches not dealing with spellbooks. Personally I think a witch having a large book of recipes for her spells could be very fitting; I'd have preferred if the witch got to choose between a familiar (benefit: having a familiar) and a spellbook (benefit: cheaper to replace, can make backups).

I can see that, but When it comes to the "classic witch" (read: Protestant era British witch), the familiar is often considered their soruce of power (read: idea that Lucifer took the form of animals to seduce women and grant them power). Of course their are many different types of witches (gravewalker having a Voodoo doll for instance).

But I still personally feel that the Witch would be horridly half-baked if it was forced into being an alternate class for something else, namely because the other classes just dont... have the right progression of abilities to fit the hexes in right without just horridly ruining them or stripping all the flavor and variety from the witch and forcing all witches to be the typical European Protestant witch.


From a logistics standpoint, I'm wondering how many dozens (or even hundreds) of new pieces of equipment and magic items will be introduced to support all these new classes and their varying abilities.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Hmmm....

Alchemist- Great addition, fun alternate skill monkey, with interesting battlefield control abilities or lots of viable DPR. It's a solid class, and I really like it, though it's usually one of the other players in my group running one.

Cavalier- One of my favorite classes, I love the huge build versatility the get through their orders, and that they get a combat capable mount right from first level. The two things I could wish Paizo had done differently here would be a) sync up the prerequisites for all Teamwork feats so that the good ones aren't always coming 1 or 2 levels after the Cavalier gets one of his Tactician abilities and b) done a better job of cleaning up the mounted combat rules at the same time they introduced a primarily mounted class.

Inquisitor- This is probably one of the most mechanically well-made classes in the game. It's fairly easy to play, can be as simple or as complex as you want to make it, and can competently fill multiple roles, sometimes in the same build. I've seen Inquisitors doing double duty as skill-monkey/tanks, skill/healers, and skill/DPR, and I've also seen highly specialized anti-caster specialists, snipers, and combat control builds. This is really just an incredible class, and the fact that it can pull off the variety of roles that it can without being OP just underscores that fact.

Oracle- I like them. They've got a lot more built-in flavor than the cleric and they're great for making divine specialists of numerous roles.

Summoner- This one varies a lot for me. I think the right player and the right build can bring a lot to a game, and I think the wrong player and/or the wrong build can impinge on other player's fun.

Witch- I like their long-term viability, I like a lot of their abilities, I think they're just a generally fun class.

Gunslinger- I like the idea, especially in the context of more swashbuckling type campaigns. I really like the idea behind Grit, but I think the targeting touch AC and misfire mechanics are atrocious, and I always houserule them away and replace them with a PR (Penetration Rating) system that's easier to balance between builds and players.

Ninja- I'm not 100% convinced that this needed to be a full alternate class instead of an archetype and new talents to shore up the Rogue, but... It's solid, and I like it thematically and mechanically.

Samurai- It's great, and it gives a player who likes the Cavalier but doesn't want to deal with the party-based mechanics as much a solid option.

Magus- I like him. A very well executed gish class who successfully blends both of the things he's supposed to do, a great "cast and clash" kind of class.

Arcanist- He's an interesting take on the full arcane caster. My favorite thing about him is the fact that he takes the absolutely terrible counter-spelling system and turns it into something halfway decent. I have a few concerns about his overall potency though, as his core spellcasting mechanic seems very powerful.

Bloodrager- Seems legit, and Barbarian/Sorcerer combos have been around at least since the old Neverwinter Nights game. It's also cool that there's now going to be an arcane 1/3 caster to kind of round out the equation. Seems like there's a couple builds that are very strong though.

Brawler- So, on the one hand, I feel like this flavor-niche was already covered by multiple archetypes. On the other hand, I like that there is now a true "street fighter" style class that exists separately from the monks mysticism and has enough moving parts to be more interesting than the comparative Fighter archetypes.

Hunter- There's going to be some very interesting stuff related to this class, and I'm excited to see it. I'm also a big fan of Teamwork feats, so I'm happy to see another class making use of them and even more TW feats being introduced, especially since the new ones are designed around the idea of the two members utilizing different action types or combat styles (a teamwork feat designed to create synergy between ranged and melee combat was mentioned and that's awesome).

Investigator- I like it. The mechanics are solid, the idea behind the class is solid. Being a big of fan of Eberron in 3.5 I like any class that clicks into a film noir kind of gaming feel, and I think this does that. Also a great class to complement games where the ultimate antagonist is one of the Great Old Ones introduced in Bestiary 4, where a lot of the low level stuff involves tracking and uncovering cultists and weird eldritch plots.

Shaman- Love it. A really good class that encompassed the feel and flavor of the Shaman is something I've been waiting for pretty much since I started playing Pathfinder, and it's awesome that I don't have to go to 3pp materials to get it now.

Skald- It's not really my particular cup of tea, but it's cool, the history is there to support the idea, and I have players who I know will love playing it.

Slayer- So I like it, it has some fun mechanics to it, I do feel like it, combined with the Investigator and the other existing materials, leaves the Rogue without any mechanical territory to call its own, but that was probably inevitable. Works well for a kind of Artemis Entreri style character.

Swashbuckler- Much like the Shaman this is something I've been waiting for as long as I've been playing this edition of the game. The Grit/Panache system was an excellent idea, though I'd like to see them tied more closely together so that Gunslingers and Swashbucklers can more freely access each others feats.

Warpriest- If nothing else, I know other people have wanted this for a while now. It clicks into that thematic territory between the cleric and the paladin, and gives players who want a more martially focused divine character but don't want to tie themselves to the Paladin's strict alignment and codes a solid option.


Ilja wrote:
Of the new classes, the only ones I felt could easily have been made archetypes while retaining their flavor is ninja (archetype of rogue) and samurai (archetype of cavalier). The cavalier itself I think could have been made as an alternate class to fighter.

They are just big archetypes, and really shouldn't be considered a new class in itself. I am curious, however, how would you make the Fighter have all of the class features of the Cavalier without simply making a new class?

1 to 50 of 105 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Non-Core Pathfinder Classes; Your Opinions? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.