Advanced Class Guide

Dear Lord in Heaven, if they have a paladin/barbarian hybrid I would buy this book and faint after seeing the art for it. I would never play another class.

Oh @#$% YES.

Charrend wrote:

Dear Lord in Heaven, if they have a paladin/barbarian hybrid I would buy this book and faint after seeing the art for it. I would never play another class.

Oh @#$% YES.

...NEED, bonus points if its meshable with Champion of Iori

I'd like to see a bard cavalier hybrid. The battle herald prestige gives away too much for me. I think it would make for a bad mother of a leader class.

Bard paladin would also be a great mash up. It could be a great fluff tie in for the dawnflower.

I'm torn on all the paladin mashups. They seem cool, but... Paladin? That has a lot of baggage. Barbaradin and Bardadin are at least cool names, if a bit dorfish.

i would love to see "holy warrior" without the paladin alignment falltrap attached

I'd like to see a bard cavalier hybrid. The battle herald prestige gives away too much for me. I think it would make for a bad mother of a leader class.

Bard paladin would also be a great mash up. It could be a great fluff tie in for the dawnflower.

+1

i would love to see "holy warrior" without the paladin alignment falltrap attached

I Think a lot of people would like to see a "holy warrior" without the paladin alignment restriction, but I doubt we get one. Warpriest is probably the closest thing we are going to get.

I personally don’t have a problem with the Paladin, but I wouldn’t mind a mashup if it was really far out like Paladin/Bard or Paladin/rouge.

I dunno, the war priest sounds pretty close to that. Especially if it happens to be full BAB. It's a holy warrior of any alignment.

Actually when you think of it... the Ninja is a mashup of the Rogue and the Monk. It has the Monk's ki ability and the rogue's sneak attack and rogue talents.

I'd rather have seen a combination of the Druid and the Barbarian for the Shaman. But then, that might be too close to the Diablo II Shaman! ^^;; (Been a while since I last played DIII. Maybe I'll take it out for another spin...)

It would also be nice to see a couple more spell-less classes. I know players who don't want to play a Ranger or Sorcerer or the like because there's too much confusion over spells and the like. They like the simpler choices that come without a spell list. (Yes, they're newer players. It's still a valid complaint for them.)

I dunno, the war priest sounds pretty close to that. Especially if it happens to be full BAB. It's a holy warrior of any alignment.

Agree.

A full BAB war priest would with 6/9 casting would be REALLY cool :D

This wasn't one of those panels where they close the door and make you sign an NDA was it?

No, that was the earlier one. =^)

-TimD

It would also be nice to see a couple more spell-less classes. I know players who don't want to play a Ranger ... because there's too much confusion over spells and the like. They like the simpler choices that come without a spell list. (Yes, they're newer players. It's still a valid complaint for them.)

You could always point them to the Spell-less Ranger from Kobold Press :)

Cheapy wrote:

I dunno, the war priest sounds pretty close to that. Especially if it happens to be full BAB. It's a holy warrior of any alignment.

Agree.

I actually rather see a war priest than a Chaotic Good or neutral Good Paladin.

A full BAB war priest would with 6/9 casting would be REALLY cool :D

Im kind of hoping for a classic 7th level caster on the Warpriest.

I dunno, the war priest sounds pretty close to that. Especially if it happens to be full BAB. It's a holy warrior of any alignment.

I can't see any 6 or 9 level casting class having Full BAB. Particularly not if it has abilities other than casting. Not even if it's using the cleric spell list. It just doesn't make sense in terms of balance.

Cheapy wrote:

I dunno, the war priest sounds pretty close to that. Especially if it happens to be full BAB. It's a holy warrior of any alignment.

I can't see any 6 or 9 level casting class having Full BAB. Particularly not if it has abilities other than casting. Not even if it's using the cleric spell list. It just doesn't make sense in terms of balance.

Yea, the same thought went through my head while typing that. Maybe there's a small chance of it being 4 spell levels? That's going pretty far away from the cleric basis though.

I think Paizo once made a full BAB cleric alternative class feature that gave up all of their class features. Turn Undead and Domains. But that's pretty boring, and since these classes will all have unique mechanics, I guess that points to it not having full BAB.

I could see a War Priest/Templar with 3/4 BAB and Spell Combat.

I would hope the opportunity is taken to redefine Spell Combat as a full-attack action. It would solve quite a few inconsistencies with the current ruling.

Since it's not part Magus, I'm guessing that it won't have spell combat.

Cheapy wrote:

I dunno, the war priest sounds pretty close to that. Especially if it happens to be full BAB. It's a holy warrior of any alignment.

I can't see any 6 or 9 level casting class having Full BAB. Particularly not if it has abilities other than casting. Not even if it's using the cleric spell list. It just doesn't make sense in terms of balance.

Well I agree that it probably isn’t that likely, but the eldritch knight has full BAB and full spell progression (-1 spell level).

A one level fighter, 6 level wizard and 10 level eldritch knight, a level 17 char, would have 8 spell levels and BAB 14.
A level 17 inquisitor has BAB 12 and 6 spell levels, one domain but unlike the EK his is loaded with Su, Ex and Sp abilities and teamwork feats and he got 8 skills per level and tons or great class skills.

It’s not only a matter of BAB and spell levels it also boils down to how much other stuff you are giving a class, but its seams the concepty for a 6/9 caster is 3/4 BAB and I think they will will stick to.

A 6/9 war priest with 3/4 BAB would be interesting but there is a risk it some people think it would just look to much like a inquisitor. Although I’m positive they make a cool class.

What would full be cool is a full BAB class, with 4/9 casting but with cantrips at level one so he/she gets full caster level. They could compensate the lack of spell levels with SP, lots of bonus feats and other cool stuff.

4/9 caster or 6/9 caster I'm positive the class will be awesome.

I’m really looking forward to this play test and to the final product. I just hope we could get some more spoilers ;-)

I'm eagerly awaiting the Shaman. I hope it's a divine spontaneous caster with familiar.

Well I agree that it probably isn’t that likely, but the eldritch knight has full BAB and full spell progression (-1 spell level).

A one level fighter, 6 level wizard and 10 level eldritch knight, a level 17 char, would have 8 spell levels and BAB 14.
A level 17 inquisitor has BAB 12 and 6 spell levels, one domain but unlike the EK his is loaded with Su, Ex and Sp abilities and teamwork feats and he got 8 skills per level and tons or great class skills.

It’s not only a matter of BAB and spell levels it also boils down to how much other stuff you are giving a class, but its seams the concepty for a 6/9 caster is 3/4 BAB and I think they will will stick to.

A 6/9 war priest with 3/4 BAB would be interesting but there is a risk it some people think it would just look to much like a inquisitor. Although I’m positive they make a cool class.

What would full be cool is a full BAB class, with 4/9 casting but with cantrips at level one so he/she gets full caster level. They could compensate the lack of spell levels with SP, lots of bonus feats and other cool stuff.

4/9 caster or 6/9 caster I'm positive the class will be awesome.

I’m really looking forward to this play test and to the final product. I just hope we could get some more spoilers ;-)

Alchemist/ Master Chymst comes close too, at 17th level it has a +15 BAB and 5 levels of 'spellcasting'.

I think in both cases the compromises balance out the benefits. These classes all take the 'hit' from lowered BAB or lowered spell levels early on and deal with it throughout their progression only to benefit later in the game.

Here's a class I loved, it was the battle sorcerer variant from 3.5. It had 3/4 BAB and full casting but its casting was somewhat crippled by limited spells known. It was a very cool concept and one I wish Paizo had brought forward at some point.

I loved the Battle Sorcerer. It made for a really cool, self-reliant intro character, and, especially in 3.5 made a difference between it and the Wizard class.

I loved the Battle Sorcerer. It made for a really cool, self-reliant intro character, and, especially in 3.5 made a difference between it and the Wizard class.

You weren't the only one.

At low levels, I played mine more of a sword and spell type. At high levels I had engraved on her blade, "If you can read this, I'm too close." A battle sorcerer with bloodlines would rock. Let me take my wildblooded (sage) bloodline and I'll be happy.

Jason did announce the Arcanist at DragonCon. It was summed up upthread correctly: a mage with a spellbook that can change his spell slots every day, at the cost of spells per day. Someone asked if it was Int or Cha - Jason wasn't sure yet.

The swashbuckler will have something like grit, but I think he said it was called pizzazz. It started with a "p."

He did explain that each class will have their own Spellstrike. Some sort of blend of the abilities of the two base classes that hasn't been seen elsewhere in core Pathfinder.

He also said that this book is more for experienced players. There's enough classes out there with simple and straightforward mechanics, so Paizo is "taking off the kid gloves," as Jason said, and really going for some cool abilities, if more complicated. I believe I'll be following his advice and keeping it restricted from new players, at least until they get down the base game.

It was also noted that there will be at least one archetype and feats for every class to date, both of which may be aimed at introducing some of the new mechanics to the older classes. There will be multiple archetypes and feats for the new classes.

He also said that this book is more for experienced players. There's enough classes out there with simple and straightforward mechanics, so Paizo is "taking off the kid gloves," as Jason said, and really going for some cool abilities, if more complicated. I believe I'll be following his advice and keeping it restricted from new players, at least until they get down the base game.

It was also noted that there will be at least one archetype and feats for every class to date, both of which may be aimed at introducing some of the new mechanics to the older classes. There will be multiple archetypes and feats for the new classes.

Proposal: min/maxer Thunderdome. In real-time, when the playtest is first released.

The swashbuckler will have something like grit, but I think he said it was called pizzazz. It started with a "p."

I'm thinking it was actually 'panache' :)

Vendis wrote:

The swashbuckler will have something like grit, but I think he said it was called pizzazz. It started with a "p."

I'm thinking it was actually 'panache' :)

I spent 20 minutes Googling stuff to get it right. I knew if I heard it I'd know what it was.

Panache is definitely correct.

Proposal: min/maxer Thunderdome. In real-time when the playtest is first released.

Yes? No? Personally, I also tend to shy new players away from the magus and the summoner and to a lesser extent, the druid, because there's simply so much more to those classes than a sorcerer or fighter or cleric. I don't outright restrict them, but I warn them there is more to them than other classes. It's the same way when someone says, "I want to play a mage." I point them towards sorcerer instead of wizard, simply because of how easy it is to pick up and learn.

If you've seen the mythic rules, I think that's a good example of how Paizo still has plenty up its sleeve. They are the rules for the characters literally slowly becoming demigods, but there's few numerical bonuses and whatnot - it's almost all stuff that's full of flavor and unique abilities.

Proposal: min/maxer Thunderdome. In real-time, when the playtest is first released.

*chants*

Two men enter, one man leaves. Two men enter, one man leaves.

Summoner + Cavalier = Dragonrider.

Dooooo it.

That would be friggin' sweet.
The problem is that dragons are pretty established in the setting, and power scaling them is a headache.

I'd be ok with "better than average drake" riders.

That would be friggin' sweet.

The problem is that dragons are pretty established in the setting, and power scaling them is a headache.

I'd be ok with "better than average drake" riders.

Not really. Paizo has already laid out the foundation for it. Super genius game did it with their dragon rider product. You dont use the bestiary statblock for dragons. You create animal companion style stat blocks and use that kind of advancement. So yea they wouldnt be Dragons with a capital D, they would be companions with draconic abilities, but less power that scales as you level. All you need is balanced base statistics, then its easy from there.

The ones from SGG are still the dragons from the beastiary, they are just nerfed.
And that's fine, I like that class.
I also like the dragonbound one, where like an eidolon, you build the drake you ride.

Can't you create a dragon rider with a normal summoner? Lord knows I've seen it done successfully half a dozen times!

I be interested to see what they vould do with a nature based alchemist. Hello pumpkin bombs.

Cavalier + nothing -> Dragonrider Knight of Solomnia :)

I be interested to see what they vould do with a nature based alchemist. Hello pumpkin bombs.

There's the Bramble Brewer half-elven archetype!

Can't you create a dragon rider with a normal summoner? Lord knows I've seen it done successfully half a dozen times!

I do play this.

However, it could use some work, because the normal role of the eidolon isn't really all that great for a mount.

Mounted combat is really structured around keeping the mount alive, and the eidolon is mechanically incentivized to make itself a target.

I could go on, but it has been a few months since I rolled my Panzer Dragoon PC.

Someone asked if it was Int or Cha - Jason wasn't sure yet.

I hope it's both: Int to learn and prepare spells; Cha to cast them. Otherwise, the arcanist sounds a bit like a better version of the wizard, and the game really doesn't need a better version of the wizard.

Ravingdork wrote:

Can't you create a dragon rider with a normal summoner? Lord knows I've seen it done successfully half a dozen times!

I do play this.

However, it could use some work, because the normal role of the eidolon isn't really all that great for a mount.

Mounted combat is really structured around keeping the mount alive, and the eidolon is mechanically incentivized to make itself a target.

I could go on, but it has been a few months since I rolled my Panzer Dragoon PC.

Also the large sized evolution isn't available till 8th level meaning your standard medium sized creature has to hold out 7 levels till they get a mount. If I'm playing a character focused on mounted combat I want a viable mount right at level 1.

- Torger

What? No revival yet of the 1E Acrobat?
^_^

Also the large sized evolution isn't available till 8th level meaning your standard medium sized creature has to hold out 7 levels till they get a mount. If I'm playing a character focused on mounted combat I want a viable mount right at level 1.

It's a grey area, but you can definitely enlarge your eidolon from first level due to a special exemption in the targeting rules for eidolons.

Now, there's still the matter of the mount evolution, which my GM takes to mean that the creature is "well-suited as a mount" and thereby waives the -5 penalty to ride checks for ill-suitedness.

Now, that's still a 1-round windup before you can use your mount. It's a hefty price to pay, but worth it, IMO, for the coolness. There is a multiclass archetype that helps make this a little better, but I like doing it by RAW.

Mythic +10 Artifact Toaster wrote:

I be interested to see what they vould do with a nature based alchemist. Hello pumpkin bombs.

There's the Bramble Brewer half-elven archetype!

I love that archetype, I just want to see it taken a step further...AND I want a Pumpkin leshy familiar. Is that too much too ask? There was an MCA that took that concept on, but a Paizo official version just sounds groovy.

What? No revival yet of the 1E Acrobat?

^_^

Ooh, lamest class ever. Although Battle Dancer-ing it up and turning it into a martial artist that defeats you with the power of gymkata could make it 100% more effective, and only 50% more mockworthy...

Plus, what was up with that quarterstaff? Hank gets an awesome bow that shoots lazors, and all Diana gets is a staff that barely helps her already Olympic level athletic skills? Girl got robbed!

Sword & Sorcery put out a supplement called Cityscape that had an Acrobat in it.

I always really loved the flavor of that class, but it was underpowered. :( I'd love to be able to redo it as a monk archetype. Basically it was a quarterstaff monk with some dancing dervish and bard flavor mixed in.

It's a grey area, but you can definitely enlarge your eidolon from first level due to a special exemption in the targeting rules for eidolons.

Now, there's still the matter of the mount evolution, which my GM takes to mean that the creature is "well-suited as a mount" and thereby waives the -5 penalty to ride checks for ill-suitedness.

Now, that's still a 1-round windup before you can use your mount. It's a hefty price to pay, but worth it, IMO, for the coolness. There is a multiclass archetype that helps make this a little better, but I like doing it by RAW.

That's a generous interpretation but hey if it's available run with it.

No question the eidolon can be enlarged but I'm usually want to be able to do my characters main thing without a set-up round. That's just me though. It totally works.

- Torger

Mythic Evil Lincoln wrote:

It's a grey area, but you can definitely enlarge your eidolon from first level due to a special exemption in the targeting rules for eidolons.

Now, there's still the matter of the mount evolution, which my GM takes to mean that the creature is "well-suited as a mount" and thereby waives the -5 penalty to ride checks for ill-suitedness.

Now, that's still a 1-round windup before you can use your mount. It's a hefty price to pay, but worth it, IMO, for the coolness. There is a multiclass archetype that helps make this a little better, but I like doing it by RAW.

That's a generous interpretation but hey if it's available run with it.

No question the eidolon can be enlarged but I'm usually want to be able to do my characters main thing without a set-up round. That's just me though. It totally works.

- Torger

You could always play a small race, as they could use their medium eidolon as a mount at level 1. But I know not everyone likes to play a small race.

My other character is a gnome. But no, it wouldn't work for this concept.

I buy wands of enlarge person and just chew through charges when we're in a likely encounter site. Honestly, that's been worth the investment, the lance + pounce setup is glorious, even if eidolon defenses are sparse, he draws enemy fire just through sheer damage numbers. I found a way to "tank" in Pathfinder, I just don't have the defenses to back it up. (And gold is sparse, so it ain't happening any time soon)

As for the 1-round windup, I really don't mind giving the other PCs a chance to shine first. Because if whatever it is is scary enough to still be standing, it won't be when I charge it with Death From Above, Power Attack, Spirited Charge, and haste. Gotta share in the glory.

Sword & Sorcery put out a supplement called Cityscape that had an Acrobat in it.

I always really loved the flavor of that class, but it was underpowered. :( I'd love to be able to redo it as a monk archetype. Basically it was a quarterstaff monk with some dancing dervish and bard flavor mixed in.

I think you're referring to the Fantasy Flight Games 3.0 sourcebook "City Works", written by Mike Mearls.

"Cityscape" was a Wizards of the Coast 3.5 product, and did not have such a class.

Mythic +10 Artifact Toaster wrote:

I be interested to see what they vould do with a nature based alchemist. Hello pumpkin bombs.

There's the Bramble Brewer half-elven archetype!

LOL.

- Hybrid Drunken Master that fights with adamantine ever-full mugs of booze

- Mythic waitress going adventuring with the rest of an adventuring party and whacking things with a frying pan through most of the story. I guess it would be more fitting if she hit things with knives, forks and spoons. Perhaps she dishes out damage with the dishes, but most likely she use her serving tray.

- Now we also got someone that makes deserts. Hello Bramble Brewer/pumpkin bomb class. It could possibly be the one class that brews the beer.

Now all we need is a Butcher class, a cleaner and the guy doing the dishes. Let’s not forget the class that takes care of the bookkeeping.

Cheapy wrote:

I dunno, the war priest sounds pretty close to that. Especially if it happens to be full BAB. It's a holy warrior of any alignment.

I can't see any 6 or 9 level casting class having Full BAB. Particularly not if it has abilities other than casting. Not even if it's using the cleric spell list. It just doesn't make sense in terms of balance.

One big problem with BAB ¾ is the fact that so many feats that is useful for a Warpriest have a +1 BAB prereq. I’m thinking of feats like: Quick Draw, Weapon Focus, Power Attack, Cleave, Deadly Aim, Exotic Weapon Proficiency, Step Up, etc.

This is one reason I don’t like BAB 3/4, but perhaps the Warpriest can pick those feats without meting the prereqs?

One reason why 3/4 BaB is inadequate as well is that in that case, it is NOT filling the "Non LG Paladin" niche that a lot of people want filled, and what looks to be its purpose.

Making it 3/4 BaB only reinforces the silly "You must be both Lawful AND Good to have divine abilities and full combat prowess" thing the game has going on currently.