Advanced Class Guide Playtest is Live!

After looking through these, they are very interesting; however, before I submit any in-depth opinion on these classes, I have a question...

Is the slayer supposed to be able to study a target multiple times for Favored Target? It makes sense thematically to play it like that- the longer they wait in hiding, studying their target, the more deadly and fast they are once they strike. If played like this, it sure would make stealth play interesting.

Favored Target (Ex): At 1st level, a slayer can as a move

action study an opponent. The slayer then gains a +1
bonus on Bluff, Knowledge, Perception, Sense Motive,
and Survival checks against that opponent, and a +1
bonus on weapon attack and damage rolls against it.
These bonuses remain in effect until either the opponent
is dead or the slayer studies a new target.
At 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th levels, the slayer’s bonuses
against a studied target increase by +1. In addition, at
each such interval, the slayer is able to maintain these
bonuses against an additional studied target at the same
time. The slayer may lose this connection to a studied
target as a free action (allowing him to study another
target in its place).
At 10th level, the slayer can study an opponent as a
move or swift action.

The more I think about this book the more I think that it's simply a bad idea from the start.
Something more like the Advanced Player's Guide classes, that feel more independently flavourful and mechanically distinct (even if they build off of older mechanics!) would have been better, not this...
If many of these classes don't end up being very different in the final product than they currently are, I'm really concerned about the future direction of Pathfinder.

Most are close to good but they need a bit of tweaking and fixing. Just like any good machine does.

okay, precise strike issue.

Precise Strike (Ex): At 3rd level, as long as she has at least

1 panache point, a swashbuckler gains the ability to strike
precisely with a light or one-handed piercing melee
weapon (though not natural weapon attacks), adding her
swashbuckler level to her damage roll. To use this deed,
a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other
hand or use a shield. A precise strike only works against
living creatures with discernible anatomies. Any creature
that is immune to critical hits is also immune to a precise
strike, and any item or ability that protects a creature
from critical hits also protects a creature from a precise
strike. The extra damage of precise strike is precision
damage, and isn’t multiplied with a critical hit.
As a swift action, a swashbuckler can spend 1 panache
point to her precise strike’s damage bonus on the next
attack. This must be used before the end of her turn, or
it is lost.

So a couple issues.

1. That last paragraph, what?
2. What cost is it? as long as you have 1 panache point it's constantly on? or do you need to spend a point of panache?
3. On multiple attacks per turn, what attacks does this effect?
4. What action does this take?
5. What duration is this?
6. Seriously, that last paragraph? what?

Please post questions and playtest feedback in the respective threads for each class, not as a reply to this blog post.

right will do.

My thoughts:

Arcanist: Weak flavor, but powerful regardless. The language in the Spells section could be cleared up to help the reader better understand how spells are prepared and cast. I had to read it three times just to understand the mechanic of preparing spells. Blood focus is neat and all, but is fairly underwhelming, especially using it to increase the caster level and DC of a spell by one and only one. I can understand the reasoning behind this, to preserve balance, but ultimately, this makes this use of the ability wimpy. Its use for a bloodline power use (or reuse) is also fairly underwhelming. Arcanist falls short, and I think serious work needs to be done to fix this class. However, as both wizard and sorcerer do not have a large number of abilities themselves, this becomes problematic for hybrid classes like ones being tested here.

Bloodrager: An interesting combo of feral power and feral spellcasting mixed into one class. It is a very nice mix of barbarian and sorcerer that draws out the strengths of both classes without sorcerer overpowering the class. Using the magus spell list was a very good choice I might add, since it allows the bloodrager to wreak havoc with both steel and spell. The bloodrage powers are a nice touch, since they add a element to the bloodlines that benefits the hybridization of these two classes and are rage powers tied in with the bloodline.

Brawler: I've always wanted a fist fighter character that wasn't a monk and was able to take advantage of the benefit of a full attack progression and the benefit of having a d10 hit die. This, in my opinion, goes beyond what the brawler fighter and the martial artist monk, and creates a hard knuckle fighter or boxer without tying it too much to either monk or fighter. It is a nice blend between the two classes.

Hunter: This class leaves much to be desired. It is a druid for people that don't like wild shape, but there is an issue here. The teamwork feats seem incredibly out of place here. Teamwork feats are already situational and not having solo tactics from inquisitor makes these dead features most of the time. I would say that the hunter either have the ranger's spell progression or the druid's, but not in between. With the class having a lot of feats that won't work most of the time, I would shift toward having a full list of nine spell levels instead of six. That said, I do like Animal Focus and Hunter Tactics.

Investigator: Investigator seems misnamed and the flavor is a little lacking. When I think of investigator as a hybrid class like this, I immediately think of a bard/rogue. Heck, even alchemist/bard seems to better fit. I definitely think this is better class with the bard's knowledge based abilities blended with the rogue's stealth oriented game play. Alchemist/bard could capture the idea of a forensic investigator, using science to determine causes of death and such. Alchemist/rogue for me just does not scream investigator to me. As well as this, the investigator does not, in my opinion, does not do enough to create a fully unique experience or even a truly unique class. Unlike the other classes, it feels simply like a gestalt alchemist/rogue. The inspiration talents are interesting, but they are, again in my opinion, thinly veiled rogue talents. I would also decrease the amount of die for sneak attack, while it is one less than rogue, it still steps on a full rogue's toes. Finally, poison use seems out of place for someone who's supposed to be solving crimes.

Shaman: Shaman is very interesting, but I think wandering spirit should be changed to exclude the true spirit ability, since this makes your wandering spirit just as powerful as your spirit. Limiting it to the greater spirit ability would be a sufficient fix. I do like the blending of the oracle and witch.

Skald: Love it. Very flavorful. It's different from the skald bard archetype, and creates a different flavor for skalds. It's good that other characters can opt out of the raging song, since it could be a hindrance as much as a boon. Granting rage powers to the bard is a very interesting decision, but the skald will definitely benefit, especially when he and his allies are under the effects of raging song. Spell keening is interesting, but I think is ultimately unnecessary. It takes simply too long to cast a spell with this ability, as even a 1st level Bless spell will take a full round to cast and even longer for higher level spells, including truly beneficial spells like Heal. What I would suggest instead of getting any spell from sorcerer/wizard/cleric whenever your fancy strikes, take a page from magician. Make it so that every so often you can add a spell to your spell list from either the sorcerer/wizard or cleric spell list. I would suggest making it the cleric list, so that the spells still fall under the support category for the most part, and the thunder of the magician archetype, which I do like, is not stolen.

Slayer: Slayer feels so much like what it would be to play the assassin prestige class from level 1 and with no alignment restriction. I'm still trying to decide how I feel about this, but I will say that I do find the class intriguing. I will definitely have to playtest this to feel the class out.

Swashbuckler: This is definitely more Errol Flynn than Blackbeard, and I can respect that. However, it doesn't do too much to introduce new elements other than the standard fighter basics and gunslinger deeds (though the new ones are nice). For a class based on the gunslinger, where are the guns? I understand the goal is make a gunslinger more focused on melee weapons, but at least make the swashbuckler proficient with a pistol.

Warpriest: This is definitely a class with a lot going on in it. It's like a hybridization of cleric, paladin, and fighter at once. The blessings mechanic is interesting and adds a new and interesting element of gameplay. This class definitely feels a diet paladin, but adds in a greater degree of magic and channel energy. I believe that the spells should come more from the inquisitor spell list rather than the cleric list (obviously not using any spell that is inquisitor specific, since you could still cross-class into inquisitor).

All in all, however, I think the people at Paizo have made a very interesting set of classes for players to experiment with.

After getting a good night of sleep, my initial impressions:

Arcanist: This almost seems too good. You get the best things from the Wizard and the best things from the Sorcerer. On the other hand, you also get the worst from the Wizard (fiddly and expensive acquisition of spells) and the worst from the Sorcerer (delayed spell progression), but I am hesitant to call it a wash. You also get Intelligence as your main stat, which makes the class a skill monkey. What the class currently completely lacks seems to be flavor, it occupies a strange, undefined middle ground between Wizards and Sorcerers. 3/5 for kinda-sorta obsoleting the Sorcerer.

Bloodrager: Well, at least you don't get Pounce and your Bloodrage Powers are more limited in choice. But, man, this class seems to want to obsolete the Barbarian so badly. I quite like it, the idea of your special heritage pumping power through your veins was something I always loved about the Sorcerer. Mechanically, it seems to very strong. 4/5

Brawler: Horrible class name, but the class itself is very strong. I only hope that the ACG will provide new ways to enhance your unarmed attacks, the Amulet of Mighty Fists has never cut it. This class has most things I always wanted for the Monk, a non-mystic martial artist. Evasion is kinda missed, though, but we got an item for that. 5/5

Hunter: Do we also get Night Elves to annoyingly bunny-jump all around the room? ^^ I like this class, it brings across your enhanced connection to your animal companion quite well. It would probably benefit from getting better benefits out of it than the normal ones, like some from the familiar list. 4/5

Investigator: Hey, someone just backstabbed the Rogue! Again! Not that I particularly mind, though. Awesome class, obsoletes the Rogue. Again. Please adopt as it is. Even though I hate Sneak Attack.5/5

Shaman: Mechanically this looks strong, but then again it's a full caster. I guess this is the class I was looking forward to the least, since I found Oracle/Witch to be a weird combination. Eh, it seems okay. My low score stems mostly from me being apathetic toward its concept. 3/5

Skald: So, you seriously are giving a quasi-bard the ability to give everybody Pounce and some of the other really good rage powers? This is, depending on the party composition, really, really good or rather okay. I wonder how this interacts with the Bloodragers power set, though? Anyway, decent class, not my personal style, but decent. 4/5

Slayer: Hey, Buffy. :p Aside from my dislike of Sneak Attack, this seems really, really solid. 5/5

Swashbuckler: Oh, how I have awaited thee! Very different, yet strangely similar to my own take on the class, this class has tons of awesome things going for it. Initial confusion about Precise Strike aside, so much goodness. Some not-so-goodness, too, but that is for the class discussion thread. 5/5

Warpriest: Uh, what exactly is the point of this class? The Inquisitor seems to do everything it can and better. The Channel Energy feature is too weak, the spell list is worse than the Inquisitors, 2+INT skills per level is a joke in comparison and it occupies the same niche. Blessings seem really, really weak through the bank. This class badly needs either a full BAB and worse spellcasting, or a major buff to its class abilities. 2/5

So, seven out of ten classes seem awesome, two out of ten seem good, but I can't make heads and tails of their flavor yet and one seems really, really unnecessary and weak. There's room to improve, but not much. I hope they don't nerf the good classes.

Blessing seem like they would be a great alternative to Domains/Inquisitions...

So what's the deal here? Some of these classes just don't add up.

Arcanist: I wasn't aware PF was lacking in full casters. Also why does this class get a favored school but no unfavored one?

Bloodrager: Alright I'm down but I have some questions here. Why are some of the bloodlines so inferior to the other ones? Why the Magus spell list, doesn't it deserves its own? Does this class allow me to qualify for Draconic Disciple?

Brawler: Ok so monks have been replaced, got it. The learning of feats is a really cool ability but I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess it will get replaced with a specific list of feats to choose from later on. Why are the capstones and late level abilities so mediocre? I feel like Brawler 10/Barbarian 10 is a fun route.

Hunter: So a nerfed druid, but with nothing interesting coming too it for a replacement. A tactician-like ability would really help make the teamwork feats actually worth it. Giving up wildshape to get limited buff use? Not an attractive alternative.

Investigator: Better than the Rogue, worse than the Vivisectionist. The fact that Extracts weren't renamed seems kind of lazy. I was really hoping that this class would make a good case for non-combats in PF but it looks like that won't be the case. Also why 9d6 for Sneak Attack? That's such an odd number choice.

Shaman: This doesn't feel much like a hybrid. Hexes seem kind of stapled on half-hazardly (the text even calls them witches a few times). Also: who the heck made it so they aren't pulling from the druid spell list?

Skald: Objectively worse than the bard. Also a question of why it isn't just an archetype. The idea of Moment of Greatness + Rage is somewhat unsettling, but overall mediocre. I do enjoy the throwing out of the bard flavor in favor of a something a little more interesting.

Slayer: Ok, this makes me a little mad. Firstly: why are there no abilities that make it easier to set up Sneak Attack at range? Sure you can increase the range for SA by 10 ft a trick but the fact that you still have to contend with flanking and denying dex. Is it like unspoken law that sneak attack must be limited to melee? Second: why weren't more talents stolen from hunter's tricks? It would seem to be right up the ally for this class. I do like favored enemy, and if quarry gave you sneak attack against the target it would be marginally more useful.

Swashbuckler: I like the idea of this class, I really do. The issue is that a lot of the Panache abilities are just plain not good. Giving Parry the ability to block missiles and rays would help, as well as making it scale better with levels. Overall more Panache abilities would help. I also enjoy how it negates the abilities of two PrC in its first few levels.

Warpriest: A nerfed cleric. It seems to want to be a divine Magus. The issue is that both the Paladin and the Cleric do it better. Also why any class ever should have 2+INT for skill ranks is beyond me.

Overall most of these things are better as archetypes rather than full classes. Others are just simply replacements of existing classes. The other few simply shouldn't be. Also the fact that the book isn't creating unique classes and is just slapping existing stuff together is somewhat disconcerting.

It gets a favored school but can't do anything but buff a spell from that school by spending a Limited Resource.

I can't really disagree with the rest... until...

Swashbuckler have the missile and rays thing be at later levels so it scales.

And the Warpriest... Well let's just say here is my reaction after the Marathon Campaign.

The new hybrid classes look pretty damn dope. I can't even imagine the archetypes planned for these classes.

Arcanist is pretty much the most broken arcane caster ever. Prepares just like a Wiz but treats prepared spells like a Sorc's spells known. So the most versatile class became even more versatile than before. Heaven forbid one ever gets its hands on a Blessed Book.

Bloodrager is essentially a non-bloodline specific Sorc/Barb Dragon Disciple as a base class. The bloodrage bloodlines are an interesting spin on existing sorc bloodlines.

Brawler is the unarmed fighter finally done right. Take monk punching and the non-Wisdom AC bonus and slap on the fighter's bab/hd with an ability that grants temporary combat feats on the fly.

Hunter is a druid/ranger mix that is all about working in tandem with your animal companion. Definitely a good class to play for those familiar with teamwork feats.

Investigator is the vivisectionist archetype with access to rogue talents and trapping. Mix this with a dip in Brawler would make an interesting batman-esque build, with the extracts being part of your utility belt.

Shaman is one of the more interesting classes in the bunch. It turns an oracle into a prepared caster like a cleric with a wtich's familiar instead of a curse, while granting access to hexes in addition to those granted by the mystery variants called spirits.

Skalds are bards with rage powers. Seems like it could be a fun option for those who like the idea of a more combat-oriented bard. This is pretty much the Dethklok class.

Slayer is the ideal choice for rangers who don't care about animal companions or the small smattering of spellcasting. Favored Target + Sneak Attack is the name of this game. Add track, quarry, and rogue-like talents to the mix and you have the perfect partner for an Investigator both in and out of combat.

Swashbuckler is the perfect alternative for games that don't allow firearms, It uses a firearms-less version of the gunslinger's deeds with the fighter's weapon training with a focus on weapon finesse, making this a more ideal dex fighter.

Warpriest is little more than a cleric giving up 7th-9th level spells and domain spells for fighter weapon and armor training and domain variants called blessings. Pretty much a more focused version of preexisting melee cleric concepts.

All in all, I think this is going to be a great new addition to Pathfinder. If anyone wants to run a game or mock battle on roll20.net, let me know.

Just wanted to give Paizo props for the high quality of the Playtest documents. It's cool that they make the playtest docs look like the finished product, rather than just making it look "good enough" for practical use.

Not every company would go to such efforts regarding the presentation of playtest documents.

Second, using pre-established spell lists feels... cheap. Like this was rushed. Now admittedly we've been ranking about wanting this now, so maybe it was. Perhaps these spell lists are placeholders until the next part comes out. I'm hoping this is the case.

As I said in another thread:

We would really like to avoid creating a new spell list for any of these classes, which is why none of them have unique spell lists (they all use the spell list of another class). Every time we create a new class spell list, we have to (1) spend a lot of lines in the book re-listing all of the existing spells that should be on that list, and (2) add to the amount of text in a spell stat block to call out which classes the spell belongs to.

As an example of #1, the list of alchemist extracts, inqusitor spells, and summoner spells in the APG each take up an entire column of space (or close to it), and ditto for the magus spell list in UM. Likewise, the spell lists in Ultimate Magic take up 9 pages, 3 of which are spell lists for classes that aren't in the Core Rulebook. If those classes didn't have unique spell lists, that's 3 additional pages of spells we could have had in Ultimate Magic. Now, I'm not saying that ALL new classes shouldn't have unique spell lists, but as all of the classes in the ACG are hybrids of existing classes, it's reasonable to try giving them access to existing spell lists.

As an example of #2, a spell stat block already has to call out alchemist, antipaladin, bard, cleric, druid, inquisitor, magus, paladin, ranger, sorcerer/wizard, summoner, and witch.
ACG classes could potentially add arcanist, bloodrager, hunter, investigator, shaman, skald, and warpriest listings.

Do not all of the spells on the druid spell list seem to be a perfect fit for the hunter? Sure.
But not all of the spells on the cleric spell list fit for fire clerics, death clerics, or healing clerics... but there are many, many types of cleric characters you can build, and there will be many, many types of hunter characters you'll be able to build (with the base class and archetypes).
I'd rather leave the door open for spellcasting for those builds than to close the door and have to wedge in additions to the spell list for each archetype and such.

The more I think about this book the more I think that it's simply a bad idea from the start.

Something more like the Advanced Player's Guide classes, that feel more independently flavourful and mechanically distinct (even if they build off of older mechanics!) would have been better, not this...
If many of these classes don't end up being very different in the final product than they currently are, I'm really concerned about the future direction of Pathfinder.

You should read this post and this post from Jason.

The only one that needs it's own spell list is the Shaman or at least let it use the witch or druid list but please not the cleric.

The only one that needs it's own spell list is the Shaman or at least let it use the witch or druid list but please not the cleric.

Yeah, for some reason I thought the Shaman was supposed to be an Oracle/Druid hybrid, and I was really looking forward to someone spontaneously casting from the Druid spell list.

I wish the shaman was the spontaneous caster druid that I have been wanting since I first say the oracle. But I kind of figured it wasn't when they said it was a oracle+witch.

Nice! For awhile now I've had an idea for a basically non-magic fantasy setting. So a setting with no casters. One where the highest level of magic the PCs would have access to is the mysticism of the Monk. The problem was there weren't really enough classes around to pull it off. Now it might just be doable. It looks like we'll now have ten non-casters to choose from (including Skirmisher Rangers). Twelve if you count Ninja and Samurai as separate classes. :D

We would really like to avoid creating a new spell list for any of these classes, which is why none of them have unique spell lists (they all use the spell list of another class). Every time we create a new class spell list, we have to (1) spend a lot of lines in the book re-listing all of the existing spells that should be on that list, and (2) add to the amount of text in a spell stat block to call out which classes the spell belongs to.

As an example of #1, the list of alchemist extracts, inqusitor spells, and summoner spells in the APG each take up an entire column of space (or close to it), and ditto for the magus spell list in UM. Likewise, the spell lists in Ultimate Magic take up 9 pages, 3 of which are spell lists for classes that aren't in the Core Rulebook. If those classes didn't have unique spell lists, that's 3 additional pages of spells we could have had in Ultimate Magic. Now, I'm not saying that ALL new classes shouldn't have unique spell lists, but as all of the classes in the ACG are hybrids of existing classes, it's reasonable to try giving them access to existing spell lists.

As an example of #2, a spell stat block already has to call out alchemist, antipaladin, bard, cleric, druid, inquisitor, magus, paladin, ranger, sorcerer/wizard, summoner, and witch.
ACG classes could potentially add arcanist, bloodrager, hunter, investigator, shaman, skald, and warpriest listings.

Do not all of the spells on the druid spell list seem to be a perfect fit for the hunter? Sure.
But not all of the spells on the cleric spell list fit for fire clerics, death clerics, or healing clerics... but there are many, many types of cleric characters you can build, and...

With reguard to #2, if you care less about these new classes than the antipaladin then why are you even bothering?

Do not all of the spells on the druid spell list seem to be a perfect fit for the hunter? Sure.

But not all of the spells on the cleric spell list fit for fire clerics, death clerics, or healing clerics... but there are many, many types of cleric characters you can build, and...

Space is always an issue, so I won't even try to get into that.

However, in regards to the portion of your post I quoted, I feel like you're missing the point of (at least my) complaint on the whole issue:
It's not a matter of flavor, but of balance.

Would I be correct in assuming that the time and effort that went into creating the Magus' spell list included a consideration that the list was being developed for a class that could cast six levels of spells?
If so, how does it not utterly unbalance the list when you just tack it onto a class that is only designed to cast 4 levels of spells (Bloodrager, in this example)?

It's like if the Ranger just used the Druid list for their spells. Would anyone ever get excited about Ranger spells? Of course not. Waiting until Ranger level 13 to finally be able to cast spells that were balanced for 7th-level play (Druid 4) is awful. Hence, Rangers have a different, yet similar, list.
Ditto Paladin and Cleric.
Ditto Summoner and Sor/Wiz
Etc.
That's my concern over the whole thing. Copying spell lists onto new classes isn't a problem - It just becomes a problem when the classes cast spells differently.

Yeah, that is my one concern. The Magus wouldn't work just using the first 6 levels of Wizard spells, nor would the Bard. There does need to be some balacing of spells for 6 level casters.

Yeah, that is my one concern. The Magus wouldn't work just using the first 6 levels of Wizard spells, nor would the Bard. There does need to be some balancing of spells for 6 level casters.

So - better to keep close to full progression in terms of spell level, and just reduce the number of casts/day, with the thought being that a caster of any level ought to be casting spells similar in power to any other caster of that level? They still ought to be capable of packing the same punch as a dedicated class, even if they are a hybrid.

Perhaps another option for classes that would be OP if they had full spell level access would be to introduce alternative mechanics (chance of failure, increasing cast time, or requiring some kind of cooldown, for example) rather than limiting their access to lower-level spells only.

Random stupid question;

How do you get the playtest document?

It's supposedly 'added to your downloads' since yesterday, but it still isn't actually *in* my downloads (or, at least, not in either of the two places where previous playtest documents have appeared, and I didn't see it anywhere else).

Go to your downloads it'll be in among all the other Paizo PDFs. Mine was nestled between the Core Rule Book and Bonus Bestiary PDFs.

And there it was, thanks DM_aka_Dudemeister!

Or just sort by date added to your downloads.

Or just sort by date added to your downloads.

Ooh, I did not know about that option! Very handy! (The list is freakishly large, so anything to make new stuff float to the top is very awesome!) Thanks!

... The list is freakishly large ...

Tell me about it. Charter subscription to the AP's alone are 150 items in that list...

Those options to sort are heaven-sent.

(Though I'd like to have an option to easily find those that haven't been downloaded since the last change.)

my 2cents about the spell lists:

arcanists, investigators, shamans and skalds should keep the other classes lists (perhaps changing the shaman from cleric to druid or witch. I also don't like the skald using the bard spells, to subtle i guess, but then again the magus or inquisitor doesn't fit.)

bloodrager, hunter and warpriest should have their own lists, because "uses x spells but only goes up to 4th or 6th" is too messy for me. If you guys really want to avoid creating new spell lists, give the bloodrager the ranger list and the warpriest the inquisitor list.

With reguard to #2, if you care less about these new classes than the antipaladin then why are you even bothering?

If you think we care less about these classes than we do about the antipaladin, you are mistaken.

We learn things with each book, and make changes going forward. Sometimes we learn them after it's too late to make a productive change for something that's about to go to print.

For example, D&D 3rd edition, introduced the sorcerer class. Because the design team wanted to remind players that sorcerers and wizards use the same spell list, all the spells are noted as "sorcerer/wizard" instead of just "sorcerer."
Fast forward to 2009 and the PFRPG; we have 8 years of people understanding the difference between sorcerers and wizards, and understanding they use the same spell list. We could have published the Core Rulebook to just say "wizard" in spells instead of "sorcerer/wizard," but we didn't (because we had other, high-priority issues to deal with).
Fast forward to 2010 and the oracle class... which uses the cleric spell list. Rather than naming all spells thereafter with "cleric/oracle," we just went with "cleric."
And the antipaladin spell list isn't just "the paladin spell list, with evil swapped for good," it needed its own unique things that aren't just alignment-flipped paladin spells.
But the antipaladin isn't just paladin + some other class. It makes sense that it wouldn't just use the spell list of some other class.
But the hybrid classes in the ACG are very much like one class + other class, and for those it's a reasonable starting point to say, "if it's half based on class X, it could use the class X spell list." That's the starting point (and also means we don't need to create a custom spell list for the playtest). That may change later on, but that's what we're starting with.

And none of that implies "we care less about these classes than the antipaladin."

(...)But the hybrid classes in the ACG are very much like one class + other class, and for those it's a reasonable starting point to say, "if it's half based on class X, it could use the class X spell list." That's the starting point (and also means we don't need to create a custom spell list for the playtest). That may change later on, but that's what we're starting with.(...)

Reading this, and knowing what you guys did with the Magus, makes me even more excited about this book! :)

Yeah, that is my one concern. The Magus wouldn't work just using the first 6 levels of Wizard spells, nor would the Bard. There does need to be some balacing of spells for 6 level casters.

Is there a full Magus spell list anywhere? I've been relying on Hero Lab when picking spells and I know that's a risky proposition.

But the hybrid classes in the ACG are very much like one class + other class, and for those it's a reasonable starting point to say, "if it's half based on class X, it could use the class X spell list." That's the starting point (and also means we don't need to create a custom spell list for the playtest). That may change later on, but that's what we're starting with.

I think its less about which spells are appropriate, and whether or not classes get spells important to thier concept at the right levels. The bard gets certain spells early, same with inquisitor, summoner, ranger, paladin, and everyone else that isnt a full 9 level caster. The classes in a similar position in the ACG need their own spell list for precisely the same reasons those classes do. The lists they are using isnt based on the same level progression as the class has.

I personally am in favor of the new classes using the old lists, with the possible exception of the Bloodrager. I was really concerned when these were announced that Deep Magic and Ultimate Magic would lose some of their usefulness, but this way those two books remain both Deep and Ultimate!

Being that the Arcanist bonus feats are essentially wizard bonus feats, would you also conclude that they can choose Arcane Discoveries as well?

But the hybrid classes in the ACG are very much like one class + other class, and for those it's a reasonable starting point to say, "if it's half based on class X, it could use the class X spell list." That's the starting point (and also means we don't need to create a custom spell list for the playtest). That may change later on, but that's what we're starting with.

And none of that implies "we care less about these classes than the antipaladin."

Firstly, suggesting that you don't want to spend word count on these classes that you are willing to spend on the antipaladin does in fact imply you care less about them. With only minor hyperbole. And whats a little hyperbole between friends? :)

Secondly, I posit that a fighter cleric with six levels of spell casting does need a different list than the cleric list. When a character get access to a spell matters. On reason summoners are really, really good is that they get to cast Haste at fourth level. If you just gave them the wizard list and let them cast it at 7th level that's much less good. When you say that a warpriest is fine casting Divine Power at level 10 instead of level 7 like a normal cleric. Yes its a 4th level spell for both, but a fourth level spell means something very different to a cleric than it does to a warpriest. In cases where the number of spell levels are the same I mostly agree with you. Shamans do not need a new spell list. Bloodragers do.

Matthew,

You don't need to argue with me for the sake of arguing. We inherited the paladin, and therefore inherited its spellcasting structure, and therefore for parity's sake the antipaladin has the same structure. Ideally, whether or not we "want" to spend additional pages on spell lists, none of these hybrid classes will need a custom spell list, and if we choose to not have a custom spell list for a class, that means more pages we can actually devote to new content for these classes, rather than spending those pages on spell list descriptions. Using the inclusion or lack of a spell list as evidence of my greater or lesser like of the antipaladin is, simply, a false measure of my interest in the class.

As for summoners and haste, let's just say the summoner spell list is way too good in some ways and if we could turn back time, it probably wouldn't have ended up with that spell at that level. And yes, I'm fully aware of what the different spellcasting setups mean in terms of when a class gets access to a particular spell.

OK, as promised HERE this is a review of the playtest document and ONLY a review of that document. The purpose of a playtest is to actually test the ruleset with actual play. Most of my comments on playability and possibilities here, therefore, are theorycraft alone. This is thus only an opinion and should not be given any more credit than that. No need to rant and rave emotionally until Chris Lambertz comes in and removes posts before the inevitable locking-of-the-thread. Whether you agree with my assessments or not, keep it cool and be excellent to one another. :)

Alrighty then! Let’s start.

Arcanist: This is pretty much exactly what I expected. The new ability is Blood Focus, allowing the character to augment the power of specialized spells cast a limited number of times per day. The ability to sorcerer cast prepared metamagic spells is mighty cool, and definitely something I am going to look at closely while playtesting.

Bloodrager: Spot on to the idea I had. This is one of the classes presented here that got extensive treatment. I can see each bloodline producing a very different set of powers. Spontaneous casting of Magus spells is an intriguing idea and the area I am most interested in exploring. Also I note that the Draconic Bloodline seems born for the Dragon Disciple prestige class. Just sayin’… 

Brawler: No ki pool. Just combat. This is it folks: the monk turned into a front line combatant as requested by many. The flowing combat maneuver feats is a very interesting mechanic to allow the character optimal adaptability in battle. Really interested in how that holds up as the character advances in level.

Hunter: I really like this! Sure enough, we have the wilderness warrior with an animal companion and the ability to tactically work with it in battle. Add in the new mechanic of Animal Focus, and we have a class that can easily be used for Sheena and Beastmaster style characters. I’m probably going to recommend an archetype that swaps out some spell ability for limited wildshape to bring in another iconic aspect of this style of character.

Investigator: Inspiration is—dare I say it?—inspired. A unique boost that represents the “Ah-Hah!” moment that so many detectives have. I’m a little concerned about using Sneak Attack: I agree some form of precision damage should be an aspect of the character, but Sherlock Holmes always used precision up front and never from behind in his stories (he was an excellent boxer). Perhaps a form of feint at 4th followed by Sneak Attack later? Unsure, need to playtest as is first.

Shaman: Love the flavour here, although I agree with other posters that perhaps a different name can be developed for Hexes. The images of each shaman changing with the spirit they have bound themselves to are great! The familiars are spirit creatures and look the parts from the descriptions. Wonderful! I would really like to see a multi-class Druid Animal Shaman/Nature Spirit Shaman character. But for now I will stick to trying it straight for the playtest.

Skald: There is all the scholarly brilliance I could want from a Skald, and the Raging Song ability seems well balanced. I think with a little fluff, each Skald could have a different approach to this. After all, the rage is not uncontrolled but focussed. So it could a cold rage inspiring acts of bravery as much as turning a group of people into raving, slavering lunatics. Interesting to see the archetypes for the Skald when they arrive.

Slayer: This is great! Any alignment, full BAB assassin/bounty hunter style character. This is a niche that has been left vacant for far too long. It looks a bit generic in the slayer talent territory, but that is one of the easiest areas to fix if the playtest produces problems.

Swashbuckler: OK, in my initial post I posited five points that must be satisfied in order to have the Swashbuckler class that people seem to want. 1) Good AC and defenses with light to no armour: Jury is still out, but Nimble is effective with a Gunslinger, so it should be good AC wise. Only Bravery for Will saves? I agree with others that using Charisma for Will saves would do wonders here while still letting the Swashbuckler be seduced or enchanted—an important trope of the genre. 2) Ability to hit regularly with light, fast weapons: Check! 3) Ability to decent front-line combat level damage with afore mentioned weaponry: Check! Precise Strike FTW! 4) Good skill selection and skill points, especially in the social and athletic skills: Skill selection is good…4 skill points is a little low. Still they should have a decent INT score (for Combat Expertise) so it shouldn’t be too bad. Definitely an aspect of play (Skill Checks, that is) that needs to be tested. 5) Death-Defying Deeds of Daring-Do! Check, but somewhat limited with the panache pool usage. Still with decent Dexterity and skill points appropriately placed (Skill Focus is a viable feat for this class I should think) this shouldn’t be an issue. Will be playtesting this one extensively.

Warpriest: Although not a full BAB combatant, it still has an impressive array of spells and combat feat selection. That is a heady combo, making it theoretically a better fighter than the inquisitor or cleric. Will see how this plays out.

Well there you go! My initial assessment. I’ll be trying out the various mechanics in real game scenarios, and see how it flies. Then I will use Monte Cooke’s advice on being a playtester, summed up beautifully for the Playtest by Cheapy HERE. Cheapy, you are the best! Hopefully, my comments will be helpful. Now, if possible, everybody go out and play! :D

Oh, I forgot to add that any comments I make in each of the Class threads will be from playtest experience. All I've done with that last post is point out the areas I'm interested in testing.

Is there a full Magus spell list anywhere? I've been relying on Hero Lab when picking spells and I know that's a risky proposition.

Does this work for what you need?

Thanks in advance for the playtest comments, Feros! :)

Then I will use Monte Cooke’s advice on being a playtester, summed up beautifully for the Playtest by Cheapy HERE. Cheapy, you are the best! Hopefully, my comments will be helpful. Now, if possible, everybody go out and play! :D

Thanks! Unfortunately, I'm still just a playtester-to-be. I still need to come up with some solid test scenarios and a group to run them through.