So, IO really didn't want to bother anyone with this, but it's bugging me; the statblock for the Tome Dragon in issue #343 mentions it gains a "Precognition" ability at hatching, but nowhere does its combat statblock mention what this ability actually does! Can anyone clue me in on how this works?

No offense intended to any fans of the Eberron setting, but, I really like the Pathfinder take on the Changeling, as a species of hag-born witch-girls, and I'd really like to add them to my 5e games.

However, I'm quite a rookie when it comes to homebrewing, even for a game as mechanically simple as 5e, so I'd really appreciate it if folks could give me their feedback on my efforts here and make any suggestions for a better, more balanced Changeling.

I took inspiration to add Blood, Mute, Storm and Winter Hag changelings to the subraces here because Inner Sea Races includes rules for such, although I don't know if or where they might have originally appeared. I also don't know if there's any Pathfinder rules for Dreamthief, Sand or Flue Hag Changelings, so I've left them out.

Inspired by the Svirfneblin and its racial feat, I considered something like a "Hag Magic" changeling feat that gives a changeling access to spell-like abilities based on its haggish progenitor. Anyone have any opinions on this?

Changeling: Core Racial Rules
Ability Score Increase: +2 Wisdom
Size: Medium
Speed: 30 feet
Darkvision
Talons. You are proficient with your unarmed strikes, which deal 1d4 slashing damage on a hit.
Subraces: You must choose one of the following Hag lineages below, receiving additional attributes based on your lineage.

Annis Hag Changeling:
Ability Score Increase: +1 Strength
Iron Talons: Your Talons do 1D6 damage instead of 1d4 damage.
Armored Hide: You have Resistance against Slashing, Piercing and Bludgeoning damage.

Blood Hag Changeling:
Ability Score Increase: +1 Dexterity
Fire Resistance
Crawling Skin: You have Advantage on Charisma (Deception) checks.

Green Hag Changeling:
Ability Score Increase: +1 Charisma
Object of Desire: When you use an Enchantment spell, targets are at Disadvantage.
Green Widow: You have Advantage on Charisma (Persuasion) checks and Charisma checks relating to seduction and gossip.

Mute Hag Changeling:
Ability Score Increase: +1 Intelligence
Dead Eyes: You have Advantage on saving throws against gaze attacks and Illusions.
Heightened Senses: You have Advantage on Wisdom (Perception)checks.

Sea Hag Changeling:
Ability Score Increase: +1 Constitution
Amphibious: You can breathe air and water.
Swim: You have a Swimming Speed of 30 feet.

Storm Hag Changeling:
Ability Score Increase: +1 Strength
Electricity Resistance
Whipping Winds: You may cast the Gust of Winds spell once once with this trait, requiring no material components, and you regain the ability to cast it this way when you finish a long rest. Wisdom is your spellcasting ability for this spell.

Winter Hag Changeling:
Ability Score Increase: +1 Charisma
Cold Resistance
Snow-walker: You are not affected by difficult terrain caused by ice or snow. You do not leave tracks in snow unless you wish to.

Alright, I'll keep this quick and simple: Kobold Press, as part of its myriad Pathfinder races, did up a racial version of the Lamia, in its more "culturally familiar" identity as a tauric half-human half-snake. I'm very fond of the Lamia and I really like the 5e mechanical ruleset, so I'd love to play one in 5e.

Only problem is, I have no real knowledge when it comes to homebrewing, so I was wondering if anyone would be willing to share their advice or ideas for the conversion process?

I can post the Pathfinder stats for the Lamia here, but I don't know if that's legal, so I haven't done so in this opening post.

Like the title says, I'm curious. I've played several of FF's earlier, more "DND-inspired" titles, and I've long had a soft spot in my heart for the series' resident master of blasting, the Black Mage.

So, in 5e, how would you do a character based on the Black Mage class?

Just take an Evoker and maybe give it some customised fluff and/or new spells?

Or make it a whole new Wizard Tradition?

Alternatively, perhaps a custom Sorcerer "Soul" (whatever their multi-faceted class option is, I don't know) would be best, since FF Black mages have a lot less flexibility in terms of power than D&D Evokers do?

I'm curious, so I thought I'd poke around here and get peoples' opinions.

Having read the Unearthed Arcana: Eberron article, and been quite impressed with WotC's efforts at making the Artificer effective by folding it into the Wizard class-umbrella, I began to wonder.

As we all know, in 2e, Dark Sun's Defiler were basically treated as their own "wizard, yet not" class, with Preservers getting much the same. In 4e, they went with the simple, elegant methodology of making Preservation the default form, with Defiling being an option that gave greater power at a price.

So, what do folks think are the likely odds that, when 5e swings itself Dark Sun way, the Preserver will again become the "vanilla" mage, whilst the Defiler will become a Tradition, and thus adding new crunch to the Wizard class-umbrella?

And if that happens, how do you think WoTC might pull it off?

Like the title says, I'm interested in trying to create deities based on the Chaos Gods of Warhammer Fantasy to my homebrew game.

Specifically, I'm interested in using their oldest fluff, when they were more Chaotic Neutral and it's simply the fact that they're in such a crapsack universe that everyone overindulges and descends into Chaotic Evil madness.

Looking at the online archive for domains references, this would be my opinion on the domains each of the Dark Brothers would offer their worshippers.

http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/cleric/domains

Khorne: God of all things relating to Battle and Killing
- Chaos
- Entropy
- Death
- Murder
- Destruction
- Catastrophe
- Hatred
- Rage
- Fire + all Fire Subdomains
- Glory + all Glory Subdomains
- Protection
- Defense
- Strength + all Strength Subdomains
- War + all War Subdomains

Nurgle: God of Life, Death, Decay and Rebirth
- Chaos
- Entropy
- Community
- Family
- Loss
- Death
- Undead
- Healing + all Healing Subdomains
- Plant + all Plant Subdomains
- Earth

Tzeentch: God of Magic and Change
- Chaos
- Whimsy
- Knowledge + all Knowledge Subdomains
- Air
- Fire
- Revolution
- Luck + all Luck Subdomains
- Madness
- Insanity
- Magic + all Magic Subdomains
- Rune + all Rune Subdomains
- Trickery + all Trickery Subdomains
- Tactics

Slaanesh: God of Excess
- Chaos
- Revelry
- Charm + all Charm Subdomains
- Torture
- Cannibalism
- Corruption
- Glory
- Heroism
- Freedom
- Nobility
- Aristocracy
- Leadership
- Resolve
- Greed
- Tactices
- Water + all Water Subdomains

I apologise for the title, but I wasn't really sure how else to call this.

Way, way back in the 1980s, Games Workshop released a pair of splatbooks for their then-new Warhammer, Warhammer Roleplay and Rogue Trader settings called "Realms of Chaos". In one of those was a huge array of magical weapons that Chaos Champions could potentially get for their loyal service.

Now, I'm a pretty big fan of this older Chaos fluff, and I've been tinkering around with a setting based off of it for a while. However, as part of that, I'd like to be able to replicate all of the various Chaos Weapons that were part of that fluff. Some are obvious enough - the Animation property clearly equates to the Dancing property in 5e - but others are harder to figure.

So, I thought I'd ask here and see if anyone was interested in helping me translate those old Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay properties into D&D 5e powers.

The Alignment 9-grid. We all know it. Law to Chaos. Good to Evil. So simple, on paper, yet a source of endless debate in practice. And well know why: It's because everyone seems to have their own interpretation of what actually defines a given alignment. Whether Lawfulness means personal discipline or respect for the existing laws of the land, for example.

So, out of curiosity, I thought I'd start this topic as a place for people to share their own personal interpretations of the alignments. Of course, I wouldn't be so crude as to not start with my own perspectives.

Lawful Good - The Two Pillars
A character of this alignment, as the creedo suggests, recognizes the existence of two pillars of morality - lawfulness and good - and considers them to be mutually supportive. Good exists to promote law and order. But law and order exist only to support and promote goodness. Law does NOT equate to Good; laws can be corrupt, can be defiled, can be WRONG. A law that is wrong must be swept aside and replaced with one that is right. A Lawful Good character prefers to attempt methods of reform that are not disruptive first, then to try more extreme methods. When a Lawful Good aids a village that has been attacked by raiders, after the initial threat is finished, he or she spends time to help the village prepare to defend itself by establishing training regimes for defenders, evacuation plans, and other orderly methods to ensure they can survive on their own when the character leaves.

Neutral Good - For the Greater Good
Spread good as far and as wide as you can. That is the creedo of the Neutral Good character. Law and order can have their place in supporting or promoting goodness, but they are not essential to it. A Neutral Good character is concerned only with doing as much good as they can, however they can, and what methods they use or forms it take matters not in the end.

Chaotic Good - Benevolent Whimsy
Liberty and freedom are all-important to the Chaotic Good character, but so is happiness, joy and good. These characters are driven entirely by their own wants and whims, but their wants and whims are fundamentally positive. These characters want others to be happy and do good things simply because it feels good to be good. Impulse and benevolence are the two driving forces of such a character's life. A Chaotic Good character is suspicious of law and order because they know how easy it can be corrupted into a force of oppression. They do not inherently oppose law - "do what thou wilt, if it harm none" - but they are always watchful for its abuse and quick to act to oppose law that stifles and oppresses.

Lawful Neutral- The Law Is All
Law Equals Good. That is the perspective of the Lawful Neutral character. Actual morality is a meaningless distinction. The laws are inherently right and must be obeyed, and those who do not obey the laws are wrong. Evil comes from rebellion and discord, good comes from obeying the law as they are written. The spirit of the law matters not, only the letter. That does not mean that laws cannot change or be revised, only that they should be considered carefully; is the problem truly with the Law, or with fallible mortals who do not adhere to the Law's purity?

True Neutral - I Don't Care
The True Neutral character is apathy, plain and simple. Not malice, for they have not that level of meanness in them. They don't want to hurt anyone, really, but they don't care enough to try and help, either. A True Neutral lives a fundamentally self-focused existence; they care about their comforts, but not enough to disrupt the existences of others in their pursuit. They just want to live their lives, and extend the same courtesy to others.

Chaotic Neutral - I Do What I Want
Selfish desire rules the heart of the Chaotic Neutral character. These individuals care only about one thing: satisfying their own personal wants and whims. They don't necessarily want to hurt anyone, and hurting people certainly isn't the goal, but if they have to hurt someone, or break a promise, or do something wrong, well, then they'll do it. A Chaotic Neutral is selfish, NOT stupid. They want to get what they want, but that doesn't mean they can't be thoughtful or patient.

Lawful Evil - Evil For A Purpose
A character of the Lawful Evil type lives by the creedo "the end justifies the means". They have a Purpose, a goal they want to achieve, and whether they view it as ultimately noble or a self-admittedly selfish one doesn't matter. All that matters is that they will do ANYthing it takes to achieve that goal. A Lawful Evil character is pragmatism incarnate. They keep their darker urges shackled to their command; they may enjoy the torturing of innocents, but they will not do so without a cause. To give in to their desires is to lose sight of their goal, to allow their means to become the ends in and of themselves.

Neutral Evil - Because It Benefits Me
Selfishness taken to its darkest interpretation is the Neutral Evil character. Such a character is out for himself (or herself, or itself) above and before all else. They do whatever they feel they can get away with and may benefit them, whether that benefit is a pragmatic one (assassinating or framing a superior to usurp their place, betraying a friend to gain a physical reward) or a personal one (raping a woman desired simply because they have coveted them), but recognize that some measure of self-control is warranted. Their goal is to state their desires, but evil is a tool to that end, not an end in and of itself.

Chaotic Evil - Because I Can
This is the darker counterpart of Chaotic Neutral. This is a character who not only lives by the creedo of doing whatever they want to do, but whose desires actively encompass wrongness. They kill and torment and defile and destroy for no greater purpose or rationale than because it is what gives them pleasure. This is a character who will burn the world, if he thinks the flames will be pretty enough. Their desires are all they live for, and their desires are inherently sick and twisted. Other Evil characters may have similar sickness in them - a love of inflicting pain, a joy in slaughter - but they do not let it rule them the way a Chaotic Evil character does.

I've always been a homebrewer when it comes to settings, yet, at the same design, I'm a fairly shameless cribber of ideas, too.

I have a setting in development, for which I plan to use an idea I've been tossing around on-off ever since 4e got released in 2008; tieflings not as cursed mortals, but as ascended fiends, denizens of the hell-pits who have forsaken the darkness and tried to escape what they were by becoming more like mortals, in a black and gray sort of setting.

Between this, and my own admiration of Pathfinder's fiend-strain tieflings (shackleborn from kytons, beastbrood from rakshasi, etc), it's only natural I'd want to try and figure out what a 5e version of each might look like under 5e stats.

Thing is, I always worry about my own efforts at homebrewing, so I was wondering if anyone would be interested in brainstorming functional versions here?

So, as we all know, the big "thing" for classes in 5e is that they rely on the PC taking a specific "path" (or archetype, or whatever you want to call it) at around level 3. Fighters becoming Champions or Eldritch Knights, Monks adopting one of the Ways, Wizards becoming Specialists, etcetera.

Naturally, this clearly indicates that a big focus for the future of class-related splatbooks (PHB2, Complete X, whatever) will be the unveiling of new paths for the various existing classes.

But I'm curious; for the existing classes, what new paths are you hoping WoTC will eventually officially write up and release for the players to use?

Myself? Well...

The first thing that immediately hits my mind is a Monk path based on the Iron Soul or, especially, the Soaring Blade from back in 4e. It's great that the monk can actually be decent with just their naked fists, but since the monk ate the (always rather unnecessary, in my opinion) ninja via the Way of Shadow path, I'd like to see them do the same to the samurai. At least, the kensai/swordsaint interpretation of the samurai. There's room in D&D 5e for a "naked swordmaster", if you will, a character that relies on swiftness, agility and mastery of body and weapon to slay and defend themselves rather than armor. And I think it works expertly as a Monk path.

Everyone knows the half-elf and the half-orc, but for some reason, despite their long role as a member of the playable races and their traditional alliances with humanity, the dwarves have never been able to get mainstream support for crossbreeding with humans.

So, I was curious to see if anyone A: would also like to see an option to play as a half-dwarf character in Pathfinder, or B: would have suggestions on what thye might look like?

If it helps at all, there were 3.5 stats for half-dwarfs in the "Races of Anasalon" splatbook for Dragonlance, which for reference looked like this:

Half-dwarves may pass as dwarves with a +8 bonus to Disguise checks, but they are usually too tall and human-like to fool their dwarven kin. Half-dwarf characters possess the following racial traits.
• Humanoid (dwarf): Half-dwarves are humanoids with the dwarf subtype.
• A half-dwarf’s base land speed is 30 feet.
• Darkvision out to 60 feet.
• Weapon Familiarity: Half-dwarves have the same weapon familiarity as dwarves.
• +2 racial bonus on Craft and Appraise checks. Half- dwarves inherit the dwarf’s keen eye for craftsmanship, and their human heritage expands this to more than just stone and metal.
• Stability: A half-dwarf gains a +2 bonus on ability checks made to resist being bull rushed or tripped when standing firmly on the ground. Though not as stocky as their dwarf parents, half-dwarves still have a lower center of gravity than humans.
• +1 racial bonus on saving throws against poison.
• +1 racial bonus on saving throws against spells and spell-like effects.
• Automatic Languages: Common, Dwarven. Bonus Languages: Any. Half-dwarves often take up their human parent’s regional language as a bonus language.
• Favored Class: Any. When determining whether a multiclass half-dwarf takes an experience penalty, his highest-level class does not count.

I apologise if this topic has already been started, but I didn't think it was a bad one to open.

I have something of a personal interest in Greta, from the 2nd adventure module of this path, due to my previous interest in Undrella the Harpy, and I was curious what various actual players did when presented with the possibility of a flirtatious (and even, optionally, "redeemable by love" type) winter she-wolf taking an interest in them.

Mostly I'm interested in seeing if anyone actually "took it up" with her after she invited them out for coffee, and how far it went.

Though I quite like the Changeling race, for various reasons, it hasn't escaped my notice that their Hag Racial Traits race feature only accounts for the three most common kinds of hag; Annis, Green, and Sea. Thing is, there's a number of other different kinds of hags, and I'm sure they produce changeling daughters as well.

Hell, in Dragon Magazine's ecology article for Night Hags, the species is described as using a process almost *exactly* like the changeling procedure of Pathfinder's hags - the night hag births perfectly human (if prone to being magically talented and/or odd) human daughters, who must then be magically converted into new night hags by their mother.

So, the Bestiary 1 gives us the Night Hag (anyone else find it odd that Night Hags were in the first bestiary, but Annis Hags didn't show up until the third?) and the Bestiary 4 gives us the Winter Hag; does anyone have any suggestions what the Hag Racial Traits for those two kinds could possibly be?

I have a fondness for the Changeling race, one fuelled by fond memories of Planescape: Torment and my own interests in monster-based interspecies romance. However, I'm very much not a fan of the gender restrictions on the race, especially since Classic Horrors Revisted does state that hags can have male offspring - they just don't usually let them live.

Furthermore, I remember Forgotten Realms introducing the idea of the male children of hags, creatures known as Hagspawn, one of whom was even a playable character in the second Neverwinter Nights game. Add this to the entry on Calibans - artificial "hag sons" - in the adventure module "Tears at Bitter Manor" and, well, I was wondering two things:

Would anyone here allow hagspawn or calibans or whatever you want to call them as a playable race alongside their changeling sisters?

If the answer is yes, how would you handle them? Just use the changeling stats? Or something else?

A part of me, if I'm honest, kind of leans towards the idea of using the Tiefling race, with the optional variant racial abilities from Blood of Fiends as a necessity, as hagspawn/calibans. I can kind of see Shacklespawn and Hungerseeds making excellent Annis Hag calibans, Beastbroods as Green Hag calibans, and Motherless make very fitting sons of the nightmare-spreading Night Hags.

But what's other peoples' opinions?

I rather enjoyed the many inventive class archetypes and expansions added in the Advanced Race Guide, but as I flick through it, I cannot help but feel that many of them, whilst certainly most iconic for their particular race, aren't necessarily exclusive to that race.

I mean, the Fiend Flayer and Kinslayer are certainly very hard to work for non-Tieflings and non-Dhampirs, at best, I would be very hard-pressed to envision a non-Kobold sorcerer with the Kobold bloodline, and the Elemental Knight is openly tied into the Suli's racial power.

But for most of the rest of them? Why couldn't there be an Orc Redeemer Paladin, or a human Bushwhacker Gunslinger, or an elven Shigenjo Oracle, or whatever?

So, I was curious: has anyone else ever allowed races other than their associated races to take advantage of archetypes from the ARG?

First up, a disclaimer: I do not think that homosexuality and transsexuality are the same thing. Nor do I, or would I ever, advocate the forcible gender reassignment of homosexuals.

The reason I wanted to get that out of the way is because I've been thinking about Lamashtu, the Chaotic Evil goddess of fertility and miscegenation, and it seems uncomfortably likely that she does not approve of worshippers coupling with the same sex, or with attempting to play the role of the opposite sex whilst lacking the equipment to successfully breed in that role.

Does anyone else get the feeling that this would be the case?

After all, Lamashtu's worship, at its core, is all about producing an endless array of new spawn to fight, bleed, breed and die in turn. It is nature at its most perverse and rampant, essentially. Thusly, as much as I find the idea abhorrent - but then, this *is* a Religion of Evil - it seems logical that Lamashtu would abhor those whose sexuality or gender dysphoria leads to them not doing their part and breeding. Especially since infertility is seen as a sign of severe disfavor from Lamashtu.

Similarly, it makes unpleasant sense that Lamashtan priests would be quick to use various torments to "enlighten" the faithful as to their proper place. Additionally, or alternatively, the more merciful-feeling priests - or those confronted when otherwise highly valuable servants of the cult have improper attitudes - might use magic to "correct" the problem. Forcibly gender-shifting the homosexual, for example.

On a divergent strain of thought...

* Does anyone else think that a functional hermaphrodite gender, capable of simultaneously bearing and fathering offspring, would be the equivalent of the holy grail to a Lamashtan cult?

* In the Mythic Realms splat, mention is made of male pregnancy, as part of Multh's attempt to breed a new Spawn of Rovagug. Given Lamashtu's interests can be summed up as madness, mutation and corrupt fertility, does anyone think it likely that spells, artefacts or whatever allowing men to be impregnated would be something Lamashtu's faithful would either seek or possess?

* Finally, would a Lamashtu cult make use of gender modifying and/or male impregnation spells/effects/etc as a way of striking against the cult's enemies? I don't know, something like luring the city's gender dysphorics into their arms by promising to remake them into what they should have been, or striking chaos into the heart of the city's defenders when the Lord Mayor suddenly and dramatically balloons with child in the middle of a meeting and messily (if not fatally) gives birth to a monstrous child, seems weirdly appropriate to a demonic fertility/pleasure cult.

Now, I know that Character Alignment is a highly subjective affair in D&D. I apologize for writing this, but I just had to get this off of my chest after reading some topics on here about Paladins vs. Lawful Evil settlements or encounters.

I just never understand why Lawful Good vs. Lawful Evil seems to be so hard to figure out. Why? Because of this:

The essence of Lawful Good is "laws are important, in so far as they support, protect or promote goodness". It is not "law equals goodness". That is the essence of Lawful Neutral, where one prizes the letter of the law above all things and does not concern oneself with the morality of the law.

If the above statement can be taken as the essence of Lawful Good, then, the obvious addendum is that "if a law actively harms or oppresses others, or otherwise promotes the cause of evil, then it is a bad law, and should be opposed".

In other words, a Lawful Good character is not obligated by their alignment to obey laws that directly serve or benefit evil. Such laws breach the purpose of law in so far as the Lawful Good alignment recognizes it (to whit, promoting the greater good of the community) and thusly are inherently worthless. Paladins serving gods devoted more to Law may wrestle with it, but ultimately their calling is to be a force for Good, which means they are empowered to ignore laws that purposefully aid or empower Evil.

That said, alignment should be tempered by common sense. A Paladin, or any Lawful Good character, does not walk into the middle of Chelish slavemarket and start attacking the slavers -- not because it breaches their alignment, but because common sense dictates that such an action will not help the cause of good, may result in the innocent being harmed by accident, and almost certainly result in their dying having accomplished nothing.

A Lawful Good character always tries to work so that they promote Good with the minimal amount of social unrest. This means they are very procedural and attempt to keep disruption to a minimum. And once they have achieved the Good they set out to do, they should strive to smooth over the disruption they caused and get things smoothly organized again.

Ultimately, the primary goal of a Lawful Good character is to uphold and promote Good. The Lawful part comes in their procedural, organized methodology to doing so. Take, for example, a town that has just been saved from a rampaging goblin tribe: the proper course of action, for a Lawful Good character, is to not only drive off or kill the goblins, but to remain in the village and organize it so that such tragedies do not happen again. Be responsible for initiating the construction of defenses, organize a militia, set up safehouses and plans of action - only when the town has been organized such that they should be able to defend themselves against a subsequent attack will a Lawful Good character move on. Simply killing the creatures and then moving on is a Chaotic Good action, and even then you'd expect them to stick around long enough to see to patching up any injuries or otherwise helping out individuals.

Something I've noticed while flicking through the four core bestiaries for Pathfinder alone is that quite a few monstrous races are depicted as depending on human(oid) partners from other species to propagate themselves. Harpies, hags, sirens, thriae, jorogumo - and those are the ones I remember off the top of my head.

Now, the books are also quite clear that generally, such races keep their monstrous status by the way they treat their partners - jorogumo, for example, borrow the motif of Ravenloft's Red Widow and use the sires of their offspring as food for said offspring once they hatch, for example. And Pathfinder in general is pretty strong on the "Always Chaotic Evil" thing.

But still, I found myself wondering: is it at all possible that, in Golarion, some monstrous races could actually fall in love with humans or humanoids? Not necessarily to the point of changing their alignment, but even if Love Redeems isn't necessarily true, Even Evil Has Loved Ones, as they say.

I mean, harpies might be Chaotic Evil as a race, but the Chaos part of that alignment is just as important as the Evil part.* Hags might be black-hearted, but that doesn't mean there isn't room in their hearts for some twisted sliver of love - hell, Planescape: Torment has Ravel Puzzlewell's sincere love for The Nameless One as an important backstory element, and I know a Dragon Magazine article included a magic item made from the head of a green hag who died after watching the evil human ranger she truly loved by murdered by her jealous sisters**.

And that's not getting into Pathfinder hints on the matter, such as Irabeth (Wrath of the Righteous) and Tsadok Goldtooth (Skull & Shackles), who were both born of loving human/orc couples, or the comment about Sirens dying of heartbreak from losing their human paramours in their bestiary entry, or Undrella (harpy, Legacy of Fire) and Greta (winter wolf, Reign of Winter), who are both romanceable *and* redeemable NPCs.

I guess what I'm asking is this:
#1: Do you think it's possible that a monstrous humanoid could actually fall in love with a non-monster, in the Pathfinder setting?

#2: Do you think such a character actually fits in the world that is Golarion?

#3: Have you ever made use of such a couple, or encountered such a couple, in your Pathfinder games?

* Which is, incidentally, why the writeup about it "being traditional" to eat the fathers of their daughters after being fertilized in the Classic Monsters splatbook never made sense to me; chaotic races are, by their very nature, not prone to such regularized behavior. A harpy could kill and eat their partner after sex, yes, but she'd do so on a whim. She'd be just as likely to figure on keeping him alive until she grows bored, especially if she thought he was a pretty good lay. And if some other harpy complains? She beats her up. That's Chaotic Evil in a nutshell: you do what *you* want to do, and to the Abyss with everyone else and what they think of it.

But then, on this chain of thought, I made a homebrew setting where harpies *used* to act like Golarion ones, except that the harpies who kept their lovers alive produced more daughters, who grew up healthier (the fathers would take special care of the chicks they fathered to convince their "spouses" to spare them and/or to gain them as allies), and eventually they became the dominant strain of the species. Classic Pathfinder-style man-eaters remain a fringe minority pushed to the backwater regions, whilst the "normal" harpy was a still-dangerous, but less hostile, Chaotic Neutral race that wasn't so opposed to civilization, even being a valid player race (using Strix stats, if one is curious).

** No, I can't remember the item name, the article (I think it was a Bazaar of the Bizarre, focused on either Hag items or Swamp items) or the issue number. I would love to find out. I dimly remember another item from the article being a cloak of swamp reeds and the like that had... some effect, I can't remember if it was Pass Without Trace or an Extradimensional Mansion type effect that only worked in swamp environments.

First of all, I've never started a topic on these boards before, so I'm deeply sorry if I say anything offensive or if I'm putting this in the wrong way.

Pathfinder continues to grow, and as part of that, it's brought out quite a large number of new classes to the iconics. Advanced Player's Guide gave us the Alchemist, Cavalier, Inquisitor, Oracle, Summoner and Witch. Ultimate Combat gave us the Gunslinger, Ninja and Samurai. Ultimate Magic brought the Magus into being. And Advanced Class Guide is looking to give us the Arcanist, Bloodrager, Brawler, Hunter, Investigator, Shaman, Skald, Slayer, Swashbuckler and Warpriest.

That's a lot of new content. But I was curious; what do people think of these various additions to the Pathfinder class array? Which ones do you like, dislike, think could have been done better, etcetera?

Since it's only fair, here are my answers to the question I'm asking.

Alchemist: I'll be honest, I'm not really a big fan of the Alchemist. I just never honestly saw the point in it. It's basically a class revolving around potion-brewing, with a little treading on the Barbarian's heels via its Mutagen feature. Ultimate Magic made it a little more attractive, but still, I would probably never play one myself. I suppose if you were determined to run a caster-free game it's a good finangle, but, yeah, honestly I see the Alchemist's various bombs and the like as something better off folded into the Gunslinger, or else used as part of a more "Mad Scientist" typed class.

Cavalier: When I first saw this class, I immediately skipped over it. My first thought was "if a player wants to be a Knight in Shining Armor sans Spells, why not just be a Lawful Good Fighter with the right feats?" But, when I actually took a second look, I found myself pleasantly surprised. The fact that it doesn't overemphasize the Cavalier's steed, to the point that the class is useless if not mounted, helped a lot, as I've heard was the case with 3.5's Knight base class and Cavalier prestige class. In all honesty, the class's focus on buffing party members and debuffing enemies through non-magical means actually reminds me a lot of 4e's Warlord class.

Inquisitor: ...I just cannot, for the life of me, see the point of this class. It's a powerful archetype and all, but I just can't get behind it. I can never really figure out what an Inquisitor actually does when combat rolls around - I guess it's sort of a cleric-spell-casting Rogue. It's very odd because I've seen 4e's Avenger, I can easily imagine fluffing one up as member of their church's inquisition (or an equivalent organization - Warhammer's Witchfinders, for example), and come up with plenty of ideas for that, but trying to do the same for Pathfinder's actual Inquisitor class leaves me... well, stumped.

Oracle: On the one hand, I shouldn't think much of the Oracle, since it's literally a Divine analogue to the Sorcerer. But on the other hand, I find the Oracle really, really cool. I like the class's fluff and I like it's crunch support, something that I find is generally the case for Pathfinder classes vs. 3.5 classes. The Curse motifs are cool, without overly impairing the class in the name of flavor, and the Mysteries they choose really emphasize the difference between two Oracles.

Summoner: Yeah, I know it's cliché on these boards, but I'm not a Summoner fan. It just seems like a glorified, over-specialized version of the Conjurer specialist. Even the Eidolon, which could be very cool and fluffwise actualy is, fails to really make the class useful. If a Pathfinder 2e came out and the Conjurer killed the Summoner and took the (upgraded and less confusing) Eidolon for itself, I'd be quite happy.

Witch: Packed with juicy characterization, flavorful without being too weak or too powerful, the Witch is one of my favorite classes to be added to Pathfinder, and I think the gem of the APG. The fact it's the first time a D&D setting has included a "Red Mage" type base class further cements its approval in my mind.

Gunslinger: Gun-wielding characters in fantasy RPGs are a controversial element. All things in consideration, though, I'm very happy with the Gnslinger's existence and I applaud Paizo for including it. The Grit system was unexpected, but works out quite nicely, giving players a reason to really "play up" the Gunslinger properly, as opposed to the fun-killing "I sit way, way in the back and snipe at the bad guys" that gun-wielders tend to get stereotyped as in such settings.

Ninja: If I'm honest, my first impulse when presented with the Ninja was to recoil as needless Japanophile pandering. The Monk kind of gets by on tradition and unique place, but the Ninja is basically a Rogue with Japanese flavor added on top. Forcing myself to take a look revealed what's actually a pretty decent class, crunchwise, but still, I probably would rather have had a Ninja archetype for the Rogue than a full-fledged class. I mean, I could easily reskin the Ninja's crunch for a more mystical sort of assassin class, but I just don't get it being so essential to do "magical Japanese Rogue" as an independent class.

Samurai: Remember what I said about the Cavalier and the Ninja? Yep; this is another class where, though investigation has revealed decent crunch, I just don't see a point behind it as an independent class. Pathfinder's archetype system means that the Fighter could *easily* have represented the Samurai. Kudos to Paizo for being smarter than 3.5 and not making the Samurai yet another Alignment Restricted class, though, even if this is one example where I could kind of see a suggestion of aiming to be Lawful as appropriate. And that's rare from me, since I'm not a huge fan of the 9-grid character alignment system.

Magus: My favorite class in Pathfinder, hands down. I have always been a huge Gish fan, ever since I first cut my teeth back on AD&D. I love 4e's Swordmage, and I love Pathfinder's Magus. I will confess to being a little disappointed at the spell selection, but I guess that's a side effect of coming from 4e's "every caster has unique spells" perspective, and I certainly find the ones that the Magus has very unique. The Bladebound archetype in particular is one of my favorites in the game.

Arcanist: Honestly, I find myself puzzled about my feelings for this class. I do like the basic idea, and arcane casters have always been my favorite. But, at the same time, I find the execution of the idea kind of blah. Good crunch, just... not very exciting. I really don't know how I feel about it, to be honest.

Bloodrager: Once I actually took a look at it, this class really caught my attention. I find the idea very interesting, especially because it reminds me of the Irish myths of the Riastrad, or "warp-spasm", a rage that actually mutated and transformed the berserker. Honestly, I feel the Bloodrager could be more interesting by focusing on that side of it, rather than by making it another melee-ranged spellcaster like the Magus. Either way, I like it a lot, and it even gives me ideas for 4e and its Hybrid Classing rules, especially since the Sorcerer and Barbarian there can mesh pretty well.

Brawler: Truth be told? This is one of the ACG classes I'm least looking forward to. No matter how hard I try, no matter what angle I look at it from, all I see is a Monk stripped of that pesky "must always be Lawful" rule that I've always hated, and with less Eastern flavor to its mechanics. So, yeah; I would rather see a unarmed combat-focused archetype for the Fighter and simply strip the Monk of its Alignment Requisite than see this class.

Hunter: I don't know, I just don't find this class very interesting. The fact it reminds me a lot of the World of Warcraft class called the Hunter - especially as it was portrayed in WoW's short-lived D20 tabletop game - doesn't help. I'd never want to play one myself.

Investigator: Strangely, even though I'm not an Alchemist fan myself, I really, really like the Investigator. It just seems so very suited for an urban-set game, and with a little fluff-work I could easily see an Indiana Jones or Laura Croft-styled adventurer-archaeologist character being built on the Investigator class's crunchwork. Definitely one of the more promising classes coming.

Shaman: Being a hybrid of the Witch and the Oracle, I find myself strangely ambivalent towards the Shaman. It's an interesting idea, I suppose, but I just can't get into it.

Skald: I'd probably never play a Skald myself, but the "barbarian bard" archetype is an old one and I suppose it's handled pretty well. It looks promising so far, but it's just not my area of interest.

Slayer: Another medicore idea, from my point of view. The combination of the Ranger's Tracking ability and the Rogue's Back Stab certainly makes for a lethally effective crunch-combo, but honestly I think a refluffed Ranger or Rogue already does this class just fine. I guess it works if you absolutely need 100% crunch support for your bounty hunter, but I don't care for it much at all.

Swashbuckler: Ordinarily, I probably would have asked "why not just make this a fighter archetype?" But, looking at what they've done for it, I really do like the Swashbuckler as a class on its own merits. It meshes up with the archetype it's drawing from so very well that I can easily see places for it in games I might be inclined to run.

Warpriest: Alongside the Brawler, this is the class I find least interesting in the ACG. Either it's a beefier Cleric, or it's an attempt to create a non-Alignment Restricted variant of the Paladin. There's just... nothing here to really excite my attention, and I can't help the feeling it owes a large part of its existence to Pathfinder's retaining the idea of Alignment Restricted classes. Which is my big problem with the Brawler, as well.