Advanced Class Guide

Wednesday, August 28, 2013

Just a few weeks ago, we announced the Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide, an exciting new addition to the Pathfinder Roleplaying Game due out next summer. While we talked about it a fair bit at Gencon, this blog post is here to get you caught up on all the news!

This 256-page rulebook will contain 10 new classes, each a mix of two existing classes, taking a bit from each class and adding new mechanics to give you a unique character. Around the office we're calling them "hybrid classes." You can think of the magus (from Ultimate Magic) as our first test of this concept. It takes some rules from the fighter, some rules from the wizard, and then adds its own unique mechanics.

At this point, you're probably wondering what new classes you can expect to see in the Advanced Class Guide. So far, we've announced five of the ten classes.

Bloodrager: This blend of sorcerer and barbarian can call upon the power of his blood whenever he goes into a rage. He also has a limited selection of spells he can call upon, even when in a mindless fury!

Hunter: Taking powers from both the druid and the ranger, the hunter is never without her trusted animal companion, hunting down foes with lethal accuracy.

Shaman: Calling upon the spirits to aid her, the shaman draws upon class features of the oracle and the witch. Each day, she can commune with different spirits to aid her and her allies.

Slayer: Look at all the blood! The slayer blends the rogue and the ranger to create a character that is all about taking down particular targets.

Warpriest: Most religions have martial traditions, and warpriests are often the backbones of such orders. This mix of cleric and fighter can call upon the blessings of the gods to defeat enemies of their faiths.

Of course, those are just half the classes in this book. There are four more we have yet to reveal.

"Four?" you say. "But I thought there were ten!" And you would be right—because I'm about to let you in on another of the classes that will appear in this book, which we haven't announced until this moment!

Swashbuckler: Break out your rapier and your wit! The swashbuckler uses panache and daring to get the job done, blending the powers of the fighter and the gunslinger! For those of you who don't use guns in your campaign, fear not—the base class is not proficient in firearms (although there will certainly be an archetype in the book that fix that).

But that's not all! This book will also contain archetypes for all 10 new classes, as well as a selection to help existing classes play with some of the new features in this book. There will also be feats and spells to support these new classes, as well as magic items that will undoubtedly become favorites for nearly any character. 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.

So, there you go. That's six of the 10 classes that will appear in the Advanced Class Guide and an overview of what else you can expect from this exciting new book. While it's due to release next August, you won't have to wait too long to get your hands on these classes, because we're planning to do a public playtest here this fall! Check back here for more news as the playtest draws close!

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
1,551 to 1,600 of 2,258 << first < prev | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Thought now would be a good time to weigh in on the classes. Subject to change if they really blow me away with the flavour and presentation.

Arcanist (sorcerer/ wizard): This one really seems like the odd duck. Half the classes seem to be adding spellcasting to non-spellcasters, which is tricky in multiclassic as you either cannot cast for a level or cannot fight for a level (and are typically squishier). The sorcerer and wizard lore is fairly incompatible. It's not like it can have much more spellcasting.
I wonder if this is way of trying to add another variant on Vancian casting to the game. Or having more low level spells but fewer high level spells.
Impression: -

Bloodrager (barbarian/ sorcerer): Odd. But interesting. A savage variant of the magus. I guess that works. Probably be very fun for savage humanoid NPCs like orcs.
Impression: +

Brawler (fighter/ monk): This seems more like a monk archetype that pulls out the magic. Or that archetype paired with an unarmed fighter. Seems doable in the game already. I don't see "boxer" as being an essential class to the game.
Impression: -

Hunter (druid/ ranger): A reasonable combo. The dedicated woodsman. It almost existed as a combo in 2e (due to a typo in the original PHB). I wonder if it will be a shapechanging ranger or a ranger with more spellcasting...
Impression: +

Investigator (alchemist/ rogue): It sounds cool. I'm not sure if its so large of a role we need an entire class. And there's a few ways of turning rangers/ rogues/ bards into investigators already.
I just hope there's an archetype with increased spellcasting for the absent wizard/rogue class.
Impression: +/-

Shaman (oracle/ witch): The idea of the shaman really seems like a spirit centric druid. I suppose the spontaneous caster aspect works as well, as we could use more of those on the divine side. And the idea of spirits and the spirit world is something that is not seen a lot in Pathfinder/D&D. I'm not sure how the witch fits beyond the flavour of a witch being this natural spellcaster. Maybe their patron. Patron spirits for a shaman?
This class might be the biggest stretch to be called a hybrid... It's final impression will really depend on how they present the class.
Impression: +/-

Slayer (ranger/ rogue): The class designed to mess people up. Yup, it's an entire class based around the idea of the striker (from 4e) or DPS (from MMOs). This is really a better idea for a character than a class. Characters can be designed around messing up opponents. A class that does this just seems like a narrow variant of other classes.
Impression: -

Skald (bard/ barbarian): It sounds... okay. But there's already a pretty fun skald archetype in the game. This doesn't sell me on the class. I suppose like the bloodrager, this is the "bard" variant for monsters and races with a charisma dump stat.
Possibly a bard with far less spellcasting, or even non-spellcasting buffer. A more savage version of the 4e warlord, the melee leader. If they go that route it might appeal to people and fill a niche.
Impression: -

Swashbuckler (gunslinger/ fighter): I've been iffy on the idea of a swashbuckler but it is a big role that is not easily filled in the game. You really need to multiclass to do it justice and your AC and damage suffers. I can see this working and making people happy. I'm not sure it needed to be a class, but past attempts and failures have left room for this class.
Impression: +

Warpriest (cleric/ fighter): For a game like Pathfinder where paladins can ONLY be lawful good, there's certainly a place for the divine warrior of other alignments.
Impression: +

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:


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.

Jason, would it be possible not to duplicate archetype names, though? I'm fine with having multiple ways to create a certain kind of character concept, but IMO it'll be a tad confusing if there are brawlers (new base class) and brawlers (fighter archetype) in the game. :)


LazarX wrote:
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.

You might want to have another look. It has a spellbook, it has bonus feats (which both fighter and wizard have), and it even has a class feature that says "I count as a fighter!".


I'm really curious what class features they have that you have to say "You can't take these classes!" instead of "these class features stack with these other clas features". Waiting for te playtest just for that.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Maxximilius wrote:
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".

^^This - I can already see a few people going 'huh?!' when I or a DM tell them they can't be a rogue 2/slayer 3.


The more I read about this projet the more I grow apprehensive. I hope the playtest proves me wrong and turns out to be a posative thing for the game.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I think they mean that the magus was designed based on the idea of the eldritch knight over any form of hybridization. Also many of the Magus abilities are based around the idea of combining with other arcane and warrior classes. However in my own book I consider it a hybrid class.

What they may mean is that the abilities of these classes are not supposed to be designed to stack with their hybridized classes. Ex. Rogue sneak attack cannot stack with Slayer sneak attack, but Slayer sneak attack can stack with sneak attack that comes from a Prestige Class.

For example a skald cannot stack with a bard or barbarian, but you can add any other class to it like witch, oracle, or fighter.


I think what they meant by hybrid was conceptual hybrid, and not mechanical hybrid like a lot of people are implying. Those classes will probably have all new mechanichs and few overlappings with old classes and still be clearly "hybrid", like the magus(fighter/wizard) or the inquisitor(cleric/ranger). Hell, you could even say the witch is druid/wizard and the oracle is sorcerer/cleric.

Silver Crusade

Jucassaba wrote:
I think what they meant by hybrid was conceptual hybrid, and not mechanical hybrid like a lot of people are implying. Those classes will probably have all new mechanichs and few overlappings with old classes and still be clearly "hybrid", like the magus(fighter/wizard) or the inquisitor(cleric/ranger). Hell, you could even say the witch is druid/wizard and the oracle is sorcerer/cleric.

See this post from just upthread:

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


The inquisitor has domains and the witch has a familiar. those were "taken" from other classes but work on a diferent context, which I think will also be true for the new classes.


Ughbash wrote:
MMCJawa wrote:


I think any plans on pinning down what day in November it will release are a bit foolhardy :P
You say that... but is coming out on Next Tuesday.

Not to toot my own horn... But I told you so :)


the Queen's Raven wrote:
Quick someone get one of those kids from the make a wish foundation on the line, maybe they make something happen.

Every parent whose child has come down with a head cold and left totally miserable will already know this, but it bears repeating: never understimate the power of pity!

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I am sad to see no Engineer class.

With any luck we might see it in a future product (say an Advanced Genre Guide?) but the Brawler has me excited.

The Skald is interesting, but doesn't grab me.

Dark Archive

My 2p.

Arcanist: Miss. This sounds like a recipe for over-flexible abuse. There's never enough love for straight Sorcerers.

Bloodrager: Having said that, this is a hit. Proper arcane elemental fury. I will make one of these as soon as possible.

Hunter: On the fence. If it is a Ranger with shapechanging that is good. If it is a 6th level Druidic spellcaster with ranger weapons and favoured enemy it might be good too, though it would probably make Arcane Archer more redundant.

Shaman: Could work. Oracle and Witch are both very powerful and very weird. One for optimisers.

Slayer: This has been coming, hasn't it? Spell-less, sneak attack, Ranger scout. Not my cup of tea but they will be popular. Many skills.

Swashbuckler: Bona fide hit if done right. I think Grit is going to be called Panache which is hardly offputting. High Cha dashing blade types are right and proper. The girls love him.

Warpriest: Miss. I can't see anything a Cleric, Inquisitor or Paladin can't do.

Investigator: Total hit. I intend to make a proper anarchist with eyemask and top hat, straight out of Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday. Or, by the reading, a junkie detective. Lots of possibilities here.

Brawler: tentative hit, but it might kill the standard Monk off for good. I have never played a Monk and even if I was tempted, it would be the combat manouvre Monk and this is clearly better. In any case, it is a type that people love to play.

Skald: The Bardbarian. Hit. Bound to be. I can't imagine how this screaming nutcase won't be an asset to any party. The only problem is not everyone wants to rage and it might be redundant with a Bloodrager or Barbarian in the party.

Form these 10 alone there is a compelling case for a frontier game starting in the wilderness. The PCs are a Shaman, a Skald, a Bloodrager and a Slayer. A savage gang, last survivors of a murdered tribe...

Very glad there are no Psionics (not needed with Arcane and Divine) and no Engineer (it could work in a more Steampunk world, but the Artificier was a broken mess, hated it).

Especially glad there is no class builder like the race builder in the ARG. That would just make for terrible, awful things.


Gorbacz wrote:
I'll make sure to redirect any "no new classes please, too much bloat already, nobody wants new stuff" people here so you can have some fun with them while waiting for The Real Thing.

But I already drink Coke! (Well Coke Zero anyway.)

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Captain K. wrote:

My 2p.

Arcanist: Miss. This sounds like a recipe for over-flexible abuse. There's never enough love for straight Sorcerers.

Bloodrager: Having said that, this is a hit. Proper arcane elemental fury. I will make one of these as soon as possible.

Hunter: On the fence. If it is a Ranger with shapechanging that is good. If it is a 6th level Druidic spellcaster with ranger weapons and favoured enemy it might be good too, though it would probably make Arcane Archer more redundant.

Shaman: Could work. Oracle and Witch are both very powerful and very weird. One for optimisers.

Slayer: This has been coming, hasn't it? Spell-less, sneak attack, Ranger scout. Not my cup of tea but they will be popular. Many skills.

Swashbuckler: Bona fide hit if done right. I think Grit is going to be called Panache which is hardly offputting. High Cha dashing blade types are right and proper. The girls love him.

Warpriest: Miss. I can't see anything a Cleric, Inquisitor or Paladin can't do.

Investigator: Total hit. I intend to make a proper anarchist with eyemask and top hat, straight out of Chesterton's The Man Who Was Thursday. Or, by the reading, a junkie detective. Lots of possibilities here.

Brawler: tentative hit, but it might kill the standard Monk off for good. I have never played a Monk and even if I was tempted, it would be the combat manouvre Monk and this is clearly better. In any case, it is a type that people love to play.

Skald: The Bardbarian. Hit. Bound to be. I can't imagine how this screaming nutcase won't be an asset to any party. The only problem is not everyone wants to rage and it might be redundant with a Bloodrager or Barbarian in the party.

Form these 10 alone there is a compelling case for a frontier game starting in the wilderness. The PCs are a Shaman, a Skald, a Bloodrager and a Slayer. A savage gang, last survivors of a murdered tribe...

Very glad there are no Psionics (not needed with Arcane and...

Maybe you should wait to see what the classes actually do, before judging them on their power level or level of originality?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I hope these classes are a lot more interesting then they sound. Most of them do not cover any niches I was looking for except the swashbuckler. I would love to have psychic classes but with this book coming out just means it will be that much of a longer wait. An engineer/inventor class would have been interesting though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
[#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.

YES.

Now if they'd just make a spellcaster or "Ki Caster" version of the Monk (who's basically ALL Mysticism), my desires would be fulfilled completely. =)


Rynjin wrote:
Quote:
[#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.

YES.

Now if they'd just make a spellcaster or "Ki Caster" version of the Monk (who's basically ALL Mysticism), my desires would be fulfilled completely. =)

Psion?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Captain K. wrote:

My 2p.

Arcanist: Miss. This sounds like a recipe for over-flexible abuse. There's never enough love for straight Sorcerers.

This is the one I am most interested in. Might be the answer to what I have always felt was a problem with both classes. I am hoping for a class where you prepare a number of spells per day and then can spontaneously cast them as you need.


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:


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...

It looks like the classes from Paizo will be covering some of the ground well trodden by PFRPG 3rd party publishers. I look forward to seeing how they take the lessons learned in how others have implemented the concepts and make something even better.


Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

Cheapy, you are correct in what I meant regarding the Luckbringer class. Thanks for not interpreting it in a more negative light.

Well, I guess I will have to live without the Runecaster-like class I was hoping for.

Arcanist: I don't know how I feel about this class. I guess I will just have to wait and see.

Bloodrager: I am very excited to see what this class has to offer. So far it sounds like it could ver well be like the berserkers of Celtic mythology and I am all for that!

Brawler: A lot of folks have been clamoring for this class for a very long time and I hope it delivers, but I am not excited for it myself.

Hunter: The descriptor of "lethal accuracy" makes me think of a focus on ranged attacks and the phrase "never without her trusted animal companion" makes be believe that this class will heavily focus on that companion with a druid's companion progression rather than the ranger's. In essence, I think it might have a dynamic more like a summoner/eidolon, but more martial and more similar to the druid and his companion. I hoping it goes for a bounty hunter and tracker feel and doesn't just limit itself to a woodsy huntsman flavor. If it does meet or exceed these expectations, this could very well become a new favorite class of mine.

Investigator: This seems like it will be a Sherlock Holmes/Batman class. I like the sound of it, but I want more sneak and less attack. It sounds like it might be the INT skill guy to the Bard's CHA skill focus and the Inquisitor's WIS skill focus. This is in my top 3 most anticipated for these classes, so I have high hopes for this one.

Shaman: This is the class I am most excited about. I have seen some posts mentioning how this might be a spontaneous, divine caster. I hope not and I don't know where that information is coming from if it isn't just the hopes of those posters. We already have a spontaneous, divine caster in the Oracle and the Cleric, Sorcerer, and Wizard have the other arcane, divine, prepared, spontaneous options covered. I am hoping it is more like an arcane, wilderness caster like the Druid is a divine, wilderness caster. I can envision the shaman with spheres of influence/portfolios like the oracle's revelations (i.e., ancestors, animals, sky, river, etc.), but with with selection of allowed and prohibited hex-like spirit powers and curse-like taboos. But, I would love to see spirit familiars they can use in combat to deliver or assist in the casting of spells or maybe grant bonuses to certain spells based on their patron spirits.

Skald: This has some potential, but I hope there is some marchal/warlord/leadership/stragegist feel to it and is not just a guy who incites a mob mentality in my PCs.

Slayer: This could be really good or it could be really "meh" for me. I hope it has some sort of mysterious and mythic feel to it and isn't just a professional assassin.

Swashbuckler: Like the brawler, this is a long anticipated class for a lot of people and I really hope it works out.

Warpriest: Like a lot of other folks, this class appears to be an effort to allow for the neutral paladins people have been after for a while now. That does not really appeal to me very much.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Are we going to playtest each of thse clases one at a time, or all at once? Will they all be in the playtest docs on Tuesday?


I think the e-mail said all at once.


Cheapy wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Quote:
[#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.

YES.

Now if they'd just make a spellcaster or "Ki Caster" version of the Monk (who's basically ALL Mysticism), my desires would be fulfilled completely. =)

Psion?

I like DP's Psionics stuff (my current favorite Monk alternative was a Gifted Adept Deadly Fist Soulknife), but the Psion's not really the same.

I see the Monk as more of a Divine Caster, for obvious reasons, 3/4 BaB and able to mix it up if he needs to, but mainly focused on his chants and spells and stuff.

I'd basically strip most of the combat and athletics stuff out (leaving the AC bonus, probably), leave the SLA type stuff and the Ki Pool (like Abundant Step), and give him some new abilities, along with probably 6 level casting.


Were did they mention the Brawler and the Skald?


Wasn't it teased early on that there was going to be a paladin/monk mashup in the book? Or am I just getting crossed wires from reading too many Jade Regent stat blocks when the book was first announced?


Your wires are crossed. For a few pages, people were squeeing about the idea of such a mashup. But it was just fans being fans.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Brawler vs. Monk is going to depend on how the Brawler gets things done.

The Monk could be for the nimble blur that evades all attacks and land a half dozen hits on your pressure points and deftly lands behind his enemy who promptly collapses on the ground.

vs.

The Brawler who marches forward takes the hits with a grimace, wipes the blood off his lips and snarls "alright Twinkle toes, get yer ars down here" and lays his foe out with one big solid punch o' doom.

both are the Unarmed combat guy but they do it in very different ways.


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

As you say it there may be adequate justification, but I am wary of any rule which addresses specific other classes. Traditionally, referencing another class has been done by referencing certain iconic class features of that class. For example, referencing barbarians as "the characters who can rage" or Rogues as "the characters who can sneak attack".

Anyway: If Skald/Bards and Bloodrager/Sorcerers are to be banned, what about Skald/Bloodragers? Are they supposed to be banned too? If having a Skald/Bloodrager is OK, then what "tilts the scale" that lets Skald/Bloodragers exist but not the other two?

To me, it seems illogical to capriciously and abitrarily ban certain class combos *in game* solely because of issues that exist *out of game*. We should prefer that there be an in-game issue that prevents a certain combo (such as Barbarian/Monk), because that incompatibility emerges on its own from within the rules, and there's no need to explicitly ban Barbarian/Monks from existing.

So, if the rules designers don't want certain classes to blend together, there needs to be certain limitations built *into the rules* that make sense to people as to why you can't have a Rogue/Slayer, even other than simply saying "Sorry, no Rogue/Slayers".

It would be even better to make use of existing game design techniques. If you don't want a Slayer/Rogue, describe the Slayer's sneak attack as not stacking with the rogue's. Or if you don't want an Arcanist/Wizard, you don't let their caster levels stack or their spells be interchangeable. (An ordinary Wizard/Sorcerer should not be able to interchange spells anymore than a Bard/Wizard should be able to--they are two separate classes with separate sets of spells).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Altogether I have to say i'm a little disappointed, nothing combined with summoner. But I won't give my opinion on any classes until ive seen their playtest rules.

Captain K. wrote:


Skald: The Bardbarian. Hit. Bound to be. I can't imagine how this screaming nutcase won't be an asset to any party. The only problem is not everyone wants to rage and it might be redundant with a Bloodrager or Barbarian in the party.

I certainly hope this will not be a "screaming nutcase" , because that would be a terrible disservice to the great artists this class was named after. Norse and Viking art and culture is underappreciated enough as it is.

Silver Crusade

Dragon78 wrote:
Were did they mention the Brawler and the Skald?

See this interview linked upthread here.

Quote with list of all 10:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

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.


A book of ten classes, *all* of them hybrids, seems like it comes up short...

Suppose the book came with eleven or even twelve classes...

Any possibility we could get a couple non-hybrid classes too [that is, unique and filling a previously unoccupied niche]? Or even just one? A Paizo version of the Luckbringer might be nice. :)

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Shelton wrote:

A book of ten classes, *all* of them hybrids, seems like it comes up short...

It will have archetypes for all those 10 classes, feats, spells, and items. That material will not only support the 10 new classes but established ones as well.

Plus some other cool stuff.

I think it will round out a whole book quite nicely.

Liberty's Edge

Captain K. wrote:
Matrix Dragon wrote:
Very interested in this book! I think making the swashbuckler as a grit using fighter is a great idea. Also, Bloodrager might be usable as the base class version of a dragon disciple that I've been waiting for :D

You are so right. Bloodrager is bound to be great with Dragon Disciple.

RAAAWR

Very much looking forward to this one. I have a magus / DD build all specced out but this is much better. And it makes sense to have a barb-sorc hybrid who runs on passion to complement the fighter-wizard who runs on intellect

My only request that's not on this list is a druiid/cavalier, think beastmaster with spells aka a druid that can have a large bear companion and ride him into battle.


I can kinda see the concern.

Like, imagine all the fighter classes get 2 free feats at lvl1 and 2. And the monks also get that. So you could go 2 level dipping for like 10-12 levels, and unlike spells, BAB and feats stack nicely. Not to mention the saves. Hooooly s&~&, look at dem saves.

I already dip around a lot for martial builds because even with fighter bonus feats, you can always use more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Caedwyr wrote:
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:


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...

It looks like the classes from Paizo will be covering some of the ground well trodden by PFRPG 3rd party publishers. I look forward to seeing how they take the lessons learned in how others have implemented the concepts and make something even better.

Hey thanks for taking time to reply Caedwyr!

On further thought I'm seeing the hybrid choices as definitely insertable/directly applicable to the structure and characteristics of PFS. Which, with a ban on Synthesists, would always/necessarily discount the addition of an Artificer as having too many options for ease of Society play.

So these hybrids, to me, now, are as much about PFS and the direction of PFS gameplay as they are about exciting new mechanics or concepts. I think the ten new hybrids and the reason they are the choices they are really need to looked at through that lens. Momentarily. Then move on. ;)

I'm interested to see how these then are shaped from playtest versions to full PFS-conversant hybrids. Not that I pay PFS - I'm more about the community process than the final results. ;)

* As for an Artificer, I'm sure Paizo will give us an official one just before or after Iron Gods. Because I live in hope. Not that I'd probably play one either, but it would be great to see the mechanical approach from the Paizo devs.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Matthew Shelton wrote:
As you say it there may be adequate justification, but I am wary of any rule which addresses specific other classes...

I think you're misunderstanding what's going on here. The way I understand it, these are all going to be alternate classes. This is a concept that already exists, namely in the forms of the anti-paladin, ninja, and samurai. Alternate classes are basically archetypes that swap so many abilities out they effectively (but not officially) become new classes. The ninja is really just a meaty archetype of the rogue, which is why you can't multiclass rogue with ninja. This is also why ninjas can take rogue archetypes as long as those archetypes only switch out class features the ninja still has.

The idea here is that these new classes will be alternate classes with two parent classes. That's the new ground. A bloodrager can't multiclass with a barbarian or sorcerer because it's already a fancy barbarian archetype and a fancy sorcerer archetype. Interestingly, this also means by default that a skald and a bloodrager can't multiclass because they're both already barbarians.

Personally, I have mixed feelings about these as alternate classes. On the one hand, one thing I really like about existing hybrids like the magus and inquisitor is that if you want them to feel more like one parent class or the other you can do so by multiclassing them with that parent class. A magus 5/fighter 3 feels a lot more like a swordsman who dabbles in magic than a typical magus 8 does, etc.

On the other hand, there are a lot of little fiddly things built into the existing rules that work only with certain classes. There are, for instance, feats that have fighter levels as prerequisites, races who count their Charisma as 2 higher when using sorcerer abilities if they have a particular bloodline, etc. And I like (or at least hope) that building the new classes as alternate classes will mean that they'll enter the system already compatible with many of these things.

I'm honestly not sure which is the bigger consideration for me, but I'm eagerly awaiting the playtest document on Tuesday to see if it sheds any light on the situation. I trust the design team to consider these sorts of things before sharing anything with the public, and if anything needs cleaning up, I'm sure the public will catch it.


I'm pretty disappointed in the whole thing a bit too, because a MoMS Monk and Brawler multiclass would be awesome, I think.

Unless the Brawler has Fuse Styles...?

Here's hoping.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Benn Roe wrote:
On the one hand, one thing I really like about existing hybrids like the magus and inquisitor is that if you want them to feel more like one parent class or the other you can do so by multiclassing them with that parent class. A magus 5/fighter 3 feels a lot more like a swordsman who dabbles in magic than a typical magus 8 does, etc.

On the other hand, a Magus 5/Wizard 3 is worse at both spellcasting and fighting than a Magus 8.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
As for an Artificer, I'm sure Paizo will give us an official one just before or after Iron Gods. Because I live in hope. Not that I'd probably play one either, but it would be great to see the mechanical approach from the Paizo devs.

I think on issue with doing an artificer is that it would require a lot of additional rules to do it, and do it well. Rules about magic item enhancement, disenchanting, magic item creation, boosting spells. And I am just going off roughly what I remember about Eberron's artificer, which is NOT to say that Paizo would do it the same way.

But you get what I'm saying? It's my opinion that it would require additional rules that were independent of the class in order to make them work, as well as mesh with all the existing synergies that exist in the game now.


I just had a beautiful realization: The Investigator class is ideal for followers of Zohls.

http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Zohls


So where will one find the playtest material? This is looking to be the first playtest I'd be able to be involved in and I'd really like to.


Axial wrote:

I just had a beautiful realization: The Investigator class is ideal for followers of Zohls.

http://pathfinderwiki.com/wiki/Zohls

Nice stuff. Neutral Good Detective of Zohls whose willing to break the rules to do whats right.

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

The Golux wrote:
So where will one find the playtest material? This is looking to be the first playtest I'd be able to be involved in and I'd really like to.

You have not missed out. You can't find it right now because it is not available yet. It starts on this Tuesday the 19th. If you come back then, I promise there will be clear pointers on how to obtain it. It's not a one day deal or anything either, you'll be able to get it after Tuesday as well.


I was hoping one of the last classes might be a Dreadnaught: Fighter(or Barbarian)/Paladin hybrid with more martial slant, able to be the alignment of his or her god. Smite abilities, extra feats, some sort of divine resistance. Maybe introduce crusader style strikes from tome of battle. "3 +1/2 character level + charisma the Dreadnaught make make a divine strike" then add a bunch of powers he could select from like learning rage powers or mercies that would let him heal himself or others when he hits things, add smite type damage, banish outsiders, all kinds of fun things.

That said, the last two reveals are two of the concepts I fool around with the most when tooling around on my computer trying to make characters. Can't wait for the 19th.


Jim Groves wrote:
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
As for an Artificer, I'm sure Paizo will give us an official one just before or after Iron Gods. Because I live in hope. Not that I'd probably play one either, but it would be great to see the mechanical approach from the Paizo devs.

I think on issue with doing an artificer is that it would require a lot of additional rules to do it, and do it well. Rules about magic item enhancement, disenchanting, magic item creation, boosting spells. And I am just going off roughly what I remember about Eberron's artificer, which is NOT to say that Paizo would do it the same way.

But you get what I'm saying?It's my opinion that it would require additional rules that were independent of the class in order to make them work, as well as mesh with all the existing synergies that exist in the game now.

[Emphasis mine]

Sure Jim. Or rather, I already said it in the same post you quoted from:

Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
On further thought I'm seeing the hybrid choices as definitely insertable/directly applicable to the structure and characteristics of PFS. Which, with a ban on Synthesists, would always/necessarily discount the addition of an Artificer as having too many options for ease of Society play.

The same follows for regular play. A perception that there are too many options. However, the critically acclaimed Macinesmith and Tinker seem to suggest it is eminently possible.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm really hoping that the Shaman has a version that is more of a Spiritist, Medium... say what you will, but someone who interacts with actual spirits of the dead instead of just a shaman who is only nature and animal totem based.
I have been trying to create a character like this for awhile now, and the best thing I could come up with is a Druid (Menhir Savant) for the spirit detection at 1st level, Cleric (for the Soul domain), Oracle (for the Ancestor mystery and the Haunted curse). She ends up with a nice theme and some great powers, but loses a lot having to multiclass that much.
If they go with a "character haunted by spirits / uses them for spellcasting) option, even if it's an Archetype (YOU HEAR THAT, BULMAHN?), I will be in heaven.

RPG Superstar 2009, Contributor

16 people marked this as a favorite.

I just got back from the first night of the local convention (MACE) here in Charlotte, NC. Jason Bulmahn is the Gaming Guest of Honor and he held a panel called "What's New With Paizo?" wherein he talked about the Advanced Class Guide (among other things). Here's some additional takeaways based on what he shared while giving a rundown on each of the new hybrid classes:

Spoiler:

Arcanist - It's basically a sorcerer/wizard mash-up wherein he gets to prepare his spell slots once per day, but then casts them like a sorcerer. As a result of this arcane power expansion, he has a bit more limited spell selection than the typical sorcerer. He also has to designate both a bloodline and a school in which he focuses his magic. And, he determines (or prepares?) which bloodline powers or school powers he gets.

Bloodrager - Definitely a barbarian/sorcerer mash-up. Selects a bloodline, but any powers derived from the bloodline are only available while raging. His rage is basically an arcane intensifier. And, as a result, he can obviously cast spells while raging.

Brawler - This class is the fighter/monk mash-up. It discards all the mysticism of the monk (i.e., ki, etc.) and steers straight into becoming the full BAB, quintessential combat maneuver opponent utilizing unarmed combat. He gets some weapon selection, too, and can apparently wear light armor.

Hunter - This is a druid/ranger mash-up focusing pretty heavily on the tandem of a hunter with an animal companion. Both he and the animal companion get teamwork feats which they can obviously use in synergy with one another.

Investigator - An alchemist/rogue mash-up designed to blend in a Sherlock Holmes and Dr. Jekyll vibe. The Jekyll component isn't so much focused on becoming your own monster (though there'll likely be an archetype for that). Instead, it's the ultimate smart guy investigator using precision strike combat methods and intelligent alchemy to solve mysteries.

Shaman - This guy is an oracle/witch mash-up. It's a divine caster which communes with his familiar in a witch-like fashion. He chooses a type of spirit which guides him which is reflected in the familiar. The available spirits are very similar to oracle mysteries in that they're generic stuff like Battle and Earth, etc. A shaman with a fire spirit would have a familiar that resembled a fiery creature. And so on. At higher levels, he also gets what's called a "wandering spirit" which lets him basically swap around various abilities and feats as he prepares himself each day by communing with the spirit world.

Skald - This is the bard/barbarian mash-up. He can initiate a performance which inspires rage in himself and his allies. Those who hear his performance don't necessarily have to accept the rage, however. They can ignore it to stay cool, calm, and collected. That way, the wizard doesn't spontaneously forego his spellcasting and throw himself into battle just because the skald offered up a rousing performance.

Slayer - A ranger/rogue mash-up that strips away all the nature-based stuff of the ranger and blends the favored enemy leftovers with the combat rogue's deadliness. At higher levels, it gains a death attack ability like an assassin. And, no, you don't have to be evil to be a slayer. So, yes, it's a lot like playing an assassin as a full 20-level class. You just don't get the assassin's deadliest attack until you advance far enough for it to become a granted class ability. In combat, he effectively gets to fixate on an opponent to take out his slayer's aggression. At higher levels, he can designate more than one opponent for the effect.

Swashbuckler This is the fighter/gunslinger mash-up. It's not focused on firearms (though it'll likely include a way of adding that to the base build via an archetype or something). He trades out the gunslinger's grit for a swashbuckler's panache. Mechanically, it works very similar, basically giving the swashbuckler a means to carry out all kinds of derring-do in the midst of combat. And, speaking of combat, he's very much focused on light, one-handed melee weapons while wearing little to no armor. He also gets to toss around plenty of witty repartee.

Warpriest This is the cleric/fighter mash-up. It's a way of creating combat-capable priests without going straight into paladin. Heavier armor is granted with full BAB, but spell selection is a bit more limited as a result. Presumably, he's going to have some other divine abilities capable of calling down the wrath of the gods.


Hope that helps fill in a few more gaps for folks,
--Neil

1,551 to 1,600 of 2,258 << first < prev | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Paizo Blog: Advanced Class Guide All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.