Advanced Class Guide

The complaint about lack of skill support among the class templates...how much of an issue is it, really?

The 101 New Skills book is the worth money. I pored through it, loved most of it, saw a few things that were internally redundant or that didn't make sense (probably just there to pad out the book to "101" uses) but overall very creative and useful.

The 101 Skills book is where Paizo should go if it needs to enhance the skill system, not wrap a bunch of new classes around it.

What do you call a class that is designed to be really good at just one or two skills out of the book, and not much else besides? A prestige class. Alchemist and Bard barely get away with this, and that's mainly because they get so much other stuff besides their skill use which is keyed to their purpose of existence.

What do you need in a class that is skills-heavy? A theme that ties all of those skills together in a familiar fashion. That is why rogue is "the skill class," even though it would be more accurate to call it "the sneak-thief skill class" because its load of class skills are mainly devoted to thievery, spying, and assassinating.

Bard, Druid, and Wizard are other skill-heavy classes, mainly devoted to knowledge and magic, but since they are spellcasters we can't count them.

There is still another skills-heavy class: Expert. Why does no one seem satisfied with or think of the Expert as the Alt-Rogue? Because Expert, in all its versatility, doesn't do anything else interesting. What do you want in a skill-heavy class?

Someone who just "knows" stuff has to be able to apply that knowledge in some way; the advantage and great results just don't magically appear because you have a character who can hit absurdly high Knowledge, Craft, or other skill checks. There has to be more. And there has to be some kind of underlying theme or character concept that justifies the extra benefits the class can do. Expert is none of that on purpose, because it's an NPC class. Bard, Druid, and Wizard have spellcasting as leverage, but since that's magic, never mind.

Then there's also the Ranger, which is kind of a combat rogue that spends more time sleeping outside than inside. Is that enough skill-heavy? Oh wait, magic. Never mind. Wow, this is hard!

How about Aristocrat? Here is a class that could fill in for bards and clerics as negotiators and fast-talkers, and all without magic. It just needs more cowbell. Maybe an enhanced version of the Aristocrat will meet our skill-heavy class needs better.

Aristocrat = Court Bard. But still has the magic to boot.

I got 101 Skill Uses and enjoyed most of it. So I will be incorporating the majority next game I D.M.

A previous poster pointed out the Snake Style which makes Sense Motive a useful skill in combat. This is precisely the sort of skill development, allied to feats to give useful no magic required abilities. I think this is the gap thematically in the Pathfinder game.

Raising a second issue (and this is RPG's in general) I would also like to see more spell-using class archetypes that are focussed less on nifty specialist combat abilities and more on generalist approaches (for example there is no 'charm'/socially focussed Oracle).

well if you want to get get immediate access to a wonderful swashbuckler setup, check out En Garde. In it features the Fencer, a cavalier alternate class that uses grit. Scott_uat, the designer, was a collegiate fencer and wanted better options to support this concept in game. It also features the Meister, a fighter archetype, that trades away armor training/master for unique sets of abilities based on which weapon groups he utilizes. For PRC goodness there is the myrmidon, typically a monk fighter, who is a devoted master to all bladed weapons. This product features several fencer related feats, as well as new weapons that many fencing specialists would enjoy.

Oh yes. I should make a reference post for 3pp swashbucklers. Even with Paizo's take coming out soon, it may not be what everyone wants from a buckler of swashes.

Oh yes. I should make a reference post for 3pp swashbucklers. Even with Paizo's take coming out soon, it may not be what everyone wants from a buckler of swashes.

+10 to this, it seems like everybody wants a swashbuckler but many disagree what exactly it is.

Cheapy wrote:

Oh yes. I should make a reference post for 3pp swashbucklers. Even with Paizo's take coming out soon, it may not be what everyone wants from a buckler of swashes.

+10 to this, it seems like everybody wants a swashbuckler but many disagree what exactly it is.

Ain't that the truth for every aspect of the game? Just look at all those "Pathfinder 2.0" threads which are full of diverging or often completely contradictory ideas.

Also, WPAFAWTRWISTS, which stands for What People Ask For And What They Really Want Is Seldom The Same.

I would love some way to have a survivable high AC without armor. Class features or feats other than monk starting at first level. Really hoping swashbuckler has some such mechanics....

Wait, if it's not armor, class features, or feats...where's the AC coming from?

Wait, if it's not armor, class features, or feats...where's the AC coming from?

Meant to be class feature or feat not armor. I hit the, instead of the.

Suddenly, this makes 100% more sense.

I am very excited about this...

Going over the released info and the posts... I agree on several things and disagree on others.

Bloodrager is a good name, the class will be what it says on the tin.

Warpriest -> Templar = good idea.

The slayer will likely be one of those "I break games if the GM isn't careful" classes.

Shaman... is going to be amazing roleplay wise... and fills a much needed spot between healer and arcane caster.

Moving on to new content... here's my wishlist.

1: Rogue/wiz. Call it spellthief, call it beguiler, call it what you want. A sneaky wizard is a storytelling staple. That and the concept is sound and fills a much needed role. The game as it is lacks sources of trapfinding something fierce. You're stuck playing a trapper ranger or a rogue...

2: Monk/Sorc. Cause we all know monk needs some love, and enlightened fist was so much fun to play back in 3.5...

3: Engineer. A battlefield shaping focused class is much needed. Alchemist was suppose to fill a lot of that... but he turned into a grenade lobbing psychopath most of the time. A class that works with constructs would much improve the setting, given that we have so many rules about constructs but you never actually see many people using them. They're always some dusty statue that comes to life and tries to remove the fighter's spleen though his nose...

Wizard/ranger would be perfect for this... transmutations, abjurations and constructs combined with ranger combat styles and a bit o good ole fashion knowhow.

4: A bard that isn't amazing out of init count and useless inside... so bard/fighter or dare I say it... Bard/paladin... though that second one terrifies me.

I am curious about how the classes will be unique from the base classes they are being built from.

Like I can see how a Swashbuckler can't use Grit the same way a Gunslinger can.

But BloodRanger? What unique powers does rage give to a spell caster? Raging meta-magic?

I hope the Shamen's pool of witch/oracle powers is different enough.

etc.

I'd really like to see the Bloodrage focus on rage/bloodline powers as opposed to regular casting. Where each bloodline power would have a normal affect that is always available, and an enhanced version which is only available while raging. This would replace normal Barbarian rage powers. Then have the spell casting mostly for utility/mobility/buffs.

We finally truly TPK'd in our campaign.. And are moving on to WotR. I want this to come out soon so we can build our characters D:

Bloodrager sounds like it'll be a great class for Dragon Disciple, if nothing else.

We finally truly TPK'd in our campaign.. And are moving on to WotR. I want this to come out soon so we can build our characters D:

By the time this releases you will have had plenty more opportunities to TPK.

dunebugg wrote:

We finally truly TPK'd in our campaign.. And are moving on to WotR. I want this to come out soon so we can build our characters D:

By the time this releases you will have had plenty more opportunities to TPK.

Ah, but Playtest should be within a month of so. So maybe that's what he/she's talking about.

Threeshades wrote:

dunebugg wrote:

We finally truly TPK'd in our campaign.. And are moving on to WotR. I want this to come out soon so we can build our characters D:

By the time this releases you will have had plenty more opportunities to TPK.

Ah, but Playtest should be within a month of so. So maybe that's what he/she's talking about.

Good point.

Excited now.

Hehe. My friends and I are coming up with Blood Rager jokes.

The Angrest Dark Side of the Moon Concert - Blood Rager casting Color Spray.

Who needs Fireball when I can headbutt and VOMIT SWARM!

Greese...because the Mosh Pit needs to be more interesting.

I know they are lame. But we can't help giggling at the thought of a Half-Orc runnning around foaming at the mouth screaming about casting Magic Missle with his face.

Bloodrager, Slayer, and Swashbuckler all sound like cool, unique classes.

Warpriest seems like it will fill a required niche between divine casters and martial characters who aren't paladins.

Shaman, I don't know about. Maybe they'll get both Hexes and Mystery powers.

In the Hunter's case, I don't see how it's any different from a Ranger.

But the Arcanist concerns me the most, because it seems to be trying to fill some unnecessary niche between Wizard and Sorcerer. I'm worried that it might end up rendering both of those classes irrelevant.

Then there's the matter of the other four classes...but the playtest will begin soon, so I guess we'll find out.

Anyone else hope the Swashbuckler works wiell with this feat

Did they actually announce an Arcanist as one of the classes in Advanced Class Guide? Where was that? I totally missed it.

Someone mentioned that at DragonCon, they announced a sorcerer / wizard called the Arcanist. A bunch of other people have mentioned that they also heard this announcement. Probably about 10 pages ago? I don't recall.

What I do know is that I now have the mental image of a mixture of Seoni and Ezren. The ample bosoms combined with the chiseled bearded jawline, and luscious white locks of hair blowing in the wind...

The beefcake and cheesecake of Pathfinder, all in one class. I have high expectations of Mr. WAR.

Thank you cheapy, for that image. I am going to perform a self-lobotomy now...

Thank you Cheapy, for that image. I am going to perform a self-[redacted] now.

Someone mentioned that at DragonCon, they announced a sorcerer / wizard called the Arcanist. A bunch of other people have mentioned that they also heard this announcement. Probably about 10 pages ago? I don't recall.

What I do know is that I now have the mental image of a mixture of Seoni and Ezren. The ample bosoms combined with the chiseled bearded jawline, and luscious white locks of hair blowing in the wind...

The beefcake and cheesecake of Pathfinder, all in one class. I have high expectations of Mr. WAR.

So kinda like a white haired Randy?

Since we are on the topic of the Arcanist, I am concerned that it may be very redundant. We have the Sorcerer, Witch and Wizard for arcane casters, do we really need another one?
Do we have any idea what will make it stand out among the other arcane casters?

Is there any news on a date for this playtest? (Beyond just Fall I mean)

And yes a rogue/wizard is top of my wishlist. The ninja dips it's toe into this with its vanish and shadow clone tricks and they are just awesome.

i really hope for some new options for all the base classes ( and my secret hope is other options for the summoner -lol)

Whatever happened to just multi-classing when you wanted the benefits of two or more classes? I don't know, it just seems unnecessary.

Whatever happened to just multi-classing when you wanted the benefits of two or more classes? I don't know, it just seems unnecessary.

I'm not sure that these new hybrids are just about being a response to a perception that multi-classing is flawed in PF, but there is that perception.

As for being unnecessary, or those that have been unimpressed or wary of the concept, I'm not sure why all the fear, antipathy or caution.

LET'S WAIT AND SEE WHAT THE PLAYTEST BRINGS.

Paizo are going to do this, no chance ever to stop them, and it will happen. Either have a look and then decide, or pretend it never happened and ignore the entirety of the play test and the Advanced Class Guide.

Personally:

* I'm uninterested/not wowed in the least by any of the Arcanist, Warpriest, Hunter, Slayer, Bloodrager or Shaman - these concepts just don't grab me in the least, though I AM entirely and completely interested to see what cool new mechanics, tweaks to existing mechanics or mashups of existing base/core classes we might get as part of those "hybrid" classes.

* Though I would probably never play one I'm extra excited to see the design path of the Swashbuckler, only if because I think it might have some cool combat takes/mechanics that I can steal generally and apply to lots of stuff - creatures, combats, archetypes etc

* The extra options made for existing core and base classes will be interesting too.

* The guidelines chapter might show the thinking behind the madness, and that is always welcome.

* New art I am sure will bring the awesome. New Iconics! WAR! (and others! - I feel for you "other", not WAR artists, you all rock too!!!!)

C'mon - this will be THE most interesting piece of crunch for PF in quite a while - this will be the cutting edge of Paizo's PF design. There may be some pretty cool fluff too...

I await the play test with interest.

Oh, and there are still three hybrids left I eagerly anticipate.

Especially if Paizo shrug off the Artificer=Eberron caution and do a Maker/Engineer/Artificer/Tinker regardless of the two classes it mashes together....

Whatever happened to just multi-classing when you wanted the benefits of two or more classes? I don't know, it just seems unnecessary.

Multiclassing does not advance any class features -- most especially spellcasting, but also including rage/rage powers, bardic performances, sneak attack progression, etc. In essence, that means that a level A/B Base Class X/Base Class Y character will pretty much always be weaker and less useful than a level (A+B) single-classed X or Y character. The more you split levels, the worse it gets. This effect is less pronounced for martial classes, because at least BAB keeps progressing; for casting classes, it's like buying a new pair of jogging shoes and then cutting your own hamstrings.

Deeming that not punishment enough, PF decided to bribe you to stay single-classed (through favored class bonuses), and punish you further for multiclassing (by making domain spells, etc. class features instead of part of your spellcasting progression).

3.5e "fixed" this by providing prestige classes; PF is seeking to "fix" it by adding more hybrid base classes. Both of those approaches strongly imply that the existing multiclass system didn't work in 2000, still doesn't work, and never will work as long as developers keep looking at using patches instead of a complete overhaul.

Kirth has the right of it. In addition, PF neutralized 3.5's approach by tying so many class features and abilities into the level of the class they're from, and reducing the amount of such abilities that Prestige Classes advanced. Their solution thus far has been to provide combinations of classes through sharing abilities in Archetypes as well as new Hybrid Classes such as these. (Which has led to, among other things, certain class abilities becoming less valuable in the class they originated in because of being so frequently ported to other classes' Archetypes, and in some cases being even better in the hands of the new user than the original. *cough*Rogue*cough*)

The Multiclass Archetypes threads in Homebrew do a pretty good job of adding new options to the pile from requested or inspiring combinations, but of course they can't do every combination in the game... or at the very least, haven't had time to get around to all of them just yet. And regardless, cool as it is it's still homebrew content, which may not fly at every GM's table.

You all are welcome. Your mind's eye has now gazed upon perfection. Rejoice.

Multiclassing does not advance any class features -- most especially spellcasting, but also including rage/rage powers, bardic performances, sneak attack progression, etc. In essence, that means that a level A/B Base Class X/Base Class Y character will pretty much always be weaker and less useful than a level (A+B) single-classed X or Y character. The more you split levels, the worse it gets. This effect is less pronounced for martial classes, because at least BAB keeps progressing; for casting classes, it's like buying a new pair of jogging shoes and then cutting your own hamstrings.

I keep reading about how magic users are so much better than martial classes as you go up in levels. In that light, why is this a problem? Doesn't that give the martial classes something of a bonus?

Whatever happened to just multi-classing when you wanted the benefits of two or more classes? I don't know, it just seems unnecessary.

It's really not the same. A fighter/wizard/eldritch knight plays quite differently from a magus. I expect much the same when looking at a barbarian/sorcerer compared with the bloodrager.

I keep reading about how magic users are so much better than martial classes as you go up in levels. In that light, why is this a problem? Doesn't that give the martial classes something of a bonus?

If you ban single-classed (and nearly single-classed) casters, then, yeah, it would work great (except you'd need to scale down a lot of encounters/hazards to account for low magic). But a multiclassed fighter/barbarian doesn't become as effective as a cleric or wizard (in fact, he's generally slightly less useful than a single-classed fighter or barbarian). So as long as full casters exist, you still have this problem.

Kirth Gersen wrote:

Multiclassing does not advance any class features -- most especially spellcasting, but also including rage/rage powers, bardic performances, sneak attack progression, etc. In essence, that means that a level A/B Base Class X/Base Class Y character will pretty much always be weaker and less useful than a level (A+B) single-classed X or Y character. The more you split levels, the worse it gets. This effect is less pronounced for martial classes, because at least BAB keeps progressing; for casting classes, it's like buying a new pair of jogging shoes and then cutting your own hamstrings.

I keep reading about how magic users are so much better than martial classes as you go up in levels. In that light, why is this a problem? Doesn't that give the martial classes something of a bonus?

It might, if everyone had to multiclass.

What is more likely is that the Wizard will stay straight Wizard, and thus get all the benefits of being a straight Wizard, while the meleer who attempts to multiclass will get a few tricks here and there but be levels behind in what his capabilities could be in comparison to a straight-classed [insert class here], which even then would be behind the caster in capabilities and options. Multiclassing in PF just hobbles him further.

EDIT: And ninja'd, and more concisely at that.

...

The Multiclass Archetypes threads in Homebrew do a pretty good job of adding new options to the pile from requested or inspiring combinations, but of course they can't do every combination in the game... or at the very least, haven't had time to get around to all of them just yet. And regardless, cool as it is it's still homebrew content, which may not fly at every GM's table.

Hah! Thanks for the shout-out Orthos!

* Yep, we have detailed only 147 Multiclass archetypes on our wiki's Multiclass Archetypes Master list a few of which are doubles of the same pairing from a different thematic standpoint. Of the more than 400 possible variations. Slackers.

* Join us on our 5th working thread: MCA V - More Ultimate MCAs. We are always looking for new and interested forumites with ideas they want to create and for feedback/review/critique...

* You can find our creative guidelines here: Multiclass Productions Creative Guidelines

* And you can find our first PDF, Divine Champions, HERE

it's easier than you think to join and be a part of it too.

I think a mix of Alchemist and Summoner might yield a pretty solid Tinker/Engineer/Whatever build. A customizable clockwork companion, combined with Inventions (spells) and Discoveries. Maybe choices on whether or not to build bombs, or construct some other type of prototype weapon.

I struggle with the concept of the Hunter, as others have mentioned on how it can be different from the Ranger. The more I imagine however utilizing Teamwork feats with your animal companion, and a wider range of tricks that the animal can learn and perform: I think that might create a niche that could be a lot of fun to play.

I want to echo what others have clamored for: to see a Rogue/Wizard build. I hated the Spellthief of 3.5, but I think one that focuses a bit more on knowledge and utility would be something I could really get behind. Almost like an Indiana Jones-esque explorer.

Why did you dislike the spellthief?

And do you know of Archaeologist bard archetype? It sounds a lot like what you want.

I think a mix of Alchemist and Summoner might yield a pretty solid Tinker/Engineer/Whatever build. A customizable clockwork companion, combined with Inventions (spells) and Discoveries. Maybe choices on whether or not to build bombs, or construct some other type of prototype weapon.

I struggle with the concept of the Hunter, as others have mentioned on how it can be different from the Ranger. The more I imagine however utilizing Teamwork feats with your animal companion, and a wider range of tricks that the animal can learn and perform: I think that might create a niche that could be a lot of fun to play.

I want to echo what others have clamored for: to see a Rogue/Wizard build. I hated the Spellthief of 3.5, but I think one that focuses a bit more on knowledge and utility would be something I could really get behind. Almost like an Indiana Jones-esque explorer.

Echoing Cheapy's suggestion of archeologist... it really is an Indiana Jones class and then some.

There are several bard archetypes who could serve as rogue-wizards, the sandman especially, although the sandman is basically Pathfinder's spellthief, so maybe you wouldn't like that.

Magician is great for knowledge and you get some sorc/wizard spells.

Bard was the original rogue/wizard after all. (Well, originally it was like druid-rogue-wizard-your mom-the kitchen sink, but still.)

My players are absurdly excited about this book. We'll probably be starting Shattered Star with the playtest rules (we're halfway through Sins of the Saviors now), letting everyone try out the new classes.

I've been really happy thus far with how Pathfinder's encouraged single class characters, but it's exposed some of the gaps between the classes. I'm glad to see some of those being filled in.

As far as wishlists, I'm really hoping for at least one really simple class that doesn't require a lot of book-keeping (Slayer maybe?) and at least one divine caster that doesn't use armor.

Cheers!
Landon

20 Quatloos on the week of the 29th for the playtest to drop.

Why did you dislike the spellthief?

And do you know of Archaeologist bard archetype? It sounds a lot like what you want.

I liked the concept well enough, but in order to use their main ability (stealing spells), either they needed to hunt for spellcasters, and when they were in short supply, it seemed they inevitably started looking at their ally spellcasters as batteries. We would have the wizards and clerics suddenly trying to position themselves away from the spell thief, which complicated combat, made the team less effective, and also isolated the spellthief: making him more vulnerable.

I have seen the Archaeologist variant, and I like it! I still think an Intelligence based utility rogue/caster can have some unique flavor and carve out a niche. Likely, the Archaeologist variant is more Indiana Jones-esque, but in my head: he's still a wizard. Just a mental predisposition.

I suppose the alchemist also fits that niche.

And it sounds like your spell thief player was a bit of a jerk :) never steal from the party!

+1.

The one Spellthief we had in our group would request the other casters give him spells, and they'd compensate by keeping a wand or scroll of the spells he wanted on-hand. But ganking your party members is a no-no.