Advanced Class Guide

All I'm asking is to get this kind of class:

- Medium BAB
- arcane spellcasting from 0 level to 9th level.

A.K.A., the cleric version of a sorcerer/wizard. Don't give me the "you have the bard and magus" argument, because they don't go to 9th level. In fact, I was hoping that the magus would have gotten a condensed spell list so it could have gotten a certain spell called Polar Ray, but no, it's 6th-level spells only. The bard got it lucky by having some 7th, 8th and 9th level spells as 6th-level spells.

So yeah, I don't care how strong it can end up or how much work it would take to make it balanced, I want a cleric-like class that can cast arcane spells up to 9th level with a medium BAB. I'm honestly sick of getting arcane spellcasting classes that are either too frail to fight (seriously, if a sorcerer, a wizard or a witch ends up in melee, it's game over.) or don't have access to the full level progression of spells.

I wouldn't hold my breath for that one, if I were you.

JiCi wrote:

All I'm asking is to get this kind of class:

- Medium BAB
- arcane spellcasting from 0 level to 9th level.

A.K.A., the cleric version of a sorcerer/wizard. Don't give me the "you have the bard and magus" argument, because they don't go to 9th level. In fact, I was hoping that the magus would have gotten a condensed spell list so it could have gotten a certain spell called Polar Ray, but no, it's 6th-level spells only. The bard got it lucky by having some 7th, 8th and 9th level spells as 6th-level spells.

So yeah, I don't care how strong it can end up or how much work it would take to make it balanced, I want a cleric-like class that can cast arcane spells up to 9th level with a medium BAB. I'm honestly sick of getting arcane spellcasting classes that are either too frail to fight (seriously, if a sorcerer, a wizard or a witch ends up in melee, it's game over.) or don't have access to the full level progression of spells.

I wouldn't hold my breath for that one, if I were you.

I personally would be satisfied if I had a full bab, 4 level arcane caster, and I'm hoping the blood rager is just that.

All i have wanted was new archetypes and feats for a while. This is something else. While I really want to see a push back to multiclass i was hoping you'd even that out with Archetypes Multiclass archetypes instead of "hybrid classes" (which are like the multiclass archetypes they post on the board which while impressive in design are not really something i want to see in my game.

thread carefully with this one guys, thats all i'm saying.

Shaman and Bloodrager look interesting. But the name of bloodrager is not good...

Warpriest looks like a paladin to me, but with all alignment allowed.

Hunter, Slayer and Swashbuckler are unnecessary, and look just like a way to fulfill the 256-pages book...

For me, it's looking like the books of WotC in the early ears of 3rd edition D&D.

And we (all players) didn't like.

The ideia of the book is good, but need to me more useful.

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

I keep seeing this false argument. "Bloat" does not mean "As much as 3.5"

I weight 400 lbs. I am fat. I lose 100 lbs, I'm still fat/

Marc Radle wrote:

scary harpy wrote:

I really hope so ... especially for the Mystic Theurge.

A base class based on the Mystic Theurge would probably resolve this situation.

Well ...

** spoiler omitted **

Interesting, I hope you are familiar with the SGG magister? It fills a fairly similar space, I would be interested to see how this class compares.

I am. I bought it. I love it (and the Mosaic Mage also!)

I liked the APG classes and didn't consider them bloat because they were flavorful and original. I'm a little worried about these though - if they can all be described as "an X/Y!" then isn't that why we have multiclassing rules? Is it just that we need a bloodrager because a Bar4/Sorc4 is "underpowered" compared to a straight level 8? Seems like there's solutions for that which might involve less page count.

If the magus is any indication of what they have in mind, then I don;t think there's a danger of that. While on the most basic of levels, it is a wizard/fighter, the reality of the class is more than a mere multiclass result.

In addition to an Oracle/Sorcerer combo, i would also like to see a Wizard Cleric Mystic theurge combo.

Kolokotroni wrote:

Marc Radle wrote:

scary harpy wrote:

I really hope so ... especially for the Mystic Theurge.

A base class based on the Mystic Theurge would probably resolve this situation.

Well ...

** spoiler omitted **

Interesting, I hope you are familiar with the SGG magister? It fills a fairly similar space, I would be interested to see how this class compares.

Similar design space but quite different in approach :)

I'm very glad to know this. I will be looking forward to it.

Sadly, third party material is too often ignored. Kobold magazine published a perfectly good Shaman class that is apparently forgotten now.

2) I'd also like to see a re-worked version of the Runepriest (Maybe call it a Runelord)

I'd say calling any class a Runelord is well nigh into the "Nahgahhappa" levels of probability.

Particularly a divine caster.

I think that we are getting hybrid classes because, in Pathfinder, Multi-classing is seen to be a weaker option than just straight up doing all 20 levels in one class.

At least this way, if someone has an idea, they can actually potentially go with that idea from level one, instead of dabbling in different classes to get something that MIGHT be similar to what they want, or having to wait around and qualify for a prestige.

This wouldn't have been my first choice for the gencon book and I do wonder if suddenly adding 10 new classes is a good idea, but I will remain optimistic until I see the playtest.

An artificer class fusing the summoner and the artificer would be sooo amazing. I could see them having little "one-use" robots that fall apart after preforming an action, and a big, golem-like companion with rules similar to the eidolon. It could actually turn out to be an interesting alternate skill monkey class, with a competent companion to contribute to fights.

Marc Radle wrote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

Marc Radle wrote:

scary harpy wrote:

I really hope so ... especially for the Mystic Theurge.

A base class based on the Mystic Theurge would probably resolve this situation.

Well ...

** spoiler omitted **

Interesting, I hope you are familiar with the SGG magister? It fills a fairly similar space, I would be interested to see how this class compares.

Similar design space but quite different in approach :)

I'm very glad to know this. I will be looking forward to it.

Sadly, third party material is too often ignored. Kobold magazine published a perfectly good Shaman class that is apparently forgotten now.

Heh, I know all about the Kobold Quarterly Shaman :)

I do have to take polite exception to the 'apparently forgotten now' comment though :) The Shaman class is very much alive, well and quite popular in fact: New Paths #2: The Expanded Shaman

In fact, there just might be a very interesting connection between these two classes that will be revealed very soon (he says cryptically :)

Never understood the "class bloat" argument. I have 5 players, they each pick a class (maybe 2), so at most I make sure I understand those 5-10 classes. I only need a passing understanding of the others. You don't *have* to use all the rules. Stating there's class bloat is like saying there's a car bloat. Or a chocolate bloat. or, I dunno, an element bloat in the periodic table.

For me, it's looking like the books of WotC in the early ears of 3rd edition D&D.

And we (all players) didn't like.

Who are to speak for all players? Obviously you are wrong...in that 'all players didn't like' part...as I did like the early stuff from WotC during 3.0/3,5 days. As did alot of other people I know. So you can get off your soap box and stop speaking for everyone as it just makes you look like a ass.

Also on the topic of 'Rules Bloat'. Yes we get that you guys don't like new rules...as you make a point to come out the wood work to tell us every chance you get. Yes we know we are just a bunch of slobbering power gamers because we like multiple books of options...and you guys are the gamer's elite for just sticking with the corebook. Stop beating the dead horse already.

It is like this different people (and their gaming groups) need different amounts of rules/options. You don't need many which is fine...others need more. Pazio has done a masterful job of keeping both groups happy. Stop complaining. This is one book of new options in a year...that you don't even have to use.

AAAaaaaahhhhhhh...

Swashbuckler.

Prepares case for the change of his Skull & Shackles rogue into a swashbuckler...

I guess this is a good example of why I want to be excited about this book but instead just feel a little bit sad

more reasons to heap scorn on rogues and fighters

I would like to see a Warlord class (Bard+Barbarian). Based on the concept of a strong leader, both charismatically and physically, leading his men into battle while providing morale bonuses.

James Jacobs wrote:

AAAaaaaahhhhhhh...

Swashbuckler.

Prepares case for the change of his Skull & Shackles rogue into a swashbuckler...

I guess this is a good example of why I want to be excited about this book but instead just feel a little bit sad

more reasons to heap scorn on rogues and fighters

Fighter will always have the most feats and rogues will always have the most base skill points per level.

James Jacobs wrote:

AAAaaaaahhhhhhh...

Swashbuckler.

Prepares case for the change of his Skull & Shackles rogue into a swashbuckler...

I guess this is a good example of why I want to be excited about this book but instead just feel a little bit sad

more reasons to heap scorn on rogues and fighters

Bear in mind that James' comment has nothing to do with Rogues supposed mechanical inferiority, and everything to do with James' well documented desire for a Swashbuckler class. At least that is what I read there.

Lamontius wrote:

James Jacobs wrote:

AAAaaaaahhhhhhh...

Swashbuckler.

Prepares case for the change of his Skull & Shackles rogue into a swashbuckler...

I guess this is a good example of why I want to be excited about this book but instead just feel a little bit sad

more reasons to heap scorn on rogues and fighters

Bear in mind that James' comment has nothing to do with Rogues supposed mechanical inferiority, and everything to do with James' well documented desire for a Swashbuckler class. At least that is what I read there.

I understand that, definitely.

Regardless of the motivation and/or desire to switch, however, I still feel that the sentiment contributes to what I believe is an ever increasing negative perception amongst the community of not only those two classes, but the players who choose to play them.

ugh too many words

Some classes do look cool and a lot of those will probably be more interesting than classes that already exist. However, I`m afraid we`re getting in Wotc 3rd edition splatbook bonanza territory here. How long is the pathfinder system going to go down this road? Are we nearing the need for a reset button?

I'm sure the quality is going to be high like most things paizo does. However, you can only put so much weight on a table before it collapses...

anyway..my 2 cent..which doesn't exist in Canada anymore so i have to round it down to 0 cent..or 5 cent.

To support John Kretzer, I will point out that I never seriously played anything but the cleric from the 3.0/5 core rulebooks. I very rarely ever played anything but a cleric because none of the other 10 core classes met my standards. Even today, I baely play anything other than a summoner or alchemist multiclassed with either ftr/bbn. I play one cleric healbot for the sake of giving back to the community and doing something different but even the cleric pales in combat comparison to the 3.0/5 cleric so I abandoned it in that regard. Now I do not play more than 2, maybe 4(even then, 8 levs of alchemists and the PFS pc is done) levels of anything from the core rulebook.

On the other hand, I loved many of the base classes and subsystems that were added in 3.5. I long to play them again but find too many GMs to be Paizo fan boys who refuse anything not Paizo published. I still rather play a duskblade, swordsage, psychic warrior, totemist, warlock, over the way too heavily sex based(on edit, I thought it was so funny I left the original typo in, obviously Dex based. AHHA! not a typo, auto correct changed it, caught and fixed it this time) magus that failed to entice me enough to play it even once so far. I even liked the healer, Marshall, favored soul, warmage, dragon shaman. But only a single core class.

You recruit your players, leave us to recruit ours. Or are you afraid you will nit have any left if people open their eyes to other options?

Ravingdork wrote:

Holy rules bloat batman!

Not liking where this is going. -_-

3.5 had fifty base classes by the end. Pathfinder's nowhere near that.

Fifty classes and neither are alternate class features? (archetypes in PF is what they are basically).

I know of the Core 11:
Bard, Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard

CA:
Warlock, Warmage, Wu-Jen,

CD:
Favored Soul, Shugenja, Spirit Shaman

CW:
Hexblade, Samurai, Swashbuckler (plus 2 archetypes but they don't count)

CV:
Ninja, Scout, Spell-thief

Dungeonscape:
Factorum

Heroes of Horror:
Archivist, Dread Necromancer

PHB 2:
Beguiler, Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight

Tome of Magic:
Binder, Shadow Caster, Truenamer

Magic of Incarnum:
Incarnate, Totemist, Soulborn

Dragon Magic: Dragonfire Adept

Psionics:
Core: Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Wilder

Complete Psionics:
Ardent, Divine Mind, Lurk

Now we could add setting books or NPC classes, but I don't think we should.

Total: 45

If we count PF (plus their psionics):
11 core, 8 non-core (ninja and Samurai are just archetypes) + Psionics: 10 = 29.

So we are at 1/2 the rate of 3.5

Fifty classes and neither are alternate class features? (archetypes in PF is what they are basically).

I know of the Core 11:
Bard, Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Rogue, Ranger, Sorcerer, Wizard

CA:
Warlock, Warmage, Wu-Jen,

CD:
Favored Soul, Shugenja, Spirit Shaman

CW:
Hexblade, Samurai, Swashbuckler (plus 2 archetypes but they don't count)

CV:
Ninja, Scout, Spell-thief

Dungeonscape:
Factorum

Heroes of Horror:
Archivist, Dread Necromancer

PHB 2:
Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight

Tome of Magic:
Binder, Shadow Caster, Truenamer

Magic of Incarnum:
Incarnate, Totemist, Soulborn

Dragon Magic: Dragonfire Adept

Psionics:
Core: Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulknife, Wilder

Complete Psionics:
Ardent, Divine Mind, Lurk

Now we could add setting books or NPC classes, but I don't think we should.

Total: 44

If we count PF (plus their psionics):
11 core, 8 non-core (ninja and Samurai are just archetypes) + Psionics: 10 = 29.

So we are at 1/2 the rate of 3.5

Out of curiousity, how many of these classes are not open game content?

The classes in the PHB and Expanded Psionics Handbook are open game content. All of the others are closed content.

Starbuck,
You missed out the Healer and Marshall from the Miniature's Handbook and the Crusader, Warblade and Swordsage from Tome of Battle. With the Artificer from Eberron, although campaign specific, that makes 50.

***

Total: 44

If we count PF (plus their psionics):
11 core, 8 non-core (ninja and Samurai are just archetypes) + Psionics: 10 = 29.

So we are at 1/2 the rate of 3.5

To be fair, Dreamscarred Press is not Paizo, so the Psionics don't count towards Pathfinders core class total. So... Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard are your 11 Core, plus Alchemist, Cavalier, Inquistor, Oracle, Summoner, Witch for Base, and Magus and Gunslinger. 19 base classes, soon to be 29. I'm really not too worried. I think this opens up the options available to everyone, gives a lot of people things they've been wanting, and if you don't like it, don't buy it or play it.

@Starbuck II: Well, depends.

1) You forgot Miniatures Handbook, which brought in the Healer and the Marshal, as well as reprinting the Favored Soul and the Warmage.

2) You forgot that Player's Handbook II also introduced the Beguiler, not on your list.

3) You forgot Tome of Battle, which brought in the Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade.

4) Some people count Dragon Compendium, which added the Battle Dancer, Death Master, Jester, Mountebank, Savant, Sha'ir, and Urban Druid.

5) Some people consider the Erudite from Complete Psionic a separate class, though since it's a variant Psion, I could see why you might not include it.

6) Even if it is from a setting book, a lot of people count the Artificer from Eberron Campaign Setting.

Even if you discount 4-6, I think that still hits 50.

Edit: Ninja'd by Paul Watson for most of that! And yeah, Paizo (or at least James Jacobs) has said before that if they did official psionics (or more accurately psionic magic), it probably wouldn't be like Dreamscarred Press did it.

Personally, I'll wait and see what the final products look like, but I'm at least tentatively interested in some of them.

Starbuck,

You missed out the Healer and Marshall from the Miniature's Handbook and the Crusader, Warblade and Swordsage from Tome of Battle. With the Artificer from Eberron, although campaign specific, that makes 50.

And the Beguiler from PHBII, which is a terrible oversight, because it's an awesome class.

Paul Watson wrote:

Starbuck,

You missed out the Healer and Marshall from the Miniature's Handbook and the Crusader, Warblade and Swordsage from Tome of Battle. With the Artificer from Eberron, although campaign specific, that makes 50.

And the Beguiler from PHBII, which is a terrible oversight, because it's an awesome class.

Gosh the Beguiler rocked. That class had slipped my mind in talking about additional 3.5 material I loved... Something in that theme would be awesome to see again. A 9 spell-level progression class mixing the Illusionist and the Rogue... Good times.

I would actually prefer to get a true class builder. Not what they are proposing. Not to say Im not interested. I am. I liked the Race Builder in the ARG. I see no good reason not to publish a similar one for classes.AS well the classes in the book woould truly need to rock my socks off. Still too early to say. At the very least I will look through the book when it comes out.

I'm expecting playtesting to start on September 22nd, the first day of autumn.

I would actually prefer to get a true class builder. Not what they are proposing. Not to say Im not interested. I am. I liked the Race Builder in the ARG. I see no good reason not to publish a similar one for classes.AS well the classes in the book woould truly need to rock my socks off. Still too early to say. At the very least I will look through the book when it comes out.

The race builder isnt actually balanced, a class builder would be even worse in that regard. If they could distill the creation of classes down to a neat formula, they wouldnt need so many developers. Its not as simple as this ability is worth x points. As the summoner shows us, the more flexible things are the messier things get and the more you have to start putting in additional restrictions. A class builder that actually worked in practice would require and entirely different system then pathfinder.

memorax wrote:

I would actually prefer to get a true class builder. Not what they are proposing. Not to say Im not interested. I am. I liked the Race Builder in the ARG. I see no good reason not to publish a similar one for classes.AS well the classes in the book woould truly need to rock my socks off. Still too early to say. At the very least I will look through the book when it comes out.

The race builder isnt actually balanced, a class builder would be even worse in that regard. If they could distill the creation of classes down to a neat formula, they wouldnt need so many developers. Its not as simple as this ability is worth x points. As the summoner shows us, the more flexible things are the messier things get and the more you have to start putting in additional restrictions. A class builder that actually worked in practice would require and entirely different system then pathfinder.

Yeah, sorry to the small number of people that seem to want one for some reason, but I agree a class builder would be a terrible idea and I am VERY happy Paizo will not be doing it.

Some good, general advice is a MUCH better way to go, believe me!

I wonder if they might make the Bloodrager cast off his Constitution... maybe have it kind of like a draining effect, like Raistlin in Dragonlance...

an element bloat in the periodic table.

There totally is! All those transuranic elements cluttering up the place! What did they ever do for us? Atom bombs? Yeesh. Totally OP. They lost all sense of balance when they added that stuff.

E6 (element six, that is) all the way! Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and magnesium. Who needs the rest? Anything worth having you can make with those six!

Honestly...not sure how I feel about this. Part of me says "yay! New stuff to play with!" But another part asks "why?"

This feels like a weaksauce "official" version of the Multiclass Archetypes (which is a great system in its own right). And adding 10 of these new hybrid classes feels like a arbitrary number. I would have rather seen a book with 1-3 methodically-designed, interesting classes than 10 "hybrid" classes.

And, I mean...warpriest? Really? Bloodrager and Hunter feel like an attempt to fill mechanical holes. Shaman and Swashbuckler feel like actual, interesting thematic concepts. And the Slayer feels like a combative rogue fix.

But why is the warpriest even there? We have a cleric, we have a paladin, we have an inquisitor. It's supposed to be a cleric/fighter blend. What? Is it a fighter with domains? A cleric with weapon training? Bonus feats somewhere? I really want to know what makes the warpriest different from what we already have; and what makes it SO different that it justifies a new class, and not just an archetype.

That got a little ranty, but my point is that it feels very uninspired, and that makes me worried about the other 4 yet to come, rather than excited.

Okay, rant over.

...Catch Phrase,

-Chris

cannon fodder wrote:

an element bloat in the periodic table.

There totally is! All those transuranic elements cluttering up the place! What did they ever do for us? Atom bombs? Yeesh. Totally OP. They lost all sense of balance when they added that stuff.

E6 (element six, that is) all the way! Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and magnesium. Who needs the rest? Anything worth having you can make with those six!

Indeed!!

But why is the warpriest even there?

[theory]

Christopher Delvo wrote:

But why is the warpriest even there?

[theory]

Because nobody in the history of ever fell for the 'if you want to play a non LG holy warrior, play a cleric.' (Especially after they stripped heavy armor proficiency from it and nuked the warrior priest class replacement from the original Campaign Setting.) I suspect this 'warpriest' (which will hopefully get a better name, like Templar or Crusader or Champion or *something*) will be the long-lost CG, NG, LE, NE, CN, LN, etc. 'holy warrior' option.
[/theory]

That's a pretty good theory, actually!

And I think Templar is by FAR a better name!

[theory]
Because nobody in the history of ever fell for the 'if you want to play a non LG holy warrior, play a cleric.' (Especially after they stripped heavy armor proficiency from it and nuked the warrior priest class replacement from the original Campaign Setting.) [/theory]

I agree.

Why is LG and CE somehow more special than LE and CG? I have no problem with Paladins with these 4 alignments.

Warpriest will hopefully solve the "I want to play a CG Paladin of Orcus" problem we've been having since, like, the dawn of time.

cannon fodder wrote:

an element bloat in the periodic table.

There totally is! All those transuranic elements cluttering up the place! What did they ever do for us? Atom bombs? Yeesh. Totally OP. They lost all sense of balance when they added that stuff.

E6 (element six, that is) all the way! Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen, phosphorus and magnesium. Who needs the rest? Anything worth having you can make with those six!

Bah. One metal (and why a +2 oxidation metal?) and no halides makes your element system unplayable. True chemists drop Mg, and only play with Na and Cl.

:)

Christopher Delvo wrote:

But why is the warpriest even there?

[theory]

Because nobody in the history of ever fell for the 'if you want to play a non LG holy warrior, play a cleric.' (Especially after they stripped heavy armor proficiency from it and nuked the warrior priest class replacement from the original Campaign Setting.) I suspect this 'warpriest' (which will hopefully get a better name, like Templar or Crusader or Champion or *something*) will be the long-lost CG, NG, LE, NE, CN, LN, etc. 'holy warrior' option.
[/theory]

Warpriest will hopefully solve the "I want to play a CG Paladin of Orcus" problem we've been having since, like, the dawn of time.

Ok. Why doesn't the Inquisitor fill that hole? — I've never played with many Inquisitors and I'm just looking at building one. So it's an honest question.

the war priest is wierd since we already have the holy vinicator.

we need a ninja/monk hyrid.

and wizard/sorcoer hyrdid

One of my favorite characters in Ad&D or might have been 2nd edition was the Half Elf Druid Ranger from the Dragon Magazine.

Looking forward to the playtest and getting the book via my subscription. :)

Set wrote:

[theory]

Because nobody in the history of ever fell for the 'if you want to play a non LG holy warrior, play a cleric.' [/theory]

Ok. Why doesn't the Inquisitor fill that hole? — I've never played with many Inquisitors and I'm just looking at building one. So it's an honest question.

I suspect that most who would want to play a holy warrior, have the same knightly vision in mind that led to the paladin. Full BAB, martial weapon training, heavy armor. So, pretty much *not* a cleric or inquisitor.

Just as a cleric or inquisitor can *also* be LG, and so requiring all non-LG 'holy warriors' to be only as much 'warrior' as LG's *second and third choices,* seems strange.

Given the themes and circumstances of Golarion, the Antipaladin seems like a strange class choice. As a generic setting-neutral class, it might fit (or not, depending on whether or not you think Chaotic Evil folk could maintain a consistent training methodology to churn out holy champions with similar class features...), but Golarion seems much more likely to have a LE Hellknight base class than the 'anti-paladin.'

Still, it wouldn't be the first time the generic line introduced stuff that didn't necessarily fit the setting. (See, cleric of philosophy.) Ideally, the setting-neutral books *should* offer up rules and mechanics for Pathfinder players who aren't necessarily playing in PFS, or even in any version of Golarion.

I'll admit that I think the Warpriest is a pretty overdone style of play already, and it doesn't really add a lot to the game. I'd say the same for the Hunter and the Slayer. The Ranger is already enough of a Hunter, I don't know how this would really work.

I feel like a lot of these combinations are filling niches we already have, and that the last four won't do enough to fill the last ones.

I'd like to see Hunter and Warpriest dropped for something else, but I guess I'll have to see the last 4 before passing judgement.

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

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

Warpriest = Templar, crusader, champion or perhaps sentinel.

As you allude to... what confuses and honestly even irritates me a bit is we had to have "magus"--a generic variation on the word "mage," a more or less synonym for "wizard"--because Erik Mona didn't want any classes with "fake" names that were compound words, like "spellknight."

So why we don't get to have something actually illustrative of the class like "spellknight," but then we end up being allowed to have "bloodrager" and "warpriest" (when there are many "real world" words for both raging warriors and soldier-clerics, like the ones you list), that is both inconsistent with the standards the publisher wanted to set at some point, as well as just kind of annoying.

Swashbuckler = Normally just fine, but there is an archetype by that name. To avoid confusion consider buccaneer.

Yeah, having things sharing the name with existing archetypes or prestige classes will get really confusing. Especially if someone, for example, decides they want to build a rogue (swashbuckler)/swashbuckler multiclass.

I think buccaneer is also an archetype however (gunslinger racial one, IIRC).

To my knowledge, what might work (depending on exact flavor) could include

Daredevil, maverick, freebooter, corsair, fencer, swordsman

Realize the last is unlikely as it pinpoints a weapon, but generally there is a strong idea in fiction in particular of the "great swordsman" as a type of hero.

==

Watching this development with cautious optimism. Part of me is interested in seeing what new mechanics and abilities might come out of this. Part of me is going, "No, more crap I have to read/learn/negotiate with my players about" (because while yes, I don't HAVE TO get or read the book, if I am asked if I can use it by a player, I want to be able to give an informed decision as to why or why not; I realize the "because I said so" is a viable response for a GM to give, but I'd rather have more to say than that).

Also, am less thrilled because I hate points-based mechanics like grit, and it's obvious from the swashbuckler description more things like that are going to be used. d20 is fiddly and complex enough without having to track pools.

I do like that they will include a chapter with advice and insight as to how classes are designed.