Advanced Class Guide

This book now has my full attention.

Wait a minute....could the Hunter be the nature-themed inquisitor I've always wanted?

A 2/3rds casting Nature based class?!

What hey don't have listed here; hybrid Barbarian/Monk the Pro Wrestler Class!

In all seriousness though this looks to be a great book, I'm particularly excited about the Bloodrager!

I know it sounds weird, but I think a cleric/bard hybrid would be interesting. A Divine herald class of sorts.

Let me use this example to illustrate my point.

This is a cool concept. Lets say you take a Bard and keep most of the "Bard" class features (maybe lose bardic knowledge or it only apply to religion, and maybe lose jack of all trades) but sub out bard spells for divine spells.

This will mean you will have a less powerful spell list. How to compensate? Give a Cleric Domain and maybe even limited channeling.

You now have a Bard Cleric Hybrid with no new mechanics that is pretty well balanced with existing classes. Call it an Evangelist and you have something completely different without anyone needing to understand new mechanics and incorporate that into the game.

That is what I would like, and would pay money for. This post has moved this book from "Must buy" to "I'll wait for the reviews" for me.

Incidentally, there's a bard archetype in Faiths and Philosophies that gives channel energy. And a cleric archetype that gives bardic performance.

Granted, I write new mechanics as a side hobby, so I don't think new classes necessarily mean a power up. It can (and has) in the past, but as long as they avoid some of the more problematic classes as the basis for some of these, we should be ... good.

Zombie Ninja wrote:

I know it sounds weird, but I think a cleric/bard hybrid would be interesting. A Divine herald class of sorts.

Let me use this example to illustrate my point.

This is a cool concept. Lets say you take a Bard and keep most of the "Bard" class features (maybe lose bardic knowledge have it only apply to religion, and maybe lose jack of all trades) but sub out bard spells for divine spells.

This will mean you will have a less powerful spell list. How to compensate? Give a Cleric Domain and maybe even limited channeling.

You now have a Bard Cleric Hybrid with no new mechanics that is pretty well balanced with existing classes. Call it an Evangelist and you have something completely different without anyone needing to understand new mechanics and incorporate that into the game.

That is what I would like, and would pay money for. This post has moved this book from "Must buy" to "I'll wait for the reviews" for me.

Thank you for illustrating your point Ciretose, but not everyone wants what you're suggesting. I know it must be an issue for you, but at this point the book is already mostly designed and going through. Hopefully the folks over at Paiso's will support your play style and preferences more in future produces, but for now I'm personally looking forward to this one. Hopefully you can give it a chance too.

That's boring give me something "new" don't shuffle the deck I want a new deck.

YMMV

This is crunchiriffic!

Still hoping for a better version of the theurge!

My excitement abounds. Slayer (aka Base Class Assassin) and Swashbuckler (ABOUT TIME) are really great concepts that are super fantastic. Shaman fills a long needed niche.

Bloodrager leaves me cold and a name change (non-portmanteau) would be best, I like Ravager.

Warpriest would be better renamed Templar if only to better fit base class naming assumptions.

There's still four archetypes to be announced and I would like to join the lobby for Engineer being among the new classes.

Also I'd like to see the Mystic as a base mystic Theurge option and The Psychic for a new mind magic option.

Cheapy wrote:

I believe that at one point, the Gunslinger had a clause that you couldn't take levels in fighter if you had levels in Gunslinger. That's one possibility.

Not a good one...

Why not?

Simple, reasonable, not unprecedented.
Removes at least some potential for abuse.

Paladib/Antipaladin base class?

Paladib/Antipaladin base class?

We shall call it the neutral-din

I like where this is going, but not to be a spoil sport but, Jason, you really need to work on your naming conventions.

Bloodrager = great idea but terrible name. Please consider Marauder, Conqueror, or vanquisher. Something less fake compound word sounding.

Hunter = It sounds more like a warden.

Shaman and Slayer are ok.

Warpriest = Templar, crusader, champion or perhaps sentinel.

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.

I must agree. I feel the same way about the Summoner.

I understand that the Conjurer was taken...but what about:

sommonour
somner
somnour
sompnour
sumner

Summoner looks and sounds so common and uninteresting.

Shaman- If it's not going to be a cha based spontaneous caster with the druid's spell list and chooses a totem animal spirit that acts as it's mystery/bloodline then I am not interested.

You mean something like ...

I hope no one tells AM BARBARIAN about the Bloodrager. A smashy and a casty in one package? Might cause him to implode.

This is the first I've heard of this... EXCITEMENT. The Hunter sounds really interesting. I'd love to see something that mixes an inquisitor with something more martial, perhaps (I just really enjoy the class for some reason).

I'm hoping the swashbuckler has some mechanics to finally make open-hand fighters viable :D

While I'm still iffy about the Hunter and I kind of wish the Bloodrager and the Warpriest had better names (there is just something about those names that just don't sound right to me, but to each their own I suppose), the Shaman and Slayer sound pretty cool and I've been wanting a Swashbuckler for awhile now.

I really want to know what the other four classes are now. I hope one of them is a hybrid rogue/wizard that focuses on enchantment and illusion. Basically, something similar to the Beguiler class from 3.5. Basically, a magical con-man of sorts. Maybe call it a Mountebank.

ciretose wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

I believe that at one point, the Gunslinger had a clause that you couldn't take levels in fighter if you had levels in Gunslinger. That's one possibility.

Not a good one...

Why not?

At least for these "hybrid" classes? A simple rule of "These classes are hybrids of two classes each. Much like you can't take levels in a class and its alternate class, you can't take levels in a hybrid and either of its base classed".

Simple, reasonable, not unprecedented.
Removes at least some potential for abuse.

Because having a random clause that says this is the only class that can't multiclass with a standard class is kind of an indication you are designing around a problem with a patch rather than designing something to integrate.

Which is the bloat concern. There is a threshold of how many variables you can expect a GM to keep up with and adjudicate. Most things in the d20 system are variations on themes based around basic frameworks, so even when you add, you aren't asking for new understanding, just a variation on a theme.

My concern is basically two things.

1. Mo' Mechanics, mo problems.
2. More "Unique" features mean more narrow classes.

The "problem" with the gunslinger and the magus is not the concept, but the "unique" features of each that make them very narrow concepts when what was requested were fairly broad concepts.

Hybrid = Good
Complicated new mechanics that aren't needed to make the concept work = Not good

IMHO.

I'll see what the playtest looks like, but this post frankly worries me. The Magus was not a class I think was a triumph. Spell combat is...interesting...

But I liked the inquisitor a whole lot, as that was new features with no real new mechanics. Judgements are just bonuses, same with bane. Both existed in the game with other names. So we'll see which way they go, citing the Magus...it's not a bad class but it wouldn't be something I cited as a model.

Having additional options that don't require GM's to have to learn new mechanics to run them.

A Magus is basically 3/4 BaB arcane caster class. This was something people very much wanted. Without the "Unique features" it could be added without requiring any additional rules knowledge or understanding from the GM and with a lower risk of odd interactions, since you are just moving existing rules around.

Instead, the Magus, while ok, is difficult to adjudicate with odd overlap.

There is bloat and there is creep, and neither is good.

You can add more classes with neither if you are re-purposing existing tested mechanics.

Adding new mechanics...that is a whole other monkey wrench in the works.

If they are actually hybrids, re-purposing existing mechanics to allow more options, awesome.

But IMHO the problem with the Magus and the Gunslinger was to many new "Unique" features rather that a more simple framework to meet what was called for.

A 3/4 BaB 6 level caster and a guy who can use firearms well.

I like new features. TBH I REALLY don't see the point of releasing a whole new book just to say "Here's a 3/4 BaB version of an existing class". At best all that would require is a "If you take a Wizard and make him 3/4 BaB, drop his spellcasting to 6th level" clause.

It's boring and really serves no particular purpose to release a class that is just "X class with a few changes".

Even the Alternate classes have something new and different going for them.

I hope one of them is a hybrid rogue/wizard that focuses on enchantment and illusion. Basically, something similar to the Beguiler class from 3.5. Basically, a magical con-man of sorts. Maybe call it a Mountebank.

That would be awesome. I've always liked the idea but it's hard to make work.

Maybe some kind of monk/fighter or monk/caster? I'd just like to see a better monk I guess :p

The Beguiler is actually sort of in PF already. The Sandman bard archetype is a mix of the Beguiler / Spell Thief and...one other class that I forget which. Check it out!

This has me excited. I could gush for ages about how excited I am, but I won't. I'll just say that I am excited, then pass out from happy feelings.

I really want to know what the other four classes are now. I hope one of them is a hybrid rogue/wizard that focuses on enchantment and illusion. Basically, something similar to the Beguiler class from 3.5. Basically, a magical con-man of sorts. Maybe call it a Mountebank.

+1 to the wizard/rogue idea. I remember when I was first introduced to Tabletop RPGS, I caught a glance of the 3.5 Beguiler, and I really wished that Pathfinder had released something similar. Something with a feel of the bard, but no performances or anything like that.

The Beguiler is actually sort of in PF already. The Sandman bard archetype is a mix of the Beguiler / Spell Thief and...one other class that I forget which. Check it out!

Base class would still be nice though :P Technically a swashbuckler archetype already existed, too...

thejeff wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

I believe that at one point, the Gunslinger had a clause that you couldn't take levels in fighter if you had levels in Gunslinger. That's one possibility.

Not a good one...

Why not?

At least for these "hybrid" classes? A simple rule of "These classes are hybrids of two classes each. Much like you can't take levels in a class and its alternate class, you can't take levels in a hybrid and either of its base classed".

Simple, reasonable, not unprecedented.
Removes at least some potential for abuse.

Because having a random clause that says this is the only class that can't multiclass with a standard class is kind of an indication you are designing around a problem with a patch rather than designing something to integrate.

Which is the bloat concern. There is a threshold of how many variables you can expect a GM to keep up with and adjudicate. Most things in the d20 system are variations on themes based around basic frameworks, so even when you add, you aren't asking for new understanding, just a variation on a theme.

My concern is basically two things.

1. Mo' Mechanics, mo problems.
2. More "Unique" features mean more narrow classes.

The "problem" with the gunslinger and the magus is not the concept, but the "unique" features of each that make them very narrow concepts when what was requested were fairly broad concepts.

Hybrid = Good
Complicated new mechanics that aren't needed to make the concept work = Not good

IMHO.

I'll see what the playtest looks like, but this post frankly worries me. The Magus was not a class I think was a triumph. Spell combat is...interesting...

But I liked the inquisitor a whole lot, as that was new features with no real new mechanics. Judgements are just bonuses, same with bane. Both existed in the game with other names. So we'll see which way they go, citing the Magus...it's not a bad class but it wouldn't be something I cited as a model.

I kind of agree about the new mechanics and rules bloat issues, I just don't see them as related to the "can't multiclass" issue. It's not an entirely new concept: It's an extension of the alternate class can't multiclass with the base class rule. Which is itself something of an extension of the rule that you can't multiclass into the same class.

I hope the swashbuckler's grit/panache ability (however it appears) is CHA based, and not WIS based. I guess I could potentially see DEX, but I think CHA fits the swashbuckler better.

I hadn't thought about the fighter/gunslinger hybridization, but now that it has been talked about, I think it sounds excellent. I can already foresee a musketeer archetype for it.

This and the Shaman (oracle/witch is so spot on) are the two that have me the most excited thus far. I'd like to see more of these unlikely pairings as hybrids than some of the others discussed (warpriest- which I still prefer templar or crusader for; hunter).

I'm still hoping there will be something that hybridizes with the summoner, if only to see what the staff might do to tinker with that class a bit. Summoner/paladin, summoner/alchemist (a guy whose potions endow him with different evolutions?)

The Beguiler is actually sort of in PF already. The Sandman bard archetype is a mix of the Beguiler / Spell Thief and...one other class that I forget which. Check it out!

Sandman is one of my favorite archetypes, although I've never really liked the name. To be honest, the name actually indicated to me that it was something totally different than it actually was, and it took me over a year to read the archetype any farther than the first couple of performances and realize how good it was.

I think the name fits fairly well. One of their main performances is putting people to sleep, and naming archetypes or classes so that it actually hints at what the thing can do is...surprisingly hard.

I wonder if the warpriest will be where you get 1 domain, 6th level casting, mid-bab progression and half the number of smites with a few extras for flavor. If so this is ok but here's to hoping that either within that class you can add things like from the holy vindicator and the class count as a paladin for feat prerequisites and be able to take oaths. IF all or most of this happens then it'll probably be ok.

I already have something close to this already in my group that I am testing.

Oh, this is going to be sooooooo good.

... summoner/alchemist (a guy whose potions endow him with different evolutions?)

I never realized how much I wanted that until now.

Cthulhudrew wrote:

... summoner/alchemist (a guy whose potions endow him with different evolutions?)

I never realized how much I wanted that until now.

Yeah, that's actually a pretty interesting idea ...

For those worried about rules bloat the Bloodrager Hemotheurge has your answer:

BLOATMAGERAGE!!!

--Between a Vrock & a hard place

I'm actually okay with BloodRager (because of what it's mixing) and Warpriest (it sounds vanilla and gives a good image of the class, a Martial Priest) as the base names. Really cool names I think are better off for Archetypes in my opinion.

Ravager sounds like a good archetype name for the BR.

Here's also hoping for an Engineer/Mechanist class.

jezz i need to go to get frozen again!!

And maybe an Alchemist archetype that has you grafting and incorporating parts of other creatures into yourself.

Oh oh and maybe a summoner archetype where you use the soul or memories of a dead loved one as a component of your eidolon.

Auxmaulous wrote:

Daethor wrote:

Auxmaulous wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Last but not least, the final chapter in this book will give you a peek inside the design process for classes and archetypes, giving you plenty of tips and guides to build your own! Since class design is more art than science, this won't be a system (like in the Advanced Race Guide), but rather a chapter giving you advice on how the process works.

I hope this is not the approach they take when they finally release my wholly fabricated: Advanced Monster Guide (AMG) - set to be released sometime in 2016/my imagination.

Why not? I think either a system or an advice on the process would be fine. I think I'd actually lean towards advice and maybe some benchmarks (which are already present in the bestiary really) since monster creation is an art/science just like class design. At least it seems to be.

Not to derail yet another player product thread (ah well..) but I would prefer a system over advice. It doesn't have to be exact, but something to quantify and measure various creature abilities so there are some guidelines when making new abilities.

Hell, I wouldn't even care if it didn't match up/break down against the current Bestiaries out there - if it just mostly aligned up with existing monsters and was around to serve as a DM tool when making or changing creatures. I don't want a rules lawyer guide of I told you so's - this isn't the standard player mentality of “which class sucks/dpr/you're doing it wrong”. I think most DMs would be pretty forgiving if everything in the final toolkit didn't align and they put in some caveats/disclaimers - I just want a system to mirror current creature design as close as possible.

Sorry for the derial, but someone has to fight for the monsters.

+1 I'm with you Auxmaulous, but seem like we are a minority here.

I think of all the things you can make in the game (monsters, races, magic items), I feel class design is the one that we can't honestly tackle down to a point buy system without it becoming rife with abuse. Moreso than other point buy systems and the magic item creation system. I feel advice is the best way to go about it, as it helps the person come up with cool ideas for unique mechanics for classes, instead of cookie cutter ideas that boil down to "How best can I abuse these mechanics?" I definitely like to see this advice and would probably use it as much as I do the spell creation advice.

And I'm glad to hear that these hybrid classes will be worth more than the sum of their parts. If they were just remixes and combos of two classes with no unique mechanic, I'd find that pretty uninspired and would definitely skip this book. So I'm glad to hear they are going the magus route here.

My attention.
You have it.

I cannot wait to start playtesting!

Magical Girl (fix the synthesist) maybe?

I want to wait until the playtest before I decide if I want the hybrid classes to be able to multiclass into other classes. But if they are like the magus, I don't see how multiclassing into their base two classes would be an issue.

Psionic, pls.

But we didn't get what we asked for is the point. We got very narrow classes that have clunky, confusing mechanics with synergies that effect what can be added to the rest of the game and that don't do the things we asked unless you accept the mechanics never asked for.

What was asked for was a hybrid fighter caster. That is a broad brush class that kind of existed through Eldrich Knight, but kind of didn't because of how hard it was to get there.

The Magus fills a narrow niche of that request when if they hadn't added odd mechanics and had just made a hybrid it wouldn't be so narrow.

Same with the gunslinger.

I don't want new mechanics for the sake of new mechanics in the same way I don't want new classes for the sake of new classes.

I do want hybrid class options, as described. And my opinion if you make those hybrid classes I can do more things with them than I could with a narrow class built around a new mechanic that may or may not fit into the system without a crowbar.

Wait a minute....could the Hunter be the nature-themed inquisitor I've always wanted?

A 2/3rds casting Nature based class?!

See, I was actually imagining it as a class that combined Favored Terrain and Wildshape, maybe also Favored Enemy or Quarry, with little to no spellcasting. That's just what the class brought to mind for me. Maybe include the Animal companion and have some kind of pack tactics thing going...

I'm hoping for an Alchemist/Gunslinger combo. It just seems like guns would the type of thing for an alchemist to use and it would be nice if there was some version proficient with them. I also second the call for a Monk/Fighter. A tougher, full BAB Monk with a few less mystical qualities would be awesome. I would miss some of the mystical stuff but most of it is useless or very situational.

I wonder if the warpriest will be where you get 1 domain, 6th level casting, mid-bab progression and half the number of smites with a few extras for flavor. If so this is ok but here's to hoping that either within that class you can add things like from the holy vindicator and the class count as a paladin for feat prerequisites and be able to take oaths. IF all or most of this happens then it'll probably be ok.

I already have something close to this already in my group that I am testing.

I was kind of curious about whether it was going to have anything in common with the 3.5 archetype of the same name, with healing SLA's and heavy armor proficiency. Combo'd up with 3/4 divine casting and Weapon Training in your deity's favored weapon...

But we didn't get what we asked for is the point. We got very narrow classes that have clunky, confusing mechanics with synergies that effect what can be added to the rest of the game and that don't do the things we asked unless you accept the mechanics never asked for.

What was asked for was a hybrid fighter caster. That is a broad brush class that kind of existed through Eldrich Knight, but kind of didn't because of how hard it was to get there.

The Magus fills a narrow niche of that request when if they hadn't added odd mechanics and had just made a hybrid it wouldn't be so narrow.

Same with the gunslinger.

I don't want new mechanics for the sake of new mechanics in the same way I don't want new classes for the sake of new classes.

I do want hybrid class options, as described. And my opinion if you make those hybrid classes I can do more things with them than I could with a narrow class built around a new mechanic that may or may not fit into the system without a crowbar.

See, I never really considered the magus having clunky mechanics. Nor the gunslinger. Certainly, the magus has more advanced mechanics than the gunslinger, but I never really found the magus that complicated to understand. Nor really niche (at least for the magus). It's a class that casts and fights, but also blends the two, which is what I really liked.

I just feel that I'd like something more than just two classes put in a blender. If all I was getting was a class that only had the mechanics from two classes, I could just do it myself. Why wait for the Slayer when I could just make my own with sneak attack and favored enemy? And blackjack and hookers!?! ;)

Bloodrager? Interesting enough, I guess.

Shaman - meh

Warpriest - meh

Hunter - A focused Bounty Hunter type, sounds like by the abilities, I could go for that.

Slayer - Ho Hum, a PC Assassin.

Swashbuckler - Gunslinger-based, lightly armoured fighter with panache and with out all the Rogue-crap that 3.5 tried to shoe-horn into it's Swashbuckler base class, Really looking forward to this one.

Also looking forward to learning what the other 4 are going to be:

Engineer would be nice, but unlikely.

Psionic-Mage, also would be nice and just as unlikely.

A Fighter/Rogue Hybrid focusing on dirty tricks and lightly armored close quarters fighting, sort of like a Monk without all the Kung-Phooey bits (no Ki, no philosophy other than win at any cost) I call him the Cad.

A Witch/Druid Hybrid (a Witch-Doctor, as it were) with Hexes, Wildshape and a hybrid spell list would be nice.

As for this being "Rules Bloat" as of the ACG Pathfinder will have 31 Base Classes (35 if you include NPC's) and a handful of prestige classes as compared to 3.5's 53 Base Classes (that I can think of, there may have been more, 57 if you include NPC classes) and literally hundreds of "official" Prestige Classes.

ciretose wrote:

But we didn't get what we asked for is the point. We got very narrow classes that have clunky, confusing mechanics with synergies that effect what can be added to the rest of the game and that don't do the things we asked unless you accept the mechanics never asked for.

What was asked for was a hybrid fighter caster. That is a broad brush class that kind of existed through Eldrich Knight, but kind of didn't because of how hard it was to get there.

The Magus fills a narrow niche of that request when if they hadn't added odd mechanics and had just made a hybrid it wouldn't be so narrow.

Same with the gunslinger.

I don't want new mechanics for the sake of new mechanics in the same way I don't want new classes for the sake of new classes.

I do want hybrid class options, as described. And my opinion if you make those hybrid classes I can do more things with them than I could with a narrow class built around a new mechanic that may or may not fit into the system without a crowbar.

See, I never really considered the magus having clunky mechanics. Nor the gunslinger. Certainly, the magus has more advanced mechanics than the gunslinger, but I never really found the magus that complicated to understand. Nor really niche (at least for the magus). It's a class that casts and fights, but also blends the two, which is what I really liked.

I just feel that I'd like something more than just two classes put in a blender. If all I was getting was a class that only had the mechanics from two classes, I could just do it myself. Why wait for the Slayer when I could just make my own with sneak attack and favored enemy? And blackjack and hookers!?! ;)

In fact forget the sneak attack and favored enemy!