Themutedman's page

So I'm attempting to purchase a subscription for the Pathfinder Rulebook and Pathfinder Lost Omens Ongoing Subscriptions, as well as a few other Pathfinder 2e accessories, and no matter how many times I tell the site to start my Rulebook subscription with the Pathfinder 2e Core Rulebook, the final checkout page continues to tell me that it will start with the Planar Adventures hardcover.

I just want to make sure that I get my subscription started with the Core Rulebook and as soon as I can guarantee that I'll gladly start my subscriptions and order the other accessories!

I'm having the same issue.

Yeah, I'm on a desktop and there's nothing "below" besides the site footer.

Hello!

I'm currently building a GM's blog for myself and I wanted to host some of my own free homebrew content, classes, races, etc. as well as GM resources like my own take on the GM screen, player rules reference etc. and I'm not super clear on what I would be required to add to the actual documents, or my website in order to abide by the OGL. Even though I plan for it all to be 100% free, I still want to make sure everything is above board.

Any help is greatly appreciated! Thanks.

Your progression of sneak attacks averages out to only 1 HP more 18th level. Normal SA averages out to 35 at 19th level. I feel like it would be OK to revert to the typical progression. You could also move flurry of blades to 3rd level or so, to avoid dipping and make it a reward for sticking with the class.

I don't think that fast movement fits thematically.

I know you included the AC bonus as a nod to the monk, but I don't think it is neccessary. Light armor proficiency would work just as well. My mental picture of a fantasy RPG assassin wears armor.

The armor-less theme actually originally comes from the Invisible Blade prestige class from 3.5. It ended up being a nice coincidence that the monk (one of the intended parent classes) got a similar ability.

I actually called it "Clout" because "clout shooting" is a type of long range archery and gives a sort of similar feel as "grit" and "panache" while still remaining a bit unique!

It's almost as if you didn't even read the post... *facepalm*

I think a Dexterity bonus makes sense. Have you ever seen goats hop around or stand on small branches of trees? Those little punks are nimble.

Well, it's not official Paizo, or from any big time third-party publishers, but I did make a goliath race for one of my players who said "I just want to be big. Like really big."
Here's a link below.

Goliath

I can see that. I've never been afraid to stomp all over other archetypes with homebrew (seeing as Paizo has done it to themselves a few times), but I totally get adding more power to the archery style being a bit scary.
I'll give it another once over and check some numbers. I've actually got someone playing this in one of my home games (currently level 4) and so far it hasn't felt too overpowered and has led to some awesome moments. I'll keep an eye on it and adjust accordingly.

Back in the ol' 3.5 days, I built a character around the Invisible Blade prestige class. It ended up being one of my favorite characters and his abilities were extremely fun and rewarding. Sadly, since we don't have that particular prestige class (and seeing as I'm not big on prestige classes anymore anyways), I decided to try and make a 20-level class to give that similar feel.
The monk and rogue seemed a perfect set to smash up and since the unchained versions are just better, I went with those. I also used a few of the abilities from the Paizo Assassin prestige class.

Assassin

Let me know what you guys think!

So we've always had the ranger as an ideal archery class. They're able to ignore prerequisites for archery feats, full BAB, and a set of neat unique abilities, but sadly, they've always seemed (at least to me) as filling more of the "hunter" or "woodsman" sort of archer. We do not have an immediate avenue to create a sort of Robin Hood character, or an acrobatic trick shooter.
So, to remedy this, I made this alternate class for the Gunslinger.

Archer

Let me know what you all think!
All the constructive criticism is welcome.

You should totally check out pathfindercommunity.net

They've got a Necromage class (and quite a few others) that I think are very well done.

Necromage

I liked the inspire/ heckle idea, plus muses was a fun addition.

However some things I think should remain in certain classes unless it's a specific archetype that trades away some major things for it.

Spell kenning and fighter feat qualifications, as some examples, shouldn't come standard. I think taking the abilities that copy things only certain classes should do should be stripped out.

I loved the layout.

Well, the advanced versatile performance you mentioned that allows all the fighter stuff is actually from a Pathfinder Player Companion (Blood of the Beast?) and so is available to standard bards. I included it because it's a really neat ability and is already Pathfinder content.

The spell kenning ability is from the skald. The first time I read it when I got my copy of the ACG I immediately thought it should have been a bard ability. There are a handful of spells that I really feel like should be on the bard spell list (like fly/overland flight) and instead of just rewriting their spell list (which I entertained and realized, once again, that writing spell lists is my least favorite thing to do), I would give them the spell kenning ability.

It has awesome bard-ish sort of flavor and is part of a class based on the bard in the first place.

Thank you so much for the compliments and critiques!

Also, if you're wondering I use http://homebrewery.naturalcrit.com/ to make the PDF's. As a GM, I use it for loads of materials and it's super handy. It's technically for making 5e content, but I jerry-rigged it to make PFRPG-looking stuff. ;)

the Stumble Inn
the Inn-tersect (obviously at some sort of crossroads)
the Leaky Tankard
the Gilded Gull (built right on the docks of a huge port city)
etc. etc.

Woo! Ever since I started watching Critical Role, I've wanted a set of these but they've always been discontinued. Go ahead and take my money.

So right off the bat, a lot of you are thinking "What?! The bard is great! You don't unchain a class that already does its job! Psh, this guy must not know what he's talking about."

I understand your concern. The bard is a very balanced and great class. It performs (pun intended..?) well at buffing folks, and knowing things and it's got a pretty versatile spell list.
The reason I've spent the time to put together my own take on unchaining the bard is its complete lack of customization, the necessity to rely on archetypes for interesting flavor, and the massively low number of class features for a 6th level caster (I mean, come on! Look at the magus and the inquisitor).

Paizo has made it a habit to give their classes abilities that allow players to customize their characters to their liking (magus arcana, rogue talents, bloodlines etc.), but when you look at the bard, he has none of this. Sure, masterpieces add some customization, but those are costly and outside of the bard's actual class features. I've added the ability to gain masterpieces through normal progression as well as made bardic performances something you pick to learn as you level up. All this and I've also written an ability called Muse; granting the bard a unique flavor as well as some bonus abilities (many of which have been pulled directly from archetypes since the bard has the most number and a lot of them are great).

As always, this is a first draft and I really hope for some good feedback. Like I always say, you guys have been nothing but helpful on the various homebrew classes I've posted recently (aegis, warlock, artificer, and monster hunter) and I thank you for that!

May the constructive criticism commence!

Unchained Bard

Themutedman wrote:

StephJZ wrote:

I'm just starting to skim this so I don't have any particular feedback yet, but I've been wanting to see a Witcher type of character in Pathfinder and this looks like it is well done in executing the concept from the little I see so far.

Thanks, I really tried to make it feel like Pathfinder while still hitting that witcher-esque note.

Did you get a chance to look it over more?

For the most part, it seems pretty solid. I would say a couple of things though.

I worry a little bit that Focused Study of the Behemoth is too specialized or too late because of it applies to giants. Maybe that isn't really as much of a problem as I'm thinking, but I could easily see someone playing through a campaign without ever encountering a giant.

Stunning Strike from the Wolf school seems like it might be underwhelming because of how late you get it.

The one most minor quibble of them all I'd make is that the school of the Dragon doesn't make flavor sense to me in its name. I don't associate dragons with firearms.

The formulae that you have to choose from for the Alchemy abilities isn't specified. But I'm assuming it's identical to that of the Alchemist?

This might overcomplicate a class that already has a lot going for it, but it would feel a little more like the Witcher if you could somehow enhance your Sigils later on.

Part of me wishes there was some way you could have a use for "mutagens" in the way the Witcher does in the Witcher 3, I.E. extracting mutagens from specific monsters you killed in order to brew special potions or directly enhance your abilities.

Just some food for thought. Overall it seems like you did a pretty sweet job.

Radical. Thank you so much for the advice.

The School of the Behemoth was added because I wanted to create a few of my own schools and it seemed kinda neat to have a direct way to wield larger weapons outside using an archetype. I'll definitely spend some more time with the abilities the School gets (and probably the rest of the schools as well) just to polish it up. (Wolf School's Stunning Strike included)

I like the flavor of the Dragon School using firearms. Guns outclass other weapons in so many ways, and they deliberately rely on "fire" to make them work. Sounds dragon-ish. It works in my eyes. It was also the only interesting way to include a "dragon" school without it turning out to look like the School of the Behemoth (but for dragons) or the draconic bloodline for bloodragers. Plus, the Schools never lean to heavily on the actual animal they're named after in the games/books. Just a tad.

I was playing around with ways to make the Alchemy and Mutagen features work more like the games where you get certain ones from harvesting certain creatures. I originally thought, "Oh, I'll make certain potion ingredients and mutagens based off creature type and subtypes! That'll narrow it down a bit!" But after some trial and error, I just realized it would be introducing a whole new alchemy system that I just think isn't necessary. Maybe some day I'll write a separate alchemy system that the monster hunter can use as an option. Or maybe an archetype, I dno. It would be so flavorful and cool. But in the end, I did try and make this a Paizo-esque hybrid class, and so I wanted to keep the Alchemy and Mutagen mechanics and flavor from the Alchemist. I think doing so really roots the monster hunter in being Pathfinder specific class and not just some random homebrew.

Thanks you so much for the reply and help. My homebrew material would not be nearly as good if it wasn't for everyone here helping out.
I (and my players!) thank you!

I'm just starting to skim this so I don't have any particular feedback yet, but I've been wanting to see a Witcher type of character in Pathfinder and this looks like it is well done in executing the concept from the little I see so far.

Thanks, I really tried to make it feel like Pathfinder while still hitting that witcher-esque note.

There is also the fact that Bear school gives you Stalwart again at 12, is that supposed to be Improved Stalwart instead?

Ah jeez, thanks for that.

I'll work on the Sun Sigil a bit more. I see what you're getting at, I'm still not too worried about it, but I'll give it some more work.

Dang. That school ability is from the original plan to have them with a limited use per day. Thanks for pointing that out! I changed the plans and likely forgot to update it.
Yeesh, what would I do without all you folks?

Thanks again!

Alignment: always neutral. What happens if a Monster Hunter becomes LG or CE?

School of the Viper counts monster hunter levels +1 as rogue levels for sneak attack? Um, what?

A few of those sigils are much, much more powerful than others. Water lets you get a bunch of minions (from 3rd level!), Sun is Just Say No to a great deal of magic. I think both of those should be nerfed a bit. Air >> Fire as well, one of those should change.

How many uses/day do they get of sigils?

The school capstones should be under the schools for clarity.

It does look good overall IMO.

I suppose I should say "usually", I could also remove the alignment restriction (never been much of a fan of them in the first place), it's mainly in there to keep with the witcher theme. Totally not necessary though.

The school of the viper is a typo. Supposed to be 1/2 monster hunter levels + 1.

As for the sigils, they were modeled a bit on witch hexes and so I was leaving them as unlimited use. (could be limited to a number of times equal to Wis mod). I could remove charm monster from the Water Sigil and I think that could make it a bit more balanced. Either way, it's not going to create "minions" per se, as the charm spells don't give you perfect or direct control. They're just friendly.
I'll change the Sun Sigil to lesse globe of invulnerability. I could remove the immediate action part but this is supposed to be an offhanded reference in the books to one of the first moment Geralt meets Yennefer (he uses the Heliotrop Sign, the one the Sun Sigil is based off of, to block a blast she casts at him at the last second) it's powerful, but not broken.
Air and Fire are the Aard and Igni Signs from the books/games and so I'll likely keep them and modeling them after the spells seemed most convenient.

I'll update the document with those revisions in mind.
Thanks for the help!

So I'm sure a huge group of you out there are fans of the Witcher series (whether the games or the books) and I've seen plenty of discussions on how to build a witcher-esque character with the existing Pathfinder rules. These attempts, while close, never quite seemed to hit the mark and one was always sacrificing one part of the witcher's kit in order to play one; no class combinations seemed to do the witcher justice.

I thought to myself, "Well, hell with that! I'll just make my own." So here we are, after about a week of work, I've got a first draft that I'd love you good folks to take a look at. You all helped quite a bit on the last few homebrew classes I posted, and I would love to get that sort of feedback on this one.

I tried to leave out any actual key witcher words or phrases as to make this fall into Pathfinder without any overtly franchise specific terminology. (Sigils are witcher signs obviously). I also didn't include abilities that seemed to be more inherent to the witchers as a "race" and not their training (like their witcher senses).

Anyways, looking forward to the feedback and I hope folks enjoy the class.
Monster Hunter

Maybe call it the "Templar" and really lean into the smite and favored enemy features? You could rework the two features to work better together; possibly making smite work against your favor enemy and receive extra damage and bonus (maybe your smite is less effective against enemies that aren't favored?)

You'd have to get rid of a lot of the nature fluff from the ranger but it could be a cool concept.

I like the concept. The first thing that comes to mind is that I feel like this should be an inquisitor/ranger hybrid. You could still have the religious fluff and the spellcasting, but it would allow you to really lean into the tracking of criminals/monsters. The inquisitors abilities (Bane, Monster Lore, Stern Gaze etc.) fit the bounty hunter fluff perfectly.
But either way I think what you're aiming at is interesting; it just may deserve a second take.

How 'bout just making it an archetype called "Apothecary"?
Sounds like you wanna just swap out a handful of the alchemist's features and thus it might make the whole situation simpler to just make it an archetype.

Bump.

The way I was thinking of this class would be a bit more unique. Both the fighter and ranger can really take advantage of the specific weapon groups and styles they lean into, but the specialist takes that to a whole new level.
I was going to come up with at least 5 unique fighting styles; like specifically fighting with a shield/shields, mastering the whip, specifically throwing weapons that aren't meant to be thrown (think bloodstorm blade from 3.5), or even something as simple as a spiked chain expert. You make a choice at first level and you get specific abilities based off of the choice. You could even allow a specialist to adopt additional other styles as they level up (think how the kineticist mixes elements), or they can stick to their particular style and master it.
I don't know, it could be a little wacky but I think in the end it might be quite fun.

Since this class isn't directly tied to religiosity, I'll leave it up to the player and their GM to figure out how an evil aegis would perform her duties. I totally get your concern though, but I'd rather leave those fluff choices up to the individual instead of writing it in mechanically. As designers, we should try and work the numbers and balance out as best we can while writing thematically interesting fluff that leaves all the room a player could want to make the class/character their own.
It's why I love the way the witch class's patron feature was written when compared to the 5e warlock. You don't need to tell the player "You have a pact with *enter specific entity here* and that means this...". Give them the main theme of this entity and allow the player and GM to fill in those details (or not! They don't even have to fill the details in if they want to).

The Kickstarter for the newly revised, updated, and vastly expanded, full-color HARDCOVER version of the New Paths Compendium j for the Pathfinder RPG launched today.

It features a number of new Pathfinder classes, and one of the new ones just happens to be the Warlock!

In fact, the warlock is one of the things I'm really excited about people seeing once the book comes out (of course, we have to get it funded first :)

Learn more about the project

Become a BACKER of the New Paths Compendium kickstarter today!

Dang! Beat to the punch. Just took a look at the Kickstarter and it looks great. Your Warlock has an intelligent item just like mine! I guess great minds think alike ;)

Drejk wrote:

I would suggest rename—there is already an aegis class.

Check two posts up from your post, though personally I disagree that there isn't much room for stuff like that now, after the official Occult classes. The Dreamscarred Psionics Augmented: Occult line makes a point of differences and connections between Psychic and Psionic, after all - and one of their fairly recent releases was an aegis archetype, so over 7 years it may be, but it is still an actively supported and expanded class.

All I'm saying is that there are plenty of homebrewed classes with the same name. It was originally called the Warden, but I found that a bit boring and didn't have any flare that I expect from an arcane class. Not to mention the fact that Aegis sounds similar to Magus (yes I know how magus is truly pronounced and they don't exactly match up, but it's close) and since this is essentially a sister class to the Magus it made sense.

Thanks for the critiques guys!

Drejk:
I like the idea! Enough that I added an entry to the grimoire that allows it to function as an instructor for learning occult rituals. I want to keep the spellcasting since this is based partially off the witch class but I think giving them a constant instructor for ways into the occult is interesting and reasonable.

Cyrad:
I upped the Consume Essence ability to 5th level. I agree that it makes more sense to put it off a bit. If you actually double check how I had the entry written, the bag of rats doesn't exactly apply since Consume Essence has limited uses per day, but either way I removed the ability to harm a creature to regain spell slots. I also changed the ability to heal burn from doing nonlethal damage to giving the target a fortitude save or be sickened for 1 round. Far more reasonable and isn't any kind of insane boon to gain while also healing burn.

You know, I've seen folks talk about force damage being too powerful and I get where they're coming from, but if we really take a look at it, a 5th level warlock with an 18 Int that uses his eldritch blast will do an average 11 damage that bypasses DR and resistance. He can only do this once per round (at least until a much later level and by accepting large amounts of burn). If we look at a 5th level fighter with 18 Strength and Power Attack that wields a +1 greatsword, she will do an average of 20 damage while using Power Attack. If she also has Cleave and Great Cleave, she will make additional attacks with that same damage output. Yes, it is susceptible to DR but generally that will still leave it better or on par with the eldritch blast.
By 20th level, a warlock will do something like 45 damage from one blast and that's only if his burn is maxed out. Sure, he could have used his Meta-Arcana and let off 2 blasts in a round, but that costs him 4 points of burn (remember, he's limited in how much burn he can accept not only in total, but per round. able to accept up to 6 point in a round at his max) A 20th level fighter will do something like 50 damage or more (depending on their feat choices) per attack with a max enchanted greatsword. Even if you take into account DR of high level enemies, the fighter is still pumping out over a hundred damage on an average round when making her 4 attacks.
Is the eldritch blast powerful? Most definitely. It's supposed to be. But I don't think it breaks the game at all, nor does it outshine our usual damage dealers ability to kill baddies.
Oh, I also changed the blasts counter spell ability to only apply to spells with the force descriptor. Narrows it down and makes the blast function more like its kineticist parent.

Well since the fighter can carve out it's style by picking weapon groups that it excels with and the ranger picks a combat style, maybe create a class that hyper focuses on one particular type of fighting (the specialization options could even be strange or a bit out of the ordinary).
I've tossed ideas about this around in my head before. I was gonna call it the Specialist

I am occasionally doodling a similar concept of making 3rd edition warlock hexer class that would combine kinetic blast eldritch bolts with hexes.

I'd get rid of the spells and gave more hexes - at the same rate witch gets them (and which happens to be the rate at which kineticist gets utility wild talents),

Ooooh, I like that!

highly suggest you turn evolution points into augmentation points it goes better with machines

I think I have it as "construction points" currently, but augmentation might work too.

I'm just here to congratulate you on your username, Ed Girallon Poe.
*slow clap*

Carry on.

I actually just posted 3 of my homebrew classes to the forum.
the Aegis: a sort of arcane paladin that shares aspects with magus
the Warlock: a witch/kineticist hybrid that strives to make a truly Pathfinder warlock class
the Artificer: an almost head to toe revamp of Adamant Entertainment's 3rd-party class from Tome of Secrets.

I've got some good feedback already (especially on the aegis), and the classes are already loads better!
Folks here are great.

I had an idea like this for an alchemist/summoner hybrid class. I used some of the rules for creating necrocrafts for the undead homonculus eidolon thing. I worked on it for a while, but couldn't find its niche. The class never seemed to coalesce.
If I ever get around to working on it more, I'll totally put it up on the forums here.

interesting i certainly do like it more than the other 3rd party artificer after briefly skimming through it i do think that a mechanical animal companion or a construct edolon would work better than a construct familiar though probably could get it a couple levels earlier too other than that looks pretty solid

Thank you!

warlocks are charisma based and spontaneous casters their blasts are also significantly more potent right out of the gate and they wouldn't need to deal with burn

I can see that!

i know there was a conversion of the warlock a few years ago from from a guy names master asmarotious or something like that which i found was a pretty good warlock based on doing warlock stuff, while a witch/kineticist hybrid sounds pretty cool this doesn't seem to be something what should be called warlock it has plenty of flavor and some really neat abilities but just doesn't scream warlock

A pact with a generally dark entity.

I think everyone has taken a look at the Adamant Entertainment artificer class from the Tome of Secrets and found its concept rather interesting. I know that I have. I've even played campaigns where other players played one. The concept was great and gave way to some spectacular roleplaying, but sadly, the class is rather unbalanced and feels a bit half-baked.
Seeing this and desiring an artificer class that lives up to the legendary class from Eberron but with a science and tinkering focus, I decided to try my hand (again).
Originally it was going to be a wizard/alchemist hybrid (and it still is thematically), but inevitably the class features ventured too far from their parent classes and so I'm treating it as its own class.

Artificer

Let me know what you all think!
Constructive criticism is always welcome.

Also, in case you were wondering, I use this site for the nice looking PDF's.

I remember the days of 3.5 where the warlock was this class that just about everyone I knew loved to play. I don't know if it was the fluff or the spammable blast attack, but people seemed to adore it. I, on the other hand, wasn't super keen on it. The class never seemed to be able to do much; always only sort of effective.
After the witch class for Pathfinder was released, I realized Paizo had made a great attempt at bringing us some of the same fluff. I've played witches and I absolutely love them; fluff and mechanics alike.
Later on, we got the occult classes and after reading the kineticist, I got reminded of the warlock from 3.5. So after some thought, I decided to throw the two together and see if we could get a Pathfinderized warlock. One that would give us some of the same feelings from the old days, while also utilizing Paizo's more modern sensibilities in regards to class design.

Warlock

Let me know what you think!
Constructive criticism is always welcome (emphasis on constructive...).

Also, in case anyone was wondering, I use this site to make the nice looking PDF's. Super helpful and easy to use!

aegis is already a class i suggest naming it something else

If you're referring to Dreamscarred Press' 3rd-party class, I'm not too worried about it. I'm not selling this and it's nothing like their class in the first place. Not to mention that book is over 7 years old AND it's a psionic-based class. There's not really much room for stuff like that now that we have the official Occult classes.

Alright. I did a large amount of updates, taking everyone's ideas into account. I think this is far better and a little more focused.

Here's the new link to a pdf on my Google docs. (The old link will no longer function).

Aegis

Let me know what you guys think!

Also, about the formatting: this website looks drastically different on different browsers and so a lot of the headings will get orphaned like that. On my Chrome it looks great. Perhaps I'll change the link to go to a saved pdf on my Google docs...

Class Skills: no Perception? How is the aegis "unmatched in her abilities to stand vigilant" without Perception as a class skill? Particularly since Wisdom is not likely to be a key stat for this class.

I would remove Survival from the class list. This feels much more like an urban class than a wilderness one.

Arcane Pool: I would add the determination armor property to the list of properties that can be bestowed via this class feature. It seems thematically appropriate, as well as handy. If you think having an automatic Breath of Life spell built into your armor is too powerful for level 5, add it at level 9 (which is when clerics get access to the spell naturally).

Question: It says "An aegis can only enhance one armor or shield in this way at one time." Does that "or" mean she has to choose either armor or shield, and cannot have both at once, or does it mean that she has the option of choosing both but is not required to do so? It *could* be read either way.

Aegis: seems a tad much. It's very flavorful, but basically it's a free magic shield with an enhancement bonus that scales with level. It never goes away, or if it does the PC can get it back with a standard action. Why would I ever bother with a normal shield when I can have one for free?

Also, can it be dispelled?

I would suggest that Manifest Shield work something like this:

Quote:

As a standard action, the Aegis may spend 1 arcane point to manifest a shield. This functions as the spell Shield, except that it lasts one hour per Aegis level. In addition, starting at fifth level the shield counts as a normal shield for purposes of adding armor/shield properties using the Aegis' arcane pool.

I think that basically gets what you were going for. There's no arcane spell failure, because it's not a physical shield. It does improve over time, in terms of...

Woah! This is great! Thank you so much for taking the time. A lot of what you said has to do with some stuff that got ported over from passed versions and was overlooked. I will change those.

Once again I really appreciate all the time you spent!

You don't have to be an expert to give suggestions! I'm just looking for some constructive criticism so I can balance this.

Any help is appreciated!

For such a long time we've never had a class that filled the niche of the "tank"; the walking levee that bears the weight and the brunt of the damage for his comrades. Now you may ask, "But mister, aren't there a multitude of ways to build a player character that can fill that role with high AC, or huge amounts of hit points?" I would answer that question with a tentative "Yes, but..."

You see, we have the paladin: generally heavy armored with some solid stopping power and a couple always on buffs for her buddies. They are also weighted down by mount and healing abilities (and not to mention the whole alignment thing). There's also the barbarian: Con bonuses and extra hit points, along with some DR eventually, but they are of course more focused on hitting as hard as they can, rather than taking hits.
Both of these are obviously archetypal and very powerful in their own right; I'm not here to rag on two classically killer classes.

To solve this, I went through a few different iterations. The first was a hybrid between the sorcerer and the fighter that tried to emulate the magus but focused on defense instead of offense. The second was a completely custom class that ended up feeling more like a 4th edition base class than Pathfinder. Both of those versions got scrapped. What I've now come to (and currently have one of my players playtesting in my current campaign) is something I like to call the Aegis. It could verge on an alternate class for the magus since it uses a modified arcane pool as well as arcana abilities, but it's not quite similar enough to constitute calling it an "alternate" class. In my opinion, it feels more like an arcane paladin.
Anyways, enough talk. I've rambled on for long enough.

Here's a link to the pdf:
Aegis

Let me know what you think. Suggestions and criticism are welcome!

In case anyone was wondering, I use this site to make the nice looking pdf's. It's super useful!

Anyone have a game going or want to put one together during the banquet today?
I've got myself and another player who'd love to get something going since we aren't one of the lucky ones to go to the banquet tonight.