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
351 to 400 of 2,258 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

On the one hand most of these classes interest me.

My only concern with a book full of mashup classes is that there will be few, if any non magic classes. Of the six revealed classes I see one (Swashbuckler), maybe two (Slayer) that won't cast spells. I sincerely hope for one or two more. I personally enjoy non-casters.

In any case I'm very much looking forward to this book.

- Torger


At this point I'm looking forward to Swashbuckler without knowing a thing about it besides its fighter with deeds and grit without a gun.

Grand Lodge

Momo Kimura wrote:
At this point I'm looking forward to Swashbuckler without knowing a thing about it besides its fighter with deeds and grit without a gun.

Honestly, I wish we would have gotten this to begin with. The gunslinger should have been an archetype of the swashbuckler.

Just got some new swimming trunks and picked up sun screen.


Pathfinder Card Game, Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Cool. Looking forward to it.


Monk/oracle = Mystic?

a divine caster that pulls from the mystical powers within (or maybe from planes?), and isn't required to have a deity.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MMCJawa wrote:

Monk/oracle = Mystic?

a divine caster that pulls from the mystical powers within (or maybe from planes?), and isn't required to have a deity.

That could be interesting, depending on flavor. Sort of a shugenja/yamabushi type idea. An ascetic oracle, with ki flavored powers.

Some kind of marshal character would be interesting too.. bard/cavalier.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Lots of cool mashups posted on this thread...

Of course, if you can't wait for the playtest and want to dive into hybrid classes that grant you 20 levels (that's right, beginning at 1st level!) of awesome right now - check out the

Multiclass Archetypes Wiki - our front page even has a link to our first PDF!!! Hybrids for everyone!!! We've been working on this for three years and have developed some great ideas and guidelines with help from many Paizo-forumites.

Check out our Master list of Multiclass Archetypes - over 100 "hybrids" ready to go - including bloodrageresque Eldritch Rampager....

AND our

Creative Guidelines.

If you want to join in the development and brainstorming, check out our 5th thread:
Multiclass Archetypes V

(and special thanks Christopher Delvo for mentioning our project!!!)

Shadow Lodge

Bruno Mares wrote:

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.

I don't know, the Warpriest is the one I'm most looking forward to, and I'm thinking more of a classic and 3E style Cleric than a paladin, or they would have made it paladin based. I'm kind of hoping for a less Feat starved Cleric with reduced casting and more focused on self and party buffs than healing or removing afflictions. Shaman and Swashbuckler seem very unappealing to me. Shaman I think would have been a better Druid/Witch than Oracle. Slayer seems like it will step on Inquisitor toes, (which I'm not sure is a bad thing), but not sure if it is needed or so much wanted.

As for the other 4 classes, not too much is really coming to mind that I'd like.

A Cleric/Wizard combo focused on Necromancy going towards the Dread Necromancer would be cool.

A Cleric or Druid/Monk (or other spellcaster, but Wis synergy) would be nice, but not super needed.

Lantern Lodge

I wouldn't mind seeing a cleric/paladin class with a way to add in stigmata. Although I didn't really care for the mechanics of it. Stigmata offers lots of storytelling and roleplay opportunities but not so-much game mechanics to back up your character but here's to hoping.


If there's going to be mechanics bloat can we at least have archetypes that are straight forward mixes?

Let's look at the Magus. The Magus is a good example of what I don't want.

I wanted a fighter/wizard. The Magus is not a fighter/wizard. The Magus is a Barbarian with wizard flavor. His main offense runs off of a limited resource like the barbarian. He's of limited use outside melee like the barbarian. He's of almost no use at all in the wizard role.

I don't want mechanical synergy that's so powerful the class has to revolve around it. I want to play like a cleric: open with a buff or control spell and wade into combat or start shooting arrows while leaving most of my spell preparation for out of combat utility casting with enough early entry on the game defining spells that a party with the hybrid can live without a full wizard.

What we got from the magus is in every way exactly what I don't want. He focuses on the kinds of spells I don't care about and can't substitute for a wizard out of combat and with no combat boosts that don't overlap with weapon enhancements he can't put out decent damage without burning spells, leaving few for what I really want magic for and to get that spendthrift damage boost he's locked into a narrow selection of weapons.

The EK never did the job because of inherent problems with PrCs as a kludge for multiclassing: The progression isn't smooth enough at low levels and the wizard heavy build fights worse than a rogue and caster level is too important to lose. One of the basic "you need a caster" constraints is the ability to dispel magic and caster level is the only thing that matters to that and durations on noncombat spells and thresholds on things like teleport are kind of important.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Atarlost wrote:
I wanted a fighter/wizard. The Magus is not a fighter/wizard.

This is the reason I love the magus so much.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

A monk/shapeshifter would be cool.

Perhaps the unnamed four will be announced after they get ideas from threads like this one.


Mechalibur wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
I wanted a fighter/wizard. The Magus is not a fighter/wizard.
This is the reason I love the magus so much.

You love the magus because it completely fails to fill the hybrid role I wanted filled and by existing ensures such a class will never be published?

What happened to "don't be a jerk?"


It's Morphing time...interesting that phase would change my avatar as well.


/derail: i think "It's Morphing time." should turn us in to constructs

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I posited a witch/monk hybrid on the predictions thread I called it a Chakra Master, the basic idea is that it adds hexes to its strikes, flavoured by closing off the target's chakras.

Ooh, that sounds hot, particularly if you go with chakra-themed 'hex strikes,' like one that blurs the vision (the target treats all foes as if they have partial concealment) or one that lames the target (half move, as if caltrop-lamed), etc. More mystical effects, such as a strike that makes spellcasting difficult (shouldn't have eaten all that magical cheese, Mr. Summoner, I just blocked up your mana-testines!), could also work, if tied to pre-existing mechanics, like concentration checks and whatnot.

Very, very cool idea!

Torger Miltenberger wrote:
My only concern with a book full of mashup classes is that there will be few, if any non magic classes. Of the six revealed classes I see one (Swashbuckler), maybe two (Slayer) that won't cast spells. I sincerely hope for one or two more. I personally enjoy non-casters.

I was a bit put off by how five of the six Advanced Players Guide classes were spellcasters (with the oracle and witching going the extra step and being primary 9-level spellcasters).

The game is already weighted towards spellcasters, in some regards. More viable classes that don't use the spellcasting mechanics would be neat.

For instance, I'd love to see a 'cleric'/fighter or 'wizard'/fighter (or X/monk, whatever) that has no spells, but access to a pool of divine or arcane power that they can use to augment their own offense or defense, like 'rage powers by another name' or 'smite by another name.'

Or, heck, a magical energy using tweak on the Soulknife. Forms a blade of arcane energy or favored weapon from divine power, and augments attacks and defenses with the same source of power. No spell list needed.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Atarlost wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
I wanted a fighter/wizard. The Magus is not a fighter/wizard.
This is the reason I love the magus so much.

You love the magus because it completely fails to fill the hybrid role I wanted filled and by existing ensures such a class will never be published?

What happened to "don't be a jerk?"

Not agreeing with you that the Magus is a bad class because it doesn't do what YOU wanted it to do is "being a jerk"?

Liberty's Edge

Would I like a class builder. Sure. Is it a deal breaker for me no. I realzie I'm in the minority for asking it be included in the book. I just hope the classes are worthy taking. Some of Paizo archtypes imo are just not worth the paper they are printed on. Let alone taking. I don't want a bunch of classes with abilites that are not interesting or effective. Still I'm willing to at least take a look at the book when it comes out. As for rules blot. Are we still even bringing that up. Paizo released the ARG and the Mythic Book. Last time I checked the sky is not falling. I really wish some fans would stop paniking every time a new book is announced. Don;t want more rules don't buy more books. Simple as that imo.


Atarlost wrote:
Mechalibur wrote:
Atarlost wrote:
I wanted a fighter/wizard. The Magus is not a fighter/wizard.
This is the reason I love the magus so much.

You love the magus because it completely fails to fill the hybrid role I wanted filled and by existing ensures such a class will never be published?

What happened to "don't be a jerk?"

I sincerely doubt that Mechalibur loves the magus because it failed to fulfill your personal preferred niche. He was probably instead simply expressing that he likes that the class isn't a simple hybrid class and has its own unique feel.. No personal attack was intended from my vantage point. I could be wrong though.

Silver Crusade

Set wrote:
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]

I WANT TO BELIEVE


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mikaze wrote:
Set wrote:
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]

I WANT TO BELIEVE

DON'T STOP BELIEVING, HOLD ON TO THAT FEELING


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yes, allow me to elaborate. I love the magus because it combines melee and magic in a unique and fun way, going beyond simply mixing and matching class features. Not to spite anyone because I'm a jerk.

Sovereign Court

What I really want... I want a cleric/wizard, a sorcerer/oracle, or something along those lines. I know there is already a prestige class but I want something that is nice and pretty, wrapped up in the from of a new hybrid class!

Give 6th level casting in both arcane and divine spells, poor BAB, poor saves, and some neato new features... I would be the happiest camper ever!

Liberty's Edge

I wonder if there'll be a Bard and Witch blend, and what the class would be called.


Sweegs wrote:
I wonder if there'll be a Bard and Witch blend, and what the class would be called.

Ward, obviously.

=D


Sweegs wrote:
I wonder if there'll be a Bard and Witch blend, and what the class would be called.

The Siren?

Grand Lodge

Sweegs wrote:
I wonder if there'll be a Bard and Witch blend, and what the class would be called.

The Dirge.

Grand Lodge

Torger Miltenberger wrote:

On the one hand most of these classes interest me.

My only concern with a book full of mashup classes is that there will be few, if any non magic classes. Of the six revealed classes I see one (Swashbuckler), maybe two (Slayer) that won't cast spells. I sincerely hope for one or two more. I personally enjoy non-casters.

In any case I'm very much looking forward to this book.

- Torger

No evidence that the hunter will either. Only bloodrager actually mentions spell-casting capabilities, but we can assume that the shaman and warpriest will also have spells. In the case of the hunter, it may just be the druid's animal companion and wildshape along with the rangers favored enemy and perhaps some additional abilities, but no actual spells to speak of.


Zombie Ninja wrote:
Torger Miltenberger wrote:

On the one hand most of these classes interest me.

My only concern with a book full of mashup classes is that there will be few, if any non magic classes. Of the six revealed classes I see one (Swashbuckler), maybe two (Slayer) that won't cast spells. I sincerely hope for one or two more. I personally enjoy non-casters.

In any case I'm very much looking forward to this book.

- Torger

No evidence that the hunter will either. Only bloodrager actually mentions spell-casting capabilities, but we can assume that the shaman and warpriest will also have spells. In the case of the hunter, it may just be the druid's animal companion and wildshape along with the rangers favored enemy and perhaps some additional abilities, but no actual spells to speak of.

I have to go with Torger on this. There are enough Full Casters and Partial Casters already in the game. Two definite caster classes and one probable and one possible spell caster is plenty. I know it won't happen, but I'd be happy if all 4 of the remaining reveals are non-casters. Things like an Ecstatic (Monk/Barbarian who finds enlightenment through passion instead of discipline), Highwayman (Rogue/Cavalier who rides in, charms the ladies, relieves their husbands of their valuables and rides off), Skald/Piper/Battle-Poet (Barbarian/Bard - No magic, just Music and Knowledge, with the ability to wade in as needed), things of this nature.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sweegs wrote:
I wonder if there'll be a Bard and Witch blend, and what the class would be called.

Celine Dion?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Man, an inquisitor / barbarian would be cool. Call it the Zealot, and be the Chewie to the Inquisitor's Han.

Grand Lodge

Leo_Negri wrote:
Zombie Ninja wrote:
Torger Miltenberger wrote:

On the one hand most of these classes interest me.

My only concern with a book full of mashup classes is that there will be few, if any non magic classes. Of the six revealed classes I see one (Swashbuckler), maybe two (Slayer) that won't cast spells. I sincerely hope for one or two more. I personally enjoy non-casters.

In any case I'm very much looking forward to this book.

- Torger

No evidence that the hunter will either. Only bloodrager actually mentions spell-casting capabilities, but we can assume that the shaman and warpriest will also have spells. In the case of the hunter, it may just be the druid's animal companion and wildshape along with the rangers favored enemy and perhaps some additional abilities, but no actual spells to speak of.

I have to go with Torger on this. There are enough Full Casters and Partial Casters already in the game. Two definite caster classes and one probable and one possible spell caster is plenty. I know it won't happen, but I'd be happy if all 4 of the remaining reveals are non-casters. Things like an Ecstatic (Monk/Barbarian who finds

enlightenment through passion instead of discipline), Highwayman (Rogue/Cavalier who rides in, charms the ladies, relieves their husbands of their valuables and rides off), Skald/Piper/Battle-Poet (Barbarian/Bard - No magic, just Music and Knowledge, with the ability to wade in as needed), things of this nature.

I'm biased since I love warrior/spell-caster hybrids, and always thought they should be more common then full-casters and non-casters. Going by assumption at least one of these new classes will be a full arcane spell-caster class (to compliment the shamans presumably full divine). I really doubt the slayer will have any spell-casting even if it is likely that both the hunter and war priest will. I would like to see another class get access to some alchemy too. My thought

Monk/spell-caster
Warrior/Alchemist
Full spell-caster made of two different classes (perhaps bard/something)
Warrior/Warrior

Three non-spell-casters in total (Swashbuckler/Slayer/One other), not bad, but not great.


11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Dear Paizo,

Thanks for continuing to build new content for us. I'm sure you find it exciting and fun too--and it does make you money--but hey, sometimes it's just nice for people to say thank you.

So thanks.

I look forward to the playtest, and reading all about all these ideas. Sounds like fun!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
Man, an inquisitor / barbarian would be cool. Call it the Zealot, and be the Chewie to the Inquisitor's Han.

@Cheapy:

Spoiler:
Here's a link to the Rampant Iconoclast MCA - a Barbarian/Inquisitor I made a few days ago:

LINK

This is Elghinn's slightly cleaned up version and with a slightly borked Staunch Mien ability that gives +20 to Intimidate at 19th level...

Not quite an Inq/Bar but still...


From my experience, non magical classes are much harder to pull off than ones that have access to magic.

TOZ, you should link A Fistful of Denarii!


+5 Toaster wrote:
Mikaze wrote:
Set wrote:
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]

I WANT TO BELIEVE
DON'T STOP BELIEVING, HOLD ON TO THAT FEELING

Street lights, people.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cheapy wrote:
Sweegs wrote:
I wonder if there'll be a Bard and Witch blend, and what the class would be called.
Celine Dion?

Her heart will go on. Seriously, it's in a jar somewhere...

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Leo_Negri wrote:
Zombie Ninja wrote:
Torger Miltenberger wrote:

On the one hand most of these classes interest me.

My only concern with a book full of mashup classes is that there will be few, if any non magic classes. Of the six revealed classes I see one (Swashbuckler), maybe two (Slayer) that won't cast spells. I sincerely hope for one or two more. I personally enjoy non-casters.

In any case I'm very much looking forward to this book.

- Torger

No evidence that the hunter will either. Only bloodrager actually mentions spell-casting capabilities, but we can assume that the shaman and warpriest will also have spells. In the case of the hunter, it may just be the druid's animal companion and wildshape along with the rangers favored enemy and perhaps some additional abilities, but no actual spells to speak of.

I have to go with Torger on this. There are enough Full Casters and Partial Casters already in the game. Two definite caster classes and one probable and one possible spell caster is plenty. I know it won't happen, but I'd be happy if all 4 of the remaining reveals are non-casters. Things like an Ecstatic (Monk/Barbarian who finds enlightenment through passion instead of discipline), Highwayman (Rogue/Cavalier who rides in, charms the ladies, relieves their husbands of their valuables and rides off), Skald/Piper/Battle-Poet (Barbarian/Bard - No magic, just Music and Knowledge, with the ability to wade in as needed), things of this nature.

Yeah, I already feel overwhelmed by the number of casters. I know they're going to do more, but more non casters I would appreciate, personally. Non casters are always easier to work into a variety of settings than casters (which may depend on source and level of magic in the world).


Beat TOZ to it:

This is A Fistful of Denarii. A third party book designed solely to create more non-magical martial classes. TOZ recommends it highly, so if you value his opinion, check it out!

Liberty's Edge

Cheapy wrote:
Sweegs wrote:
I wonder if there'll be a Bard and Witch blend, and what the class would be called.
Celine Dion?

HA!!!


Get up from your computer for a few minutes and clear your head, then come back to your computer and, sort of squinting, look at this word out of the corner of your eye:

Warpriest

Does it kind of look like "warpiest" to you? It does to me. Every time I see it.


Zombie Ninja wrote:
Torger Miltenberger wrote:

On the one hand most of these classes interest me.

My only concern with a book full of mashup classes is that there will be few, if any non magic classes. Of the six revealed classes I see one (Swashbuckler), maybe two (Slayer) that won't cast spells. I sincerely hope for one or two more. I personally enjoy non-casters.

In any case I'm very much looking forward to this book.

- Torger

No evidence that the hunter will either. Only bloodrager actually mentions spell-casting capabilities, but we can assume that the shaman and warpriest will also have spells. In the case of the hunter, it may just be the druid's animal companion and wildshape along with the rangers favored enemy and perhaps some additional abilities, but no actual spells to speak of.

They haven't explicitly said it no but a mash up of druid (full 9 level nature magic) and ranger (4 level nature magic) that doesn't cast some form of nature magic would be hugely surprising to me.

- Torger


Cheapy wrote:

Beat TOZ to it:

This is A Fistful of Denarii. A third party book designed solely to create more non-magical martial classes. TOZ recommends it highly, so if you value his opinion, check it out!

Thanks for the recommend. I have checked it out previously. I own a physical copy. I like where there head is at with that product but I disagree with some of their core assumptions regarding balance. Still it gave me a great deal to work with and I agree is worth checking out for anyone looking for more non-magical classes.

- Torger


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

Lots of cool mashups posted on this thread...

Of course, if you can't wait for the playtest and want to dive into hybrid classes that grant you 20 levels (that's right, beginning at 1st level!) of awesome right now - check out the

Multiclass Archetypes Wiki - our front page even has a link to our first PDF!!! Hybrids for everyone!!! We've been working on this for three years and have developed some great ideas and guidelines with help from many Paizo-forumites.

Check out our Master list of Multiclass Archetypes - over 100 "hybrids" ready to go - including bloodrageresque Eldritch Rampager....

(and special thanks Christopher Delvo for mentioning our project!!!)

I glad you posted this. I thought something like this was out there.

I reread Tome of Secrets by Adamant Entertainment last night. Much of what people want on this thread seems to be in this book. Third party projects do not get enough respect.


I agree with the the general gist behind that statement, but...ToS....I'm not sure that statement should apply to that one.


Cheapy, can we agree that we've seen worse?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hoping to see:

Skald - Barbarian/Bard (think of it...raging and spouting limerics..lol)
Disciple - Paladin/Monk (holy handed smite Batman!)

Dark Archive

Sweegs wrote:
I wonder if there'll be a Bard and Witch blend, and what the class would be called.

Possibly the Hexface - a singer of prophetic doom, dropping hexes like rhymes - if given enough time he will contrive your death song - unless you beat him on initiative.


I'm cautiously optimistic. I like the idea of the Shaman and the Slayer, although the latter should be renamed to Stalker IMO. The Swashbuckler could be good, too.

I'm not so sure about the Hunter. I've never been a fan of the D&D Druid, because its mechanics don't match what we know about its historic namesake.

The Warpriest is IMO redundant. The Cleric is a decent martial class already, and the Crusader archetype seems to be good enough for a more "fighty" character.

What the game needs IMO is an actual Druid, as in a cross between the Witch and the Bard, as well as a Cloistered Cleric (Cleric/Bard) that is not gimped. WotC's Archivist is a good example of how to do it.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Fabius Maximus wrote:
I'm cautiously optimistic. I like the idea of the Shaman and the Slayer, although the latter should be renamed to Stalker IMO. The Swashbuckler could be good, too.

I agree on those.

Quote:


I'm not so sure about the Hunter. I've never been a fan of the D&D Druid, because its mechanics don't match what we know about its historic namesake.

I just don't get what the Hunter does that the Ranger doesn't already do. I also see no need for another class where the focus is an animal companion; Ranger, Druid, Paladin, and Cavalier have done more than enough with what can be done there (and Summoner for making a customized pet).

And especially where I haven't seen any "demand" for more animal companion options, but rather the opposite; one of the appeals of the Pathfinder Druid, Ranger, and Paladin over their 3.x predecessors was that you could opt out of having a companion because people didn't always want one, and one of the biggest requests for the cavalier I've seen is one that is WITHOUT the mount. (Which IS a hybrid I'd like to see -- cavalier/bard or cavalier/fighter that uses the cavalier's skills, order-like system, and tactician abilities but trades the mount for either party inspiration/support or fighting skill.)

Quote:


The Warpriest is IMO redundant. The Cleric is a decent martial class already, and the Crusader archetype seems to be good enough for a more "fighty" character.

Eh, I think if the warpriest is sort of a "paladin, but not lawful good" I'd like to see where they go with it, as that IS oft-requested. I personally, can live without it, but I can see the broad appeal of it. It just needs a better name that evokes what it actually accomplishes that, indeed, the paladin, inquisitor, and cleric and all of their archetypes do not already do, like "champion" or "avatar" or something.

With both the Hunter and the Warpriest, my concern is seeing rehashed concepts when there are class concepts that have never been realized, such as the oft-cited shapeshifter (this could be a barb/druid with no spellcasting) and artificer (alchemist/wizard? or alchemist/summoner?).

Quote:


What the game needs IMO is an actual Druid, as in a cross between the Witch and the Bard

Someone with nature connections and lore mastery you mean? I wonder if Shaman will provide an option for that.

Quote:


as well as a Cloistered Cleric (Cleric/Bard) that is not gimped. WotC's Archivist is a good example of how to do it.

This I agree, though oddly I see it something more like a cleric/monk, as the idea of the "cloistered cleric" is usually of an anchorite or ascetic friar type, someone who studies often in seclusion and must make do with what they've got in protecting and providing for themselves. The monk's attempt at having gearless options is a start for a framework for a character like that.

351 to 400 of 2,258 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 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.