
![]() |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |

OK so I did find a few relevant quotes from James Jacobs that may help clear up my initial question.
The question everyone has been wondering is whether or not alternate classes are like archetypes in that they can use the feats, traits, etc. as the primary class even when the requirement has the primary class as a requirement as long as archetype/alternate class has the ability to utilize the feat, trait, etc? For example using the second question in my last post as an example.
James Jacobs wrote:Alternate classes like the antipaladin, ninja, and samurai ARE essentially archetypes. They're just archetypes for which we went through and gave you the full level advancement chart for. And artwork too! So as long as they didn't give up a class feature that is a requirement for a feat or whatever... yup... they still can take that feat/trait/thing.
-------
Tambryn wrote:
What's the difference between an alternate class and a core class? I could have sworn I heard Erik Mona say at last year's Paizocon Banquet that the Magus would be the last new class for a while.
Someone please clarify this. Class glut is pretty worrisome to me as it seemed to be a huge contributor to the decline of 3.5 in popularity and focus during its last years.
TamIt's a pretty subtle difference, really, that almost counts as a philosophical difference as much as it is a game design difference. But here goes:
BASE CLASS: This is a class that features at its heart a unique ability, power, or method of doing something. That can be the ability to cast arcane spells from a spellbook, the ability to do sneak attacks, the ability to use bardic music, the ability to do alchemy stunts, or whatever. With each base class we build, it becomes tougher and tougher to come up with a new mechanic that helps to set that class apart. As far as multiclassing works, you can multiclass between any base class without restriction, because each class has its own basic shtick. You can't multiclass into the same base class though; you can't be a 1st level rogue and then multiclass into rogue and therefore gain 2d6 sneak attack at 2nd level instead of gaining evasion. That might seem obvious, but it's important to keep in mind when we move on to alternative classes.
ALTERNATE CLASSES: In earlier editions of this game, we might have called these "sub-classes." An alternate class does NOT have a significant new core ability. It's basically just a glorified archetype. The antipaladin is a great example; looking at the antipaladin, you can see that it basically functions the same way as a paladin. It has a smite ability, it has an ability to channel energy with its touch, and has an ability to put "riders" on that touch ability. It's different than the paladin, but it's also obviously just a VARIANT paladin. Technically, we could stat up ALL of the archetypes as alternate classes... but since most archetypes only swap out a few abilities, that'd kinda be a waste of space. Also... you can't multiclass from a class into that class's alternate class; you can't multiclass from paladin into antipaladin, for example (even if you ignore the alignment restrictions, you still can't; it's the same class).
We've pretty thoroughly explored the concept of new base classes and archetypes by now... but we haven't explored the concept of an alternate class beyond the antipaladin. With Ultimate Combat, we're exploring the concept three times, with the samurai, the ninja, and the gunslinger. (The gunslinger, actually, might morph into a full base class; guns are new enough of a concept to the game that that MIGHT be enough to justify a whole new class—we'll see.)
So while the difference between a base class and an alternate class might seem pedantic... there IS a difference. Whether or not the game and its players will accept more alternate classes, or whether folks will just treat things as if there's no difference between base classes and alternate classes... that's what Ultimate Combat will tell us.