Classes:
Here goes what I have managed to gather on classes; and again, if I mistake someone’s posts, feel free to correct me:
Remember that these are not all my opinions, I agree with some and disagree with others, the point here is only to summarize all the ideas for easy reference.
> General:
Tying the HD to BAB progressing seemed a good idea, most agreed with it. Some have an issue with the barbarian apparently being the exception for the rule.
Gaining a minor special ability every level instead of some big one here and there looked perfect; no longer we have the big gaps between levels.
The need for a swashbuckler-like class was also mentioned. Maybe giving the fighter some options to start without all the armor & shield proficiencies and substitute for some other feats could be a starting idea.
There has always been the discussion to give some classes more skill points. I just wanted to add that with all the skill-grouping, classes are already getting more skills indirectly. One should test it well instead of just basing it in the standard 3.5.
Asgetrion has mentioned he´d like to see the NPC´s classes on Pathfinder RPG too, at least the Expert and Commoner. Personally, I’d add the Aristocrat to the list, or at least some other class for the nobility. The Noble class from Dragonlance Campaign Setting looked nice. Asgetrion´s complete post can be seen here: http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/messageboa rds/pathfinderRPG/feedback/alpha1/racesClasses/myThoughtsFeedbackAndSuggest ionsOnRacesAndClassesP419
> Cleric: (on a personal note; that is one awesome looking cleric).
The simplicity of the new Turn Undead ability looked very nice, many took well the change; but the rules for Turning Undead should be in the cleric section, it makes it easier for reference.
As for the Healing, some thinks is just “too much healing in the game”; maybe some more subtle and “personal” healing such as the Reserve Points in Iron Heroes or the Second Wind in 4th (although not as much as the 4th one, I believe it’s just too much too). Others pointed out that an ability that deals damage and heals is too strange, even being all the positive energy stuff.
At-Will orisons most agree that is not overpowered, it enhances the cleric a bit, yes, but within reason.
> Fighter:
Fighter looks “bland”. The 4th ed approach is to make it more specific, more flavored with a certain weapon. While the Weapon Training ability does provides bonus to specific weapons, the “+X with weapon Y” still seems bland. Some more feats to choose from seems to be a good choice as member Kobajagrande mentioned; and member Anaxxius mentioned the Knight from PHB II as a good source for the design of the new fighter.
Many have frequently mentioned the need for more skill points, member DeadDMWalking gave a good example of trying to make the fighter “guard” something; any rogue could easily pass by unseen (and unheard); the need for some Perception is clear in this case. DeadDMWalking´s complete poston fighters can be read here: http://paizo.com/store/byCompany/p/paizoPublishingLLC/pathfinder/messageboa rds/pathfinderRPG/feedback/alpha1/racesClasses/makingABetterFighter
He mentions the need for better Saves and more anti-magic abilities. On a personal note, I like the fact that fighters don’t have these anti-magic stuff; I like the feel of the classic warrior, the kingsguard, the mercenary, etc… who has nothing to do with magic. For me, I´d let these things be some optional feats or even a specialized prestige class.
> Rogue:
Sneak attack working against everything might not seem a good idea. This looks like a 4th ed approach and there are many who are not glad with it. How could it be explained to Sneak Attack a shadow? Some have mentioned this general Sneak Attack could work with the knowledge skill; to have a sneak attack efficient against some unusual foe, the rogue should have some knowledge about it; some kind of Knowledge (Undead) check to let them find that weak spot on a shadow. Another point is: How is sneak attack affected by concealment?
Magic?: Not everyone wants a magic-using rogue; although some did like the idea.
My take on the issue is: The concept of the “Arcane Trickster” is too personal, let others who wants their rogues to cast spells take some Wiz or Sorc levels. By NOT giving them spells you allow for both types; and by giving them, you allow for only one type.
User Chris Banks commented about the rogue’s trapfinding ability; saying that while there’s no problem on the rogue being better at disarming traps, he should not be the ONLY one capable of doing it (for traps with DC above 21). So a high level party while without a rogue is doomed to be killed by traps. My personal take is that if the party does not have a rogue, it should rely to spells then. But I do agree other people could try it, even if with a penalty.
> Wizard:
Bond items don’t quite substitute a familiar; while the concept is very interesting, a familiar is still much superior. A familiar is not only a bonus feat for increasing a skill; and not only it gets many abilities as you level up, it is a character in game! A raven speaks a language, how awesome is that, it also makes for an excellent spy as has been proven in many games; and so do all the flying familiars. Depending on the where you are, who would suspect a rat? It can retrieve much information.
So, bon items should get a little pump. Giving an extra low-level spell for a wizard to cast is not much, if we think in D&D (ok, Pathfinder) terms, what is “magical power”? Higher spell slots. So the bond item should work to provide this, maybe some uses of “Sudden” Metamagic; maybe at higher levels it could lower the penalty for applying metamagic feats.
Casting from the spellbook was also mentioned. It is a concept that has been the target of arguments for a long time in D&D too.
but they get both domain powers not just pick one like you did the spells so thats 14 not 7 and there pretty strong anyhow.
I like that i always hated they got more then a wizard and domain spells and a better BAB and could use heavy armor no prob.so a more in line spell chart and domain powers looks good to me.