Advanced Class Guide

Zark wrote:

Rage can actually be a nerf on other party members. They can’t use charisma and Int skills and they can’t cast spells. I really hope this isn’t all about inciting fury and anger in party members and going on a murderous rampage.

There's another bit from Jason Buhlman that Neil Spicer posted which specifies that it lets the Skald throw their party members into a Rage, but only if they CHOOSE to. It won't forcibly shut down casters. =)

Yes, I just noticed this, but I don’t like the sound of it. Inspire courage is still better.

Say the Skald throws her willing Paladin/Warpriest ally into a Rage, but then a round later The Paladin/Warpriest needs to use Lay on Hand and she can't. It is the same problem with all hybrid classes, Alchemist, Magus, Cleric, Druid, Inqvisitor, Bard, etc. If it is off you get no benefits, when it is on you can't use spells, etc.

This is why I hate themes. A bard-Barbarian must inspire Rage, even though Inspire courage would be cooler and more versatile.

I’m not gonna say I don’t like the Skald until I’ve seen it, but I’m not really positive. I hope the play test proves me wrong.

I'm hoping that the iconic Brawler is a female halfling or gnome.

Now I want to make a bloodrager archetype for halflings based around all the abilities Sandy (the baby) demonstrates in The Croods.

I can't wait for the playtest, then I will be able to judge how much I like or dislike each one.

OK, let's see what we have pre-perusal:

Arcanist: Giving a sorcerer some of the versatility of the wizard while lowering the number of types of spells available each day is a new and intriguing look at magic. I'm interested to see what this looks like.

Bloodrager: Right out of Celtic and Norse mythology. Really excited for this one! Probably should have been called a Berserker, but that's alright.

Brawler: This takes what currently uses up a lot of feats to create and makes them class features. And an additional non-magic class. Could be what the combat monk advocates have been looking for.

Hunter: The Sheena/Beastmaster class. Once again—like the Brawler—you could build something like this with multi-classing and feats. Here we have it as class features. An iconic fantasy staple may be addressed here.

Investigator: An emphasis on role-playing class. Mysteries are a very different beast for fantasy adventures, but can be very effective when done right. The private investigator is a classic of modern fiction, but how well will it translate into fantasy? Sam Spade opening a branch office in Absalom? Could be very cool...or horribly hokey. Let's see how they do.

Shaman: This one is very different from what I thought it would be. More spirit focus than tribal focus. Could be intriguing. I like that because of the combo used, it can multiclass with druid levels.

Skald: I'm a little hesitant on this and will have to see the full class to appreciate it I think. If done right it will be an intriguing class of poets inspiring followers into feats of courage and frenzied battle. If done wrong, it could just be a meh level let down.

Slayer: Finally! A non-evil assassin! It has been many years in coming and at last we have a 1-20 base class assassin without (hopefully) alignment restrictions. Also a second non-magic using class. We need more of these.

Swashbuckler: Right, what we need to see are 1)Good AC and defenses with light to no armour; 2)Ability to hit regularly with light, fast weapons; 3)Ability to decent front-line combat level damage with afore mentioned weaponry; 4)Good skill selection and skill points, especially in the social and athletic skills; & 5)Death-Defying Deeds of Daring-Do! Get all that in a reasonably balanced package, and you will create a swashbuckler worthy of the name. And that is the third non-magic class! Fantastic!

Warpriest: A place between the paladin and the cleric, allowing non-lawful good types to have their holy warriors. Good application for a much needed niche.

All in all, I'm looking forward to reading the initial setup. I'll come back with an initial impression upon first read sometime next week to see how the sampling holds up.

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:

Thanks, Neil! That was super helpful.

Cheers!
Landon

@Feros: A good summary. I hope Swashbuckler can use Scimitars and other one handed weapons, so she isn't forced just to use just rapier and light weapons.

Even though I don’t like to play classes with pets I’m glad they give us a Beastmaster type of class. The Concept is classic and as you put it: “An iconic fantasy staple may be addressed here”.

Over all an interesting selection of classes.

Edit:
The one thing I personally would have liked but isn’t addressed is a shifter type class.

Well come to think of it a Marshal type class (Bard/fighter) would have been nice too.

I also know a lot of people wanted a Warlock, a maker/Engineer/Artificer/Tinker class ..... and Psionics.

I'd love to see a cross between the Wizard (Necromancer School) and the Bone Oracle. Sort of like the Dread Necromancer from the Heroes of Horror 3.5 D&D Book. A caster able to wear armor and use 1 martial weapon and still wield the powers to deal negative energy damage and control/create undead. As alternate archetypes they could have the "White Necromancer" who serve Pharasma to destroy undead and deal positive energy damage or heal.

Just my two-cents :)

I can see some nice synergy between the bloodrager and skald. Makes me want a party with these two classes, and both being siblings.

Bloodrager, Skald, Warpriest, Hunter, and Brawler are the ones that interest me now, after reading Spicer's post. Arcanist, Swashbuckler, Investigator, Slayer, and Shaman are less interesting now.

I can't wait for the playtest, then I will be able to judge how much I like or dislike each one.

Your post does not belong in this thread.

This is why I hate themes. .

You hate THEMES? Who hates THEMES? That's like hating FLAVOURS.

Without themes all that we have is a game of Mathematics and Spreadsheets. I've heard of people who do accounting as a hobby. Those people frighten me in profound ways.

xevious573 wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

I recall the Florida seasons:

Fall - Dec, Jan
Spring - Feb, March
Summer - Everything else.

Ross! Get back to Paizo and tell them to release the playtest! You're our only hope!

Sorry, I'm in Southern California now, where the only season is 'Spring'.

I though the seasons there were earthquake fire mudslide and riot?

Zark wrote:

This is why I hate themes. .

You hate THEMES? Who hates THEMES? That's like hating FLAVOURS.

"Some things are unpleasantly bitter. I hate all flavours now."

Without themes all that we have is a game of Mathematics and Spreadsheets. I've heard of people who do accounting as a hobby. Those people frighten me in profound ways.

You've pick my quote out of contex.

Allright, I don’t always hate themes, but I hate them when they are turning into straits jackets and prevents people from thinking outside the box.

I think the Oracle Bonus Spells list and the Cleric domain spells are both good examples of this (so are Archetypes).

Why can’t a wind oracle have shield or even haste as bonus spells? You just need to add some fluff and they both would work perfectly. Reason: The spell’s name gotta match the theme.

So yes, I do hate or at least dislike themes when they hinder creativity.

Rynjin wrote:

Zark wrote:

Rage can actually be a nerf on other party members. They can’t use charisma and Int skills and they can’t cast spells. I really hope this isn’t all about inciting fury and anger in party members and going on a murderous rampage.

There's another bit from Jason Buhlman that Neil Spicer posted which specifies that it lets the Skald throw their party members into a Rage, but only if they CHOOSE to. It won't forcibly shut down casters. =)

Yes, I just noticed this, but I don’t like the sound of it. Inspire courage is still better.

Say the Skald throws her willing Paladin/Warpriest ally into a Rage, but then a round later The Paladin/Warpriest needs to use Lay on Hand and she can't. It is the same problem with all hybrid classes, Alchemist, Magus, Cleric, Druid, Inqvisitor, Bard, etc. If it is off you get no benefits, when it is on you can't use spells, etc.

This is why I hate themes. A bard-Barbarian must inspire Rage, even though Inspire courage would be cooler and more versatile.

I’m not gonna say I don’t like the Skald until I’ve seen it, but I’m not really positive. I hope the play test proves me wrong.

I dunno, for me, a bardbarian with an ability like incite rage is much cooler than Just Another Inspire Courage.

And remember... this is a bard/barbarian. Not a savage skald/barbarian.

I'm intrigued, and looking forward to the playtest.

Despite concerns I too will be picked on by Jim Groves ;) I felt the need to say this.

Much of what I'm hearing is "I hate this! I hate that! Paizo dropped the ball by not doing what I wanted!"

The problem is, people are going to go into the Beta-test with preconceptions that have been made vocal and have possibly flavored other people's preconceptions as well.

Take a deep breath and a step back. Release your preconceptions, your hopes, your concerns. This beta-test will be out on Tuesday. Then read these classes as if it were for the first time. Don't look at it as something you were hoping for or something you were dreading seeing... and instead just look at each class for how and where they work... and how and where they don't work.

These ten classes are what Paizo is working with. Your griping and complaints won't change this. Instead, let's do everything possible to make these the ten best classes that Paizo ever created for a product. Because ultimately, by finding the flaws and break-points of these classes and repairing them will make them enjoyable even for people who dislike the concept.

Guys, help me fill this out:

Arcanist- Batman
bloodrager- Batman
brawler- Batman
investigator- Batman
hunter- Batman
shaman- Alfred
slayer- Tom Araya
skald- Justin Beiber (voice makes people fly into a rage, right?) (Might be Tom Araya again, actually.)
swashbuckler- The Scarlet Pumpernickel
warpriest- Thor

Fixed that for you.

Zark wrote:

Rynjin wrote:

Zark wrote:

Rage can actually be a nerf on other party members. They can’t use charisma and Int skills and they can’t cast spells. I really hope this isn’t all about inciting fury and anger in party members and going on a murderous rampage.

There's another bit from Jason Buhlman that Neil Spicer posted which specifies that it lets the Skald throw their party members into a Rage, but only if they CHOOSE to. It won't forcibly shut down casters. =)

Yes, I just noticed this, but I don’t like the sound of it. Inspire courage is still better.

Say the Skald throws her willing Paladin/Warpriest ally into a Rage, but then a round later The Paladin/Warpriest needs to use Lay on Hand and she can't. It is the same problem with all hybrid classes, Alchemist, Magus, Cleric, Druid, Inqvisitor, Bard, etc. If it is off you get no benefits, when it is on you can't use spells, etc.

This is why I hate themes. A bard-Barbarian must inspire Rage, even though Inspire courage would be cooler and more versatile.

I’m not gonna say I don’t like the Skald until I’ve seen it, but I’m not really positive. I hope the play test proves me wrong.

I dunno, for me, a bardbarian with an ability like incite rage is much cooler than Just Another Inspire Courage.

And remember... this is a bard/barbarian. Not a savage skald/barbarian.

Listen. It is no big deal. The book seems cool and we will get some really useful and cool new classes. I'm really happy we get a full BAB warpriest and Swashbuckler is what I have been waiting for every since I stared playing this game. Bloodrager and Arcanist both look appealing.

But when it comes to Bards I'm very sensitive. Bard = Versatile. There is nothing versatile about Incite Rage. I dislike it very much. Inspire courage on the other hand can anyone benefit from, even wizards, a bonus to saves are always nice and a bonus to hit is good if you use rays or any spell that requires an attack roll.

This class feels more rage than bard/versatile. Again, I know this is only speculation from my part, but my gut tells me I’m right in feeling worried.

Perhaps I’m wrong and I will love this class, but this is starting to give me Rage Prophet vibes, and I dislike the Rage Prophet tremendously. Funny if it turns out the other way? Me loving the Skald and you disliking it? ;)

stuff

Na, it is cool. We are just excited and I can't say I have sen anyone demanding Paizo to change what classes will be in the book.

Also, it is actually OK not to like everything. Some people like full casters, some like 6/9 casters some like martial/full BAB classes. It is fine.

I think we all want these 10 classes to be the best classes they can give us, but not all of us like all classes. If my GM let me I will swap my Paladin for a warpriest. Or perhaps we take a break for two weeks and just play a shorter adventure and play test the new classes. If we do, no one will play test the Shaman, because none of us like those kinds of classes. And perhaps you gaming group will play test the Shaman, but no one wants to play test the Brawler. That is fine too.

In light of all the hybrid classes, here's a suggestion that might work best for the long run, but I'm guessing will not get used.

The Advanced Class Guide seems to be a perfect place to introduce the Talented versions of the existing classes (See Rogue Genius Guides to the Talented <CLASS>. After all, thats what the hybrid classes appear to be for a large part, just particular builds of a talented class. None of these classes appear to be a new concept that do not fit under the existing classes. They just appear to be new classes because the existing system does not work well when building these concepts, even though it claims they fit the general idea of what the original classes should be. Any new abilities that are added can likely be made fit as an edge or talent.

The Brawler is the class I am most interested in.

I've Multiclassed or Gestalted Fighters and monks together for years. I want the full BAB and the increasing unarmed damage.

The Monk is for a Wuxia style, the Brawler for Bruce Lee (Enter the Dragon) and other "down to earth" martial artists.

I love both archtypes but the second has been harder to make. I'm excited.

The Arcanist will be interesting to see, but I've houseruled Magic-User/Wizards that way since 1st Edition - Prepare what spells you have for the day, but you can cast however many of each until you run out of spells of that level.

Investigator - I'll see what archtypes are available - I don't like sneak attack as a mechanic... not that it is bad, but not to my tastes. I love the concept but I hate sneak attack.

Others look interesting. But the Brawler is the class I am most excited about.

In light of all the hybrid classes, here's a suggestion that might work best for the long run, but I'm guessing will not get used.

The Advanced Class Guide seems to be a perfect place to introduce the Talented versions of the existing classes (See Rogue Genius Guides to the Talented <CLASS>. After all, thats what the hybrid classes appear to be for a large part, just particular builds of a talented class. None of these classes appear to be a new concept that do not fit under the existing classes. They just appear to be new classes because the existing system does not work well when building these concepts, even though it claims they fit the general idea of what the original classes should be. Any new abilities that are added can likely be made fit as an edge or talent.

I haven't seen much interest at all in Paizo taking play/class mechanics from 3rd pp. They support 3rd PP, but I think overall they would rather do their own thing (see Dreamscarred Psionics).

Caedwyr wrote:

In light of all the hybrid classes, here's a suggestion that might work best for the long run, but I'm guessing will not get used.

The Advanced Class Guide seems to be a perfect place to introduce the Talented versions of the existing classes (See Rogue Genius Guides to the Talented <CLASS>. After all, thats what the hybrid classes appear to be for a large part, just particular builds of a talented class. None of these classes appear to be a new concept that do not fit under the existing classes. They just appear to be new classes because the existing system does not work well when building these concepts, even though it claims they fit the general idea of what the original classes should be. Any new abilities that are added can likely be made fit as an edge or talent.

I haven't seen much interest at all in Paizo taking play/class mechanics from 3rd pp. They support 3rd PP, but I think overall they would rather do their own thing (see Dreamscarred Psionics).

Paizo's actually fine with using third party stuff. They'd rather make the classes in-house (which is understandable), but from what I've gathered, the lack of 3rd party usage is more because freelancer contributors aren't sending any in.

They have actually used some DSP stuff (Dragon's Demand uses some psionic powers), and they do use a lot of 3rd party monsters.

The next great frontier is 3pp player options.

MMCJawa wrote:

Caedwyr wrote:

In light of all the hybrid classes, here's a suggestion that might work best for the long run, but I'm guessing will not get used.

The Advanced Class Guide seems to be a perfect place to introduce the Talented versions of the existing classes (See Rogue Genius Guides to the Talented <CLASS>. After all, thats what the hybrid classes appear to be for a large part, just particular builds of a talented class. None of these classes appear to be a new concept that do not fit under the existing classes. They just appear to be new classes because the existing system does not work well when building these concepts, even though it claims they fit the general idea of what the original classes should be. Any new abilities that are added can likely be made fit as an edge or talent.

I haven't seen much interest at all in Paizo taking play/class mechanics from 3rd pp. They support 3rd PP, but I think overall they would rather do their own thing (see Dreamscarred Psionics).

Paizo's actually fine with using third party stuff. They'd rather make the classes in-house (which is understandable), but from what I've gathered, the lack of 3rd party usage is more because freelancer contributors aren't sending any in.

They have actually used some DSP stuff (Dragon's Demand uses some psionic powers), and they do use a lot of 3rd party monsters.

Yeah, I would just say there is a difference between 3rd party monsters and actual classes. I think a few 3rd party feats have also made it in.

I would still say my original point is valid...it' seems unlikely they are going to incorporate Talented versions from Super Genius games into play. Especially since I don't think the developers see a problem with classes like the monk or rouge, and see the complaints as amounting to playstyle differences.

Yes, I agree that they won't be using the classes anytime soon.

But, FWIW, I asked the design team at PaizoCon what class they'd re-do given the chance.

Jason and Stephen both blurted out "Oh god, the monk."

Sean just grinned.

Paizo talk very warmly of 3rd pp. I’ve even seen Paizo promoting the Dreamscarred’s Psionics, not only once but again and again.

www.d20pfsrd.com also helps promoting 3rd pp. I’ve bought some 3rd pp stuff and I must say you get a lot for your money’s worth. At least the stuff I bought :)

This interview with Lisa on 3rd pp is awesome (although not complete):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ef12FkXbk44.

Caedwyr wrote:

In light of all the hybrid classes, here's a suggestion that might work best for the long run, but I'm guessing will not get used.

The Advanced Class Guide seems to be a perfect place to introduce the Talented versions of the existing classes (See Rogue Genius Guides to the Talented <CLASS>. After all, thats what the hybrid classes appear to be for a large part, just particular builds of a talented class. None of these classes appear to be a new concept that do not fit under the existing classes. They just appear to be new classes because the existing system does not work well when building these concepts, even though it claims they fit the general idea of what the original classes should be. Any new abilities that are added can likely be made fit as an edge or talent.

I haven't seen much interest at all in Paizo taking play/class mechanics from 3rd pp. They support 3rd PP, but I think overall they would rather do their own thing (see Dreamscarred Psionics).

They actually have on occasion, imported 3PP creatures into thier scenarios and modules. And they give due credit when they do so.

I can't wait for this. I told my group about the play test last night. They are xo excited they decided to postpone Wrath of the Righteous to test these. We have 3 GMs in the group and so are going to try something another GM wants to do which is a collaborative game where we know what the monsters can do and plan the monster tactics and the group to their full potential. Since there are 5 of us we already have the classes we will test first selected.

We will be using:

Bloodrager- This player has called this class since it was announced

Brawler- My monk player called this one as she thinks she would love it

Skald- The group's divine caster thought this would be tons of fun

Swashbuckler- My insane player already acts like one so it will be interesting to see what he does when given class mechanics to do what he RPS and uses skills for

Warpriest- Will be me. I think it could be interesting and it is the first time I have been interested in a divine class

The Brawler is the class I am most interested in.

I've Multiclassed or Gestalted Fighters and monks together for years. I want the full BAB and the increasing unarmed damage.

The Monk is for a Wuxia style, the Brawler for Bruce Lee (Enter the Dragon) and other "down to earth" martial artists.

I love both archtypes but the second has been harder to make. I'm excited.

Okay, I have to disagree there. While I may not agree complete with the representation of mechanics, I see Bruce Lee as a Martial Artist monk. His ability comes with a lot of discipline and practice, which is what a monk is all about. Now, the Brawler is more like Andre the Giant or some giant bruiser.

That said, I'm excited too. *high five*

A couple of points about a couple of these classes...though I am going to with hold in judgement till I see the play test.

The Arcanist: I really just don't see the point here. It kinda of like a 'arcane caster for dummies' kind of class. It will really have to Wow me to get me to like this class.

The Skald: Gave a me a awesome idea for a villain...a hate-mongering villain. A villain who causes strife and such.

Ain't nothin' wrong wit Arcane Caster For Dummies.

I'd almost go so far to say that it's necessary at this point.

Ain't nothin' wrong wit Arcane Caster For Dummies.

I'd almost go so far to say that it's necessary at this point.

+1

We been playing for alomst 10 years and we really need a (full) Arcane Caster For Dummies :)

Does the Arcanist choose its spells known for the day, then cast like a sorcerer? Seems versatile and easy to use. Kind of reminds me of the 3.5 spirit shaman, but all arcaney.

Does the Arcanist choose its spells known for the day, then cast like a sorcerer? Seems versatile and easy to use. Kind of reminds me of the 3.5 spirit shaman, but all arcaney.

Not sure about the spirit shaman comparison (my only exposure to the class was in Neverwinter Nights 2), but that's my understanding. The arcanist gets to prepare fewer spells than a wizard, and cast fewer spells than a sorcerer, but makes up for it by being effectively a sorcerer that gets to choose their spells known at the start of each adventuring day.

Yes! My sister will be testing the Slayer as she wanted to play an assassin type this time around.

I might be able to get my mom to play an investigator as she likes to play rogues with that flair

7 new multiclass spellcasters: not at all interested. there's too many spellcasting classes already, IMO.

Investigator: I really liked the alchemist as kind of the anti-caster, so I'm anxious to see where this one goes.

Swashbuckler: I personally don't see a need for this class. The concept can be perfectly made within the existing class selections by carefully choosing your feats and skill ranks.

Slayer: Now we're talking. Been waiting for an assassin base class since 1st edition. SGG's shadow assassin is pretty good, but not quite deadly enough.

So, thusfar 1/5 of the book holds any value for me. definitely not an auto-buy, but perhaps a birthday gift suggestion for next year...Unless the playtest documents turn out to be AMAZINGLY COOL, which could happen.

Why not add Inner Sea Pirate as a class and Treasure Hunter?

Largely, these ten classes are a hit.

First, we get some nice game patches: Brawler (non-mystic Monk, perhaps with a pit fighting gladiator archetype?), Slayer (spell-less Ranger, skirmisher and scout) and Warpriest (Lawful Good not required Paladin).

Second, we get support for missing or undersupported fantasy genre archetypes: Hunter (Beastmaster), Shaman (Witch Doctor and Animist), Swashbuckler and Bloodrager (Bezerker would be a more Metal name, errata it please!).

Third, we get some niche-y RP spice stirred into the stew: Skald (non-poncy Bard variant), Arcanist (gimme an archtype that lets me play a D&D and/or WoW Warlock please) and Investigator (another expert type, yea!).

That said what I really want is a Trickster base class! While I can portmaneu a Rogue/Magus multiclass into a Beguiler sort of character, it requires alot of system mastery and character optimization to be effective. A base class trickster would allow more flexibility.

Imagine a Trickster class with Rogue skill points, light armor, limited weapons and Int based spontaneous arcane spell casting of predominately illusion, enchantment and possibly polymorph subschool arcane spells. Witch hexes could be added by feats or archetype.

Limit the Trickster with d6 hit dice and none of the Rogue's dodge, evasion, rogue talents. The trickster wouldn't get sneak attack damage dice, instead Tricksters would get a diversion/misdirection ability allowing a Trickster or an ally to sneak in another action -- single attack, quickened spell, etc.

I guess I gotta wait for the Ultimate Class Guide (hint, hint) for my Trickster. When you release the Ultimate Class Guide in 2016, complete with a social combat module to handle negotiation, seduction and haggling which enables Aristocrat, Fixer, Merchant, Diplomat PC classes, don't forget to file the serial numbers off of the WOTC 3rd edition rules for Artificer (call it an Engineer) and Warlock (call it a Cabalist, perhaps) and buy the IP rights for Rite Publishing's Luckbringer, TPK Press's Malfactor and Dreamscarred Press's entire Psionics catalog -- get cracking Paizo. :)

@avatarless´: Investigator could very well turn out to be a trickster kind of a class. Especially since there will be archetypes in the book.

7 new multiclass spellcasters: not at all interested. there's too many spellcasting classes already, IMO.

Investigator: I really liked the alchemist as kind of the anti-caster, so I'm anxious to see where this one goes.

Swashbuckler: I personally don't see a need for this class. The concept can be perfectly made within the existing class selections by carefully choosing your feats and skill ranks.

Slayer: Now we're talking. Been waiting for an assassin base class since 1st edition. SGG's shadow assassin is pretty good, but not quite deadly enough.

So, thusfar 1/5 of the book holds any value for me. definitely not an auto-buy, but perhaps a birthday gift suggestion for next year...Unless the playtest documents turn out to be AMAZINGLY COOL, which could happen.

I count 4 with no magical capabilities (one of them might have some): Slayer, Brawler, Swashbuckler, and Hunter (all descriptions point to nonmagical). Bloodrager and possibly Warpriest seem to have very limited casting ability. Investigator has magical powers, even though he isn't a spellcaster. Shaman, Arcanist, and Skald seem to be the true spellcasters.

Of course, not sure how much casting the bloodrager and warpriest have (are they 4-level like the paladin, or 6 like the bard?). I see nothing mentioning spellcasting ability with the Hunter, as it looks like the thing they draw from the druid class is the full list of animal companions and getting the animal at 1st level instead of 4th.

Personally, I only look forward to the skald, bloodrager, hunter, and brawler. Of course, there will more than likely be a number of options for the CRB, UM, and APG classes in this book as well. Plus lots of feats and magic items, though I am sure the majority will be tailored toward the new classes. Plus, there's a good chance for archetypes for all the classes as well.

I am looking forward to Tuesday so I can get a better idea of what each class entails. Who knows, I may actually like the other 6 classes.

Warning: I haven't read all 1600+ posts prior to this. Also, some wild speculation ahead.

I do wonder if Paizo isn't taking the long view of things and playtesting class features they might incorporate into an eventual 2nd edition. Not saying it's on the horizon, but it would make sense. A lot of these hybrid classes could eventually subsume existing classes. Anyway, some thoughts:

Hunter and shaman sound like a good way of splitting the druid into its component parts. Shaman also sounds to me like a better base for the concepts of the druid, oracle, and witch, which I could see as archetypes for a single class (in concept, not their current execution).

Warpriest seems redundant given that we have paladins, war clerics, battle oracles, and inquisitors. But I agree about needing paladins of all alignments. I'm sure "Crusader" has already been suggested as an alternate name. I'd like to see something like this subsume the paladin and inquisitor, eventually. Given the function of archetypes, there's no need for three (four? five?) holy warrior classes.

Not sure about slayers. Not a very evocative name, but I guess "assassin" was taken. Could be a good way of consolidating the offensive techniques of the ranger, inquisitor, and rogue. Rangers always seemed a bit hodge-podge to me anyway, so splitting them into hunters and slayers makes sense.

Brawlers might be a bit like gunslingers; it's a concept covered by fighter, but it needs its own class to shine. Not sure I feel the same way about swashbucklers and skalds.

I like the thematic parallel between the bloodrager and magus. Agreed that the name is bad, but it's hard to think of an alternative. "Totemist"?

The Arcanist sounds similar to D&D 5th edition's arcane caster in that it tries to compromise the two spellcasting systems. I like the idea as a replacement, but seems excessive as an additional class.

Investigator sounds interesting, but as a concept sounds better suited as an alchemist/rogue prestige class than it would a base class. It's really specific. How many detectives in fiction also brew magic potions?

Harry Blackstone Copperfield Dresden, conjure by it at your own risk.

...I still think that a Verdant bloodline would be hilarious for a bloodrager...

I might be in the minority, but I'm pretty pumped about the Arcanist. I basically see it as the iconic Harry Potter class; a spellcaster who spontaneously casts spells, but for whom studying has a noticeable (and important) benefit.

Investigator sounds interesting, but as a concept sounds better suited as an alchemist/rogue prestige class than it would a base class. It's really specific. How many detectives in fiction also brew magic potions?

That is why I think it works best as a full class. That allows for archtypes that exchange abilities to better model your character. Also as other people have said before, I would like to play my concept from 1st level. (I had an Idea for halfing forenics based detective for a while and have been thinking of the best way to "mechanics" him.) These points go for the other new classes as well.

I think Investigator is a bad name for an alchemist/rogue combo.Same as "bloodrager" just does sound too specific for a base class,I hope the names get changed to something that fits a broader range of character concepts.

BTW Do we have to sign up anywhere to participate in the playtest?

Warning: I haven't read all 1600+ posts prior to this. Also, some wild speculation ahead.

I do wonder if Paizo isn't taking the long view of things and playtesting class features they might incorporate into an eventual 2nd edition. Not saying it's on the horizon, but it would make sense. A lot of these hybrid classes could eventually subsume existing classes. Anyway, some thoughts:

Hunter and shaman sound like a good way of splitting the druid into its component parts. Shaman also sounds to me like a better base for the concepts of the druid, oracle, and witch, which I could see as archetypes for a single class (in concept, not their current execution).

Warpriest seems redundant given that we have paladins, war clerics, battle oracles, and inquisitors. But I agree about needing paladins of all alignments. I'm sure "Crusader" has already been suggested as an alternate name. I'd like to see something like this subsume the paladin and inquisitor, eventually. Given the function of archetypes, there's no need for three (four? five?) holy warrior classes.

Not sure about slayers. Not a very evocative name, but I guess "assassin" was taken. Could be a good way of consolidating the offensive techniques of the ranger, inquisitor, and rogue. Rangers always seemed a bit hodge-podge to me anyway, so splitting them into hunters and slayers makes sense.

Brawlers might be a bit like gunslingers; it's a concept covered by fighter, but it needs its own class to shine. Not sure I feel the same way about swashbucklers and skalds.

I like the thematic parallel between the bloodrager and magus. Agreed that the name is bad, but it's hard to think of an alternative. "Totemist"?

The Arcanist sounds similar to D&D 5th edition's arcane caster in that it tries to compromise the two spellcasting systems. I like the idea as a replacement, but seems excessive as an additional class.

Investigator sounds interesting, but as a concept sounds better suited as an alchemist/rogue prestige class than it would a base class....

I suspect they are playtesting in the sense of "If these mechanics prove popular, we will use them in the next edition." I don't think it's anything more focused on that, as I suspect we won't get another edition of the core rules for 4-5 years. My feeling from spending time here though is that Paizo is more interesting in splitting up classes (see the hybrid classes here) than it is merging them.

I think Investigator is a bad name for an alchemist/rogue combo.Same as "bloodrager" just does sound too specific for a base class,I hope the names get changed to something that fits a broader range of character concepts.

BTW Do we have to sign up anywhere to participate in the playtest

Nope, just follow the link on Tuesday. It gets processed like a purchase (still free, though), and goes into your downloads.

My feelings on the matter.

Arcanist- Very interesting. +1 for a simple Arcane spellcaster, bonus points for wisdom based spellcasting. Would allow for better Mystic Theurges.
Bloodrager- Probably the coolest concept out of the bunch.
Brawler- I know some folks who are going to dig their teeth into this.
Investigator- Neat! Will definitely write one up.
Hunter- Teamwork feats kinda turn me off to the class.
Shaman- Meh. Good enough concept going for it. Don't care for it myself.
Slayer- Awesome. My personal favorite. Though I will really cry if they just give it a death attack and call it a day. Save or Dies are quite literally the least interesting effects in the game. Give me ability drain/damage in some super attack or a permanent stagger effect instead. Anything anything please no death attack.

DM: Alright the enemy uses his death attack on you. Save or Die. Die? Oh well.

Player: I death attack the BBEG! Yes! He failed!
DM: Gosh dangit to heck I worked hard on that.

Skald- I don't feel too excited by this one really. A *good* archetype would have served it better.

Swashbuckler- People have been crying for this. Hope it works out for them. I'm unlikely to play it, Slayer has my focus on this end.

Warpriest- Completely unnecessary. Between Battle Clerics, Paladins, and Inquisitors I see no reason to *need* a alignment neutral holy warrior. I honestly just think people don't want to go through the work of taking the one bloody fighter level that gets you martial proficiency for clerics/inquisitors. That said, I hope they get Lay on Hands and no smiting.

Is it the 19th yet?