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
401 to 450 of 2,258 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>

5 people marked this as a favorite.

My vote is for a monk/monk hybrid that takes some of the cool features of the monk, then adds a unique twist that makes an original.


Hey Jason! I think LoreKeeper just figured out how you could re-write the monk!


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, a Monk without all the mystical doo-dads and more facepunching power would be nice. You know, an actual frontline Bruce Lee class, instead of whatever the guys at Paizo think the Monk is really supposed to be like. ^^

On another note, I can't wait to see how the new iconics are going to look. I hope they get Wayne Reynolds to draw them, too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I'm looking at 10 new classes...which means 10 new Iconics? Which mean more Iconic Minis?????!!?? :)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

And potentially 10 more iconics to get an origin story posted before the Summoner!


Don't get me wrong - I really like the many small changes that have happened for the monk in the last year or so. I don't feel the monk is under powered or anything like that (sure, he isn't a powerhouse, but he plays reliable and fun games).

What I'd like is to move away from the "old" design on the monk, and get closer to the new hotness (barbarian rage powers, rogue talents, ninja tricks, oracle revelations, alchemist discoveries, magus arcana, etc). A monk-orientated class that did something similar (insights?) would be amazing. Take away Bonus Feats, and replace them with Insights every even level; add a big set of flavor heavy insights and we're good to go!


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Man, if the bloodrager guy gets a sorcerer bloodline, I can't wait to make a Verdant bloodrager.

"WHEN I GET ANGRY, I TURN INTO A TREE! RAAAAWRRR!!"

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I need to be at that PFS table.

Dark Archive

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Veldan Rath wrote:
I'm looking at 10 new classes... which means 10 new Iconics? Which mean more Iconic Minis?????!!?? :)

This is indeed exciting. We've got two elves (Merisiel and Damiel) and two Gnomes (Lini and Balthazar) and a crapton of humans, so I'm hoping that at least one is a dwarf and one is a halfing (both female?), as well as possibly one or more of the Bestiary 1 races (which aren't setting specific and so would work fine in a setting-neutral product) like tiefling or hobgoblin.

Cheapy wrote:

Man, if the bloodrager guy gets a sorcerer bloodline, I can't wait to make a Verdant bloodrager.

"WHEN I GET ANGRY, I TURN INTO A TREE! RAAAAWRRR!!"

"I am Groot!!"


magnuskn wrote:

Yeah, a Monk without all the mystical doo-dads and more facepunching power would be nice. You know, an actual frontline Bruce Lee class, instead of whatever the guys at Paizo think the Monk is really supposed to be like. ^^

On another note, I can't wait to see how the new iconics are going to look. I hope they get Wayne Reynolds to draw them, too.

Idk, seeing a Martial Artist archetype played currently at my table and having played it, it really fits the bill for the non-mystic monk. I'm just glad there are options for both.

Though, I also have monks proficient with all monk weapons so, that may be a bit different.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Dear Lord in Heaven, if they have a paladin/barbarian hybrid I would buy this book and faint after seeing the art for it. I would never play another class.


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Zombie Ninja wrote:
I think the summoner is the most unlikely one to hybridize. Evolutions are sorta complicated (but not as bad as people make them out to be). I wouldn't think they want an even more complicated class by combining it's features with something else. Besides how would they handle the eidolon.

I think they should make a summoner hybrid just because it is such a challenge. The summoner class is notorious as a multiclass option that "does not play well with others" -- and to date nobody but the Multiclass Archetype folks has even tried to make a summoner hybrid.

As for the eidolon -- there is certainly room between the full strength eidolon of a standard summoner and the half strength eidolon of a master summoner for a viable eidolon advancement option. After all, Pathfinder took the half level ranger animal companion of D&D 3.5 and make it level - 3, which is a big improvement for high level rangers.

And I would definitely support ideas for classes that take neat features from spellcasting classes but are not themselves spellcasters. Outside of the ranger class, taking away spells from a class seems to go beyond the desired limits of archetypes -- so I would love to see ways for non-spellcasters to get some variants of bardic music, wild shape, oracle's curse, witch's hex, and magical pets.

Shadow Lodge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
David knott 242 wrote:
The summoner class is notorious. . .

I'd agree that it is notorious, but not for that reason. :)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:


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"?

The Magus isn't a bad class.

It is a class that adds complexity to the game and narrows options. Everything written from this point forward has to consider Spell Combat when it considers interactions, just as everything written from this point forward has to consider Guns with touch AC.

Every GM has to plan for this and understand this, and we have lots of corner cases that need to be FAQed and wrangled...

And I still didn't get the hybrid I wanted. I got a Magus. A Magus is ok, but spell combat changes the baseline of the game and sets up yet another thing a GM has to understand and adjudicate.

That is where concerns of bloat come in. When an archetype is largely using existing mechanics that are reshuffled, nothing changes in the basic framework of the game. Giving a ranger sneak attack instead of other features doesn't change the game. Giving a rogue a favored enemy doesn't change the game.

Giving a Full BaB class a few spells doesn't change the game.

Adding a new mechanic "can" change the game.

Spell Combat changes the game, in terms of action economy. Thread after thread is still pending FAQ over it, and because of how the class is designed, it is kind of inflexible for my tastes. It isn't a coincidence how many scimitar Magus are floating about...and that is kind of...disappointing.

And add to complexity without, frankly, adding all that much to the game as a whole, IMHO.

Now if they go more toward what the did with the Inquisitor, where it was "new" but not anything mechanically different, that I am excited by.

But if they want to try and get fancy, I would rather they save that for the next edition rather than patching it in and having us all spend months and years arguing about corner case interactions.

I think the Magus would have been much better served if spell combat were replaced with something less game altering.

And I'm concerned that if they intend 10 more mechanics just as complex and game altering, that would push the game to a point where rules bloat is an issue.

Which is where 3.5 was at the end.

Shadow Lodge

I mostly agree, and feel the same way, however, I also understand that on the other hand, by trying out new things, like them or not, is how the game as a whole gets improved. Having never been a fan or or had any desire for guns in fantasy or the Gunslinger, in my opinion a non-gun wielding class that uses the Grit mechanic is a good thing.

Personally, the only new mechanics I hope are in this book are small ways to make the classes synergize with each other. Not new uber stuff like with the Magus (agreed this is a great example of what not to do), but rather something that would, for example let a Cleric's + Paladin's abilities to Channel Energy work together, and possibly even get minor boosts from it. Maybe combining the Ranger's + Druid's entire spellcasting/spell list etc. . . into one single list, using the same DC's, and class features that apply to one for both, and things like that.


ciretose wrote:
But if they want to try and get fancy, I would rather they save that for the next edition rather than patching it in and having us all spend months and years arguing about corner case interactions.

For those of us who never want to see another edition of PF, the months and years arguing seem better than not rebuying a new set of books and being stuck playing a game no company is supporting.

I prefer paizo slowly changing the rules of class features, skills, feats, and spells through errata.


The Witcher!
The Witcher!
The Witcher!
The Witcher!


ciretose wrote:

And I still didn't get the hybrid I wanted. I got a Magus. A Magus is ok, but spell combat changes the baseline of the game and sets up yet another thing a GM has to understand and adjudicate.

That is where concerns of bloat come in. When an archetype is largely using existing mechanics that are reshuffled, nothing changes in the basic framework of the game. Giving a ranger sneak attack instead of other features doesn't change the game. Giving a rogue a favored enemy doesn't change the game.

Yes, it DOESN'T change the game.

...So why did it need to be printed in the first place?

If it's just going to be "The same mechanics shuffled around everywhere", they may as well just release something like that Freeform Class Selection thing I've been working on (but probably better because they actually have manpower) and call it a day, never releasing a new class.

Silver Crusade

I am not happy with this at all. Now you want to do a Class glut to this game? You guys barely support the new classes in Pathfinder (especially the Gunslinger, Ninja, and Samurai). How do you expect to support 10 more classes for us?

And no, I do not want to use 3rd party stuff. Can we at least expect more class crunch material in the Player Companions from here on out?

Thanks.

Liberty's Edge

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:

Personally, the only new mechanics I hope are in this book are small ways to make the classes synergize with each other. Not new uber stuff like with the Magus (agreed this is a great example of what not to do), but rather something that would, for example let a Cleric's + Paladin's abilities to Channel Energy work together, and possibly even get minor boosts from it. Maybe combining the Ranger's + Druid's entire spellcasting/spell list etc. . . into one single list, using the same DC's, and class features that apply to one for both, and things like that.

And I think there is a lot of untapped potential in this kind of stuff.

A Druid/Paladin Nature Warrior is a great full class concept that doesn't require any really new mechanics but that doesn't work well through a multiclass.

That is where I would like to see explored and filled in before we start adding game changing mechanics which actually will narrow future options by adding complicating factors in future decisions.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Markolius Craggmorn wrote:


And no, I do not want to use 3rd party stuff.

Thanks.

Too bad, a lot of it is extremely good.


Marc Radle wrote:
Markolius Craggmorn wrote:


And no, I do not want to use 3rd party stuff.

Thanks.

Too bad, a lot of it is extremely good.

On the other side of the coin, some of it is just blatantly terrible.

Best of the Best?

Dreamscarred Press (Psionics that interact well with Pathfinder)
Super Genius Games (Some kinda funky stuff, but mostly well thought out)
Open Design (Yet to see a bad or unbalanced book from them yet)

Just my opinions, YMMV.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:

Spell Combat changes the game, in terms of action economy. Thread after thread is still pending FAQ over it, and because of how the class is designed, it is kind of inflexible for my tastes. It isn't a coincidence how many scimitar Magus are floating about...and that is kind of...disappointing

That has nothing to do with the magus, and everything to do with dervish dance. Light armored classes like having a high dex. Magus needs a good int, so if they can not worry about strength its a big boon. Dervish dance is the only route where you can completely ignore strength with melee combat. That isnt a failing of the magus, its a limitation of the whole game system.

The inflexibility was a balancing element, and it makes sense you dont get to use the best combat methods and cast a spell at the same time. That said there are routes around the limitation if you are really worried about. Super genius games released arcana that allowed you to spend arcane pool points to circumvent the restruction.

Quote:

And add to complexity without, frankly, adding all that much to the game as a whole, IMHO.

I disagree, I think spell combat is probably the best combination of fighting and magic I have seen. I happen to like it a lot and its the most elegant solution I've seen in d20.

Quote:

Now if they go more toward what the did with the Inquisitor, where it was "new" but not anything mechanically different, that I am excited by.

I like the inquisitor, but he suffers from the issue most so called fighter mages have in the past. Their abilities dont synergize. EIther he's using his combat, judgements and bane, or he's casting spells, they dont work together. I sincerely hope the war priest ends up with something that brings magic and combat together instead of them being 2 distinct elements of the character.

Quote:


But if they want to try and get fancy, I would rather they save that for the next edition rather than patching it in and having us all spend months and years arguing about corner case interactions.

I think the Magus would have been much better served if spell combat were replaced with something less game altering.

If it doesnt change the game, what is the point? Putting a new name on it? That is pointless books. An addition to the game should actually add something new, otherwise what are we buying? If I want to mix and match class abilities, I can do that on my own. Heck super genius game's talented line of products is moving towards a really good system for that. I dont need a new book from paizo to let a ranger get sneak attack. Thats not a new class, its at most an archetype.

I dont want more luke warm archetypes. I want real change, things I havent seen before.

Quote:

And I'm concerned that if they intend 10 more mechanics just as complex and game altering, that would push the game to a point where rules bloat is an issue.

Which is where 3.5 was at the end.

So dont use it? I dont see the problem. If additional mechanics are a problem for you, why are you buying NEW RULEBOOKS. The only thing they can add is new mechanics. Otherwise they are a literal waste of money (granted the art would be good) but somehow claiming that a RULES book that adds RULES is bloat is nonsense.


Markolius Craggmorn wrote:

I am not happy with this at all. Now you want to do a Class glut to this game? You guys barely support the new classes in Pathfinder (especially the Gunslinger, Ninja, and Samurai). How do you expect to support 10 more classes for us?

And no, I do not want to use 3rd party stuff. Can we at least expect more class crunch material in the Player Companions from here on out?

Thanks.

On the other hand, do you really want a character stagnation? When you consistently see the same builds over and over in PFS play, it's time for new material. (Interesting that you pick the 3 controversial classes for a lack of support - Gunslingers "keep your guns out of my Fantasy Game," Ninja and Samurai (and to a lesser extent, the Core Monk which people have just learned to live with) "keep your Asian / Anime crap out of my European Centric Fantasy Game," also keep in mind these are both spurious arguments.)

As for more "Crunch" in the player companions, they are like 65/35 crunch to fluff now, I was actually hoping for LESS crunch and more how to integrate the game into Golarion (I cannot begin to expound on how tired I am of "Feat-Bloat" and "Spell-Bloat," both of which were also major problems with 3.5 during its ENTIRE lifespan as a game, and were also more significant problems then Class Glut, there were just too many broken and overpowered feats that synergized too well with each other an a 1-level dip to get the prereqs.)

Shadow Lodge

While the Inquisitor isn't as broken as the Summoner or the Magus, it does very, very well at being pretty much in the spotlight no matter what. Its generally much better at combat than the Cleric or Bard, has the Skills to be great in and out of combat, does get to alter a few things and what stats they use, so not so MAD, and also doesn't really have the downside of being a Divine Caster like worrying about Alignment issues or well, basically DM douchery, but does have some better Divine Spells than even the Cleric/Druid, which can be healing, self buffs, party buffs, or debuffs, as desired. It's basically that it is able to contribute well and be viable and fun in basically all sorts of encounters and does actually pretty well synergize with itself, but not to the extent of other classes, but without being too complicated or needing a whole lot of new, unique mechanics.

Liberty's Edge

Kolokotroni wrote:

That has nothing to do with the magus, and everything to do with dervish dance. Light armored classes like having a high dex. Magus needs a good int, so if they can not worry about strength its a big boon. Dervish dance is the only route where you can completely ignore strength with melee combat. That isnt a failing of the magus, its a limitation of the whole game system.

Which is the entire point.

The dervish dance, before spell combat, worked fine for exactly what it was meant to do.

With spell combat it makes one choice clearly better.

The addition of this mechanic doesn't sync well with existing mechanics, in the same way having a touch AC weapon means every decision going forward is now limited around this new mechanic.

This is true of every mechanic in the game. It isn't inherently a bad thing and it is a part of any system.

Things interact.

The more basic changes to mechanics you add, the more things you have to consider when adding new features, meaning the less new features that "work" within the existing framework.

You are illustrating my point, not refuting it.

Dark Archive

Sounds very cool, looking forward to learning more about the book.

Liberty's Edge

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
While the Inquisitor isn't as broken as the Summoner or the Magus, it does very, very well at being pretty much in the spotlight no matter what. Its generally much better at combat than the Cleric or Bard, has the Skills to be great in and out of combat, does get to alter a few things and what stats they use, so not so MAD, and also doesn't really have the downside of being a Divine Caster like worrying about Alignment issues or well, basically DM douchery, but does have some better Divine Spells than even the Cleric/Druid, which can be healing, self buffs, party buffs, or debuffs, as desired. It's basically that it is able to contribute well and be viable and fun in basically all sorts of encounters and does actually pretty well synergize with itself, but not to the extent of other classes, but without being too complicated or needing a whole lot of new, unique mechanics.

And more importantly, there isn't "a" inquisitor. You can have tons and tons of combinations of completely different inquisitors, none of which is clearly "the" best option. It's bonuses are just bonuses to whatever they decide to use.

The failing of the Magus comes in the fact that there really is a narrow scope of options that are clearly better.

The summoner was a bold effort that only works with a strong GM hand, ironically in a class that most attracts people who don't want GM interaction...which is a recipe for problems.

It isn't that the Magus is "Bad". It is that it that you really are going to reasonably pick one kind of Magus, because one type is clearly better, and that is kind of lame.

Shadow Lodge

True, true. I should also point out that while the Inquisitor isn't super OP, it is a pretty strong class. I would also say that the Conversion Inquisitor (in my limited experience with the class, and specifically from a PFS perspective) is pretty dang strong going the high Dex and Wis route, and ironically with Dervish Dance ha ha ha). But still not really in the same league as the Summoner or the Magus, even in the generic sense. It does, however, have a small set of unique mechanics, but they are not that different from other things.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

In the midst of all these people ranting angrily against a book they don't know anything solid about; I would like to remind the good people of Paizo of the wise words of Mark Twain:

"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can be come great".

Now you can all take that anyway you want to. I, as both a player, and definately as a GM, is looking very much forward to a new book to keep my games from stagnating.

Liberty's Edge

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
True, true. I should also point out that while the Inquisitor isn't super OP, it is a pretty strong class. I would also say that the Conversion Inquisitor (in my limited experience with the class, and specifically from a PFS perspective) is pretty dang strong going the high Dex and Wis route, and ironically with Dervish Dance ha ha ha). But still not really in the same league as the Summoner or the Magus, even in the generic sense. It does, however, have a small set of unique mechanics, but they are not that different from other things.

Which is what I would like to see from this book, and why I was putting it in my shopping cart until I read "Magus" as the benchmark.

If they had used "Inquisitor" as the benchmark, I would be downright giddy.

After all, the Inquisitor is a hybrid Ranger/Cleric.


Will this book include background info on how characters might have become these classes? One of the challenges my ground faces is creating a plausible background story for each character. How did the barbarian become a barbarian and end up in the same town as a druid, inquisitor and cleric and then why are they willing to work together?

If we could get a in-depth book on class background options that would be well received by my group. Ultimate Campaign was a step in the right direction, but more is needed.

Sometimes the pathfinder world fills like a bunch of random classes/NPCs/Monsters thrown together with Elmer's glue. The modern gamer is smart and wants some legitimate background that feeds into the story.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:

That has nothing to do with the magus, and everything to do with dervish dance. Light armored classes like having a high dex. Magus needs a good int, so if they can not worry about strength its a big boon. Dervish dance is the only route where you can completely ignore strength with melee combat. That isnt a failing of the magus, its a limitation of the whole game system.

Which is the entire point.

The dervish dance, before spell combat, worked fine for exactly what it was meant to do.

With spell combat it makes one choice clearly better.

The addition of this mechanic doesn't sync well with existing mechanics, in the same way having a touch AC weapon means every decision going forward is now limited around this new mechanic.

This is true of every mechanic in the game. It isn't inherently a bad thing and it is a part of any system.

Things interact.

The more basic changes to mechanics you add, the more things you have to consider when adding new features, meaning the less new features that "work" within the existing framework.

You are illustrating my point, not refuting it.

Dervish dance comes from Pathfinder Companion: Qadira, Gateway to the East...

Some books are so random that maybe they weren't meant to be staples of every campaign setting.

Liberty's Edge

Marthkus wrote:


Dervish dance comes from Pathfinder Companion: Qadira, Gateway to the East...

Some books are so random that maybe they weren't meant to be staples of every campaign setting.

QFT


DGRM44 wrote:

Will this book include background info on how characters might have become these classes? One of the challenges my ground faces is creating a plausible background story for each character. How did the barbarian become a barbarian and end up in the same town as a druid, inquisitor and cleric and then why are they willing to work together?

If we could get a in-depth book on class background options that would be well received by my group. Ultimate Campaign was a step in the right direction, but more is needed.

Sometimes the pathfinder world fills like a bunch of random classes/NPCs/Monsters thrown together with Elmer's glue. The modern gamer is smart and wants some legitimate background that feeds into the story.

I find the tables in ultimate campaign plus whatever your GM gives you as the campaign setting to be more than enough to create back stories that fit well into the story.

The randomness of the tables helps me play a role instead of roleplaying as myself.


Marthkus wrote:
I find the tables in ultimate campaign plus whatever your GM gives you as the campaign setting to be more than enough to create back stories that fit well into the story.The randomness of the tables helps me play a role instead of roleplaying as myself.

For my group this is a great start but we could use more. The background of characters are so important to driving the story. Their motivations. Their history. Family. Friends. Common Foes. Common Friends. Favored Lands. Religions. Races. Etc. We don't typically use store bought adventures, although we do get ideas from them. We try to create a coherent backstory and then let that drive the campaign. We try to make our game characters centric to the plot and take more of a sandbox approach letting the characters really drive the story in the direction they want to go. If we had something from Paizo that helped fill in the backstories of characters classes and races this would be a big help for us.


Here's to hoping they make a druid/magus combo so I can finally play a proper enhancement shaman concept (World of Warcraft class/spec that's really fun, for those that don't know).


DGRM44 wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
I find the tables in ultimate campaign plus whatever your GM gives you as the campaign setting to be more than enough to create back stories that fit well into the story.The randomness of the tables helps me play a role instead of roleplaying as myself.
For my group this is a great start but we could use more. The background of characters are so important to driving the story. Their motivations. Their history. Family. Friends. Common Foes. Common Friends. Favored Lands. Religions. Races. Etc. We don't typically use store bought adventures, although we do get ideas from them. We try to create a coherent backstory and then let that drive the campaign. We try to make our game characters centric to the plot and take more of a sandbox approach letting the characters really drive the story in the direction they want to go. If we had something from Paizo that helped fill in the backstories of characters classes and races this would be a big help for us.

Ah sandbox campaigns. Yeah my group is going through rise of the runelords now. Between UC and the players info the GM gave us, I was able to construct an intricate and meaningful back story.

Without the player campaign setting info, I would have been a little lost on how to integrate the fixed points of my UC background into the campaign.

I've seen demand for "Ultimate Sandbox" from many people on the forums, perhaps Paizo will exploit this niche before a 3rd party takes care of it.


I would rather Warpriest be called Battle Chaplain, but other than that I'm cautiously optimistic!

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I have concerns about how this book will interact with PFS. But I try to remember that not all PF is PFS.

I hope the shaman has similarities to 4Es shaman, which is an awesome class. New mechanics, but not terribly difficult ones.

And...still no psionic class? Psionics would be fun.


I'm am hoping that the bloodrager or whatever it will be called will be a (or have options at least) transformational class.

If not that then maybe some of the yet unmentioned classes might have that option, although the bloodrager so far seems to be the best fit.

By transformational I mean you actually change creature type. Sorcerers are close but not quite and the only ones we actually have are the Emyrean knight/Knight of the Sepulcher and the Planar Oracle. Yes the monk as well but that has less flavor.

The Acolyte of the Skin, Green Star Adept, Elemental Savant, Divine Agent, and the like.

Shadow Lodge

Paizo Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Dustin Ashe wrote:

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.

Me too. Every single time.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

If I don't see me a John Woo Monk/Gunslinger class, I will write a very stern letter to you folks.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I want my Jack Black Bardbarian from Brutal Legend.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Marthkus wrote:
I want my Jack Black Bardbarian from Brutal Legend.

neeeeeeeeeeeeddddddddddddd thhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhiiiiiisssssssss!!!!!


Marthkus wrote:
I want my Jack Black Bardbarian from Brutal Legend.

...Know I want to make a ridicul- I mean METAL campaign using a heavily modified version of the army and kingdom building rules from UC.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

The Slayer sounds cool, but then you realize that it's basically a racist serial killer...

Lantern Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Axial wrote:
The Slayer sounds cool, but then you realize that it's basically a racist serial killer...

Pretty much.


Axial wrote:
The Slayer sounds cool, but then you realize that it's basically a racist serial killer...

Not necessarily racist, Evil characters can take their own race as a favored enemy if I'm not mistaken. Besides I'll take it if it means one less caster.

Also +1 to both the Jack Black-esque Barbarian/Bard and the John Woo style Gunslinger/Monk (as long as when he's channeling his Ki through his gunfighting, Doves appear flying through the background, Even underground ;-) )


Actually, anyone can take their own race as favored enemy, at least for the ranger.

And yea... That... Does... Sound... Off...

401 to 450 of 2,258 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 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.