Advanced Class Guide

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Just a few weeks ago, we announced the Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide, an exciting new addition to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game due out next summer. While we talked about it a fair bit at Gencon, this blog post is here to get you caught up on all the news!

This 256-page rulebook will contain 10 new classes, each a mix of two existing classes, taking a bit from each class and adding new mechanics to give you a unique character. Around the office we're calling them "hybrid classes." You can think of the magus (from Ultimate Magic) as our first test of this concept. It takes some rules from the fighter, some rules from the wizard, and then adds its own unique mechanics.

At this point, you're probably wondering what new classes you can expect to see in the Advanced Class Guide. So far, we've announced five of the ten classes.

Bloodrager: This blend of sorcerer and barbarian can call upon the power of his blood whenever he goes into a rage. He also has a limited selection of spells he can call upon, even when in a mindless fury!

Hunter: Taking powers from both the druid and the ranger, the hunter is never without her trusted animal companion, hunting down foes with lethal accuracy.

Shaman: Calling upon the spirits to aid her, the shaman draws upon class features of the oracle and the witch. Each day, she can commune with different spirits to aid her and her allies.

Slayer: Look at all the blood! The slayer blends the rogue and the ranger to create a character that is all about taking down particular targets.

Warpriest: Most religions have martial traditions, and warpriests are often the backbones of such orders. This mix of cleric and fighter can call upon the blessings of the gods to defeat enemies of their faiths.

Of course, those are just half the classes in this book. There are four more we have yet to reveal.

"Four?" you say. "But I thought there were ten!" And you would be right—because I'm about to let you in on another of the classes that will appear in this book, which we haven't announced until this moment!

Swashbuckler: Break out your rapier and your wit! The swashbuckler uses panache and daring to get the job done, blending the powers of the fighter and the gunslinger! For those of you who don't use guns in your campaign, fear not—the base class is not proficient in firearms (although there will certainly be an archetype in the book that fix that).

But that's not all! This book will also contain archetypes for all 10 new classes, as well as a selection to help existing classes play with some of the new features in this book. There will also be feats and spells to support these new classes, as well as magic items that will undoubtedly become favorites for nearly any character. Last but not least, the final chapter in this book will give you a peek inside the design process for classes and archetypes, giving you plenty of tips and guides to build your own! Since class design is more art than science, this won't be a system (like in the Advanced Race Guide), but rather a chapter giving you advice on how the process works.

So, there you go. That's six of the 10 classes that will appear in the Advanced Class Guide and an overview of what else you can expect from this exciting new book. While it's due to release next August, you won't have to wait too long to get your hands on these classes, because we're planning to do a public playtest here this fall! Check back here for more news as the playtest draws close!

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
451 to 500 of 2,258 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Marthkus wrote:

Dervish dance comes from Pathfinder Companion: Qadira, Gateway to the East...

Some books are so random that maybe they weren't meant to be staples of every campaign setting.

I found it in The Inner Sea World Guide.... was that a reprinting of the feat?


Yea.

From what I recall, James thinks it's an extremely powerful but necessary feat, and the design team finds it too powerful to be in the core rules, hence why it's only in the mythic rules book. It'll be interesting to see if they'll add it to the swashbuckler.


Cheapy wrote:

Yea.

From what I recall, James thinks it's an extremely powerful but necessary feat, and the design team finds it too powerful to be in the core rules, hence why it's only in the mythic rules book. It'll be interesting to see if they'll add it to the swashbuckler.

The mythic feat is just better in all respects. TWF rogue with mythic weapon finesse? Yes pls.


And it's the feat people have wanted since the CRB. Dervish Dance was a compromise James did after playtesting a similar feat in the regular game. I think Agile sort of throws away that compromise, but that's a different thread :)

If the swashbuckler gets Dex to damage, I wonder if that ability will have anything for strength users.

Maybe they can get an ability like Arcane Mark, but mundane :) Zorro!


Please please please, a d6-1/2 BAB/no armor divine spellcaster class.
And a true shapeshifter able to become an object too.
And rename the Warpriest as Templar and the Shaman as Warlock...
Will the Swashbuckler be a Duelist type? If so, thank you!


Bloodrager, Warpriest, Shaman.

These are the three that get me hot. The others are interesting (except Hunter, which just sounds like... well... ranger.) and I'm sure I'll love reading them, but Bloodrager Warpriest and Shaman have me practically wetting myself in delight.

Inb4 Bloodrager tribe. I'm already planning on how I'm going to introduce a tribe of warriors in my current campaign that are primarily built around Bloodragers.


Hey guys - im here in atlanta at dragoncon. Has anyone heard about the Arcanist yet? Jason Bulmahn spoiled it at the paizo panel. Its a Sorcerer/Wizard combo that prepares spells like a wizard, but their spells have slots kindof like a Sorcerer. It seems "out there", but Jason gave a good teaser about it. Keep your eye out!


Banizal wrote:
Hey guys - im here in atlanta at dragoncon. Has anyone heard about the Arcanist yet? Jason Bulmahn spoiled it at the paizo panel. Its a Sorcerer/Wizard combo that prepares spells like a wizard, but their spells have slots kindof like a Sorcerer. It seems "out there", but Jason gave a good teaser about it. Keep your eye out!

It has ben done before in 3.5 World of WarCraft D20 had Arcanist (same name) that prepared spells equal to X + ranks in spellcraft (I forget how much X was) from those prepared you cast how many slots you had.

Sproit Shaman in Cimplete divine did same with Druid spells but prepared was based on level.


Magisters (Monte Cook's name) return. Cool. I always liked that casting mechanic.

Shadow Lodge

Banizal wrote:
Hey guys - im here in atlanta at dragoncon. Has anyone heard about the Arcanist yet? Jason Bulmahn spoiled it at the paizo panel. Its a Sorcerer/Wizard combo that prepares spells like a wizard, but their spells have slots kindof like a Sorcerer. It seems "out there", but Jason gave a good teaser about it. Keep your eye out!

Man, a Cleric/Oracle version of that would be amazing. Prophet, Chosen, Disciple.


You know... Divine no armor is hard to pull off. It's not like armor will interfere with the spells


Swashbuckler: Wow. The class I’ve been waiting for, but I have always dreaded it would be a fighter/rogue or a fighter/duelist. Since I dislike both the rogue and the duelist this is just amazing news. I just hope rapier isn’t the only weapon it can use. Bow, Scimitar and some blunt weapon and improvised weapon would also be nice. I’m hoping for a class that can take on a foe one-on-one without the need of a flanking buddy. A full BAB class, with 4 skills per level and some good class skills and bonus feats. The grit mechanics looks cool and I hope it is Charisma based. A Swashbuckler should have some charisma (and some social skills). I hope Grit somehow allows the class do use dex instead of str.

I can’t say I know what people want but from what I’ve read the most requested classes are Swashbuckler, Psionic, Artificer/engineer, Shaman, Shapeshifter and a full BAB class with some arcane spells, possibly the same progression as the Paladin and ranger (4/9 caster). Finally a Paladin without the LG restriction (and a LE Anti-paladin) is also a recurring request. I guess a Warpriest/Templar could fill that role.

Bloodrager: I’m with Rynjin when he says: “Seriously if the Bloodrager is like a Barbarian with Bloodlines and a little bit of casting I will be on that.” I know a lot of people have been waiting for a full BAB class with just a little bit of arcane casting (4/9 caster). I think this class can be really cool if it doesn’t end up being a new Rage Prophet.

Hunter: I guess this is some sort of beastmaster. Not something I’m too hot on, but it could be cool if you are into that sort of thing. A more powerful pet than the druid and less spells, perhaps even two pets? Regardless if the game needs a beastmaster it is a classic figure/role. I guess this is going to be a 6/9 caster, but I wouldn’t mind if it is a full BAB class with 4/9 casting and some Ex or Su abilities that lets him/her talk to, protect and buff the pet(s).

The Shaman: As pointed out by others the Shaman fills a long needed niche. I hope it comes without the witch’s pet and that it has more protective spells and more battlefield control spells than the witch. I seriously hope this isn’t a prepared caster, but a caster that get more spells known than most spontaneous casters. Divine caster, some arcane spells on the list and with hexes would be nice.

Slayer: I like Buffy and so now we can play her. I guess we always could play her (Inquisitor, fighter, urban ranger or spell less ranger), but this could make it easier. Although I’m not too hot on the rogue/ranger thing. I think the rogue is a problematic class, I dislike sneak attack and Favored Enemy is problematic too. When fighting you FE you are fine, but when you don’t you suck. Instant enemy and some toys in UE have fixed some of the problems at higher levels. I’m hoping this is a ranger with trapfinding and rogue talents, but without: the nature fluff; sneak attack; and no spells. I really hope for a flexible FE that you can swap once per day.

Warpriest: I have high hope for this one. Inquisitor is too much into teamwork feats and self-buffs and Cleric is not really what I want anymore: It is too generic; it is a full caster so people expect you to be a caster; and people expect you to be a healer. I hope this is a 6/9 class with at least one domain and some bonus feats and channeling so you can deal with haunts. Warpriest can be just what I want from a divine fighter that isn’t a Paladin. Or even better, this could be some sort of Paladin without the alignment restriction.

The other four classes ? It’s pretty obvious we won’t get a Psionic or a Artificer in this book. A Psionic pretty mush deserves its own book.

So what do I hope for with the other four classes? I’m hoping for:

7) A shifter classFrom what I’ve read on the messageboards the last few years this is a class that a lot of people want. I think the concept is cool and I wouldn’t mind playing one.

8) A class that gets trapfinding so we get an alternative to the rogue. Seriously, every role in the game can be filled with at least 3 different classes*, except for the trap expert. It is time we get at least one more trap expert class and hopefully one that can fight too (yes I know there are archetypes, but I’m talking about a new class). A fighter/rogue that essentially is a (full BAB) fighter with trapfinding, more skills, some rogue talents, less feat, only medium or light armor prof and worse armor/weapon training progression and NO Sneak attack would be cool. A Paladin/Rogue or a Barbarian/rogue would also be cool.

*Please Paizo. We have 3 full arcane casters, 3 full divine classes, more than 3 skill monkeys, more than 3 full BAB classes, more than 3 hybrid classes (6/9 casters). We need more options when it comes to the role of the trap expert.

9) A Bard/Full BAB class. A bard/fighter or bard/barbarian that keeps inspire courage, spells and skills but get more combat abilities. I always thought the bard is a bit boring past level 7 or 8. A lot of the bardic abilities are a bit Meh . Especially with all the new 6/9 spell casting classes the bard comes out a bit boring past level 7. And there really isn’t any good bard archer archetype so a Fighter/bard would be cool. That said I must admit I always wanted to play a Bard/Barbarian class. A Bard/Barbarian that keeps inspire courage and Bardic knowledge would be really cool.A Barbarian doesn’t have to be ignorant or stupid. A Bard/Paladin would also be cool, but my favorite combination would be a Bard/Barbarian since the rules pretty much makes this combination impossible and it could also change some peoples narrow minded view on what Bardic performance can be.

10) Last class? A spell less class would be nice. A fighter/rogue or Fighter/monk or Bard/Cavalier without the mount and no spells (or just a few spells, say a 4/9 caster). A fighter/Samurai or fighter /cavalier without the mount would be awesome. A paladin/rogue without spells that doesn’t have to be lawful would also be cool. Especially if it could choose to use sneak attack or smite evil. Yes, a paladin/rogue that can be CG or NG would be awesome. Some sort of investigator and infiltrator that still can take on the bad guys one-one-one. Or some sort of a scout/survivor/MacGyver character that can also fight would be cool.

Anyway. I’m gonna buy the book just because of the Swashbuckler. The Bloodrager and Warpriest makes it even more appealing. :-)


Banizal wrote:
Hey guys - im here in atlanta at dragoncon. Has anyone heard about the Arcanist yet? Jason Bulmahn spoiled it at the paizo panel. Its a Sorcerer/Wizard combo that prepares spells like a wizard, but their spells have slots kindof like a Sorcerer. It seems "out there", but Jason gave a good teaser about it. Keep your eye out!

Nice! Nice!


Banizal wrote:
Hey guys - im here in atlanta at dragoncon. Has anyone heard about the Arcanist yet? Jason Bulmahn spoiled it at the paizo panel. Its a Sorcerer/Wizard combo that prepares spells like a wizard, but their spells have slots kindof like a Sorcerer. It seems "out there", but Jason gave a good teaser about it. Keep your eye out!

Awesomeness! I hope it’s a full caster, but I guess it’s not. Did he say anything more?

If this is a full caster I will probably never ever play any other full arcane caster.


I can't imagine it not being a full caster... when both classes are full casters...

I wonder if we'll see mash ups of bloodlines and schools. Gaining power by studying your... Genealogy... OK, maybe that isn't that heroic.


Dreamspun / Illusion would be cool though.

Silver Crusade

Banizal wrote:
Hey guys - im here in atlanta at dragoncon. Has anyone heard about the Arcanist yet? Jason Bulmahn spoiled it at the paizo panel. Its a Sorcerer/Wizard combo that prepares spells like a wizard, but their spells have slots kindof like a Sorcerer. It seems "out there", but Jason gave a good teaser about it. Keep your eye out!

Really? Hrm. This is sounding more and more like a sneaky way to move toward PF 1.5: testing new mechanics that might supplant old ones whenever 2.0 comes around. Not that I have a problem with that, I guess. I had just envisioned this book as a bit more niche and it's sounding more like a bunch of classes I'll have to really learn because they'll make some of the old ones obsolete.

Even more curious for the playtest now.

Shadow Lodge

Zark wrote:
Swashbuckler: . . . A full BAB class, with 4 skills per level and some good class skills and bonus feats. The grit mechanics looks cool and I hope it is Charisma based. A Swashbuckler should have some charisma (and some social skills). I hope Grit somehow allows the class do use dex instead of str.

I kind of hope that they don't go this route, honestly. That would pretty much invalidate the Cavalier, whose only really advantage over a Fighter is a few skills and some benefit for Cha, and those are already very minor.

More hoping for a d6, 3/4 BaB, good Refl, 2+Int class whose focus is maybe using the lowest of Dex and Int for abilities, but a somewhat rechargeable mechanic like Grit for a few little knacks.


Well, in it's basic form the Slayer is someone who has intense animosity towards a specific group, and specializes in stalking and killing them. That just...doesn't lend itself to a good-aligned character.

UNLESS, you play it as a rebel fighter battling against foreign occupiers (of a certain species) who uses guerilla tactics. Or as an undead or demon hunter, but the former has immunity to critical hits, so I don't know why you would bother.


Undead are not crit immune in pathfinder, do you play 3.5 Axial?


Banizal wrote:
Hey guys - im here in atlanta at dragoncon. Has anyone heard about the Arcanist yet? Jason Bulmahn spoiled it at the paizo panel. Its a Sorcerer/Wizard combo that prepares spells like a wizard, but their spells have slots kindof like a Sorcerer. It seems "out there", but Jason gave a good teaser about it. Keep your eye out!

Oh...what? No!

If these are going to be a bunch of unique classes...why would you combine a Sorcerer and Wizard!? It's not like they don't have enough in common already. They have a total of ten new classes, and there's probably a much cooler concept left out because of this. What a waste.

Dragon78 wrote:
Undead are not crit immune in pathfinder, do you play 3.5 Axial?

Oh, they aren't?

Right. My bad.


Undead don't have blanket immunity to crits anymore

Shadow Lodge

Or Sneak Attack, unfortunately.


Banizal wrote:
Hey guys - im here in atlanta at dragoncon. Has anyone heard about the Arcanist yet? Jason Bulmahn spoiled it at the paizo panel. Its a Sorcerer/Wizard combo that prepares spells like a wizard, but their spells have slots kindof like a Sorcerer. It seems "out there", but Jason gave a good teaser about it. Keep your eye out!

Ok this is the first class that kinda of make me go "Meh". I liked or thought the other class idea are at least interesting enough I wanted to see what they did with them. This class though...I kinda veiw it the same way I veiwed the Summoner when I first heard of it.

Still looking forward to the book though...so far 6 out of 7 is really good. And well even though I was skeptical about the summoner before hand it kind grew on me. I can now play a character with a real imaginary friend.

Silver Crusade

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Or Sneak Attack, unfortunately.

Yeah, because 3.5 Rogues were overpowered.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Kretzer wrote:
Banizal wrote:
Hey guys - im here in atlanta at dragoncon. Has anyone heard about the Arcanist yet? Jason Bulmahn spoiled it at the paizo panel. Its a Sorcerer/Wizard combo that prepares spells like a wizard, but their spells have slots kindof like a Sorcerer. It seems "out there", but Jason gave a good teaser about it. Keep your eye out!

Ok this is the first class that kinda of make me go "Meh". I liked or thought the other class idea are at least interesting enough I wanted to see what they did with them. This class though...I kinda veiw it the same way I veiwed the Summoner when I first heard of it.

Still looking forward to the book though...so far 6 out of 7 is really good. And well even though I was skeptical about the summoner before hand it kind grew on me. I can now play a character with a real imaginary friend.

From what info has been released on it, it sounds like it'll be the Wizard With Training Wheels. Wizardly Training Wheels.

A big problem facing the wizard is the preparation mechanic. From my experience, players just...don't want to do that much work. Most just create a base spell list, and they leave some slots open to fill as needed. At least, that's some of the most prevailing advice given.

But this? Where you presumably get to pick 2 or 3 spells, and then cast them Y times per day? That's a nice middle ground. Reduces the number of spells you need to juggle to a manageable amount, but still gives you that versatility.


Cheapy wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:
Banizal wrote:
Hey guys - im here in atlanta at dragoncon. Has anyone heard about the Arcanist yet? Jason Bulmahn spoiled it at the paizo panel. Its a Sorcerer/Wizard combo that prepares spells like a wizard, but their spells have slots kindof like a Sorcerer. It seems "out there", but Jason gave a good teaser about it. Keep your eye out!

Ok this is the first class that kinda of make me go "Meh". I liked or thought the other class idea are at least interesting enough I wanted to see what they did with them. This class though...I kinda veiw it the same way I veiwed the Summoner when I first heard of it.

Still looking forward to the book though...so far 6 out of 7 is really good. And well even though I was skeptical about the summoner before hand it kind grew on me. I can now play a character with a real imaginary friend.

From what info has been released on it, it sounds like it'll be the Wizard With Training Wheels. Wizardly Training Wheels.

A big problem facing the wizard is the preparation mechanic. From my experience, players just...don't want to do that much work. Most just create a base spell list, and they leave some slots open to fill as needed. At least, that's some of the most prevailing advice given.

But this? Where you presumably get to pick 2 or 3 spells, and then cast them Y times per day? That's a nice middle ground. Reduces the number of spells you need to juggle to a manageable amount, but still gives you that versatility.

I guess I can see that...though I think those people will still play sorcerers for the most part. As it seems to two thing lead people away from prepared casters

1) Just a desire to keep it simple...which sorcerer still does better.

2) A fear of choosing wrong...which the sorcerer fixes better as it removes all choice really.

But as I said I'll keep a open mind about the class...it just gaved me a 'meh' moment.


RE: Arcanist: Honestly, I really like this idea, and dependent on flavor, I might just replace wizards and sorcerers in my home game. If it can prepare a number of spells, and then cast them with slots, that basically makes it easier to use (and potentially better) than the sorcerer and wizard.

2 cp given.

...Catch Phrase,

-Chris


This looks pretty interesting. Swashbuckler being a mix between fighter and gunslinger, instead of fighter and rogue, seems to be more fitting. I would love it if one of the other un-announced classes was an artificer, something like a mix between alchemist and summoner, only focusing on constructs instead of bombs/potions and outsiders. The evolution points for the eidolons make a lot of sense for a constructed pet.

Also, I have a question about this. Read that the playtest will be soon (fall 2013, so starting this month at the earliest). How do you go about playtesting the pathfinder stuff? I only found out about the mythic playtest because my DM decided to incorporate it, and emailed all of us the playtest pdf. I ask because this is definitely something I would like to playtest.

Bloodrager, hunter, and shaman are the ones that I am interested in testing out mostly, though a little skeptical about the shaman being a mash of oracle and witch.


Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Banizal wrote:
Hey guys - im here in atlanta at dragoncon. Has anyone heard about the Arcanist yet? Jason Bulmahn spoiled it at the paizo panel. Its a Sorcerer/Wizard combo that prepares spells like a wizard, but their spells have slots kindof like a Sorcerer. It seems "out there", but Jason gave a good teaser about it. Keep your eye out!

And they just sold another copy. ^_^

Not sure I love the name much though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Zark wrote:
Swashbuckler: . . . A full BAB class, with 4 skills per level and some good class skills and bonus feats. The grit mechanics looks cool and I hope it is Charisma based. A Swashbuckler should have some charisma (and some social skills). I hope Grit somehow allows the class do use dex instead of str.
I kind of hope that they don't go this route, honestly. That would pretty much invalidate the Cavalier, whose only really advantage over a Fighter is a few skills and some benefit for Cha, and those are already very minor.

I’m not a big fan of the Cavalier, but you really oversimplifying things.

The Cavalier is far more than a Fighter with “a few skills and some benefit for Cha”. If you want a fighter with a mount and you like teamwork feats the Cavalier is a rock solid class. If you don’t like teamwork feat then you can play the Samurai, another rock solid class. Actually I would rather play a Samurai than a fighter.
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:


More hoping for a d6, 3/4 BaB, good Refl, 2+Int class whose focus is maybe using the lowest of Dex and Int for abilities, but a somewhat rechargeable mechanic like Grit for a few little knacks.

d6 and 3/4 BaB will never happen.

I don’t understand what you mean by “using the lowest of Dex and Int”.
The classic Swashbuckler use light armor and is a high dex character that fights with charm and wit using a one handed weapon. Full BAB, 4 skills per level, good set of class skills (Climb, Swim, Acrobatics, Perception, Perform, Bluff, Diplomacy, etc. are fitting) are all fitting. I can see the class using a buckler or using a pistol or a hook in his/her off hand. It is also a class that should be able to use improvised Weapon, and if there is such a thing, be able to use improvised shield. Just as in the movies he/she should be able to block an incoming attack using a frying pan or a stool.

If it gets some sort of Parry ability I hope it is far better than the awkward and weak Parry ability the Duelist gets.

Agree that good reflex saves is fitting, although they should get two good saves.


Honestly, I'm hoping the arcanist thing is a hoax. So far all the other classes are bringing at least something relatively new to the table from what I can tell. A sorc/wizard combo just sounds like it'll just have arcane spells and call it a day.

If it's legit, extremely underwhelming.

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 16, 2012 Top 32

While I have yet to see proof that the arcanist actually exists, a mixture of prepared and spontaneous casting was pretty much what I was expecting from the shaman, if nothing else. Prepare your list of spells known each day by communing with a spirit, then cast those spells spontaneously. That's pretty much the 3.0 shaman class in a nutshell, and it worked fine.

Shadow Lodge

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
I kind of hope that they don't go this route, honestly. That would pretty much invalidate the Cavalier, whose only really advantage over a Fighter is a few skills and some benefit for Cha, and those are already very minor.
Zark wrote:

I’m not a big fan of the Cavalier, but you really oversimplifying things.

The Cavalier is far more than a Fighter with “a few skills and some benefit for Cha”. If you want a fighter with a mount and you like teamwork feats the Cavalier is a rock solid class. If you don’t like teamwork feat then you can play the Samurai, another rock solid class. Actually I would rather play a Samurai than a fighter.

It is, but at the same time, no it really isn't. Its kind of worse. I'm not a fan of it either, but mostly because every time I want to build one, I walk away half way through so disappointed that it can't actually do what it is supposed to. A mounted Fighter is significantly better at being a mounted warrior. I like the inclusion of Int and Cha, but the problem is that it just makes the Class way too MAD. They have far too many skills (the intent was to make a warrior with some social ability to counter the idea of martials being useless outside of combat), but the thing is that they just don't have the skill points to do what they need to do as a Warrior, and a mounted warrior at that, and also social skills. Most of the time they are probably not going to be in their element (so the focus on mounted combat is a poor direction for the class unless you cheese it for a small cavalier with a medium mount). Weapon Training/Focus/Specialization far outclass the very circumstantial Challenge.

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:


More hoping for a d6, 3/4 BaB, good Refl, 2+Int class whose focus is maybe using the lowest of Dex and Int for abilities, but a somewhat rechargeable mechanic like Grit for a few little knacks.
Zark wrote:

d6 and 3/4 BaB will never happen.

I don’t understand what you mean by “using the lowest of Dex and Int”.
The classic Swashbuckler use light armor and is a high dex character that fights with charm and wit using a one handed weapon. Full BAB, 4 skills per level, good set of class skills (Climb, Swim, Acrobatics, Perception, Perform, Bluff, Diplomacy, etc. are fitting) are all fitting. I can see the class using a buckler or using a pistol or a hook in his/her off hand. It is also a class that should be able to use improvised Weapon, and if there is such a thing, be able to use improvised shield. Just as in the movies he/she should be able to block an incoming attack using a frying pan or a stool.

Oh, I agree it's fitting. That's got nothing to do with it though. It's how do you not make the Fighter, Cavalier, Rogue, etc. . . look like chumps and this the automatic go to class for anything martial? I'd probably also drop Perception, Diplomacy, and Swim and add Acrobatics.

d6 makes sense and is balanced as they are going to really focus on not getting hit, rather than being able to take it and to encourage bit of MAD beyond Dex and Int/Cha. 3/4 because they focus on single enemy combat and trickery over overall weapon mastery.

Shouldn't everyone be able to block incoming attacks? Swashbucky shouldn't be special like that just because. Id give it to the Fighter, Ninja, or Monk first. (just my opinion)


Zark wrote:
Just as in the movies he/she should be able to block an incoming attack using a frying pan...

+1.

My swashbuckler shall be named Flynn Rider.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
d6 makes sense and is balanced as they are going to really focus on not getting hit, rather than being able to take it and to encourage bit of MAD beyond Dex and Int/Cha. 3/4 because they focus on single enemy combat and trickery over overall weapon mastery.

He says a d6 class with 3/4 BAB won't happen is because in Pathfinder, BAB is tied in with the class's HD. d6 = 1/2 BAB (sorcerer, wizard). d8 = 3/4 BAB (cleric, druid, rogue, etc). d10/d12 = 1 BAB (fighter, barbarian, paladin, etc). So, either your idea would need d6 and 1/2 BAB, or d8 and 3/4 BAB.


Well...it could happen. It'd just be rare.

Shadow Lodge

I know, but there is also exceptions, which this would be a perfect place for. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

"Rare" as in "the devs specifically said in the past that, aside from the Barbarian, HD is always tied to BAB".

Seriously, those suggestions from Advocate would destroy the Swashbuckler class for me. Fighter/Gunslinger with a full BAB, D10 HD and 4 Skillpoints per level sounds totally fine.


Adjule wrote:
"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
d6 makes sense and is balanced as they are going to really focus on not getting hit, rather than being able to take it and to encourage bit of MAD beyond Dex and Int/Cha. 3/4 because they focus on single enemy combat and trickery over overall weapon mastery.
He says a d6 class with 3/4 BAB won't happen is because in Pathfinder, BAB is tied in with the class's HD. d6 = 1/2 BAB (sorcerer, wizard). d8 = 3/4 BAB (cleric, druid, rogue, etc). d10/d12 = 1 BAB (fighter, barbarian, paladin, etc). So, either your idea would need d6 and 1/2 BAB, or d8 and 3/4 BAB.

Actually, it can happen (Monk's aren't D10 hp but have full bab when flurrying).

Silver Crusade

Sounds Fragile and would die... alot... and have issues doing its thing without some ability to make up for that 3/4 Bab if it was the case.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's quite assuredly not the case. I don't see a Fighter/Gunslinger combination coming in under the BAB/HD of both original classes.


Starbuck_II wrote:


Actually, it can happen (Monk's aren't D10 hp but have full bab when flurrying).

If you wanna get technical (which is more fun than just pointing out "Special Full Round Attack Class feature =/= Full BaB") Flurry doesn't really give you full BaB, it gives you like 4/5 BaB since you still take the -2 no matter what, and it actually LOWERS your to-hit for the first 5 levels (and doesn't give you even a +1 boost until 9th).

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Banizal wrote:
Hey guys - im here in atlanta at dragoncon. Has anyone heard about the Arcanist yet? Jason Bulmahn spoiled it at the paizo panel. Its a Sorcerer/Wizard combo that prepares spells like a wizard, but their spells have slots kindof like a Sorcerer. It seems "out there", but Jason gave a good teaser about it. Keep your eye out!

This is what the wizard should have been in the first place in 3.0 instead of having both Wizard and the Half Class Sorcerer. This just sold me on this book, as it will completely replace the wizard. Make the Icon Ezren!!

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

You know back in 3.0 when I first started playing RPGs, that's just how we always ran all our casters. It was a houserule that just sort of sprang into existence because we weren't familiar with Vancian spell casting. A compromise between prepared and mana. Prepare a repertoire each day and cast in any combination. A lvl 1 character might prep Magic Missile, Grease and Mage Armor, cast Mage Armor once and then Grease twice and be out of spells.

It made the sorcerer irrelevant.

I'm not sure bloodlines are enough to make the sorcerer competitive with the Arcanist concept. I'll reserve judgement until I see it though.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I am hoping they will have a third calling (other then Schools or Bloodlines) that will be inherent to the class.


Christopher Delvo wrote:

RE: Arcanist: Honestly, I really like this idea, and dependent on flavor, I might just replace wizards and sorcerers in my home game. If it can prepare a number of spells, and then cast them with slots, that basically makes it easier to use (and potentially better) than the sorcerer and wizard.

2 cp given.

...Catch Phrase,

-Chris

So, if you what say is true...does this mean that they basically want to supplant the wizard class? Why? Aren't Wizards and Sorcerers good enough? What would be the Arcanist's "thing" anyway, where would they get their magic?

It just seems like they could have taken this out and replaced it with something much more interesting and unique.


my guess is that the Arcanist will have features that won't render two popular classes irrelevant. So I would keep your optimism guarded until the playtest...


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LoreKeeper wrote:

Don't get me wrong - I really like the many small changes that have happened for the monk in the last year or so. I don't feel the monk is under powered or anything like that (sure, he isn't a powerhouse, but he plays reliable and fun games).

What I'd like is to move away from the "old" design on the monk, and get closer to the new hotness (barbarian rage powers, rogue talents, ninja tricks, oracle revelations, alchemist discoveries, magus arcana, etc). A monk-orientated class that did something similar (insights?) would be amazing. Take away Bonus Feats, and replace them with Insights every even level; add a big set of flavor heavy insights and we're good to go!

You know, the more I think about it since reading it in the monk vs. fighter thread, the more I've started really wanting a monk/cavalier hybrid. Monk Orders could be a really neat way to choose between focusing your character on the more martial or magical aspects of the trope.

451 to 500 of 2,258 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Paizo Blog: Advanced Class Guide All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.