Advanced Class Guide

Now that I'm not on my phone...

The names of the products generally show what audience they're aimed for.

The Advanced line is meant to be more advanced. It's not necessarily for the power gamers, but rather for the people who know the system well and aren't afraid of more complicated rules.

The Ultimate line, on the other hand, is meant to be the 'final stop' for that theme. They're meant to be one-stop shops for the theme they are about. Ultimate Magic had a number of magical subsystems explained, as did Ultimate Combat for combat oriented rules.

Now, there have been some outliers. Examples of this include the magus being in UM (what with spell combat / spellstrike being some of the topics many, many threads are about), and the Advanced Race Guide....not being very advanced.

I don't know of any reason why the (very advanced) Magus was in an Ultimate book, but originally, the ARG was Ultimate Races.

And then someone said the name outloud. Try it out. You'll see why the name changed.

Man, I know Mona had a post explaining all of this. Still looking for it.

edit: stopped looking for it. You win this time, Erik Mona!

The change is replacing TWF with Fighting and casting in the same action, which alters the action economy of the game and assures that any option for classes who wanted a free hand fighter is going to be something that has to be counter balanced against the magus.

Except that's not much of a change and only applies to the Magus being played. No Magus being played, no need to care about Spell Combat. There isn't any counterbalance necessary.

Not to mention it means every GM needs to understand the nuances of how spell combat interacts with the rest of the system, something still being sorted out in various FAQ questions.

No, it only means that GMs who have players playing a Magus needs to understand Spell Combat, which honestly isn't that hard to understand. And considering there are FAQs about all the classes still going on, that's hardly a "Magus" issue. Spell Combat isn't any more misunderstood then any other class ability.

It added complexity to a simple problem.

Don't see the complexity.

In the case of the Magus, spell combat narrows the class to one handed weapon use, tending toward dervish dancers, so that we can have what? A two weapon fighting variation that only works logically in the metagame aspect of action allocation.

Well a TWF class would be using a one handed weapon regardless, not that you can't use a two handed weapon if you wanted. And I'm quite sure there aren't as many Dervish Dancers as it's made out to be. Even if there were, that goes to the problem of Min/Maxing, which is an issue for every class, not just the Magus.

It seems more like a thought experiment than an interesting and flavorful class, and I don't think there is anything it does that couldn't be done as well if not better without the new mechanic which limits future choices.

I'm not seeing how it limits any future choices. And I would be quite interested in hearing a way to make an effective fighter/wizard without a new mechanic.

And I'm hoping that with this book they will do more of the "create something interesting to play that doesn't quite work well with the system currentl" and less of "Look at this cool idea I might be able to make work with enough playtesting"

As this really doesn't apply to the Magus, not seeing an issue.

I don't know of any reason why the (very advanced) Magus was in an Ultimate book, but originally, the ARG was Ultimate Races.

And then someone said the name outloud. Try it out. You'll see why the name changed.

This looks like a good place to use this.....

The semi-relevant part is just after 2 minutes in.

I remember being in a chat with Gary "Lord of All Code" Teter and he mentioned how he knew of a specific name for the line-by-line disection of someone elses' post, and how he was considering banning that from the Paizo forums because it's all downhill from there.

Something to consider.

So I really really REALLY want to see the Shaman. Like, really badly. Ever since I played the one in 4e, I've been craving one. I really hope it has the connection to spirits and maybe even a spirit companion.

I remember being in a chat with Gary "Lord of All Code" Teter and he mentioned how he knew of a specific name for the line-by-line disection of someone elses' post, and how he was considering banning that from the Paizo forums because it's all downhill from there.

Something to consider.

It's the best way to respond to a post that posits multiple ideas at once rather than quoting it and then writing another long post with multiple ideas within it that each kinda rely on a separate part of their post.

It's also the best way for me to take the silly, stupid, or offensive bits and showcase them aside from everything else.

So I really really REALLY want to see the Shaman. Like, really badly. Ever since I played the one in 4e, I've been craving one. I really hope it has the connection to spirits and maybe even a spirit companion.

I've never played it. What were your favorite parts of the 4e shaman?

Odraude wrote:

So I really really REALLY want to see the Shaman. Like, really badly. Ever since I played the one in 4e, I've been craving one. I really hope it has the connection to spirits and maybe even a spirit companion.

I've never played it. What were your favorite parts of the 4e shaman?

The Shaman had a huge connection with the spirit world and all of his abilities were themed around spirits casting the spells. The SGG Shaman has come closest to this, though it is really complicated. The one thing I liked most about it was that it has an animal companion that was a spirit animal. Semi-incorporeal and had a limited range from you. Now, I'm unsure how to balance having an incorporeal spirit creature as your pet, obviously... but if they could pull it off, I'd be pretty psyched.

Odraude, I share your hopes for the Shaman class. That is one I really look forward to, as well. I also get the feeling that the Bloodrager might be the frontline, arcane warrior that some are looking for. Also, I continue to have high hopes for a Runecaster/Runeblade-type warrior that could pull off being a frontline warrior.

Re: The Shaman
Have you looked at The Shaman's Handbook from Green Ronin? It's a 3.0 sourcebook, but the author (Steve Kenson) had some notes on the messageboard about updates to 3.5. I really like, and it sounds very much like what Odraude has described, especially an incorporeal spirit animal companion.

One element I really liked was that the Shaman's versions of Dispel Magic, Remove Curse, and Remove Disease involved the Shaman entering the spirit world and battling a creature of CR appropriate to the effect being removed.

Something with that kind of flavor would be great.

Marc Radle will be around shortly to give a link to Kobold Press' Shaman :)

Why wait

:D

I own it and to be honest, it doesn't have the same flavor that I want. To me, it's just a spontaneous druid. Which is cool, but not the flavor I'm looking for.

Really stoked about this! Can't wait for the playtest and to find out what the other 4 classes are. Crossing my fingers that there is an alchemist/ranger hybrid, blowing up favored enemies with his bombs, or perhaps crafting specialized arrows on the fly. It'd be like playing Hawkeye/Green Arrow.

I own it and to be honest, it doesn't have the same flavor that I want. To me, it's just a spontaneous druid. Which is cool, but not the flavor I'm looking for.

Well, OK, since I've apparently been summoned by Cheapy :0

Odraude, I'm actually suprised to hear you say that, to be honest! You say you want a Shaman to have a huge connection with the spirit world with abilities themed around spirits and an animal companion that is a spirit animal. That's pretty much exactly what the Expanded Shaman from Kobold Press is!

Please don't think I'm arguing with you - I completely respect everyone's right to their opinion (as someone once said - I am the world's leading expert on my opinion :), I'm just kind of surprised since it seems like the Kobold Press Shaman would be pretty much exactly what you are looking for.

I own it and to be honest, it doesn't have the same flavor that I want. To me, it's just a spontaneous druid. Which is cool, but not the flavor I'm looking for.

I'm not a fan of the base class itself, but the archetypes are pretty good.

Odraude wrote:

I own it and to be honest, it doesn't have the same flavor that I want. To me, it's just a spontaneous druid. Which is cool, but not the flavor I'm looking for.

Well, OK, since I've apparently been summoned by Cheapy :0

Odraude, I'm actually suprised to hear you say that, to be honest! You say you want a Shaman to have a huge connection with the spirit world with abilities themed around spirits and an animal companion that is a spirit animal. That's pretty much exactly what the Expanded Shaman from Kobold Press is!

Please don't think I'm arguing with you - I completely respect everyone's right to their opinion (as someone once said - I am the world's leading expert on my opinion :), I'm just kind of surprised since it seems like the Kobold Press Shaman would be pretty much exactly what you are looking for.

I don't have the expanded one, no. I have the one in the old KQ magazine. So maybe it's changed a bit? I'll check it out.

Marc Radle wrote:

Odraude wrote:

I own it and to be honest, it doesn't have the same flavor that I want. To me, it's just a spontaneous druid. Which is cool, but not the flavor I'm looking for.

Well, OK, since I've apparently been summoned by Cheapy :0

Odraude, I'm actually suprised to hear you say that, to be honest! You say you want a Shaman to have a huge connection with the spirit world with abilities themed around spirits and an animal companion that is a spirit animal. That's pretty much exactly what the Expanded Shaman from Kobold Press is!

Please don't think I'm arguing with you - I completely respect everyone's right to their opinion (as someone once said - I am the world's leading expert on my opinion :), I'm just kind of surprised since it seems like the Kobold Press Shaman would be pretty much exactly what you are looking for.

I don't have the expanded one, no. I have the one in the old KQ magazine. So maybe it's changed a bit? I'll check it out.

Please do :)

Since Odraude is a player in my group I get where he's coming from. The Shaman as presented so far kinda misses the right flavor.

If anything I'd point at the Shamans from Shadowrun to get it right. The spirits are your patrons and grant you spells and powers.

Using the style of a Witch with some of the powers of an Oracle is closer to the mark. But we'll see when the playtests hit, how close they are.

I dislike how in theory the magus seems really swingy to me. Between 3/4 bab, need to put points into int, and -2 att on spell combat, you would think.that they miss a whole.lit more than a front liner. This would lead me to think it is perfect for the gambler, people who want to do buku damage or nothing at all. Despite this, all but one.magus I ever see are people who dump wis/cha as far as possible, often never bother with str, and max out dex/int and also luck out all the time.on rolling 15 plus on almost every att roll. Combining the pool making it keen, the attack is almost always a crit success on virtually every turn. Not by the percentages at all. Again, with 3/4 bab, int points and -2 NOT many of these crit Threats should be getting confirmed but they almost always do. I have not even gotten into the need to cast defensively but always doing that successfully also.

Power attackers also grind my gears on how often they should miss in a 10 because I'd PA and always luck out with 15 + in the roll. Dervish dance just intensifies forgetting about str to get att/dam/AC/init/reflex all in one. Makes them toooo cookie cutter. The one.magus I see who us nor dervish deliberately takes non uniform, non dervish choices to play different, dosn't even do spell strike shocking grasp anymore.

I would think the magus has a high morality eRe because one missed attack can mean a full attack kills them in response but they just always seem to luck out with intensified shocking grasp crit confirms. Well at least this year in society play, some demons should get a chance to dull attack. Guess the smart magus players use another class for those.

I really like the spell pool and arcanas but just feel I cannot gamble.on a.magus. much rather play a _reliable_ duskblade.

I would really like to see options for more use of the arcane pool to enhance fighting and rely less on spells(cast defensively), spell combat and 1 Handed weapons. I would love the chance to use a shield or 2hw but the magus shield archetype costs way too much. Sadly, I suspect a bloodrager will not likely be a good choice for useing a shield or heavy armor.

It's the Advanced guide for a reason. The Advanced line of products is not one meant for everyone. It's for advanced players.

I've long advocated for a parallel line like this, that is compatible with the core but geared toward the more OCD, in the same way there is now a beginner box "version".

I think this would be a great place to test drive ideas (like the summoner) to work out the kinks before intergrating them into the core line.

But if the expectation is that they are all in the same core line...

Again, all of this could turn out as wonderful variant classes without complex new mechanics and I will be thrilled to have things like a rogue/druid spy class with limited shape changing or a Monk/Paladin that isn't just a prestige class.

I am excited about the possibilities of integrated full classes taking a little of this and a little of that and making a new and exciting whole.

I'm not excited about the FAQ battles around the unintended consequences of whatever new idea that appears.

Isn't simplicity of execution the hallmark of good design?

I'll go a step further. Needless complexity is the hallmark of BAD design.

ciretose wrote:

Isn't simplicity of execution the hallmark of good design?

I'll go a step further. Needless complexity is the hallmark of BAD design.

This is true, but not all complexity is needless.

ciretose wrote:

Isn't simplicity of execution the hallmark of good design?

I'll go a step further. Needless complexity is the hallmark of BAD design.

Perhaps.

But I've yet to be show where the needless complexity lies.

What's even more a hallmark of bad design (since design is also about creativity, not just whether something WORKS) is rehashing the same thing over and over in a slightly different package.

At some point, something new needs to be made. That adds complexity.

It is not NEEDLESS complexity.

ciretose wrote:

Isn't simplicity of execution the hallmark of good design?

I'll go a step further. Needless complexity is the hallmark of BAD design.

Needless is so subjective.

Kthulhu wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Isn't simplicity of execution the hallmark of good design?

I'll go a step further. Needless complexity is the hallmark of BAD design.

Perhaps.

But I've yet to be show where the needless complexity lies.

What's even more a hallmark of bad design (since design is also about creativity, not just whether something WORKS) is rehashing the same thing over and over in a slightly different package.

At some point, something new needs to be made. That adds complexity.

It is not NEEDLESS complexity.

Most "new" things are at core better applications of existing things, put together in a more simple way.

The D20 system is a chassis. The more you add to the chassis, the more you have to adapt to the chassis.

Most of the more significant positive changes in game design come from finding a simpler way to execute a complicated concept.

I'm not sure what Spell Combat adds to the game. If you look at the design, the intent seems to be to force one-handed combat, presumably to limit combat effectiveness when casting a spell.

Otherwise, just have it cast as part of the attack action, or simply in place of an attack.

What you seem to be hailing as a new option is actually a limiting factor. You could always cast a quickened spell and attack, after all...

I like 'easy to learn, hard to master' as my design method of choice. The challenge is to make enough of the 'easy' options viable in face of the 'difficult' ones.

I like complicated, but I'm very weird. Simplicity never did anything for me, but complex opens my mind to more and more complicated and exciting prospects. It's the reason I can't be satisfied with rules light systems. Oh well, I also love jalapeno peppers and hate tea. The point is.........wait there isn't really a point, but the bloodrager could be the most awesome thing ever.

What you seem to be hailing as a new option is actually a limiting factor. You could always cast a quickened spell and attack, after all...

Good luck casting quickened spells with a 3/4 BAB class at level 1. :)

Actually, good luck casting quickened spells with a 3/4 BAB class at all.

Without using a rod, that is. Which takes up one hand oh snap.

Mr Talky Baggy, Mr ciretose was referring to using the 'spell as swift actions' mechanic, rather than literally quicken spell.

RAI vs RAW and all that.

I've always wanted a Druid without wildshape (I just never liked the shapeshifter concept too much), so I'm kind of hoping the Hunter doesn't shapechange. A 3/4 bab, 6th level caster with an animal companion and some other cool nature power
might just scratch my itch.

ciretose wrote:

What you seem to be hailing as a new option is actually a limiting factor. You could always cast a quickened spell and attack, after all...

Good luck casting quickened spells with a 3/4 BAB class at level 1. :)

Actually, good luck casting quickened spells with a 3/4 BAB class at all.

Without using a rod, that is. Which takes up one hand oh snap.

So we added a new mechanic to achieve what is basically a class feature.

That is my point.

You didn't need the new mechanic to achieve the result. The adding of the mechanic was actually a limiting factor to force the Magus to be a one hander. It doesn't expand options, it actually limits them within the class, meaning the magus is one-handed.

Presumably because two-handed or two-weapon with the concept would be to much offense for trade off, although if that were simply compensated directly rather than with this new mechanic, it wouldn't have the action economy issue or the weird FAQ needs regarding TWF interactions.

It would simply be "A Magus somatic movements involve use of their weapons. They can cast spells as part of a full round attack, when they do so they lose one attack and suffer X penalties. You cannot combine this attack with any other feats or abilities. Spells must be standard actions...yadda, yadda."

Now power attack, vital strike, combat maneuvers etc...are out so damage is greatly reduced. You can't two-handed until you have multiple attacks (but eventually you can so that build is viable), but you can two-weapon fight (with the feat) and achieve the same results without the weird mechanics. Hell throw in that if a Magus casts as a full round action they don't provoke, don't require a concentration because they are using a weapon (trading movement for combat casting).

And on top of that, it actually makes visual sense in the world rather than being a manipulation of the action economy system as a class feature. The flavor is actually flavor rather than metagaming of the system.

But instead we have this ability referencing off-hands and two-weapon fighting that narrows what the class can be without providing anything in particular that couldn't be duplicated without such a problematic mechanic.

You narrow it to "a" magus who fights with a one handed weapon, period, full stop.

Again, I'm only saying this in the hopes that the new classes will strive for the shortest path to the goal, rather than getting experimental.

There are many, many concepts that could come out of hybrids that would be exciting to play and wouldn't require much in the way of FAQ or table adjudication.

Give me a Ranger who can take on one specific wildshape. Give me a Cleric/Fighter Holy Warrior that isn't a Paladin. Give me a Monk 3/4 casting sorcerer. Or a Rage Prophet Barbarian/Sorcerer that isn't a prestige class. Give me a spontaneous druid/barbarian with rage rather than wild shape.

There are so many interesting things that can be done with current mechanics that could be fleshed out into interesting options. Can we do that before we try re-inventing the wheel completely?

K.I.S.S.

So it's your opinion that a mechanic that says "You make less attacks than normal, and can't combine it with Power Attack, Vital Strike, Combat Maneuvers, etc." is less limited than "You can do what you want as long as your off-hand is free"?

And that the flavor doesn't make sense? Nothing about drawing signs with one hand while swinging a sword with the other is at all evocative of a spell mage to you?

Because that's pretty much THE archetype of the spellsword right there.

Your proposed system is MUCH less intuitive than what is given. Spell Combat IS simple. It is, essentially "Two-weapon fighting but a spell is the off-hand weapon".

The easiest way to do it, with the simplest rules, would have been the following :

Arcane Combat : As part of a Full Attack Action, you may cast one spell which must have a casting time of 1 Standard Action or less. This spell must also be a spell that targets one or more creatures, and has a range of Touch or Ranged Touch. You may deliver this spell's damage through your melee weapon, but if you choose to do so, it uses the target's normal AC, not it's touch AC. If you choose to deliver the spell by Touch as part of your attack, you must substitute the touch attack in place of one of your normal melee attacks. If the spell allows you to hold multiple charges, you may either touch or channel one charge per iterative attack. You may take this option as a full attack action, even if you do not have iterative attacks due to high BAB (but may only channel the spell through your weapon).

That is, honestly, the simplest way to implement it.

Alternately, I think an arcane combat class could, instead, beef up and expand the 'weapon bond' feature from Paladins, Rangers, and so on and boost this into a major ability, perhaps with 'arcana' to allow one to do special things when using it, like extending how long the benefits last, or allowing you to use melee only weapon mods on ranged attacks or vice versa (to give them a niche nobody else can do). Imagine brilliant energy arrows that use touch ac, but limited times per day? Or seeking swords that twist in your hands to avoid the miss chance from cover?

I would love to see a shaman that is something more like a PC version of the adept. Give it full healing and condition removing spells and a mix of the cleric and druid lists with a few select wizard divinations and such mixed in. I really like the witch/oracle combo and think it has a lot of cool, flavorful potential through totem spirits.

What I don't want to see is a shaman that is so intricately tied into the spirit world that they are almost useless when there are no incorporeal creatures in sight. I've seen too many shaman classes in various books chase that concept too far and make the class basically useless for a standard adventurer.

Probably the one I'm most looking forward to is the Arcanist. I love arcane magic :D
I hope it gets a cool unique thing, aside from just the mixed spellcasting. I also hope it has the option to get a familiar, I'm hoping to playtest one in Mummy's Mask, and a monkey familiar would be too fitting to pass up.

That is, honestly, the simplest way to implement it.

Actually, the simplest way to implement spell combat would be:

"As part of making a full attack, you can cast a single magus spell with a casting time of 1 standard action in addition to your normal attacks. Resolve the casting of this spell either before or after resolving your normal attacks."

That may sound game-breaking, but it's no worse than a summoner casting a spell while his eidolon makes a full attack.

I want the shaman to have a spirit animal totem that is there version of sorcerer bloodline or oracle mystery. So you gain special abilities and bonus spells known based on what animal you chose such as fox, eagle, wolf, bear, snake, owl, etc..

So it's your opinion that a mechanic that says "You make less attacks than normal, and can't combine it with Power Attack, Vital Strike, Combat Maneuvers, etc." is less limited than "You can do what you want as long as your off-hand is free"?

And that the flavor doesn't make sense? Nothing about drawing signs with one hand while swinging a sword with the other is at all evocative of a spell mage to you?

Because that's pretty much THE archetype of the spellsword right there.

Your proposed system is MUCH less intuitive than what is given. Spell Combat IS simple. It is, essentially "Two-weapon fighting but a spell is the off-hand weapon".

Yes. It is much less limited. There are many, many more variations of Magus that could exist aside from "Guy with a light weapon in one hand"

Two-weapon fighting is a game construct. You can actually swing a sword more than once in 6 seconds. But in the game it is one attack or two attacks when attacking two handed. Building the flavor of a class around a game construct doesn't make much sense to me. What I would hope designers do is imagine the class and then try to write mechanics to get there. In this case I wonder if the mechanics came first and that was the issue.

In my construction you can do exactly what you described, or you can cast it through the weapon, or you can do it with two weapons.

You have more options for what a magus is, not less. You can be two handed, one handed, two-weapon, sword and board...all viable with all the advantages and disadvantages inherent.

And you don't add a mechanic that complicates interactions with the TWF mechanics because it isn't "similar". It is simply replacing an attack, same as you would with a combat maneuver and adding a penalty, sames a many feats do.

Now we have a single type of Magus. The one handed fighter. We have an optimal weapons, and a "must have" feat that was originally written to be more or less an obscure fighting style for a single weapon.

And we have a new mechanic with more written in the FAQ about it than in the rule book. 5 separate entries under Ultimate Magic currently, and likly more to come...

The devs are really good at what they do. They come up with great ideas. That is why I buy (see the subscriber). I am just hoping they don't try to over-complicate things with new rules which will be hashed out at game tables and on messageboards, and just focus their skill and talent on making more cool options happen.

mdt wrote:

That is, honestly, the simplest way to implement it.

Actually, the simplest way to implement spell combat would be:

"As part of making a full attack, you can cast a single magus spell with a casting time of 1 standard action in addition to your normal attacks. Resolve the casting of this spell either before or after resolving your normal attacks."

That may sound game-breaking, but it's no worse than a summoner casting a spell while his eidolon makes a full attack.

Which is a whole other issue :)

I would love to see them work out the kinks of an "The Player is functionally a morphable eidelon" class, since the Archetype fell a bit short.

It was an excellent idea, perhaps a bit to complex for just an archetype.

Epic Meepo wrote:

mdt wrote:

That is, honestly, the simplest way to implement it.

Actually, the simplest way to implement spell combat would be:

"As part of making a full attack, you can cast a single magus spell with a casting time of 1 standard action in addition to your normal attacks. Resolve the casting of this spell either before or after resolving your normal attacks."

That may sound game-breaking, but it's no worse than a summoner casting a spell while his eidolon makes a full attack.

Which is a whole other issue :)

I would love to see them work out the kinks of an "The Player is functionally a morphable eidelon" class, since the Archetype fell a bit short.

It was an excellent idea, perhaps a bit to complex for just an archetype.

It was far too complex for an archetype and needed to be either an alternate class based on the summoner or a whole new base class. The concept is pretty boss, but the execution is an absolute mess. It'd be nice to see them, or a 3PP for that matter, take a stab at "Synthesist 2.0"

ciretose wrote:

Epic Meepo wrote:

mdt wrote:

That is, honestly, the simplest way to implement it.

Actually, the simplest way to implement spell combat would be:

"As part of making a full attack, you can cast a single magus spell with a casting time of 1 standard action in addition to your normal attacks. Resolve the casting of this spell either before or after resolving your normal attacks."

That may sound game-breaking, but it's no worse than a summoner casting a spell while his eidolon makes a full attack.

Which is a whole other issue :)

I would love to see them work out the kinks of an "The Player is functionally a morphable eidelon" class, since the Archetype fell a bit short.

It was an excellent idea, perhaps a bit to complex for just an archetype.

It was far too complex for an archetype and needed to be either an alternate class based on the summoner or a whole new base class. The concept is pretty boss, but the execution is an absolute mess. It'd be nice to see them, or a 3PP for that matter, take a stab at "Synthesist 2.0"

Could not agree more. Maybe that is something they could take a stab at here.

Perhaps rather than using the summoner flavor, use the alchemist flavor with eidelon style outcomes. They take these potions and such to gain these abilities.

The Synthesist run roughshod over my NPCs because with the cost of a low level spell he can layer on temp evolution points and then drop immunity to element X. Really they should have locked the immunities away higher in level. Or restrict the evolution buys with spells. Way too easy to cheeze.

A mid-range 'Hasten Spell' metamagic that was cheaper than Quicken Spell, but only allowed one to reduce a standard action casting to a move-equivalent action casting (and explicitly couldn't be cast in the same round as another standard action casting spell) might be neat.

Combined with the Vital Strike feat, a fighter/spellcaster could use their move action to cast, and a standard action to do a single big attack.

Since I almost never play a character (or run a game) over 8th level, the Quicken Spell metamagic feat has always been about as relevant to my PCs or games as having stats for Thor.

A class ability like Spell Combat just seems to lock out the possibility that a Ranger or Paladin or similar 'fighty spellcaster' would be able to cast and swing in the same round, which could be more easily done as a feat or something, and not as the main feature of a new 20 level class.

Hey devs, in case you're following this closely, can you include a class kit for each of the new classes? I'm referring to the "starter gear kits" you introduced in Ultimate Equipment that came with a smattering of mundane adventuring gear pre-assembled for each class. I love those things as they save all my newbie players from having to comb their way through a huge list of mundane adventuring gear. Thanks!

Hey devs, in case you're following this closely, can you include a class kit for each of the new classes? I'm referring to the "starter gear kits" you introduced in Ultimate Equipment that came with a smattering of mundane adventuring gear pre-assembled for each class. I love those things as they save all my newbie players from having to comb their way through a huge list of mundane adventuring gear. Thanks!

That's a good point!

No more leaks on what the last classes are? I have seen a lot of suggestions... Maybe there should be a contest to guess what the remaining 3 classes are.

I have seen a lot of suggestions
Monk/Caster - sacred fist or spell fist kind of thing.
Monk/Paladin - Like Champion of Irori but a full class
Summon/Alchemist - Tinker/Artificer
Arcane/Paladin combo

Hey devs, in case you're following this closely, can you include a class kit for each of the new classes? I'm referring to the "starter gear kits" you introduced in Ultimate Equipment that came with a smattering of mundane adventuring gear pre-assembled for each class. I love those things as they save all my newbie players from having to comb their way through a huge list of mundane adventuring gear. Thanks!

I also thought that those kits were very helpful. Alot of them are pretty similar, so I figured if the Devs didn't make gear packs for any of the new classes, it'd be pretty easy to make some in-house packs. I've let my PCs swap out items for others of similar value and weight to customize them if they wanted to.

This is my answer to having the old multi-classing system back in the game. The magus class is awesome. Before that I had no interest in playing such a character. Bravo Jason!

Honestly, I am happy Paizo is making more classes like this. Before, the Advanced Player's Guide's new classes (particularly the Alchemist, Inquisitor, Summoner, and Witch) came along, I had no interest in playing D&D or Pathfinder anymore. I was perfectly content sticking with Arcana Evolved and its classes and races. The introduction of these new classes from the APG and the archetypes available for the other classes are what really brought me into the fold. I think the move to add some more base classes, if done well, is a good way to reinvigorate things.

After that, I just want a big Distant Worlds campaign setting book or a big Tian Xia Campaign Setting book on par with the Inner Sea Campaign setting book, but I know that those are pipe dreams for the time being. :)

At the moment, I am just about bursting with curiosity over these new classes and I wish someone would give us more details on the remaining, unidentified classes coming out in this product.