Advanced Class Guide

Strong Guy!

Only if the Capstone makes him the ruler of hell.

I'd like to see a Brawler class (combination Monk + Barbarian). I know that they've attempted to give unarmed damage to a Barbarian, but imo: ineffectively. Add in some ability to use improvised weapons, and fight dirty and that would be a fun, iconic class.

Additionally, I think that Bard + Cavalier could be fun to play, but it's just sort of expected to me. Additionally, I've never gotten into either class as much as others. I respect the Bard. I just don't want to be him.

I think with a little work, Druid + Summoner could be neat. Mostly, I think it would be neat to add some of the evolutions onto your animal companion, or yourself in Wild Shape. Mutant is the only name that comes to mind, but that probably wouldn't work.

Paladin + Sorcerer? Knight with arcane spells and a Bloodline? That could be neat.

This is a weird combo, but I'd like to see a barbarian/rogue class. I'm mentioning it because the barbarian class seems to be modeled after Conan (in my opinion), but Conan was pretty much a thief in many of his adventures. I think the barbarian class is incredible, but I just never thought it lived up to what Conan is, unless I dipped into rogue for a level or two. I have no idea how you would combine those classes though.

I am extremely excited for the Swashbuckler. I have my own home-brewed version that i based off of the 3.5 one (like many other people do), but I am really into the idea of the class being based on the gunslinger. I've seen one build of a swashbuckler based on that class on a forum before (maybe the Paizo one?) that was impressive. I know I'm not alone in thinking this but I sort of think that the swashbuckler should have been released before the gunslinger. I know, I know, some people hate it and others defend it, but I feel that the swashbuckler would have been applicable to more generic fantasy settings people run than a more specific character type like a cowboy. Either way, I'm very excited to see an official Pathfinder swashbuckler is coming finally!

Actually, a Paladin/Wizard mix would be fascinating. I'd see it as akin to the Church Knights from David Eddings' Elenium trilogy.

Actually, a Paladin/Wizard mix would be fascinating. I'd see it as akin to the Church Knights from David Eddings' Elenium trilogy.

I agree. That is a perfect model for Sparhawk and crowd.

Tangent101 wrote:

Actually, a Paladin/Wizard mix would be fascinating. I'd see it as akin to the Church Knights from David Eddings' Elenium trilogy.

I agree. That is a perfect model for Sparhawk and crowd.

I think this could be done with an Arcane archetype for Paladins.

But It'd still be pretty awesome.

Lord Mhoram wrote:

Tangent101 wrote:

Actually, a Paladin/Wizard mix would be fascinating. I'd see it as akin to the Church Knights from David Eddings' Elenium trilogy.

I agree. That is a perfect model for Sparhawk and crowd.

I think this could be done with an Arcane archetype for Paladins.

But It'd still be pretty awesome.

In setting, it would make perfect sense, as well, since Arazni, an uber-wizard, had an order of knights and paladins serving her.

An order of Knights of Ozem (as an AT or PrC or new base class) who combined the fighting skills and divine blessings of a Paladin, with a small selection of arcane spells, would be very much 'on-theme' for Golarion.

From another direction, a version that is more divinely-blessed Wizard, who fights with simple weapons (or even just staves and daggers!) and wears light armor, could be intriguing, as well.

I could see an archetype for paladins similar to the witchguard for the ranger which allowed them to gain arcane spell slots.

-TimD

Oooh. I get ya. An Arcane Ranger style build. Hmm. A Ranger/Sorcerer mix would be fun. Perhaps an Illusionist/enchantment focused trickster sword fighter?

Throw people off where you are.

Kinda the reverse of the more damage focsued Magus.

FlySkyHigh wrote:

Lord Mhoram wrote:

Tangent101 wrote:

Actually, a Paladin/Wizard mix would be fascinating. I'd see it as akin to the Church Knights from David Eddings' Elenium trilogy.

I agree. That is a perfect model for Sparhawk and crowd.

I think this could be done with an Arcane archetype for Paladins.

But It'd still be pretty awesome.

In setting, it would make perfect sense, as well, since Arazni, an uber-wizard, had an order of knights and paladins serving her.

An order of Knights of Ozem (as an AT or PrC or new base class) who combined the fighting skills and divine blessings of a Paladin, with a small selection of arcane spells, would be very much 'on-theme' for Golarion.

From another direction, a version that is more divinely-blessed Wizard, who fights with simple weapons (or even just staves and daggers!) and wears light armor, could be intriguing, as well.

Sounds very Dragonlancey. :)

Here are my two cents, for what it's worth.

Don't get me wrong, I am really excited to hear about this news. But I've been letting it mull over so I can get my thoughts in order.

Thought 1: Are hybrids worth of the title "Ultimate"?

I'll give some more thoughts about hybrids below, but when you publish a book called Ultimate Class Guide, it better contain some of the best damn classes the game has seen in a while. If the classes it features are only subpar and the classes found in, say, the APG or another future hardcover are better or more interesting than those found in the Ultimate Class Guide, the Ultimate Class Guide will be seen as a flop that didn't live up to it's true name.

So what do I want to see in the Ultimate Class Guide? I want to see something new, of course! The APG's introduction of the alchemist is a great example. Before the APG, there was nothing close to an alchemist in PF. The magus from UM is another example that has been thrown around a lot and I agree that I would love to see more of this while. While the original conception of the magus was certainly a wizard/fighter "hybrid class", in the end it became something completely different that can stand on its own, a "pseudo-hybrid class". I understand the worries about rules bloat when introducing new classes with all new mechanics, but I'm not going to jump into that discussion here.

Thought 2: The place of hybrids in PF

I wasn't sold on the idea of hybrid classes at first, but it has started to grow on me to the point where I now think they are a good idea. A good idea, but not one worthy of its own hardcover (see above). I think that hybrid classes should be introduced, but they should be reserved for other future hardcovers (e.g. the Warpriest could be featured in the upcoming Gods of Golarion). If hybrids are simply a combination of the class features of two different classes, I think this would be a better place for them than in their very own hardcover.

That being said, if these fancy new "hybrid classes" take after the magus, beginning with two classes in mind and then getting up to walk on their own legs, then a new hardcover is absolutely justified. If a slayer is really just a class that gives you favored enemy and sneak attack, it should be reserved to be featured in some other hardcover a la the samurai and ninja in UC. (I'm not saying slayer won't be a great class, it's just not original enough to warrant the Ultimate status.)

Conclusion: Pseudo-hybrids (e.g. magus) encouraged, true hybrids should be reserved for lesser books

To summarize the above, if I have to reference the abilities of another class (e.g. if the slayer's abilities read as "the slayer gains sneak attack as a rogue but only gets half as many d6s"), don't raise them to Ultimate status. If, however, the slayer can stand on its own without reference to already-existing class abilities (a la the magus), I will be ecstatic to see some genuine creativity and will gladly award such a pseudo-hybrid class Ultimate status.

Either way, I really look forward to seeing some new classes in our future!

A few counterpoints for you...

Thought 1: Are hybrids worth...the title "Ultimate"?

I'll give some more thoughts about hybrids below, but when you publish a book called Ultimate Class Guide, it better contain some of the best damn classes the game has seen in a while. If the classes it features are only subpar and the classes found in, say, the APG or another future hardcover are better or more interesting than those found in the Ultimate Class Guide, the Ultimate Class Guide will be seen as a flop that didn't live up to it's true name.

Was someone suggesting this book be called the Ultimate Class Guide earlier? Maybe I missed that. But, the title of the book is actually just the Advanced Class Guide. So, no worries on the "ultimate" concerns.

...what do I want to see in the Ultimate Class Guide? I want to see something new, of course! The APG's introduction of the alchemist is a great example. Before the APG, there was nothing close to an alchemist in PF. The magus from UM is another example that has been thrown around a lot and I agree that I would love to see more of this while. While the original conception of the magus was certainly a wizard/fighter "hybrid class", in the end it became something completely different that can stand on its own, a "pseudo-hybrid class". I understand the worries about rules bloat when introducing new classes with all new mechanics, but I'm not going to jump into that discussion here.

You can probably take heart then. From everything I've heard (via GenCon discussion panels...not any actual involvement on this product), it appears they do intend to make these "hybrid" classes their own unique things, much like the alchemist and magus which you've cited. Now, that said, obviously some of the class abilities (say, sneak attack or even channel energy) will likely still get layered into a hybrid class here or there (i.e., if they're a mash-up which includes rogue-like and/or cleric-like abilities). But I think you can pretty much rest assured that the "hybrid" classes will still have plenty of things which are new about them. Of course, they will. And, in those instances where they also contain a "borrowed" class ability from one of the existing classes, just have confidence that it'll be thematically appropriate, understandable, and awesome.

Thought 2: The place of hybrids in PF

I wasn't sold on the idea of hybrid classes at first, but it has started to grow on me to the point where I now think they are a good idea. A good idea, but not one worthy of its own hardcover (see above).

Considering they already did a hardcover Advanced Race Guide, the Advanced Class Guide seems like it would be the perfect form factor in which to introduce these new "hybrid" classes.

I think that hybrid classes should be introduced, but they should be reserved for other future hardcovers (e.g. the Warpriest could be featured in the upcoming Gods of Golarion).

Hmmm. I see what you're saying, but the Advanced Class Guide will be a hardcover from the Pathfinder RPG line...and not the Pathfinder Campaign Setting line. As such, you wouldn't expect to see the Warpriest in something like Gods of Golarion, as that would pigeon-hole it into a campaign-specific product. The Warpriest is meant to be more generic than that and applicable across any and all campaign settings. So, it makes sense to devote some time to explaining it separate from a Golarion product. Additionally, if you truly feel this way, do you also feel the Inquisitor should have appeared in a Gods of Golarion hardcover, too? I don't. Keep the Inquisitor setting neutral, as well, and talk about it as a new base class in the Advanced Player's Guide along with all the other new concepts they introduce.

If hybrids are simply a combination of the class features of two different classes, I think this would be a better place for them than in their very own hardcover.

Well, as before, you're in luck. The "hybrid" classes aren't meant to simply be a combination of the class features of two different classes. I believe each will stand on its own and provide something new.

That being said, if these fancy new "hybrid classes" take after the magus, beginning with two classes in mind and then getting up to walk on their own legs, then a new hardcover is absolutely justified.

Great! That's what I've heard it will be.

If a slayer is really just a class that gives you favored enemy and sneak attack, it should be reserved to be featured in some other hardcover a la the samurai and ninja in UC. (I'm not saying slayer won't be a great class, it's just not original enough to warrant the Ultimate status.)

Again, there's no "Ultimate" being attributed to this book that I've heard about. And, yes, these "hybrid" classes are meant to demonstrate the same kind of mash-up which the magus provided for the fighter and wizard classes.

Just my two two cents,
--Neil

Sorry, Ultimate=Advanced, it's the same sentiment and you know what I mean. An entire hardcore devoted to new classes should feature some really new exciting stuff.

I'm glad to hear they're going for more of a magus approach. Maybe it was the "hybrid" language that had me concerned because it makes it sound like they're just giving a ranger sneak attack. I have full confidence that they will come up with something new.

I hadn't thought about the difference between campaign setting books and PF RPG books. The Innner Sea World Guide contains PrCs, which is what I was thinking of. A true hybrid class (giving a ranger sneak attack) would be better suited in a book with other material, the way the ninja and samurai variant classes were in UC. But if its more exciting than that then I will be the first one in line to buy the Advanced Class Guide ;)

Sorry, Ultimate=Advanced, it's the same sentiment and you know what I mean. An entire hardcore devoted to new classes should feature some really new exciting stuff.

Okay. Given Paizo's track record so far, do you somehow fear that it won't include such stuff? The barebone descriptions of the "hybrid" classes they mentioned so far is the build-up to the playtest. I'm sure that'll be the main opportunity to not only see how much new, exciting stuff they've included, but it'll also include a feedback loop so you can let them know if you feel a particular "hybrid" needs to be dialed up a bit more. So, it just seemed premature to vex yourself over it so far (which is how your post came across to me...and I could be wrong about that), because things are still in the early stages right now.

Paizo actually differentiates the Advanced and the Ultimate line. The Advanced Line is for concepts that are...well, advanced. Not necessarily safe for newer players. Complex ideas compared to what came prior.

The Ultimate line is meant to be the Ultimate resource for its topic. It's the final say at the time on the topic. It's a set of rule systems mixed with player options so it's the final say for both GMs and Players on whatever it is about.

I'm not (and wasn't) upset by the news at all! I hope it didn't come across that way. It's still early. I just found it curious that they are describing them all in terms of what classes they are drawing from. It might be more flavorful to just let the new classes stand on their own.

monk hybrids!

they already share some alignment restrictions with the paladin... you could easily develop a whole new flavor of righteous/holy warrior who uses self-discipline and a philosophy of moral and physical purity/perfection to battle the forces of evil in the world :)

or how about a real mystic monk (i know they sort of tried to do this with the QingGong monk)- it'd be nice to see a monk with some actual spell casting. i recognize that balancing the mechanics would be tricky (monk is already MAD- how do you add casting without either making that worse or letting them get too much mileage from one stat?) maybe use magus style casting and replace the traditional Wis to AC with a mechanic more like the kensai/duelist uncanny defense? (i'm assuming they'd have to drop ki as part of the trade for spells).

also, how finished are these base classes? if the developers are looking for submissions i'll gladly neglect everything i'm supposed to do tonight and tomorrow to build something- heck, i'll neglect everything i'm supposed to do all next week! (seriously, developers, just PM me!)

Seriously if they release a Monk/Whatever that can actually effectively fight but still do the mystic thing this'll be a Day 1 Buy for me.

I want a Monk that can punch a dude with flame hands and stuff. Maybe one that can mimic Benders from Avatar, the perfect mix of martial arts and magic.

Qingong Monk was a decent start, but it's too reliant on the ultra limited Ki Pool.

I think any class should be named after a traditional fantasy archetype. Warpriest, Bloodrager, and Arcanist sound terrible. How about Crusader, Reaver, and Magician?

I will +1 Crusader and Reaver

Arcanist sounds fine though

I like the sound of Reaver and Magician but I still like Templar over Crusader. But Crusader is still much better then Warpriest.

What's with all the love for "Templar"? Did folks just read too much Dan Brown 10 years ago? Gotta say it stikes me as a terrible name (not exactly a classic resonance to want to build into the core of the game). Seems decidedly strange, in any case, to want to tie what's hopefully going to be a broad class to a specific historical order like that.

Sorry, been grumbling about that since the silly suggestion was first aired. Finally broke down and had to share.

"Warpriest" ain't great, but still.

What's with all the love for "Templar"? Did folks just read too much Dan Brown 10 years ago? Gotta say it stikes me as a terrible name (not exactly a classic resonance to want to build into the core of the game). Seems decidedly strange, in any case, to want to tie what's hopefully going to be a broad class to a specific historical order like that.

Sorry, been grumbling about that since the silly suggestion was first aired. Finally broke down and had to share.

"Warpriest" ain't great, but still.

I dislike Templar and Crusader. The former for the reasons stated above while I am interested and intrigued by the real world Templars, and there IS some hint of mysticism in their history there is too much real world baggage with the name, and too little magic, divine or otherwise.

Same with Crusader. A little too Cross/Christian/Holy Land. Not very priest/magic/cleric-y either.

Look, I'm no fan of the Warpriest concept. But I think it's a fantastic high fantasy name for it. No friaring, cloistering or penitenting. Just a bloodthirsty mystical zealot!

Bloodrager isn't my favorite name because it sounds a little too cute. Reaver does sound fun.

Arcanist? Hmm. Definitely sounds like a generic placeholder. I'd hate to be an "Arcanist". Think about it: A Bloodrager, a Warpriest, a Slayer and an Arcanist walk into a bar. Only the Arcanist is served. Milk.

As for concepts:

Bloodrager: We did something like this with the Multiclass Archetypes project - the Eldritch Rampager. Maybe suffers a bit in the marketing side with that name. Does have a cute little spell rage though. Anyway, the Bloodrager's archetypes should be very exciting and flavorsome!!!

Hunter:

whoever said this:

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.

sounds just like a Ranger only kind of more Ranger-like. Exactly what I thought. I'm sure more will be forthcoming and archetypes might broaden it, but that is definitely not wowing me yet.

Slayer: Sounds kinda niche. Hopefully archetypes will broaden it. I do however like niche. Especially of the dread, dark and moody kind. :)

Shaman: A mix of oracle and witch abilities? Hmm, maybe something like Black Elk or other wounded healers. Oracles just don't quite seem to do the shaman concept justice, and although Marc Radle's Shaman (Kobold Press) is awesome, I'd actually like to see where this goes - probably also because my first Multiclass Archetype was the Fellseer a Witch/Oracle that went though about a million name changes - Seersworn, Fellsworn Seer etc etc. Nothing at all like a shaman however. ;) Anyway, archetypes should definitely be fun!

Warpriest: Not a fan personally , but it seems very popular. Cool. I look forward to seeing what has people so excited. I'm also curious whether the concept has legs - now that I think about it further, this actually has me intrigued and excited to see the archetypes!!! Multiclass Productions' own Tyler Beck's Saint Base Class (Fat Goblin Games) is an interesting take on this concept, so I look forward to the Warpriest for that reason also.

Swashbuckler: Again, not a huge fan personally, but I was very supportive of people on the "call for a Swashbuckler Base Class thread" in the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew subforum. Very glad it uses something akin to grit - there were at least two or three "fighters with grit" in Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew over the last 6-12 months. There were so many different styles of swashbuckler from the solo-fighter, environment-user, panache style, sword and pistol, charming rogue, group vanquisher etc. This one should be solid for archetypes!!! I look forward to seeing some interesting mechanics here!!!

Arcanist: We did a Wizard/Sorceror at MCA - I think it was Michael Pruess' (RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8 IIRC) baby - the Absolute Arcanist. I'm not really a caster fanboy, so I leave it up to others to decide how similar the Absolute Arcanist is to the Arcanist concept as discussed up until now. I really want to see the archetypes for this one!

As I said before, I love the idea of the ACG, I look forward to it wholeheartedly. I can't wait to hear what the other three "hybrids" are and what the "advice" chapter will contain. Bring on the playtest!!!

Last Note:

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE: An Artificer/Engineer. C'mon Paizo. You've got the mojo, and the design chops. I know there is some sentiment inertia here as Cheapy elucidated elsewhere. It could easily fit into Golarion too, and PFS. Big shootouts to Interjection Games Tinker, and LPJ's Machinesmith. Let's see Paizo own one too!!!

I have to second the call for an Artificer. I know one player of mine who would love to do this... in fact, in my tabletop game I have a Goblin Artificer of sorts (Fighter/Wizard, rides in a human-sized clockwork suit of full plate - basically uses the rules for a human fighter/wizard in full plate while having the fluff of being a goblin inside).

Various things the Artificer can do is create "enhanced" armor that uses clockwork to improve strength or dexterity, clockwork minions to fight, and so forth.

What's with all the love for "Templar"? Did folks just read too much Dan Brown 10 years ago? Gotta say it stikes me as a terrible name (not exactly a classic resonance to want to build into the core of the game). Seems decidedly strange, in any case, to want to tie what's hopefully going to be a broad class to a specific historical order like that.

Sorry, been grumbling about that since the silly suggestion was first aired. Finally broke down and had to share.

"Warpriest" ain't great, but still.

No more specific than the Inquisition. Or Paladins, Bards, Druids, Samurai, and Ninja...

I'd say the Inquisitor has more "real world baggage" than a Templar does. And to be honest, it's hard for me to really be offended about real world things that happened hundreds of years before I was born.

Good point on all those Odraude. Only....the horse has definitely bolted on all those classes. Perhaps the horse has bolted on these too. I'm no fan of "Paladin" or "Inquisitor" as names, but they work ok. As would Templar for the Warpriest. But I'd rather something else, like Warpriest. ;)

As for historical stuff and offense, nothing offends me. Offense is for people who have an improper and overdeveloped sense of the dramatic. However the fact that there are connotations associated that are unnecessary to the class concept in my humble opinion makes me personally opine.

(Off-topic - As for events that happened hundred of years before you were born, some events have a currency that supersedes time. I don't see how the age of an event has a bearing on its offense-worthyness? If the Templars were around last week, and they were somehow offensive to your perception, would you be more offended than if it were 100 years ago? 500? Genuine curiosity here Odraude, no snark intended!)

Good point on all those Odraude. Only....the horse has definitely bolted on all those classes. Perhaps the horse has bolted on these too. I'm no fan of "Paladin" or "Inquisitor" as names, but they work ok. As would Templar for the Warpriest. But I'd rather something else, like Warpriest. ;)

As for historical stuff and offense, nothing offends me. Offense is for people who have an improper and overdeveloped sense of the dramatic. However the fact that there are connotations associated that are unnecessary to the class concept in my humble opinion makes me personally opine.

(Off-topic - As for events that happened hundred of years before you were born, some events have a currency that supersedes time. I don't see how the age of an event has a bearing on its offense-worthyness? If the Templars were around last week, and they were somehow offensive to your perception, would you be more offended than if it were 100 years ago? 500? Genuine curiosity here Odraude, no snark intended!)

Off topic, but probably? It's just difficult for me to really to hold a grudge against a group that existed centuries ago. Doesn't mean I'm okay with, say, the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades. I just wasn't there, in those times to really feel any passion about it beyond "Welp, let's not repeat THAT again."

I just think that if we can have groups called Templars in video games like Dragon Age, then I think we've gotten over the real world baggage of Templars in society. I mean, like you said, Warpriest IS supposed to be a bloodthirsty mystical zealot. Although I'd actually rather it not be so focused on that, as I'm fatigued enough with Lawful Stupid, Space Marine wannabe Paladins.

well I mean barbarian started off as a term of derision towards anyone not Greek...

What's with all the love for "Templar"? Did folks just read too much Dan Brown 10 years ago? Gotta say it stikes me as a terrible name (not exactly a classic resonance to want to build into the core of the game). Seems decidedly strange, in any case, to want to tie what's hopefully going to be a broad class to a specific historical order like that.

Sorry, been grumbling about that since the silly suggestion was first aired. Finally broke down and had to share.

"Warpriest" ain't great, but still.

I dislike Templar and Crusader. The former for the reasons stated above while I am interested and intrigued by the real world Templars, and there IS some hint of mysticism in their history there is too much real world baggage with the name, and too little magic, divine or otherwise.

Same with Crusader. A little too Cross/Christian/Holy Land. Not very priest/magic/cleric-y either.

Toss in Oracles & Alchemists, to that list, too.

Templar's however, actually have pretty long history in the game. From Darksun, they where the Clerics that received power from the Dragonkings. There has been a Kit and Prestige Class for it in past editions, too. If you toss aside a lot of Dan Brown's pseudohistorical fantasy, Templars and other knightly orders where actually very close to what the Warpriest might be. They where priests and religious knights that took an assortment of religious vows. A lot of the negative accounts about them are believed to be politically and financially motivated, and groundless.

For the Crusader, you do understand that that is the specific concept that the entire Cleric class is based off of? Knightly orders that worked for, but just outside of the church, both martial and spiritual, and held strong codes. Priests, yes, but the rare priest that's out there in field getting their hands dirty with the guys, not wearing white wizardly robes from the pulpit. :)

well I mean barbarian started off as a term of derision towards anyone not Greek...

It's actually Roman, but yeah, even since then, it has been used as a derogatory term for other cultures during the Age of Exploration and Imperialism.

Oceanshieldwolf & Joe M. wrote:

What's with all the love for "Templar"? Did folks just read too much Dan Brown 10 years ago? Gotta say it stikes me as a terrible name (not exactly a classic resonance to want to build into the core of the game). Seems decidedly strange, in any case, to want to tie what's hopefully going to be a broad class to a specific historical order like that.

Sorry, been grumbling about that since the silly suggestion was first aired. Finally broke down and had to share.

"Warpriest" ain't great, but still.

I dislike Templar and Crusader. The former for the reasons stated above while I am interested and intrigued by the real world Templars, and there IS some hint of mysticism in their history there is too much real world baggage with the name, and too little magic, divine or otherwise.

Same with Crusader. A little too Cross/Christian/Holy Land. Not very priest/magic/cleric-y either.

Toss in Oracles & Alchemists, to that list, too.

Templar's however, actually have pretty long history in the game. From Darksun, they where the Clerics that received power from the Dragonkings. There has been a Kit and Prestige Class for it in past editions, too. If you toss aside a lot of Dan Brown's pseudohistorical fantasy, Templars and other knightly orders where actually very close to what the Warpriest might be. They where priests and religious knights that took an assortment of religious vows. A lot of the negative accounts about them are believed to be politically and financially motivated, and groundless.

For the Crusader, you do understand that that is the specific concept that the entire Cleric class is based off of? Knightly orders that worked for, but just outside of the church, both martial and spiritual, and held strong codes. Priests, yes, but the rare priest that's out there in field getting their hands dirty with the guys, not wearing white wizardly robes from the pulpit. :)

Yeah, aside from the Crusades and not really getting along with the Teutonic Knights nor Hospitallers (which, btw, is a name of an archetype already), the main part of their history was the betrayal by King Philip IV so he wouldn't have to pay off his debts. Hell, they were more involved with groups financially than militarily if I'm remembering correctly.

Though, we are starting to veer off topic. Probably should take this elsewhere. Or, wait until the playtest is out because I do want to make a thread about changing the name of the Warpriest.

Thanks for the history lesson DM Beckett.

As a huuuuge Dark Sun fan, I am aware of the Templar legacy in DnD

AND

As a grognard who started playing in 1981 I am aware of the Crusader-trope in the artwork of the Basic Rulebook (Moldvay ed.) and the Players Handbook/DMG. I never saw Clerics as Knightly only because Gary had this weird thing about bladed weapons and clerics, and at that point in time, I saw mostly swords in the hands of knights in movies of the time. I'm not actually sure that "Crusaders" are the basis for the cleric, so no, I don't "understand". You'd have to ask Gary and Dave. Which is slightly problematic. Though a cleric of sufficient level might help. Maaaaybe a Warpriest.

I'd say the Paladin is much closer to the idea of a Crusader:
Knightly - yes.
Just Outside of the church - yes, moreso than the cleric. ;)
Held strong codes - yes.
Both Martial and Spiritual - yes.

Doesn't make me like Templar or Crusader any more on either count.

Templar to me isn't anywhere close to being a generic title. Ask the average person on the street what a Templar is, and they will answer 'Knights Templar.' The title brings up images of a single, specific organization, and as such isn't really a good title for a base class. Maybe a prestige class, but not a base class.

We can debate whether or not 'warpriest' is any good, or if 'inquisitor' has the same problem as 'templar', but neither if those really change the point that to most people I know, Templar always means guys in white tabards with red crosses on them, probably shouting 'God will it!' while charging into battle. Even 'Hospitaler' has become more generic (and only slightly) than Templar, and the former group is still around today.

I'm happy that the most pressing issue we're facing right now is the name of some classes. So much nicer than power creep posts.

Templar to me isn't anywhere close to being a generic title. Ask the average person on the street what a Templar is, and they will answer 'Knights Templar.' The title brings up images of a single, specific organization, and as such isn't really a good title for a base class. Maybe a prestige class, but not a base class.

We can debate whether or not 'warpriest' is any good, or if 'inquisitor' has the same problem as 'templar', but neither if those really change the point that to most people I know, Templar always means guys in white tabards with red crosses on them, probably shouting 'God will it!' while charging into battle. Even 'Hospitaler' has become more generic (and only slightly) than Templar, and the former group is still around today.

Actually, if you ask the average person about the Templars, they'd probably give you differing answers, from "Those bad guys in The Da Vinci code!" to "Iunno." ;)

And invoking the imagery of tabbard-wearing crusader is the whole reason I want to call it that, much like how the name Ninja invokes the imagery of a black-robed assassin. Even if you're making your ninja to be more like, say, Altair of Assassin's Creed. I just think, if different media, like Dragon Age, Aion, and Warhammer, can use the term Templar for holy knights, I don't think the baggage or it being a specific word is really that big of an issue.

I'm happy that the most pressing issue we're facing right now is the name of some classes. So much nicer than power creep posts.

I genuinely agree with this actually. Though again, we are getting REALLY off topic. I'd rather we take this elsewhere. Don't want to hijack this thread any more.

We haven't gotten the playtest yet but when we do power creep will be all they talk about.

I'm happy that the most pressing issue we're facing right now is the name of some classes. So much nicer than power creep posts.

shhhhh! Dont wake the bear. Btw I dont care how, but i want a monk one. Preferably a monk/wizard like my insightful Mind MCA, cause ill know they will knock it outta the park. Unlikely though, so just some fun with monks is all i want.

We haven't gotten the playtest yet but when we do power creep will be all they talk about.

Yeah, I actually don't look forward to the playtest forums, since everyone seems to think it's a good excuse to be massive a+~&&!#s to the devs and insulting their intelligence. It's like, the whole point of a playtest is to have the fans work with the devs to find any weird balance issues or rules combos. So why be a prick about it?

Though it's gotten much better since the APG.

Thanks for the history lesson DM Beckett.

I'm not actually sure that "Crusaders" are the basis for the cleric, so no, I don't "understand". You'd have to ask Gary and Dave. Which is slightly problematic.

shhhhh! Dont wake the bear. Btw I dont care how, but i want a monk one. Preferably a monk/wizard like my insightful Mind MCA, cause ill know they will knock it outta the park. Unlikely though, so just some fun with monks is all i want.

Right now, I'm thinking there is going to be some sort of Monk hybrid, without the alignment restrictions (maybe the 'Brawler' everyone is asking for?), and then a cavalier hybrid, without the mount. And possibly without orders too.

For the last one, I really have no idea. But I'm going to hope for Engineer/Tinker (hopefully Numeria themed!). Feel like that's a pipe dream though.

@DM Beckett:

@ Oceanshieldwolf

That was pretty informative. Cool. :)

From what I've heard of the Arcanist, I actually would like to play that kind of a caster. Prepares like a wizard, but casts like a sorcerer. It sounds more and more like Schrodinger's Wizard ;)

That was pretty informative. Cool. :)

From what I've heard of the Arcanist, I actually would like to play that kind of a caster. Prepares like a wizard, but casts like a sorcerer. It sounds more and more like Schrodinger's Wizard ;)

What do you mean by that?

Odraude wrote:

That was pretty informative. Cool. :)

From what I've heard of the Arcanist, I actually would like to play that kind of a caster. Prepares like a wizard, but casts like a sorcerer. It sounds more and more like Schrodinger's Wizard ;)

What do you mean by that?

It's a wizard that is closer to being able to have whatever spell it needs at the moment prepared. I think what I'm reading is, they basically cast like a sorcerer, but prepare their list of spells known every day from a spellbook or something.

I don't see anything wrong with that, really, as long as it has some limiting factor.

You have X amount of spells known, but can only prepare Y amount each day, for Z amount of casts is what I assume it'll work like.

Like that one class (was it also called the Arcanist?) that had to make a Spellcraft check for each spell level to determine how many spells they could prepare?

Schrodinger's Wizard is also the concept that a wizard will always just so happen to have the spell he needs. Which usually means the player is cheating and just casting out of his spellbook, and not actually preparing a full list :D

It's a wizard that is closer to being able to have whatever spell it needs at the moment prepared. I think what I'm reading is, they basically cast like a sorcerer, but prepare their list of spells known every day from a spellbook or something.

Yeah, that is about how I would read it - Classic Wizard spellbook with any number of spells, can prepare X Spells that day and cast Y spells per level that day in any combination.

I know this approach can work - that is how I houseruled Magic Users in 1st ed D&D in about '82. Been playing wizards like that since. When 3rd came out, I just played Sorcerers instead.

Schrodinger's Wizard is also the concept that a wizard will always just so happen to have the spell he needs. Which usually means the player is cheating and just casting out of his spellbook, and not actually preparing a full list :D

In practice Schrodinger's wizard is primarily a messageboard fallacy. Whenever a situation is presented that should challenge a wizard, the other poster will then claim the wizard just casts X and wins automatically. I've never seen it used in an actual game. The closest I saw was a wizard I saw played back in 2E, and most of his power came from a heavy aversion to the standard battle-magic that was common back then. It made it harder for the DM to adapt. Additionally, he was in a party with a fighter/wizard, so there were more slots to distribute towards rarely used spells.

Add me to the camp of "I wish they'd just fixed multiclassing instead." Yes, I understand they need to sell new books, but imagine the following: instead of a new base class for every conceivable multiclass combination in the world, we have some general multiclassing guidelines that actually work, and then additional books full of "Class Synergy Features" that would work like favored class bonuses -- but would be specific to multiclass combinations. E.g., "Spell Combat (Ex): If you have at least X levels in fighter and Y levels in wizard or sorcerer, you can..." Stuff like that would allow the "kewl new mechanics," but would (a) make naming conventions a lot easier (no need for new base class names), (b) retain some semblance of a reason for having multiclassing rules in the first place, and (c) neatly balance the "favored class" bonuses with an equivalent "favored multiclass" bonus. It would also make designing new combinations a lot simpler, and it still allows Paizo to churn out book after book of new multiclass features!

Ah, well, too late now.