What 8 Classes Would You Keep?

[FancyZergling]

If you could choose only 8 Pathfinder classes to keep, what 8 Would they be and why?

[WatersLethe]

I'd like to answer the question but I'm too busy wondering... Why 8?

EDIT:

I think Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Slayer, Sorcerer, and Wizard would just about cover as many characters my group would like to play as possible.

[Zhayne]

Paizo Only (and no real knowledge of ACG):
Oracle, Sorcerer, Fighter, Ninja, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Bard, Alchemist

Including 3PP:
Magister, Vanguard, Fighter, Ninja, Alchemist ... and I'm done.
Edit: Oh, duh, forgot psionics. Psion, Psychic Warrior, and Soulknife.

[Gregory Connolly]

Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Bard, Barbarian, Ranger, Paladin

These are the classes I want to see people play when I GM. I like the mix of characters it would create. I do like other classes, but I could be content with those eight.

[FancyZergling]

WatersLethe wrote:

I'd like to answer the question but I'm too busy wondering... Why 8?

Just an arbitrary number that popped into my head. I guess an even more interesting question would be 4 classes... but it stands! Just random number that came into my head.

[ShadowcatX]

Mighty Godling
Death Knight

Taskshaper
Dragon Rider

Magister
Death Mage

Psion
Psychic Warrior

To reduce to 4, the first of each pair. I'd also make the pc the only person of that class in the world, and incorporate other stuff I learned from Dungeon World.

[Lemmy]

Oracle, Sorcerer, Ranger, Barbarian, Inquisitor, Bard, Magus and Paladin.

[Arachnofiend]

Slayer, Barbarian, Oracle, Magus, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Ranger, Bard.

[Damir]

The Slayer and the Barbarian: The two sides of fighting. On one hand, the clever, trained, and resourceful soldier. On the other, the intuitive and brutal warrior.

The Bard and the Inquisitor: The magic fighters. They can be sneaky-but-with-magic, leaders-but-with-magic, divine-champions-with-swords, arcane-champions-with-swords, or anything in between.

The Witch and the Oracle: The magic users of the world - whether they have shamanistic ties to the world, strange and uncontrolled powers, or studied and well known magical arts. They are distinctly magical, with a flexible selection of powers that are more than just more spells.

That leaves me with two more slots for wild cards. I think the Investigator (for alchemy and other options which aren't well covered by the magic users, as well as clever fighters which aren't quite covered by Slayers/Bards/Inquisitors - it also keeps in grit/panache concepts via an archetype, if I heard correctly) and the Expert (because we'll still want a simple and flexible class for quick NPCs) will do.

[roguerouge]

Alchemist, Witch, Cleric, Sorcerer, Barbarian, Paladin, Ninja, Ranger

The considerations were ease of play, ability to do what they're designed to do, ease of creation, ability to do something in three phases of the game, ability to avoid 15 minute adventuring day, and balance for 4 major party roles across 8 choices.

[Pan]

Bard, Witch, Inquisitor, Magus, Ranger, Paladin, Monk, Rogue.

I like classes that can do variety of things. These are classes that have appealed to me since playing 3.5/PF. Thugh the idea of only having fighter, rogue, cleric, and mage and then getting into the above list through prestige is probably the way I'd make my own game.

[Landon Winkler]

I'll be leaving out the ACG ones for now...

Fighter, Sorcerer, Oracle, and Rogue for the core four.

Paladin, Alchemist, Inquisitor, and Bard as the backups.

I expect some shifting around in that list after I pick up my ACG at GenCon :)

Cheers!
Landon

[Secret Wizard]

The Slayer - we need a rogue-like class because its the trope.

The Oracle - a very flavorful divine caster.

The Bard and the Inquisitor - because skill monkeys need spells.

The Sorcerer - powerful but specialized arcane caster.

The Paladin and the Barbarian - Two sides of brute strength.

The Ranger - Wilderness fighter, could be spell or combat focused just like the Druid, but more balanced.

[Marcus Robert Hosler]

The ultimate psionic classes sans dread and tactician (since there are 10 and those two are my least favorite).

[Necromancer]

FancyZergling wrote:

WatersLethe wrote:

I'd like to answer the question but I'm too busy wondering... Why 8?

Just an arbitrary number that popped into my head. I guess an even more interesting question would be 4 classes...

I'll play your game, you rogue... Depending on the setting/themes:

Mystery/Horror light-to-medium combat frequency, regular skill challenges

- Inquisitor (light casting and skills)
- Investigator (alchemy without so many explosions, skills, and flexibility)
- Swashbuckler (melee without tons of heavy armor, skills, capable of creating and surviving distractions)
- Witch (theme above all else, high casting without the complete range of arc/sor/wiz)

Semi-realistic Medieval humanoid enemies as the norm, low-magic to the point of almost no-magic, limited healing options, generally E6

- Alchemist (skills, problem solver, crowd control)
- Cavalier (nobility connections, mounted combat)
- Fighter (obvious reasons)
- Ranger (theme, flexibility)

Standard fantasy as generic as you can get

- Arcanist (flexible one-caster-fits-all)
- Fighter (obvious reasons)
- Oracle (flexible divine option)
- Rogue (wide skill range)

Frontier/Wilderness fantasy shops/towns rare, survival issues, savage threats

- Barbarian (melee with mobility)
- Ranger (obvious reasons)
- Shaman (flexibility)
- Skald (skills, limited arcane solutions)

Gaspunk/Urban wide range of combat and skill challenges

- Brawler (manuevers, melee)
- Cleric with cloistered or ecclesitheurge archetypes (skills or magic, limited combat potential)
- Rogue (wide skill range)
- Wizard (theme, knowledge skills, ties to magic academy)

I wouldn't normally limit class selection like this, but the exercise was fun.

[mswbear]

It would depend on the game setting.

I can name the 8 I'd be less stressed to run a game for and wouldn't mind at all

Inquisitor, ranger, magus, ninja, druid, shaman, sorcerer, witch

[ikarinokami]

fighter, paladin, cleric, rogue, wizard, oracle, sorceror, witch

[Chaotic Fighter]

Barbarian, Bloodrager, Brawler, Fighter, Inquisitor, Cavalier, Monk, Slayer.

[raven1272]

Paladin, ranger, barbarian
Bard, inquisitor, magus
Arcanist, oracle

[Michael Sayre]

From Pathfinder core line only...

Arcanist - Covers pretty much all of the full arcane caster tropes

Barbarian - Because what's a fantasy RPG without the big angry guy? also covers most of the beefy angry guy tropes

Bard - fairly unique niche that can't be covered well by another class, great group dynamics.

Cavalier or Paladin - Thematically, provides the other half of the core martial tropes not taken care of by the barbarian. Cavalier preferred for general leadership mechanics, though Paladin could fill this slot well and would require less system mastery from new players.

Druid - enigmatic nature caster, not well emulated by other classes. Can serve as the "cleric" for non-civilized cultures.

Oracle - provides another third of the "cleric" trio necessary for covering teh various divine tropes, cool and unique mechanics.

Ranger - Joins the bard as one of the two skill-monkey classes. Makes a great assassin, guild leader, tracker, etc.

Witch - helps fill in any arcane caster gaps not covered by the arcanist, also fills in as the new priest or cloistered cleric, ensuring that all divine tropes are represented.

[DrDeth]

Cleric, Magic User, Fighting-man, Thief.

[Michael Sayre]

DrDeth wrote:

Cleric, Magic User, Fighting-man, Thief.

You're old and it made me smile :)

[Captain K.]

Eldritch Godling, Corbie, Time Thief, Voyageur.

All you need

[Greylurker]

Depends on Setting really.

If I'm running a primitive tribal game where PCs are part of a wandering tribe in the Tundra I'll be going with things like Druid, Shaman, Ranger, Fighter, Hunter, Rogue, Barbarian and either Bard or Sorcerer

Arthurian Knights of the Round Table game; Bard, Cavalire, Cleric, Fighter, Paladin, Rogue, maybe Ranger or Inquisitor and either Wizard or Witch

[Xzaral]

Arcanist, witch, bard, magus, summoner, sorcerer, wizard, battlerager. Arcane spell casters only please :)

[Vod Canockers]

Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Thief, Druid, Ranger, Bard, Commoner.

[Alex Smith 908]

Bard, Barbarian, Magus, Paladin, Ranger, Binder, Ninja, and Alchemist

[Arikiel]

hmmm….. Well I'd cut out the hybrid classes and leave that to multi-classing as much as possible. I'd go with two warrior types, two expert types, two divine casters, and two arcane casters. Paladin and Ranger types could be done easily enough as Fighters with a few levels of Cleric or Druid. As for Bard types and the like I'd just go with thematic Rogues with a bit of Wizard mixed in.

So Basically... Fighter, Barbarian, Rogue, Monk, Cleric, Druid, Wizard, and Witch.

[Ascalaphus]

Barbarian, Cavalier, Ranger: a nice variety of different martial classes, each with a strong general theme.

Alchemist and Sorcerer: arcane classes that are very different, the alchemist emphasizing "technical" magic far more than the wizard.

Oracle: mysteries and spells known means that every religion is quite different in what its priests can do.

For the final two it's harder to choose. I definitely want an "urban" feeling "rogue" like class, but preferably one that's got a bit more oomph than the rogue. Ninjas could work. Slayers have the oomph, but resemble rangers too much. Investigators resemble alchemists too much. Monks are perhaps just a bit too mystical, and lawful. Likewise, inquisitors and bards are just the right level of power, but a bit too magical. I guess the ninja is best. Maybe a Swashbuckler, depending on how it turns out in the final version.

In the final spot, I'm stuck; I like the Inquisitor and Bard, but frankly their niches have been sorta filled already. Skill monkey is already been taken by the "rogue", alchemist and ranger. Oracles can already do the holy magic schtick and sorcerers cast spontaneously off charisma.

[Distant Scholar]

DrDeth wrote:

Cleric, Magic User, Fighting-man, Thief.

.

<old man>Bah, you young people and your "Thief"! It's blatant power creep. Also, we used to be able to search for traps, but now they had to add rules for it, and only these "Thieves" can do it. I blame MMOs. Now get off my lawn...

(Spell slots are per adventure! And all weapons do 1d6 damage!)</old man>

More seriously, I've always wanted to try the Expert/Spellcaster/Warrior generic classes from Unearthed Arcana.

[Scythia]

I have no familiarity with the ACG classes, so excepting those:
Fighter, Barbarian, Sorcerer, Magus (spontaneous casting instead), Oracle, Ninja, Gunslinger, and Summoner.

[Dustin Ashe]

Brawler, Cavalier, Cleric, Hunter, Oracle, Rogue, Witch, Wizard

2 arcane spellcasters filling opposing niches
2 divine spellcasters filling opposing niches
1 generic unarmed fighter
1 horseback/melee fighter
1 in tune with the wild
1 skill-centered

EDIT: Archetypes could easily re-create the rest of the current classes. A gunslinger archetype to cavaliers or rogues, a spell-oriented hunter to create druid or melee-oriented hunter to create ranger, a disciplined mystic brawler to create the monk.

[EntrerisShadow]

For 8 -

Alchemist - It's too unique of a niche to adequately do with another class. You cannot make anything else do an approximation of what the alchemist does, so it stays out of necessity. Don't get me wrong, I DO like them and I don't want this to sound like I'm damning with faint praise. But I knocked a lot of stuff off the list because the other classes cover what they do and provide some additional goodies. The alchemist is just too much its own beast. (The same could be said of Summoners, but @#$% Summoners.)

Barbarian - Drops the alignment restriction and becomes the core 'fighter' class. As this is going to be the only non spellcasting class on this list, it is better balanced with the higher hit die and useful rage powers.

Bard - Fills the 'thief' role of the "Big 4", but does it so much better than the iconic rogue. Also fills buffer/debuffer role. And - full disclosure - I'm just in love with bards. I would never want a TTRPG without them.

Magus - Proper 'Gish' class. If you want a more fighty, less skilled 3/4 Arcane caster. Basically fulfills the nova/blaster type.

Monk - Either the Sensei, Tetori, or Zen Archer archetype. I'm leaning toward the Tetori since there's already a class that favors buffs and a couple others that can be suitable archers. By having a Tetori you make a suitable maneuver focused class. (Does still eventually become obsolete, but not for quite a while.)

Paladin - The foil to the Barbarian. Trades out the maneuverability and consistent damage output for situationally huge bonuses in addition to healing and restorative capability. Also provides the best route to mounted combat.

(Alternatively, the Cavalier. Not as great as the Paladin, in my opinion, but a lot of that same fluff with fewer table arguments.)

Sorcerer - Probably the most balanced of the full caster classes. Less bookkeeping and game breaking potential than the wizard. Essentially powerful without being OP and the limited spell list means you have to be a bit choosier with the spells chosen.

Warpriest - I was divided between the Cleric or the Inquisitor, so I'm going to say Warpriest. The mechanics are just better and more interesting than a Cleric, and being a 3/4 BAB class with 6th level spells is more intuitive and makes a lot more sense for Pathfinder. Fulfills pretty much the same role as the Cleric.

[Zardnaar]

I would go with the 2nd ed 8 classes.
Fighter, Cleric, Wizard, Rogue, Bard, Druid, Paladin, Ranger.

[Thomas Long 175]

Barbarian
Ranger
Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer
Bard
Oracle
Alchemist

Honestly, I feel the rogue really isn't in good enough shape to value keeping at this point and I'd much rather have the bard and alchemist in the game.

Fighters don't bring anything of their own thematically and are also in very bad shape. Wild raging warrior? Barbarian. Skilled light combatant? Ranger.

Casty Fighting man? Revealing the original, the cleric! Yes, I feel the paladin does it better. But the paladin does it better by restricting it into one tiny niche.

I chose sorcerer over wizard on purpose due to the fact that one of the problems of keeping wizard in check is his ability to retreat and simply come back on any given day with new spells. There are, of course, rp solutions to this. But rp solutions to mechanical problems are clunky, ineffective, and generally unfun at best.

Priest like healer? We got the oracle now.

Shamanic caster? Hello, Druid.

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

Barbarian, Samurai - spell-less fighty types without the headaches that comes with the paladin's code.

Bard, Inquisitor - skill classes. one is arcane and Cha, the other is divine and Wis.

Druid, Oracle - one prepared caster based off Wis, one spontaneous caster based off Cha

Witch, Sorcerer - one prepared based on Int, one spontaneous based on Cha.

2 full bab, 4 med bab, 2 poor bab.
3 arcane, 3 divine

[Pendagast]

8 classes?

Shudder….

Fighter.
Cleric.
Rogue.
Magus.
Wizard.
Inquisitor.
Alchemist.
Oracle.

[Wiggz]

Assuming archetypes were available, all I'd think you'd need for balance and concepts would be:

Barbarian
Paladin
Ranger
Cleric
Druid
Sorcerer
Wizard
Bard

Three full casters, three full martials... Full Wisdom, Intelligence and Charisma-based casters, prepared and spontaneous, several avenues towards trap-finding if one were so inclined and so on.

[Dasrak]

Barbarian
Wizard
Sorcerer
Alchemist
Oracle
Summoner
Magus
Ninja

Hmmm... my arcane spellcaster bias is showing.

[Dreaming Psion]

Current homebrew campaign (steampunk, post apoc.) I'd go with

Alchemist
Barbarian
Cleric (cloistered archetype only)
Gunslinger
Oracle
Psion (power list altered/trimmed a bit)
Ranger (skirmisher preferred)
Sorcerer (racial bonus spells per level for humans retained but no Paragon Surge allowed)

[Silent Saturn]

I'm gonna do this backwards, and go through which classes I could do with eliminating until I'm down to eight. I'm not counting ACG yet.

Spoiler:

-Monks have always felt kind of out of place, and mechanically they're hard to build well.

-Druids are way too complicated, and you can get the same flavor with a Cleric of the god of nature.

-Paladins are strong, but their alignment issues and narrow niche makes them easy to cut. Their weird 4/9 spellcasting barely has a place in the game either.

-Same goes for antipaladins.

-Speaking of 4/9 spellcasting, the Ranger is out too. We'll fill the "wilderness survivalist" niche with somebody else, thanks.

-Rogues, like monks, are just too hard to build right, and have no niche you can't do with a bard, inquisitor, alchemist, or ninja.

-Speaking of, alchemists play like schizophrenic bards, so they can go too.

-Oracles are a spont-cast class using a spell list that was obviously built for a prep-cast class, and clerics are more versatile anyway, so they can go.

-I cut the spont-caster out of the cleric/oracle pair, so I'll cut the prep-caster out of the sorcerer/wizard pair. Sorry, wizards.

-Magi can go, since you can basically do that with multiclassing.

-Gunslingers can go, and the firearms rules can go with them.

-Samurai are an alternate class, and therefore redundant.

-Same goes for antipaladins. Again.

-The summoner is a whole mess of rules text that doesn't need to exist.

-And finally, the fighter, because his two main roles in the game are covered by classes that made the cut.

And that leaves us with...

Barbarians, the raw muscle/savvy mountain man
Bards, the jacks-of-all-trades
Clerics, the divine spellcaster as versatile as the pantheon
Sorcerers, the avatars of the arcane
Cavaliers, the classically trained soldiers
Inquisitors, the holy warriors and cunning cluefinders
Witches, those granted arcane power through eldritch collusion
and Ninjas, the ones who wield trickery as deftly as any blade.

I'd say this collection leaves us with all the roles covered. Two full-BAB classes with plenty of difference between them, three 9th-level spellcasters with three different spell lists, and three medium-BAB characters: one with arcane magic, one with divine, and one with neither. Just about every fantasy trope I can think of is covered here somewhere (although I find it a bit odd that the "animal companion" class is the cavalier) or can be with a little squinting.

[Dasrak]

Not counting mentions of 3rd party classes (nothing against 3P, but it would add a whole bunch of "1 vote" entries to the bottom of the list), this is the breakdown so far:

Barbarian - 21 votes
Bard - 20 votes
Sorcerer - 17 votes
Oracle - 16 votes
Ranger - 16 votes
Inquisitor - 13 votes
Cleric - 12 votes
Alchemist - 11 votes
Paladin - 11 votes
Witch - 11 votes
Druid - 10 votes
Magus - 10 votes
Wizard - 10 votes
Fighter - 9 votes
Ninja - 8 votes
Rogue - 7 votes
Slayer - 5 votes
Monk - 4 votes
Arcanist - 3 votes
Cavalier - 3 votes
Summoner - 3 votes
Bloodrager - 2 votes
Brawler - 2 votes
Gunslinger - 2 votes
Shaman - 2 votes
Hunter - 1 vote
Samurai - 1 vote
Warpriest - 1 vote

Paladin, Alchemist, and Witch are currently tied for that critical 8th place...

[Umbranus]

Slayer, Barbarian, Oracle, Bard, Sorcerer, Brawler, Druid, Inquisitor

Not ever again without the slayer. It fixes two classes at once, the fighter and the rogue. For the 8th place I'm not sure. Could as well be the paladin instead of the inquisitor.

[Cuuniyevo]

If I were stuck with just 8 to choose from I'd pick: Alchemist, Bard, Druid, Hunter, Monk, Ninja, Oracle, Sorcerer.
In other words: Craft, Charm, Nature, Archer, Open Palm, Stealth, Divine, Magic.

[Boomerang Nebula]

Definitely: Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard. The other 4 are harder to pick, hmmmm...

Okay got it, my 8 are: Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Ranger, Rogue and Wizard.

If I got to pick another 4 I would add: Barbarian, Magus, Shadowdancer (can we pick prestige classes) and Sorcerer.

[Dreaming Psion]

Whereas this is by no means a representative sample or anything, it is interesting that the "Core Four" classes are so far down on the list. Cleric's the only one that makes the top 8, and even then it's in seventh place.

[Boomerang Nebula]

Back in 1E days I used to hate the cleric, but now they are one of my favourite classes.

[Eryx_UK]

FancyZergling wrote:

If you could choose only 8 Pathfinder classes to keep, what 8 Would they be and why?

1. Bard - support and knowledge monkey.

2. Cleric - healing, anti-undead and second tier combatant.
3. Fighter - tier 1 combatant.
4. Oracle - divine caster.
5. Paladin - anti evil and tier 1 combatant.
6. Ranger - wilderness type, varied combat design.
7. Rogue - scout, trap detection/disarm.
8. Sorcerer - arcane caster.

These are the classes I would keep. They fit what I want from Pathfinder/D&D gaming. The rest are sort of superfluous in my mind. These eight classes give you everything you need.

[Deadmanwalking]

Depends on the setting. For generic Pathfinder style fantasy, I'd go as follows:

Arcanist (Because it combines wizard and Sorcerer, and having both of those archetypes available is good)
Bard (Great balance of skills, spells, and combat)
Barbarian (Undisciplined combat, plus a martial wilderness themed class)
Cleric (I feel like the built-in deity connection is too iconic to pass up)
Druid (Nature-based caster with an animal companion from 1st level)
Investigator (Does all the alchemist stuff but bombs, and replaces the Rogue as a skill class)
Magus (Not easily replaceable, basically)
Slayer (Rogue replacement and skilled, disciplined, soldier in contrast to the Barbarian)

Paladin is also really tempting, and might easily replace Magus.

For a stone age game:

Barbarian
Brawler
Druid
Oracle
Shaman
Slayer
Sorcerer
Witch

For a Victorian game:

Alchemist
Arcanist ('Civilized' magic)
Brawler
Gunslinger
Investigator
Shaman (For the tribal cultures)
Slayer
Swashbuckler

For a low magic game:

Alchemist
Barbarian
Cavalier
Brawler
Investigator
Monk
Slayer
Swashbuckler

And so on and so forth.

[Ascalaphus]

I'm piqued by the low place of the wizard. I guess if you don't know the wizard existed, the sorcerer becomes a very nice top-shelf arcane spellcaster.

I particularly like the sorcerer vs. alchemist as my pick of arcane casters; they're so much more different than sorcerer vs. wizard. Rather than the sorcerer struggling to get out of the wizard's shadow, they just fill a different niche now.

I've also been thinking. If you only use the traditional four classes - fighter, wizard, cleric and rogue - I think a lot of the griping about fighters and rogues fades. To a large degree it's the way their spotlight gets stolen by bards, barbarians, alchemists, ninjas etcetera that causes their problems. (In other words: if you have 8 classes, best not to have fighters and rogues. They just don't fare well if you introduce many of the other classes.)

Even so, when I made my list, the hardest part was picking a rogue analog. You know, the sneaky character that's not necessarily a spellcaster. Because bards do that job well but they're too magical in some cases. Inquisitors do it really well, but being tied to a religion, they're not really "rogue". Rangers do it well enough, aren't as extremely spellcasty, but they're more focused on the wilderniss than on the outdoors. I guess Slayer may be the next best thing, although the Ranger Combat Style slayer talent means that they do some niche invasion. And I guess the point of reducing the number of classes is also to cut down a bit on niche invasion. Maybe a good solution would be to instead make some bard archetypes available that get rid of spellcasting.