Advanced Class Guide

I hate having to wait until level 3-5 to embody my concept. Swashbuckler via duelist takes a LONG time to get off the ground.

The Investigator is something I've really wanted for a long while, a non-magical character that can capitalize on intelligence.

A slayer sounds like a great 1st level assassin.

The Shaman sounds like it's pretty aura based thanks to its spirits. So I'm excited to see what the playtest brings.

When I come up with a concept for a character I see the classes as just another ingredient in the recipe, like feat and spell selection. Sometimes it requires multiclassing to make it work, sometimes it doesn't. I prefer fewer, but more versatile classes as a result. I can make a great swashbuckler with fighter/rogue/duelist.

Is there still room for a few new concepts? Absolutely, but so far none of these are new, save maybe the bloodrager. How about a spell-less bard that focuses on aura effects, a robed 1/2 BAB divine caster, or a non-Asian inspired streetfighting unarmed fighter with monk unarmed damage increases. A Rogue/Enchanter Mesmerist class, or something totally new like Incarnum magic was.

The only two of the eight announced that seem remotely interesting are the Bloodrager and Shaman from what has been revealed so far.

Archetypes allow for many things, so long as the base is there.

Best of all, these classes are available for use in Pathfinder Society Organized Play immediately upon the release of the playtest document!

I forgot how ill these words could make me :(

And the last two are announced! Interview HERE. Lots of good stuff, but I'll focus on the class material.

The complete list of classes in the Advanced Class Guide:

Up to this point, we have announced the [#1] arcanist (a mix of sorcerer and wizard), the [#2] bloodrager (a mix of barbarian and sorcerer), the [#3] hunter (a mix of druid and ranger), the [#4] investigator (a mix of alchemist and rogue), the [#5] shaman (a combination of oracle and witch), the [#6] slayer (a blending of ranger and rogue), the [#7] swashbuckler (a mix of gunslinger and fighter), and the [#8] warpriest (mixing the cleric and fighter). But you knew about those already. Here are the last two.

[#9] Brawler: This class blends the fighter and the monk, creating a warrior whose sole focus is unarmed combat and martial maneuvers, without any of the mysticism of the monk. This class is designed specifically to beat up monsters, with a full base attack bonus progression (like a fighter) and improved unarmed strike damage (like a monk). To top it off, the class is also very skilled at making combat maneuvers.

[#10] Skald: Taking parts of the bard and the barbarian, this class can rage and inspire rage in its allies (we initially called it the “bard-barian” in-house). Instead of inspiring speeches and words of encouragement, the skald incites fury and anger in his allies, allowing them all to go on a murderous rampage.

Tidbit about the Bloodrager:

Take the bloodrager for example: This class is a blend of sorcerer and barbarian. A bloodrager can enter a furious rage, similar to a barbarian, but he can also cast a limited number of arcane spells while doing so. Of course, he also has a bloodline, but the powers are focused on combat, rather than spellcasting.

So excited for the playtest! Nov. 19th can't come quick enough.

***

Archetypes and other material in the book:

As with our other books, we wanted to make sure that the Advanced Class Guide contained plenty of support for all of the new classes. You’ll find archetypes, feats, spells, and magic items suitable for all of the new classes. In addition, this book will contain a wealth of new toys for characters that belong to our existing classes, including archetypes that let them experience some of the new mechanics, feats that allow them to mesh with the new characters, and much more. Since the existing classes already have a wealth of material to draw from, we want to make sure that the Advanced Class Guide gives you plenty of tools to make a complete character using one of the new classes.

Well, sorta. None of these hybrids can multiclass with the classes they're hybrids of.

That would be interesting to see. There is certainly no restriction on multiclassing a Magus with Fighter or Wizard.

Folks,

I sent a spoiler to PFS folks because they are very dedicated to the game and I wanted to give themsome news to share. It was not intended as a sleight in any way.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

I dont think anyone took it as an explicite sleight as much as they were hoping sad to not have received the update. There are alot of very dedicated fans who DONT participate in organized play, not because they are any less dedicated to pathfinder or its community, but because its a very specific style of play. I honestly dont know how much effort it would have been to ALSO have a blog post with a near copy and paste of the above mentioned email, but even just doing what Mark did and copying it here would have been sufficient.

I would also be a bit concerned if you see organized play as your primary source for playtesting. Because at least in my view that is not the default method for playing the game. And the nature of organized play changes the game fairly drastically. Whether its as simple as no rule zero, or something as complex as establishing party dynamics with an uncertain group of people for a relatively short time. There is a difference between that and a home game.

In my mind the default method of playing pathfinder is a single dm running a game for 3-6 of his friends on their own time, using one of paizo's adventure paths. That is where the game should be made to work. A group of strangers coming together to play a one shot in 4-5 hours, while certainly likely to produce lots of quick data, isnt (again in my opinion) going to produce the best data.

I admit I have strong biases against organized play. The idea that it might become or already be the default method of playing pathfinder worries me considerably.

Bard-barian..... I'm done, no need to playtest.

I'm buying this book regardless of whats in it, because it has the single greatest class combo ever.

Quote:

Well, sorta. None of these hybrids can multiclass with the classes they're hybrids of.

That would be interesting to see. There is certainly no restriction on multiclassing a Magus with Fighter or Wizard.

I don't believe there is any actual literal restriction on any multi-tasking, Majuba. I realize you're quoting someone else, but I don't think that is accurate.

[#10] Skald: Taking parts of the bard and the barbarian, this class can rage and inspire rage in its allies (we initially called it the “bard-barian”in-house). Instead of inspiring speeches and words of encouragement, the skald incites fury and anger in his allies, allowing them all to go on a murderous rampage.

Yay for Brawler, but Skald is exactly what I am complaining about.

Majuba wrote:

Quote:

Well, sorta. None of these hybrids can multiclass with the classes they're hybrids of.

That would be interesting to see. There is certainly no restriction on multiclassing a Magus with Fighter or Wizard.

I don't believe there is any actual literal restriction on any multi-tasking, Majuba. I realize you're quoting someone else, but I don't think that is accurate.

I know I saw something from a dev recently that said that hybrid-class characters wouldn't be able to pick up levels in the classes from which the hybrid is formed (no grabbing Fighter levels if you're a Swashbuckler). But I can't for the life of me find the source. Can anyone help me with that?

HM.

Brawler: A DPR only monk-as-streetfighter. Archetypes I can see: commandos, bodyguards, animal companioned, teamworkers, wild/naive fighters, perfect for furry racial/were/lycan/bestial archetypes and natural attack madness.

Not as interesting as I'd hoped. I'm sure it will be great.

Skald: I find the name waaaay too presecriptive/specific but you need to use some word and I'm sure if fits this part of the concept. :) Seems too specific conceptually, but if Paizo/you reskin the shared rage to share inspiration/energy/morale/courage/tactical acumen effects then this could be perfect for the following archetypes: commanders, a spell-less version, controllers, animal companioned, teamworkers. Perhaps less face, but maybe not.

Again, not as exciting as I'd hoped, and the name is too specific to hold archetypes that won't jar by word association but are still allied. In my humble opinion.

And still no artificer/engineer. So I'd have to say I wish I was more excited.

Without seeing anything more this is all pure speculation and personal opinion. Let the playtest arrive when it should. I eagerly await the new mechanics that will soon arrive, and to see the hybridization commentary.

There's a brawler archetype already...

Also, lots of good material here for a savage barbarian tribe party. Iron Gods, here we come!

There's a brawler archetype already...

But not a Brawler Class!

Yay for Brawler, but Skald is exactly what I am complaining about.

I have to agree; I'd prefer to see stand-alone concepts rather than just making an archetype as a full class*. I'm still going to stay optimistic, though.

*except maybe rogue archetypes, which pretty much exist if you don't want to do trapfinding/trap sense.

So, just on the face of it:

Arcanist - super arcanist
Bloodrager - martial/caster
Hunter - caster/martial
Investigator - skill monkey/face
Shaman - divine/arcanist mystic theurge
Slayer - martial/DPR monkey
Swashbuckler - pool-powered fighter
Warpriest - caster/fighter divine magus
Brawler - DPR monk
Skald - Bardbarian commander

Just putting it out there, wondering what it points to in the bigger scheme of anything...

Disappointed in no construct-based summoner hybrid, but oh well.

I am really looking forward to the bloodrager, warpriest, and brawler. Shaman, hunter, and skald are intriguing. Swashbuckler, arcanist, slayer, investigator are "meh" to me. Although I am curious about the investigator's abilities, but probably would never play one.

Is it Tuesday yet?

Cori Marie wrote:

Especially after reading Amazing X-Men #1, I remember how much ich liebe meine Deutsch blau elfe.

I think your grammar is a smidgeon off =)

To be fair, I haven't written in German in about 11 years.

There's a brawler archetype already...

There's also a Swashbuckler and Investigator archetype.

Well, in any event, at least Paizo is aware of a lot of people wanting an artificer/engineer/techfighter type :)

Cheapy wrote:

There's a brawler archetype already...

There's also a Swashbuckler and Investigator archetype.

Which weren't terribly good or interesting - both losing trapfinding, with the swashbuckler also losing trap sense for a bonus vs. fear and on acrobatics. Oh, and the ability to choose a certain talent twice.

The new swashbuckler class at least sounds like a combatant.

Necrovox wrote:

Cori Marie wrote:

Especially after reading Amazing X-Men #1, I remember how much ich liebe meine Deutsch blau elfe.

I think your grammar is a smidgeon off =)

To be fair, I haven't written in German in about 11 years.

Didn't sound worse than the gobledigook Marvel writers come up with. ^^

Skald -- paizo stole this from my Ulfen Bagpipe playing, kilt wearing Bard ;)

I'm happy for you guys to use him ... LOL

Roll on the 19th for the release :)

NGP

Well, I think they should have gone with Martial Artist instead of Brawler, but otherwise I want to say: Finally! :D

This book is going to be awesome. Really looking forward to the playtest.

Threeshades wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

There's a brawler archetype already...

There's also a Swashbuckler and Investigator archetype.

Which weren't terribly good or interesting - both losing trapfinding, with the swashbuckler also losing trap sense for a bonus vs. fear and on acrobatics. Oh, and the ability to choose a certain talent twice.

The new swashbuckler class at least sounds like a combatant.

I didn't say they were anything to write home about. Or even good.

The ten classes sound awesome!

Really looking forward to the 19th. My players are strongly considering using some of the classes for our Shattered Star game starting up in the next few months.

Cheers!
Landon

I think the "no leveling in the class you're a hybrid of" is more that if you have spell levels for Bardbarian, you can't get extra spellcasting levels by taking levels of Bard, or the like.

Hey there folks,

I just wanted to take a moment to talk about a few things that seem to becoming up on this thread quite regularly.

1. The announcement to PFS: As I said earlier, it was not meant as any sort of slight to the folks who are dedicated non-PFS players. We know that there are a lot of people out there who love Pathfinder, but don't partake in PFS. That is great and we appreciate all of your dedication. We decided to send out the announcement to the PFS folks as our way of saying thanks for playing PFS. Thats all there was to it. We also knew that the news would leak to everyone else within a matter of minutes.

2. PFS Dedication: One of the great thing about an organize play program like PFS is that they are pretty rigorous testers. They will put a class through its paces in a very short period of time, which is why we are eager to get their feedback. This is not to say that those in homegames will not do the same, but the scale of PFS lets us get a mountain of feedback in a very short period of time, with a common baseline of rules. This last bit is key. Homegames have a lot of house rules, different buys, varied scenarios, etc, sometimes making it difficult for us to compare feedback, but with PFS with work from one set of assumptions that lets us more easily way the feedback. That said, its not the only sort of feedback we want. How people use the classes in their home games is just as, if not more, important to us on the design team.

3. Class over Archetype: We made an intentional choice with these 10 classes to revisit a few concepts that had already seen the light of day as archetypes. We felt that these concepts were just too good, too iconic, to leave as an archetype and that they deserved a full class treatment. Once you see them, I think many of you will agree.

Well, that's about all I got for now. I am looking forward to getting this playtest started next week.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer on the road at MACE this weekend

One last point, since there seems to be some confusion...

As of the current rules, you cannot take levels from either of the classes that we used to build the hybrid class. This gave us a great deal more flexibility when designing the classes, because we did not have to worry about a character getting duplicate abilities. Remember, each one of these classes contains elements of its "parent" classes along with new mechanics to create a new play experience.

This rule is not set in stone, but once you see the classes, I think it will become a more clear why we made the decision. As always, we will be looking for your feedback on the issue when the playtest goes live on Tuesday.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Can we call them hybrid or alternate classes officially to solidify these as distinct fom the core and base classes? That would certainly put me at ease.

As of the current rules, you cannot take levels from either of the classes that we used to build the hybrid class

Oh, my bad.

Can't wait! :)

of the just announced classes, Investigator and Brawler seem the most interesting. Skald seems a really narrow concept, so that will have to go on my "wait for the playtest/book" list before I can get excited.

I actually like Brawler as a name over Martial Artist. Martial Artist imho carries a narrow definition than brawler, specifically people using eastern fighting styles. I can see Brawler work for those as well as Mexican wrestlers, circus strongmen, etc.

Can we call them hybrid or alternate classes officially to solidify these as distinct fom the core and base classes? That would certainly put me at ease.

they have already been referred to as hybrid classes. it's their classification.

of the just announced classes, Investigator and Brawler seem the most interesting. Skald seems a really narrow concept, so that will have to go on my "wait for the playtest/book" list before I can get excited.

I actually like Brawler as a name over Martial Artist. Martial Artist imho carries a narrow definition than brawler, specifically people using eastern fighting styles. I can see Brawler work for those as well as Mexican wrestlers, circus strongmen, etc.

Well, Brawler evokes more of a street thug for me, which is my problem with the name.

DeciusNero wrote:

Threeshades wrote:

Cheapy wrote:

There's a brawler archetype already...

There's also a Swashbuckler and Investigator archetype.

Which weren't terribly good or interesting - both losing trapfinding, with the swashbuckler also losing trap sense for a bonus vs. fear and on acrobatics. Oh, and the ability to choose a certain talent twice.

The new swashbuckler class at least sounds like a combatant.

I didn't say they were anything to write home about. Or even good.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound snappy - I may be channeling a friend who was thrilled to play a swashbuckler in 3.5, was less than thrilled when she actually played it, and then 'meh'd' at the archetype. :)

I would suggest Paizo to explicitely tell in the book what's a hybrid class - there is still much confusion over the whole "alternate class" wording seeing how many people usually think they are different classes, and not just "glorified archetypes".

Huh...Investigator as an alchemist/rogue...pardon me while I go back to reading my copies of The Dresden Files. Not quite as sorceric as Harry himself, but it WILL DO.

MMCJawa wrote:

of the just announced classes, Investigator and Brawler seem the most interesting. Skald seems a really narrow concept, so that will have to go on my "wait for the playtest/book" list before I can get excited.

I actually like Brawler as a name over Martial Artist. Martial Artist imho carries a narrow definition than brawler, specifically people using eastern fighting styles. I can see Brawler work for those as well as Mexican wrestlers, circus strongmen, etc.

Well, Brawler evokes more of a street thug for me, which is my problem with the name.

Pugilist!

Having not seen the book, and the fact that he just said that there was a rule preventing people from doing so, I suspect there is a line at the beginning just as John just stated, with a chart listing all the classes and what they are hybrids of. Magus was made as a test and thus before the rule existed and sadly, as such, there are already things in place that help it to multiclass with fighter or wizard. That said, I think that they took what worked from Magus, what they learned didn't from magus, and rolled with it to make these. It is what they do.

I would say, from my experience, Paizo is a company that learns from it's past and improves. Maybe you disagree, and that is your prerogative, but they do good by me and I can't wait to see these rules.

To those that aren't excited about the classes, that's great, you don't have to play with them. That is your prerogative, but deciding they are a bad idea sight unseen isn't fair to a company you obviously care about...being you are on their website, commenting on their playtest product weeks/week before it is released.

Arcanist - Been waiting for this since the end of 3.5 (Ultimate Magus)
Bloodrager - Dragon Disciple anyone?
Hunter - Get those wow players pulled in by the name and steal them from D&D 4
Investigator - I'm Batman!
Shaman - My wife has been begging for this, so yay for me!
Slayer - Clearly an assassin and glad of it
Swashbuckler - I love what I hear, and I played one in 3.5
Warpriest - Not sure how I feel about this, I think it is probably the weakest of the group, unseen, since there are already two classes that sort of fit this role (I realize it is likely a way to make a paladin of other alignments).
Brawler - Just curious about armor now. That's the only thing I'm concerned of. Once that concern is gone...I'm game.
Skald - I really can't wait to see the mechanics, because Savage Skald is really cool, so this may end up being a great bridge for someone who loves martial, but wants to try something new. Good potential here.

Coridan, Pugilist is probably one of the Brawler archetypes that refines the style a bit. Though, only time will tell...4 more days.

I don't believe that the archetypes will be a part of the playtest.

Warpriest - Not sure how I feel about this, I think it is probably the weakest of the group, unseen, since there are already two classes that sort of fit this role (I realize it is likely a way to make a paladin of other alignments).

I'm actually excited about this class, for the reason you stated. It's always bothered me that only LN, LG, NG and NE, CE, CN gods have holy warriors. The cleric archetypes don't quite fit the bill, and it's a convoluted path to Holy Vindicator. Pharasma deserves holy warriors, too.

One last point, since there seems to be some confusion...

As of the current rules, you cannot take levels from either of the classes that we used to build the hybrid class. This gave us a great deal more flexibility when designing the classes, because we did not have to worry about a character getting duplicate abilities. Remember, each one of these classes contains elements of its "parent" classes along with new mechanics to create a new play experience.

This rule is not set in stone, but once you see the classes, I think it will become a more clear why we made the decision. As always, we will be looking for your feedback on the issue when the playtest goes live on Tuesday.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Makes sense. Does anything prevent you from retraining into the class? If you have only one level of Fighter, for example, retraining that into Warpriest or Brawler, provided none of your other levels conflict?

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

One last point, since there seems to be some confusion...

As of the current rules, you cannot take levels from either of the classes that we used to build the hybrid class. This gave us a great deal more flexibility when designing the classes, because we did not have to worry about a character getting duplicate abilities. Remember, each one of these classes contains elements of its "parent" classes along with new mechanics to create a new play experience.

This rule is not set in stone, but once you see the classes, I think it will become a more clear why we made the decision. As always, we will be looking for your feedback on the issue when the playtest goes live on Tuesday.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Makes sense. Does anything prevent you from retraining into the class? If you have only one level of Fighter, for example, retraining that into Warpriest or Brawler, provided none of your other levels conflict?

The only issue/question I see with this is the Magus...which is supposedly a "hybrid" class. There's no restriction from taking Fighter or Wizard levels with that class. Unless the Magus is no longer considered a "hybrid". Which I'm fine with, there's just a lot of terminology being thrown around and the Magus is offered up as an example of what these other classes would be similar to in design philosophy.

I would also be a bit concerned if you see organized play as your primary source for playtesting. Because at least in my view that is not the default method for playing the game. And the nature of organized play changes the game fairly drastically. Whether its as simple as no rule zero, or something as complex as establishing party dynamics with an uncertain group of people for a relatively short time. There is a difference between that and a home game.

Keep in mind that organised play has the advantage of a large dataset gathered under somewhat more controlled conditions than home gaming with a lot more ongoing feedback.

The only issue/question I see with this is the Magus...which is supposedly a "hybrid" class. There's no restriction from taking Fighter or Wizard levels with that class. Unless the Magus is no longer considered a "hybrid". Which I'm fine with, there's just a lot of terminology being thrown around and the Magus is offered up as an example of what these other classes would be similar to in design philosophy.

The magus was not built as a hybrid class in the same way these others were. It does have the dual role aspect, but it otherwise does not lift directly from fighter or wizard. It doesn't have the fighter BAB, bonus combat feats, nor the wizard spell progression or school abilities.

Is there somewhere on the site where the staff/developer information collected on this book is being compiled?

For example, reading that there will be support in the book for the existing classes was nice but it took me quite awhile to find that information.

To those that aren't excited about the classes, that's great, you don't have to play with them.

Not entirely true if you play PFS.