Alec Colasante's page

The two hybrids I want are-

Alchemist/ Wizard- tbh, I was surprised this wasn't one of the ACG classes. Someone who combines magic and science seems like it would be relatively common in a fantasy setting. I wish this was in the book instead of Arcanist.

Paladin/ Wizard- I would love to see a heavy armor wearing arcane class, that focuses more on magical class abilities than spells.

Shadar Aman wrote:

Tryn wrote:

So I hope Paizo will not become a company where "page-cost-reduction" is more important then good artwork, fleshed out descriptions and well thought game mechanics.

I think the point of avoiding new spell lists is so they have more room for all of those things.

Increase page count instead of cutting content?

While I do believe that the shaman should have it's own list, not adding something that they never intended to add would not be "cutting content".

With the wandering spirit ability, it says "Until she changes the wandering spirit, she gains both of the listed abilities granted by the spirit". What two abilities does this mean? I know ones the spirit ability, i.e. the Battle spirits "healing spirit" ability, but whats the other? Is it the familiar ability?

After reading through this class, I am quite surprised. I liked it more than I thought I would. I don't normally play spellcasters, but this class certainly makes me want to. My only problem is using Charisma for hexes. That seems to make the class unnecessarily MAD. I feel like they should either use Wisdom for hexes, or Charisma for spellcasting. This is made even worse by the Lore Spirit Shaman, which effectively requires all 3 mental attributes, although mental acuity helps. Other than that though, I'm a big fan of this class. In fact, I'd be hard pressed to find a full caster I like more.

It was mentioned within the first 10 replies (I asked the same thing), and it is not a typo. So, you could be a monk or paladin bloodrager if you wanted. I thought it was strange myself, but it opens up some nice concepts.

Don't get me wrong, I like the fact that it can be lawful, but it seems unfair to barbarians. Personally I think barbarians should be lawful too. The way I see it, a barbarian is basically a primitive warrior, and while they are certainly less likely to be lawful, I feel like every once in a while there would be a lawful one. So why not allow people to be that lawful one?

Not sure if this has been mentioned, but shouldn't this class be unable to be lawful? Because as written, you can be a bloodrager monk or paladin, which makes no sense, since you can't be a barbarian monk or paladin. Maybe it's just me, but I don't see why adding spellcasting to a barbarian would make that barbarian more inclined (or for that matter, allowed) to be lawful.
Basically it seems like either this class should be unable to be lawful, or barbarians should be able to be lawful.

Not sure how I feel about this. On the one hand, I was quite fond of the idea of a trained sorcerer, on the other hand, this new concept is also pretty cool. Well, either way, I trust that the class will be satisfactory at least.

P.S. If it does end up with artificer-esque abilities as some upthread have mentioned, than between this and APG I will have gotten all 3 classes I've really wanted out of Pathfinder (Swashbuckler, Artificer, and Alchemist). Which would be pretty awesome.

I haven't read through this entire thread yet, but from what I did read, I saw several people mentioning that they didn't want to be pigeonholed into a Dex-based build. I personally can't see any reason why the Dex-based build shouldn't be the optimal build. It's a Dex-based class. I don't expect a Wis-based Wizard to be as good as an Int-based one, so why should a Str-based Swashbuckler be as good as a Dex-based one?

Alec Colasante wrote:

Also, this class allows me to effectively make Aquaman, since tridents are one-handed piercing weapons, so that's pretty awesome.

Hey, Merfolk get +2 to all the right stats for this. Hmm...

Now we just need an easy way for him to control the water. Hydraulic Push would work, and Eldritch heritage could give him an aquatic animal companion. I guess I have some building to do now.

Ah, ok then. I think the best option would be to just give them their own list, so they can have all the thematically appropriate spells, especially since there doesn't seem to be a consensus as to what list works best. Cleric, Druid, and Witch have all come up several times now, so I'm inclined to believe one of the existing spell lists simply won't cut it. Or maybe give them more spells from their Spirits, so that anyone can make their version of a shaman.

Also, this class allows me to effectively make Aquaman, since tridents are one-handed piercing weapons, so that's pretty awesome.

Maybe I don't have enough experience with non-wild shape Druids (or any full caster, for that matter. I play martials mainly) but I don't see why an offensive spell list would make them more MAD. They can sit in the back and blast things, just like a wizard.

I like this class, but it's not what I expected. I'm am a fan of the Animal Companion emphasis, but it doesn't seem like it went far enough. Personally, I think it would be better to have, instead of animal focus, something more akin to a sorcerer bloodline. Make it so that depending on your animal companion, you get bonuses as you level up. Either with a set list of animal companions, with each having its own "bloodline", or with a "bloodline" for each biome, i.e. bears, wolves, and badgers are part of the Forest "bloodline". I think that would certainly make it feel more animal-centric, and it would still allow for more options to be added later with relative ease.
Also, I feel like they should have a favored enemy-esque ability, seeing as they are hunters, so they probably hunt things. Maybe even just giving them specific ones, or a smaller list to choose from. For example, you could limit them to animals, magical animals, oozes, etc. Maybe prevent them from having a favored enemy that is sentient, as they are hunters, not assassins.

After reading through this class, I am thoroughly satisfied. It was my second most wanted class, after Alchemist, since I've started playing Pathfinder, and I think it was done well. I'm not as impressed as I was with the Alchemist, but that class is more than I possibly could have hoped for, so it seems unfair to the Swashbuckler to hold it to such high standards. I love the parry and riposte abilities being available at level 1, even with the panache costs.

I am also a big fan of the swift feint ability. It seems very useful for helping a fellow rogue set up. Also seems like it would help a monk hit with more of his flurry attacks, which is good. I am a little confused about the wording though. Do you have to hit, or do you just have to be able to hit i.e. next to someone who isn't under the effects of Sanctuary, or any similar effect?

And speaking of the druid spell list, I think that would make the concerns of MAD a bit more real. Druids are fairly offensively oriented it would seem, so saves are more important. I would also hope that unlike other classes, they would get some grafted on spells. There are a few Cleric spells that would really fit the Shaman that aren't available to Druids. Spiritual Weapon for one. Causing lingering spirits to pick up a weapon and fight for you? (well, roughly speaking :)) Yea, that fits.

Raise Dead? yes. yes, and yes.

I have to disagree with regards to the Druid list making them more MAD. The Druid is offensive spell-wise, compared to other casters, but I doubt they would get into the thick of a fight nearly as often if they didn't have wild shape. The more offensive Druid list would allow shamans to be a damage oriented divine caster, which could be a nice change of pace.

Edit: I forgot to include my actual impression of the class. I think, other than the spell list, Paizo knocked it out of the park. Cool class, nice flavor, feels unique. At least on par with the APG classes, if not better. Good Job!

Ok, here's my character, Tsadok Stormborn
He's just about done, crunch-wise (just need to finish equipment), and I should be able to get the backstory up either tomorrow or Friday.

@Alec: The Bloodrager seems fine, but instead of making up new feats for him for when you hit 6 if you are going all the way Bloodrage, choose either Barbarian or Sorcerer and you can only take those 'Epic' Feats.

@Mahorfeus: Yea companions should be average per hit dice.

Ok, cool. I will get back to you about my choice after I look over the 'epic' feats. Also, I should be able to finish making the character tonight.

I really like this idea. And I have to agree, things like discoveries and talents seem to be by far the best way to make a class customizable, while still maintaining its theme.

Oh, then just remove the "style or" part, as 99.9% of feats that affect attack, defenses, or weapons are probably combat feats anyway.
Or just let them pick any combat feat, for simplicity's sake, if nothing else.

Tbh, I forgot style feats weren't combat feats. So maybe have the wording be "The brawler may select any style or combat feat, except for X, Y, and Z, and feats that have X, Y, or Z as a prerequisite". Then you could have any thematically appropriate feats be available.

Gotta say, I love this class.
Only a couple of concerns:
1. As has already been said, Awesome Blow. Granted, I love the idea of kicking someone 10' away, but not capstone material.
2. Another common one, Bonus feats. Figured I would give my 2 cents as to the wording. If, as someone up thread suggested, the wording is to prevent taking archery or mounted combat feats, among others, why not just have a list of feats it doesn't apply to? To save space, and a considerable amount of time, don't list them all out, but rather list whole chains. I.e. "The Brawler cannot select feats that have Mounted Combat, Vital Strike, or Dodge as prerequisites." (Obviously they could get Dodge or Vital Strike, I'm just drawing a blank as to the names of other feats that start chains, so they were used as placeholders)
3. Not really a concern, so much as a suggestion, but I think it would be cool for the brawler to select a Style (something akin to a bloodline) as opposed to bonus feats and/or maneuver training. Styles could include trained disciplines (Kung fu, karate, etc.) and maybe a few "Street Justice" kind of styles, that represent the character learning through having to fend for themselves on the streets, rather than formal training. These could include a thug-like style (pure offense), a dirty fighting style (support/maneuvers), or a scrappy survival style (defense).

All in all, easily one of my favorite of the new classes (or any class, for that matter), alongside the Swashbuckler and Bloodrager. I like all of them quite a bit, though.

@Avernus: The word count is just an approximate, basically I don't want to read a short novel for each application. ^^ I've had some players in my home games write me a 5000 word story for example.

@Tazo: I thought I recognized the name :)

I'm fine with you using Quick draw to that end, throwing builds don't get enough love as is.

@Alec: Hmm, I didn't know there was a playtest out, I don't have access to the documents so I won't be able to tell you if I'm okay with the class or not. Is there a way to view this class?

@Alþórel: No it's alright, I was just taking note that Archmage seems really popular. Haven't seen any Tricksters or Hierophants yet.

Speaking of which I'll list what is the in the application pool thus far:

Alþórel: Wizard - Archmage
Nethan: Psionic Wizard - Archmage
Lessah: Witch - Archmage
Tazo: Paladin - ?
Alec: Barbarian or Bloodrager - Guardian
Tenro: Warlord - Champion

A couple of others in the works.

It came out today, I was just asking since the application will be open for a few more days. It can be downloaded here.

I am interested in a WoW game, Alliance or Horde.

I am definitely intrigued by this idea. Seems like a very effective way of getting the feel of an epic story while maintaining relatively simple game play. I would be very interested in joining.
I have one question, are the Advanced Class Guide playtest classes allowed?

I tend to stick to the PRD, so luckily "really out there stuff" shouldn't be a problem. I'm probably going to go ahead and make a PFS character, to familiarize with the specific rules of PFS, and then just find a game on here (PFS or not), since my home group has been meeting less frequently for a few months. With any luck I should be able to find one today or tomorrow. Hopefully you all have fun!

Thank you for the information. I'll probably make a PFS character tonight or tomorrow, and hopefully I can find a game. Have fun!

Sorry, somehow I missed the last line of your post, Zoog. If you do another one, I would be happy to join.

I would be interested in joining. I don't have any clue how PFS works though. Is everything I would need to make a PFS character on the campaign site? And if not, where could I find all the required information?

Dying to a DM-played monster or NPC is one thing, dying to a PC controlled by your friend at the gaming table is a whole different thing. I've seen it cause fights. I've seen it break friendships. Sure, maybe the guy with the dead character was too overly invested in his character and let it get to him too much. That's practically a given. But some people play this as a "Role Playing" game rather than just a "Roll Playing" game, and for some that do, building a persona and identifying with that persona is much of the charm - for those players, having a friend trash all that work and effort and persona identification can be a very personal issue indeed.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoy making a character and giving him a rich backstory and fleshed out personality, and I tend to find the role playing aspects some of the most enjoyable and memorable parts of the game, I guess (for me anyway) it just seems like that characters story ending allows me to start another one that hopefully I like even more, and while luckily I don't tend to die from other PC's, a lot of the other players in my group do, and they don't let it get to them that much. Maybe my group is more casual about the game, or maybe they just don't invest the amount of time to a character as your group does, but luckily for us it has never gotten to the point of real life conflicts because of in game combat.

Based on DM__Blake's post, i think I figured out why everyone here has more of a problem with inner-party combat than me. In my games, even if I (or the gm) don't specifically say before hand it's a game where pvp is allowed, we never assumed that the standard was that it wasn't. Players play their characters until they die, then they just make another character. We also haven't had anyone meta gaming to get more stuff by killing friends, but I think that's because we generally just don't use experience. We've found its better to just level up at the end of the adventure we are in (or after something important happens in a multi-level adventure) than to use xp. It just seems to make more sense that way rather than if the pcs level up in the first encounter of the next adventure, just because they missed something in the current adventure, which seems kind of anti-climactic. For a DM, that break to level up is a good way to get ready for the next adventure, and for the players, it adds a better sense of accomplishment at the end of the adventure. It's like I've always said about RPing games (be they DnD, Pathfinder, video games, whatever) the best possible reward is experience. Personally, I find that no matter what reward a player is given, the one they feel most rewarded for is xp/levels, because that is the one that progresses their character, not the +1 longsword, or even the staff of power.

Maybe this is my just my group, but I've always found inner party combat (and noncombatant conflicts), to be much more fun and exciting than regular encounters, both as a player and a GM. I think the reason for it is because in those kinds of situations, the characters involved are all fully fleshed out people, which most NPC's and monsters aren't, unless they are really important (bosses, kings, etc.) because of the vast amount of work that would take for the GM (to be clear, I have no problem with generic villagers and shopkeepers, but they are less interesting for role playing usually). I know as a player I would hate it if I was trying to do something (such as attack another pc, or anything else for that matter) and the GM just said "no". It is a role playing game, if I can't do what my character would do, than what is the point of making a detailed character? Granted this usually doesn't matter, because I tend to be a good guy, for the GM's sake if nothing else, but on the rare occasion I am evil, I want to be able to be evil (and I don't mean random acts of crime or attacking PC's for no reason).

Lesson...number...1, Darkwood bucklers...there's no such thing.

The quote makes it sound sort of like ki, just a natural energy in everyone and everything.

I like your idea Paulicus, I will have to ask the GM about that.

I'll have to look more closely at inner sea magic, I must have missed that. Also, vague as it may be, it has to be better than nothing. With regard to the deities, I guess I will have to think of something else, or ask the GM how it works in his "version" of Golarion, if he sees fit to tell me that information.

In an upcoming campaign, I am going to be playing as a drow noble who was born without the ability to use magic (either just his spell-like abilities or any spells, I haven't decided yet). Because of that, he was exiled at an early age, and wishes to, as he would say "set things straight". In order to do this, he is going to retrieve the Sceptre of the ages, which he believes is in the vault of Abadar (the vault with one copy of everything, name might be wrong). He believes the vault is locked with the Impossible Lock (the one that can't be opened except by the Perfect Key). So he is going to get the key, and open the vault, to get the Sceptre. Using the Sceptre he is going to go back to the beginning of time, slay Asmodeus right after Asmodeus kills Ithys (thinks that's how it's spelled), in order to be the only godlike being left. He is then going to convince the life forms that evolve on the material plane that he is a god, so that they worship him. He believes that their worship will grant him divine power, which is equal to magic (at least in his mind). The only problem is, I have no idea why he wouldn't have magic, because I have no idea why magic is accessible to anyone (except gods, because, well there gods).

Sorry for the wall of text. Long story short, where does magic come from?

Personally, I like the new classes (for the most part), because they provide more options from a role playing perspective.
Alchemist- This class is by far my favorite, including the cores. I have always wanted to play an alchemist character, and this allows me to do that without just using craft (alchemy).
Cavalier- I like this class as well. I like paladins, but their have been times that i have wanted to be a non-divine version, basically a martial leader and tactician, which this is.
Gunslinger- I personally am not the biggest fan of this one, but that's just because I don't like guns in fantasy that much, but I do like the idea of a daring adventurer, risking life and limb in the pursuit of glory and fame.
Inquisitor- Good for law enforcement/detectives, and for more stealth/combat focused divine casters. Plus they have a lot of cool abilities (monster lore and bane come to mind)
Magus- There's a stealth/fighter (ranger), and stealth/Mage (bard). Why not fighter/Mage.
Oracle- Spontaneous divine caster, a needed class IMO.
Summoner- This one I don't particularly like. Seems like a way to make a more powerful conjurer, or I guess an arcane "animal companion". Eidolon idea is kinda cool though.
Witch- I like the idea of a more primitive arcane caster, plus there are a lot of cool hexes.
Antipaladin- I like this because it provides concrete details as to what an evil paladin would get (especially for mercies), although I think it should be LE alignment, but that's just my opinion.
Ninja and Samurai- I don't really see the point of these, from a role playing perspective. There aren't separate classes for Northern primitives, southern jungle-dwellers, or any other separate culture or nationality, so there shouldn't be some for the dragon empires (except monk, which I do feel provides a unique role playing experience). The other cultures don't get them because they are just that, cultures. IMO, your class is just what you can do, your role playing and your characters culture (which I guess is just part of the role playing) is how you do what it is your class lets you do.

I'm going to have to disagree with the consensus here. While rogues and ninjas may not have the best attack bonus, It's pretty easy to apply sneak damage, and the damage builds up quick. All you have to do is feint them (preferably with improved two-weapon feint), which isn't that hard to do. Combine the two weapon fighting with a speed weapon, and you got 7 sneak attacks per round, which is on average over 200 damage from sneak alone. And it's even better (and easier) as a ninja, as they can be invisible, which applies your sneak, and use nonlethal unarmed, which does 2d8 (I think, don't remember off the top of my head), because of the unarmed mastery, per attack, plus it can be increased from the nonlethal sneak feats, to the point where it can basically one-turn kill anything (especially if you work as a team, and get an attack or CMB buff from a caster). Granted, that's not going to happen every time (wouldn't be fun if it did anyway), but you can't just dismiss that as weak.

I am going to be starting a mythic campaign soon, starting at level 1, and I am planning on the boss for the first adventure being a level 1 or 2/MR 1 enemy, with the players ascending ,both to MR 1 and level 2, upon it's death. The only problem is I don't know what enemy to have them fight, so I was wondering, what level 1 or 2 enemy could provide a good mythic challenge for level 1 characters, without making it too difficult?