Advanced Class Guide

I don't get the niche of all the new classes, but Shaman, Swashbuckler, Slayer, and possibly Hunter all seem like they could fufill some iconic niche (Possibly hunter because a lot of it will depend upon if it is suppose to be more a bounty hunter or some other niche).

I would wait until the playtest to see if there is anything worth banning.

This seems like a regular case of good old rules bloat. Not that this hasn't been going on since the Ultimate books and Advanced Race Guide.

This seems like a regular case of good old rules bloat. Not that this hasn't been going on since the Ultimate books and Advanced Race Guide.

So everything that isn't the CRB and Bestiary 1 are rules bloat.

There are 2 terms that annoy the bajeebus out of me since hearing them with the advent of 3rd edition (never heard the terms during 2nd edition, as I never seen them in Dragon magazine) is bloat and creep. I just want to punch someone in the face when I hear them mentioned. The same reaction occurs when I hear the word "premie" for a baby born prematurely, as well as when my older sister talks about her kids and doesn't use their actual names.

I see nothing wrong with more options.

20 pages of posts! Where the heck is an update on what the next revealed class will be!?!?!

As a counter to rules bloat. Good for the.people who like watching reruns and never become interested in new characters who can go where no previous character could. Some of us are sick and tired of the same classes for 13 years! Some of which we never liked for our style in the first place! No, I cannot just play my old 3.5 classes when both society bansthem and the same thing for Paizo fanboy GMs. Yes, I do DM myself and let others try other material, I even encourage people to play stuff outside society content. I can use those classes for NPCs but they are not the satisfaction of a PC you try to keep alive!

Yora wrote:

This seems like a regular case of good old rules bloat. Not that this hasn't been going on since the Ultimate books and Advanced Race Guide.

So everything that isn't the CRB and Bestiary 1 are rules bloat.

There are 2 terms that annoy the bajeebus out of me since hearing them with the advent of 3rd edition (never heard the terms during 2nd edition, as I never seen them in Dragon magazine) is bloat and creep. I just want to punch someone in the face when I hear them mentioned.

I see nothing wrong with more options.

This so much.

Removed a post and reply. Leave personal insults out of the conversation, please.

Cheapy wrote:

Sorry mdt, but my brain only works in car analogies.

American cars, Japanese cars or Euro cars?

What's the difference?

Gorbacz wrote:

American cars, Japanese cars or Euro cars?

What's the difference?

As dozens of forum posters will tell you, Japanese cars are the ones Paizo should never mention in its automobile analogies, because there's no room for Asian cars in their Euro car fantasy. But American cars are acceptable, because Andoran. :P

Nice... But I love Japanese Cars in Euro Car Fantasies...

Oh dear I've gone cross-eyed.

Three things that come to mind, aside from the obvious EHRMERGERD CLERSE GERDE

1. I think that the Magus concept dislike that was mentioned upthread might have been avoided by giving the sort of semi-flexible demi-specialization that can be done with, say, alchemists. To wit, having options to either one-hand-and-spell-combat as written, a two-hander-combat-as-somatic-component that might resolve attack and spell together (and possibly burning up iterative attacks to power/maximize 'spell-swings'), and an option to burn spell slots and/or Arcane Pool to be more of a swingy-hitty-blasty type magus (sacrifice spell slots for Arcane Pool abilities like a cleric sacrificing a spell for emergency healing). But that's my take, I could be (and often have been told I am) wrong.

2. Spell-filch for the win. I would love to see that in a style akin to the Al-Qadim 'jackal'.

3. This means little to most, but in the case of the Barbarian/Witch? "I CAST FIST!"

3. This means little to most, but in the case of the Barbarian/Witch? "I CAST FIST!"

What ho, adventurer!

That picture/video was the sole reason I even considered letting physical stats apply for spellcasting in my homebrew freeform thing.

Oh the Muscle Wizard. Got some great memories of shenanigans with that back in my high school games.

Yora wrote:

This seems like a regular case of good old rules bloat. Not that this hasn't been going on since the Ultimate books and Advanced Race Guide.

So everything that isn't the CRB and Bestiary 1 are rules bloat.

There are 2 terms that annoy the bajeebus out of me since hearing them with the advent of 3rd edition (never heard the terms during 2nd edition, as I never seen them in Dragon magazine) is bloat and creep. I just want to punch someone in the face when I hear them mentioned. The same reaction occurs when I hear the word "premie" for a baby born prematurely, as well as when my older sister talks about her kids and doesn't use their actual names.

I see nothing wrong with more options.

It isn't about the number of options, but in what these more options do. Basically, once you get past the more 'balanced' concepts from the core rules you start getting into some territory where in order to really mesh classes together, you have to water down the two classes that you are meshing, then to counterbalance the fact that you are watering down those features, you have to add something that makes that class stick out.

Example: The magus gets weapon proficiency like a fighter, and casting like a wizard. To balance that, he has a reduced spell list and medium BAB. But just that isn't enough to make a viable class because you are at that point, still worse than either a fighter or wizard of your level (see: multiclassing) and to fix that you have to give them new class features that will allow the class to stick out and not be blatantly inferior to its predecessors. Hence the inclusion of the magus arcana, spell combat, and arcane pool.

It is in the added mechanics that people are scared to see whether or not the balance of the game is compromised.

If we were just getting more options in different veins of the same, such as a paladin of different alignments, or a spontaneous druid/witch, or even something along the lines of a magus esk class with divine spells, then we wouldn't have balance issues because the balance is already there and established, but when you start mixing stuff and have to invent mechanics then people get worried.

Quality options are scary, while a larger quantity of options is nice, I would rather see less classes than we got in 3.5 because things just got ridiculous.

As a DM, new rules books with new classes are scary just because there's so much new stuff you pretty much have to get a basic grasp on just to know what kinds of shenanigans your players could throw at you which could all but invalidate otherwise well designed challenges and encounters.

After seeing Korra kick humonguous amounts of ass, I'd like to play the Avatar. With a spirit animal companion like Naga, please. I'm sure Paizo will be able to include that in this book, right?

:p

I hope there will be a summoner/alchemist type class. No matter how you combine those two, it's bound to get interesting.

The concept of adding classes as refinements of a "flight sim" game series is a nice analogy, good thinking there.

Adding new classes to PF should only serve one of two purposes:

Purpose #1
Fill a niche

This is about catering to an established character concept found in fantasy literature, film, or other medium. Given that PF keeps the integral level-and-class based paradigm of gameplay, it cannot achieve the unattainable ideal of having each character own their own unique class, but it doesn't have to, because there is still so much customization possible in D&D/PF that you don't notice the granularity overmuch.

2nd Edition AD&D was terrible about having all kinds of third-party classes (back before some genius reinvented the prestige class), and 3rd Edition did a pretty good job of starting that whole thing over from scratch until it, too, fell into the class glut routine with all the added classes from the Complete class hardcovers.

There is a risk of PF succumbing to class proliferation whenever the designers want to create some new 20-level classes, but if done carefully, the game will not degenerate into power creep and overspecialized classes. That was the problem with AD&D 2E; there were a bunch of the fan-made class concepts that were created that should have been prestige classes, though 2E didn't have such a thing and they became normal 20-level classes instead. For Pathfinder the risk of class glut is lower because the really specialized concepts ought to be shunted to prestige class design, and Paizo understands this well enough.

Here are two good questions to ask: Is there a fantasy trope "hero" or "career" that is not adequately covered by an existing 20-level class? If so, is it specialized enough that it should be a prestige class than a full 20-level class? If you can answer "yes" to the first and "no" to the second question, then what you have is a valid and needed additional full class concept.

Purpose #2
Merger of existing niches

At its heart, the real purpose behind hybridized classes is about making the multiclassing rules unnecessary and virtually obsolete, but without removing them entirely from the standard rules. In earlier times I felt that MC had too many restrictions for what it offered the game, and I still feel somewhat that most natural characters, especially PCs and prominent NPCs ought to appear as multiclassed--that single-classing is mainly for supporting characters, characters with no personality or interesting backgrounds. I still think that the idea of a party consisting exclusively of "pure" characters (all singled classed) is rather boring and uncreative, but I am certainly willing to concede that with the rules-as-written, you have to play a single-classed character in order for your character to remain competitive against the kinds of threats which the standard rules say you ought to be able to deal with at a given level.

For example, a party of 10th-level characters are meant to face 10th-level threats--but if the PCs are all 5th/5th multiclass individuals, anything rated as suitable for "10th level" play will actually be harder to defeat since the party will be missing all of their respective classes' 6th-10th levels powers.

In other words, in multiclassing there is a tradeoff of power for versatility, but in PF (as in D&D) that exchange will always be a net loss for the characters.

When I say not to remove the multiclassing classes, I really mean it. No matter how many great hybridized classes are created, there will always be room for more. Fantasy fan and gamer fan tastes are always evolving, and new character concepts and hybridized concepts will always be forming. The MC rules should be kept as a way to cover whatever other bases that no one has thought of yet as a "unique" type of character that can be represented by a dash of one class and a pinch of another.

But now we see the great thing about adding classes from the Advanced Class Guide: It makes Pathfinder come ever closer to the ideal situation of each character having their own unique class without actually having to tediously map out such a system, and without having to scrap the sacred system of having classes with levels that is pretty much taken for granted in d20-based games and whose removal would be highly opposed by the fans.

Sod spell-casters I'd like to see skill dependant characters get some love. Skill tricks WOULD be welcome in a game where each campaign feels a little more like de ja vous and Arcane Spell Casters (yet again) determine the tone of everything.

Give us options to tone DOWN the magic (even though the wizard-geeks will bleat) and big up the skills. That's what I would like to see.

And yes I know sales might suffer, but hey that's the difference between something with longevity or just producing D&D version 'X' that you can market for the next 3 years.

Sod spell-casters I'd like to see skill dependant characters get some love.

While that might be awesome, the core book alone has 165 pages devoted to spells, and only 23 to skills, and the APG and Ultimate Magic add about 67 pages of spells and 55 pages of spells, respectively, while new uses for skills (such as the new Handle Animal tricks in Animal Archive) are few and far between.

This game is built on the bones of a game that had a huge list of spells for spellcasters, and no skill system at all (with non-weapon proficiencies being added later, almost as an afterthought). It would be a huge paradigm change to make this game more skill-centric, and while some of us might enjoy it, it probably wouldn't suit the core audience for the game.

I was a little disappointed that the six classes in the APG included five spellcasters (well, the alchemist is a kinda/sorta deal), with only the cavalier being a non-caster or non-hybrid caster. But that's the game we got, one that's already eaten up a ton of design space and wordcount on the spellcasting mechanic, and seems to be written into a corner with the skill system, and unable to grow it in the same manner without, perversely, weakening it by dividing up it's focus (as new skills would do).

I highly recommend you guys check out 101 New Skill Uses by Rite Publishing if you want to emphasize skills more in your games. There are a lot of great ideas in there.

Thank you Ashanderai.

The problem is that the developers seem to be firmly in the camp that believe that if something can be accomplished by non-magical means, then there MUST also be a magical way to do it as well, and balance be damned.

The problem is that the developers seem to be firmly in the camp that believe that if something can be accomplished by non-magical means, then there MUST also be a magical way to do it as well, and balance be damned.

And the worst part is that this'd be fine if they kept the same design philosophy in the OTHER direction. =/

The problem is that the developers seem to be firmly in the camp that believe that if something can be accomplished by non-magical means, then there MUST also be a magical way to do it as well, and balance be damned.

If someone can lift a house, it's only natural he can also lift a book. It'l be hard to prove the opposite.

Although there are some spells that can replicate class abilities (like spotting traps or fighting), that doesn't mean casters will always use them. If I were in a party with a rogue, I'd probably never prepare Detect Traps. Or Glibness if the party has someone good at Diplomacy. Or Transformation if we have a fighter. And so on, because if those are covered via mundane means, then that means I can prepare my slots for other spells.

TheAntiElite wrote:

3. This means little to most, but in the case of the Barbarian/Witch? "I CAST FIST!"

What ho, adventurer!

Odraude played this in my Mythic playtest, remember Orthos? The Str 20, Int 20 Wizard. He 'punches gravity' to fly, etc.

strayshift wrote:

Sod spell-casters I'd like to see skill dependant characters get some love.

While that might be awesome, the core book alone has 165 pages devoted to spells, and only 23 to skills, and the APG and Ultimate Magic add about 67 pages of spells and 55 pages of spells, respectively, while new uses for skills (such as the new Handle Animal tricks in Animal Archive) are few and far between.

This game is built on the bones of a game that had a huge list of spells for spellcasters, and no skill system at all (with non-weapon proficiencies being added later, almost as an afterthought). It would be a huge paradigm change to make this game more skill-centric, and while some of us might enjoy it, it probably wouldn't suit the core audience for the game.

I was a little disappointed that the six classes in the APG included five spellcasters (well, the alchemist is a kinda/sorta deal), with only the cavalier being a non-caster or non-hybrid caster. But that's the game we got, one that's already eaten up a ton of design space and wordcount on the spellcasting mechanic, and seems to be written into a corner with the skill system, and unable to grow it in the same manner without, perversely, weakening it by dividing up it's focus (as new skills would do).

While I agree the devs appear to get more excited about designing for spellcasters than they do for non-spellcasters, I'm not sure counting the pages of how much what gets covered is the way to measure that. Magic is complicated. There are lots of spells. I don't think, even if you had a more robust skill system or skill using classes, that would change even if most classes were skill oriented and the default game was very low magic. That's just kind of how it's gotta be (and games I've played that devote little time to explaining magic systems usually are a mess when actually trying to use magic).

"Non-weapon proficiency" shows what the old AD&D devs thought non-spellcasters really should be focusing on... weapons. When you can only think of skills as "non-weapons" you know the devs were focused on a very different area--not magic, but combat in general. Most mechanics in that game entirely revolved around combat (with the occasional random table of randomness just to shake things up). The fantasy roleplaying game world has slowly evolved since then, and most systems have begun to have more robust skill systems and suggestions for overcoming non-combat-based challenges. Pathfinder adding to its skill system in various ways would contribute to this evolution--and there's no reason they shouldn't, just because the game also has lots of spells in it.

Now, if the devs don't want to, that's a different thing of course.

My only issue with having more skill based classes and skill based systems is that people will inevitably complain how these new classes/systems will gimp/obsolete the rogue, because as we know, the only class that should be allowed to be "non-weapon" focused is the rogue, and anything that becomes skilled automatically is a travesty that destroys any and everything rogue. But then, the rogue is supposed to be a "terrible" class anyway so then why shouldn't we have more classes and systems related to what they do?. Gamers. I really don't get y'all sometimes, even though I'm one of you.

Let me be clear: I think new skills classes and systems would be awesome, and be good for the rogue, even, which is a class I like and enjoy playing; yes, even though more skill based classes would be "competition" for the rogue (but I don't see skill based classes as competition for the rogue any more than sorcerers and witches are "competition" for wizards; they all do their own thing even if they also have similarities). What I wouldn't look forward to if there was such a development is all the whining it would produce on the message boards. Why do I stay here? I really have no idea.

But then, the rogue is supposed to be a "terrible" class anyway so then why shouldn't we have more classes and systems related to what they do?. Gamers. I really don't get y'all sometimes, even though I'm one of you.

It's best to think of gamers as a whole as an Ettin. :)

That was kind of my point. A skill based class would be neat (heck, I *really* wanted a skill-based alchemist!), but, in this game, I don't think that it's either viable or desirable, since it would be roller-skating uphill to make it work in a system tilted against it.

On the other hand, I'm also a big fan of magic systems like Ars Magica, which don't really use 'spells' the same way, and have mages who throw fire being able to do all sorts of 'fire-throwing' stunts, as part of learning to manipulate fire, instead of random collections of often very different spells poached from sources as diverse as science fiction, Celtic myth and the Bible.

Orthos wrote:

TheAntiElite wrote:

3. This means little to most, but in the case of the Barbarian/Witch? "I CAST FIST!"

What ho, adventurer!

Odraude played this in my Mythic playtest, remember Orthos? The Str 20, Int 20 Wizard. He 'punches gravity' to fly, etc.

Vaguely yes, it's been a long time since I looked at the playtest forum.

And I do think it is viable and desirable. I don't think the system is tilted against it, not the way it was in AD&D. It's been a long time since then.

I think your concerns are valid, but I don't think the system is anti-skill and I think there is plenty of potential within the existing system to do more with it.

What do folks mean when they say they want a "skill-based" class? What would be an example of something a skill-based class does that existing classes can't already do with skills and feats?

They want more classes that better then rouges at being skill monkeys;) But seriously what if there was a class were all skills were class skills.

Ok, I'm imagining that.

But I don't see where it could go.

Reminds me of the Master class from the 3.5 Dragonlance source books.

I get the feeling they want a skill-class that isn't easily replaced because, you know, wizards.

Yes, but what does this hypothetical "skill class" actually do? Everyone has skills. Everyone can use feats (and sometimes class features) to get bonuses on skills and new uses for skills. What is this "skill class" doing that can't already be done?

I'm asking because, to me, "skill class" sounds a lot like saying "attack roll class." "I want a class that uses attacks rolls and isn't easily replaced by the wizard." Okay, but everyone can already make attack rolls. So what new thing should this class to do with attack rolls?

Similarly, everyone can already make skill checks. So what new thing should a "skill class" to do with skill checks?

Something unique and useful that skills can do, I'd assume.

Similar to how Snake Style makes Sense Motive a good defensive skill, a class that can use, say, Acrobatics in combat to avoid hits X times per day, or Climb to, as part of a Move action run up something then drop back down for a "Super Charge".

I dunno. Just random examples.

Similarly, everyone can already make skill checks. So what new thing should a "skill class" to do with skill checks?

Like the Rogue, who can use Disable Device and / or Perception in ways that other classes can't, or, even more to an extreme, the Bard, who can use Perform to have all sorts of utility that other classes can't, merely one 'skill based class' might be a misnomer.

But I'd love to see a class that can use Alchemy to make stuff that nobody else can make, or to get uses out of current alchemical creations that others can't match (doing more damage with alchemical fire or acid, making the effects linger longer, or affect larger or shaped areas, and having some sort of daily pool of 'free alchemy' or even 'instant alchemy' so that every single combat round doesn't consist of him 'throwing money at people').

Similarly, I'd love to see a class that uses the Heal skill in ways that others can't match, *and can be a viable non-magical healer,* able to treat various supernatural afflictions (like ability damage or negative energy levels) with sufficient skill and time (around the same levels that spells can do that, or perhaps even sooner, although taking more time). That would make an interesting Rogue archetype, actually, keeping sneak attack (due to surgical knowledge and anatomical training), but replacing Trapfinding (which expands the utility of Perception & Disable Device) with improved Heal skill use, instead.

A class that instead expanded the Craft skill, first to allow them to manufacture masterwork weapons and armor faster, or create even more enhanced 'Mastercraft' weapons with other options (+1 damage, +1 crit confirmation, +1 threat range, etc.), or armor (-5% Arcane spell failure, heavy armor that still reduces movement, but you can Run in, or -5 ft. to the speed reduction, etc.), and, at higher levels could magically enhance armor and weapons they craft without learning to cast spells, 'faking it' through access to magical materials or whatever (so that the cost remains the same), to create a sort of Artificer that doesn't have a spell list, but, like the 3.5 Warlock, can 'fake it,' either as a class feature, or through a specialized use of UMD or whatever.

A class (or perhaps a Monk or Rogue AT) that expands on the tricks they can pull off with Acrobatics could similarly be fun. Stuff that other people have to pay feats for, like Mobility, already can be 'faked' with a high Acrobatics score, so expanding that to allow the Acrobat to 'fake' a Spring Attack or Move-By Attack or even Whirlwind Attack, could be one route to take, as well as allowing other more specialized movement / mobility stunts, such as dodging in such a way that an attacker not only misses you, but stabs a buddy of his next to you instead.

And that's four skills, off the top of my head.

A 'Diplomancer' is a terribly obvious fifth, and it's not hard to imagine a charming snake-tongued 'magician' or 'hedge wizard' who lives or dies by his creative (ab)use of the Use Magic Device skill, or someone who has learned to use the Handle Animal skill to wrangle critters more efficiently than the base use of the skill.

I keep thinking 'there are some skills that probably won't lend themselves to this sort of expansion, like Knowledge' but then I remember the 3.5 Archivist, who makes great use of Knowledge skills, to grant bonuses to allies, like a very different sort of Bard or Marshall. Strip out the spellcasting and buff up the bonuses the 'Scholar' or 'Sage' can grant, to make it on par with a core class, and it's good to go.

I just now grabbed the book, and skills like Appraise and Climb and Profession and Stealth aren't exactly screaming out for this sort of treatment, but that might just be a failure on the part of my creativity, and someone else might think of an awesome way to expand them in this sort of way. I'm not gonna say they aren't doable just because I can't, in thirty seconds, think of anything for them. :)

What Set said, pretty much. I think there's a lot of potential still to design around things like

- Dungeoncrawling/dungeon diving skills
- Party face stuff
- Crafting -- this one in particular has a lot of potential. An inventor, a siege engineer, a gunsmith...
- A loremaster, someone who isn't a caster but really amazing with knowledges (which in our campaigns are always massively and frequently used) and Use Magic Device, and might be able to support the party with such knowledge by giving them advantages. Something like a spell-less bard.

Especially if these things come along with some interesting skill-challenge type rules.

I see classes like this as good party support classes, which are classes I really like to play, the PC who is good at making the team better as a whole even if they have fewer individual crowning moments of awesome.

And again, I think these things can exist alongside the rogue, a wonderfully fine and one of my very favorite classes even, and not overshadow it. :)

And again, I think these things can exist alongside the rogue, a wonderfully fine and one of my very favorite classes even, and not overshadow it. :)

A lot of them could probably be Rogue Archetypes, with a lot of tweaking, so much so that they really wouldn't be 'rogues' any more.

DeathQuaker wrote:

And again, I think these things can exist alongside the rogue, a wonderfully fine and one of my very favorite classes even, and not overshadow it. :)

A lot of them could probably be Rogue Archetypes, with a lot of tweaking, so much so that they really wouldn't be 'rogues' any more.

I think the big thing would be most would do away with sneak attack, which seems one of the rogue's (and its alt class the ninja) definitive features (even if there's a bard and alchemist archetype that also get it).

Part of me wishes they would just ditch the Skill Point System and go back to the Ability checks, with occasion improvement every few levels. I think honestly trying to cram more into the skills system is the wrong way to go, especially if you start wanting to make some uses exclusive to some classes.

Set. Have you looked at the master class? It fits your bill. At least as far 3.5 classes although it shouldn't take much to port it.

It's easy to create a class that isn't easily replaced by a wizard. It just required that the developers refrain from adding spells that duplicate the class features (which that seem incapable of doing).

Swashbuckler = Normally just fine, but there is an archetype by that name. To avoid confusion consider buccaneer.

There I got it off my chest, otherwise I'm really looking forward to this one.

they could always call the class "Dashing Swordsman" :D

all this talk of specialized skill abilities intrigues me. I think with some of the style feats, we can see how this would work out (snake style for example). the idea of charging up a wall and then back down to supercharge makes me smile. The next core book title would have a nice ring to it too: Pathfinder: ULTIMATE SKILLS

I'm seeing lots of expanded skill uses that would make great feats. I'm still not seeing any reason to make a new class. Unless the "skill class" has bonus skill-related feats as its primary class feature, I suppose. But you could do that with the rogue by simply adding a "bonus skill-related feat" rogue talent that can be taken more than once.

There are 2 terms that annoy the bajeebus out of me since hearing them with the advent of 3rd edition (never heard the terms during 2nd edition, as I never seen them in Dragon magazine) is bloat and creep. I just want to punch someone in the face when I hear them mentioned.

Aside from the punching I agree. Bloat is a bizarre concept - I want to complain because I have more options that I can choose to use or ignore. I'm looking forward to this for the options it will provide.

That said I'd love to see another book of Golarion prestige classes, or a hardcover which collates all the prestige classes to date(well form sources other than the core and ultimate books probably) and add more - ULTIMATE PRESTIGE! Could also have guidelines and insights on design like this one offers for class and archetype..