New Classes? I wouldn't mind seeing some.


General Discussion (Prerelease)

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

will we see any new classes any time soon?


MerrikCale wrote:
will we see any new classes any time soon?

The powers that be at Paizo have suggested there will be 3-4 hardcover books per year. 2009 offers the core book and the bestiary. 2010 has the Game Mastery Guide and... ??? Probably a second Bestiary but what will the other 1-2 books be? Maybe an oriental adventures type book? How about the traditional Unearthed Arcana style alternate rules book?

It's possible they might slip a new core class into one of their Pathfinder Companion but it seems more likely they would be in a forthcoming hardcover. I wouldn't look for anything from Paizo before June/ July of 2010.

Liberty's Edge

(glossing over the thread necro...)

Adamant's Tome of Secrets, which releases on Aug 13 right alongside the Pathfinder core, has several Pathfinderized versions of some of the classes that have been mentioned in this thread. That might get you through the short term, anyway.


Dwarven Pirate wrote:
Most of the 3.5 classes only need to have the HP and BAB updated otherwise most of them do not need any updating or revisioning as the Pathfinder classes were upped in power to match up with the likes of the non core classes.

I respectfully disagree on this. I feel that most of them are quite underpowered and will get little to no play when the switch to Pathfinder happens for those who switch. Notable exceptions include all three classes from ToB, the Warmage (maybe), the WarLock (maybe), Duskblade and the Beguiler. I'm probably forgetting a couple but ones that I know will completely fall off the radar are Ninja, Scout, Spell Thief, Favored Soul, Shugenja, Spirit Shaman, Hexblade, Swashbuckler, Samurai, Wu Jen, Dragon Shaman, Knight and Marshal. We haven't played any of the classes from ToM or Magic Incarnum yet so I'm not sure about those.

Dwarven Pirate wrote:
I would agree with Abraham spalding and Xaaon of Xen'Drik here and say that there is no need of an update to them secondly they can not be updated by Paizo as they are not OGL so it would cause all kinds of problems.

I was actually hoping (and maybe they did) that Piazo would offer ways to adjust the core classes in order to build these class concept without having to actually have a dedicated class for them (which in a lot of cases you already could).

Letting the Ranger choose Skirmish as a combat style would pretty much wipe out any need for a Scout class. You probably will be able to make a much better Ninja using the new PF Rogue update but I'd like to see couple minor things added like Great Leap and such to drive the idea home. The magical rogue talents are probably a suitable replacement for the pretty lousy mechanic that the Ninja had and good riddance to Sudden Strike. The Hexblade is a good concept but will need his Curse converted to a more Pathfindery type system to make him as enjoyable as the Bard or Barbarian. I would've liked to see the Warlock updated and made core because I really like the system and there's no way to convert a Sorcerer into one. Multiclassing can get you a lot of these concepts but some, like the Warlock, will definietly be undoable without dipping back into 3.5.


Mortagon wrote:
Velderan wrote:
a core "Gish" type of class would be nice.

that would be a choice of many I think


MerrikCale wrote:
Mortagon wrote:
Velderan wrote:
a core "Gish" type of class would be nice.
that would be a choice of many I think

Not sure if this was aimed at me or if you were just agreeing with with original posters.

I have to ask though. What's a "Gish" class? I'm not all that familiar with the oriental stuff (if that's even what it is).

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Gish is the Githyanki name for a fighter/mage. It's become a standard term for all fighter/mages for some reason that completely escapes me.

Liberty's Edge

Frogboy wrote:


I have to ask though. What's a "Gish" class? I'm not all that familiar with the oriental stuff (if that's even what it is).

I always thought is was a cross between a grick and a fish. ;)

Paizo Employee Creative Director

Kvantum wrote:
Gish is the Githyanki name for a fighter/mage. It's become a standard term for all fighter/mages for some reason that completely escapes me.

It's not standard for me!!

Using the word "gish" to refer to something other than a githyanki fighter/wizard is one of my bigger RPG pet peeves.


Frogboy wrote:
... Scout, Spell Thief, Favored Soul, Knight ...

Got to disagree on these 4. The scout has more useful stuff on him than most classes... even if skirmish is a little clunky there are still plenty of ways to work with it (devastating blow might be really nice to add to that damage), and (iirc) freedom of movement as a continuous ability is huge.

Spell Thief has the amazing power to start simply absorbing spells at 9th level. With this ability and the quicken metamagic feat it is quite possible for him to turn his opponent's magic completely against himself. Add in the ability to steal special abilities, resistance, active buffs, and he is a two for one special: You debuff your foe and buff yourself at the same time. Granted away from creatures with special abilities he's a bit more useless, however he still has the sneak attack damage and trapfinding ability, in addition to his own spells.

Favored Soul is a supped up sorcerer. Good saves across the board, the ability to wear armor (with no failure no matter the type), more spells known per level, and abilites (limited yes, but still recieved). That's nothing to sneeze at.

Knight has good Will saves, shield and armor focus, bonus feats (not so great but still there) and several abilities that let him hold his foes down. He does have the code he has to work with, but it's still easier than the paladin's code, and at high levels he can basically ignore HP damage.


Frogboy wrote:
I respectfully disagree on this. I feel that most of them are quite underpowered and will get little to no play when the switch to Pathfinder happens for those who switch. Notable exceptions include all three classes from ToB, the Warmage (maybe), the WarLock (maybe), Duskblade and the Beguiler. I'm probably forgetting a couple but ones that I know will completely fall off the radar are...

I agree with Frogboy, the vast majority of splatbook core classes were barely equal to the PHB classes. I agree with your exceptions also save my list wouldn't include warmage or beguiler which were never really as powerful as the sorcerer in any case and with the changes to the sorcerer they are completely punted now. A much better option is the sorcerer with Battlemage and an appropriate set of spell choices. Incidentally the UA Battlemage will drop right in to the new Sorcerer class and works fairly well with the more martial bloodlines.

Ninja has always been sort of the joke of the stealth class world.

Personally, I'm not sure what the point of a lot of those base classes was and won't miss them. The exceptions I might make are perhaps Favored Soul and Scout...

Frogboy wrote:
I was actually hoping (and maybe they did) that Piazo would offer ways to adjust the core classes in order to build these class concept without having to actually have a dedicated class for them (which in a lot of cases you already could).

I'm hoping 2010 will offer a Unearthed Arcana type supplement which will do exactly this. There are some great alternate class features out there, I'd love to see some more.

Frogboy wrote:
Letting the Ranger choose Skirmish as a combat style would pretty much wipe out any need for a Scout class. You probably will be able to make a much better Ninja using the new PF Rogue update but I'd like to see couple minor things added like Great Leap and such to drive the idea home. The magical rogue talents are probably a suitable replacement for the pretty lousy mechanic that the Ninja had and good riddance to Sudden Strike. The Hexblade is a good concept but will need his Curse converted to a more Pathfindery type system to make him as enjoyable as the Bard or Barbarian. I would've liked to see the Warlock updated and made core because I...

I would suggest that giving the ranger 2 types of precision damage is a bit over the top. Perhaps giving them Skirmish instead of Favored Enemy? There is no reason Ninja shouldn't be sucked into the core rogue class. Perhaps a few feats or an alternate set of rogue talents for the ninja.


Dennis da Ogre wrote:


I agree with Frogboy, the vast majority of splatbook core classes were barely equal to the PHB classes. I agree with your exceptions also save my list wouldn't include warmage or beguiler which were never really as powerful as the sorcerer in any case and with the changes to the sorcerer they are completely punted now.

What?!?! Beguiler not better than the sorcerer? It has d6 HD, 8+ Int Bonus Skill points a level, Trapfinding, all the skills it needs (including UMD) a way to increase my DC's, casting in armor, no need for spells known, and it casts off Intelligence! Warmage I'll agree on, no argument there. But not Beguiler.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
... Scout, Spell Thief, Favored Soul, Knight ...

Got to disagree on these 4. The scout has more useful stuff on him than most classes... even if skirmish is a little clunky there are still plenty of ways to work with it (devastating blow might be really nice to add to that damage), and (iirc) freedom of movement as a continuous ability is huge.

Spell Thief has the amazing power to start simply absorbing spells at 9th level. With this ability and the quicken metamagic feat it is quite possible for him to turn his opponent's magic completely against himself. Add in the ability to steal special abilities, resistance, active buffs, and he is a two for one special: You debuff your foe and buff yourself at the same time. Granted away from creatures with special abilities he's a bit more useless, however he still has the sneak attack damage and trapfinding ability, in addition to his own spells.

Favored Soul is a supped up sorcerer. Good saves across the board, the ability to wear armor (with no failure no matter the type), more spells known per level, and abilites (limited yes, but still recieved). That's nothing to sneeze at.

Knight has good Will saves, shield and armor focus, bonus feats (not so great but still there) and several abilities that let him hold his foes down. He does have the code he has to work with, but it's still easier than the paladin's code, and at high levels he can basically ignore HP damage.

I would add the Beguiler


Abraham spalding wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
... Scout, Spell Thief, Favored Soul, Knight ...
Favored Soul is a supped up sorcerer. Good saves across the board, the ability to wear armor (with no failure no matter the type), more spells known per level, and abilites (limited yes, but still recieved). That's nothing to sneeze at.

FS is a divine class... more appropriate to compare to cleric than sorcerer. FS is one of the more powerful non-core base classes though.


MerrikCale wrote:
Abraham spalding wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
... Scout, Spell Thief, Favored Soul, Knight ...

Got to disagree on these 4. The scout has more useful stuff on him than most classes... even if skirmish is a little clunky there are still plenty of ways to work with it (devastating blow might be really nice to add to that damage), and (iirc) freedom of movement as a continuous ability is huge.

Spell Thief has the amazing power to start simply absorbing spells at 9th level. With this ability and the quicken metamagic feat it is quite possible for him to turn his opponent's magic completely against himself. Add in the ability to steal special abilities, resistance, active buffs, and he is a two for one special: You debuff your foe and buff yourself at the same time. Granted away from creatures with special abilities he's a bit more useless, however he still has the sneak attack damage and trapfinding ability, in addition to his own spells.

Favored Soul is a supped up sorcerer. Good saves across the board, the ability to wear armor (with no failure no matter the type), more spells known per level, and abilites (limited yes, but still recieved). That's nothing to sneeze at.

Knight has good Will saves, shield and armor focus, bonus feats (not so great but still there) and several abilities that let him hold his foes down. He does have the code he has to work with, but it's still easier than the paladin's code, and at high levels he can basically ignore HP damage.

I would add the Beguiler

In my view Beguiler is still overpowered......


Thurgon wrote:


In my view Beguiler is still overpowered......

perhaps, but it can be easily tweaked


Dennis da Ogre wrote:
FS is a divine class... more appropriate to compare to cleric than sorcerer. FS is one of the more powerful non-core base classes though.

yes but the favored soul is to cleric what the sorcerer is to the wizard


Abraham spalding wrote:
Frogboy wrote:
... Scout, Spell Thief, Favored Soul, Knight ...
Got to disagree on these 4. ...other stuff...

Never actually played the Spell Thief or Knight so I could be mistaken on these. The Knight's focus on horseback riding wouldn't mesh well with our typical style of campaigns. The Spell Thief's abilities look cool but it just seemed like by the time you got a chance to do anything really cool, the battle would likely be almost over. I could be wrong though.

The Scout is a decent class but he's basically a Ranger who can't fight but is better at everything else a Ranger does. I say just mesh in the Scouts ability with the Ranger including a Skirmish combat style if you wanted it. The better abilities would be more suited for a PrC anyway. The Favored Soul isn't a bad class but is no longer as good as PF core classes.

I'm not saying that any of these classes are unplayable anymore. I just never really saw them as overpowered. In a lot of cases, they seemed underpowered but that's probably because most of them fit some specialized niche.


MerrikCale wrote:
Thurgon wrote:


In my view Beguiler is still overpowered......

perhaps, but it can be easily tweaked

Sure it can as can all those classes that now might seem a bit underpowered. I just think the Beguiler will need a bit of a tone down is all as it's still too powerful in my view.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber
James Jacobs wrote:
Kvantum wrote:
Gish is the Githyanki name for a fighter/mage. It's become a standard term for all fighter/mages for some reason that completely escapes me.

It's not standard for me!!

Using the word "gish" to refer to something other than a githyanki fighter/wizard is one of my bigger RPG pet peeves.

You and me both, James. It's something to come out of the cesspools of the WotC CharOp boards, as far as I can tell.


MerrikCale wrote:
I would add the Beguiler

He left it out because I included it as a notable exception and one of the few that didn't get a (maybe) next to it. He was only listing classes that I said weren't up to snuff with core anymore.

I'll tell you guys what. I'll give you the Favored Soul back. That's the only one a lot of people are disagreeing on. That and the Scout but hey, he's just a different Ranger build for crying out loud.

As for "Gish", I should've known that. Unfortunately one of our other DMs overuses Githyanki so horribly that I've never used them dispite the fact that they are pretty sweet.

Not sure what the desire for a core fighter/mage is though. That's what multiclassing is for.


Abraham spalding wrote:
Dennis da Ogre wrote:


I agree with Frogboy, the vast majority of splatbook core classes were barely equal to the PHB classes. I agree with your exceptions also save my list wouldn't include warmage or beguiler which were never really as powerful as the sorcerer in any case and with the changes to the sorcerer they are completely punted now.
What?!?! Beguiler not better than the sorcerer? It has d6 HD, 8+ Int Bonus Skill points a level, Trapfinding, all the skills it needs (including UMD) a way to increase my DC's, casting in armor, no need for spells known, and it casts off Intelligence! Warmage I'll agree on, no argument there. But not Beguiler.

Because caster power all boils down to spell selection and Beguiler is limited in it's selection and notably missing some of the best spells in the game. Not only that but Beguiler can't even use scrolls outside it's list without UMD. On the other hand if you were planning on running something similar to the beguiler's spell list then you are better off with beguiler.

Sorcerer now has UMD in it's spell list and it works 15-20% better than Beguiler because it's a CHA based skill. Granted they don't have the skill points to do much else... but skill consolidation helps a lot there.

I forgot about a lot of the other abilities the Beguiler had though. It could probably port straight over as is. I would change it to d8 HD and drop the skill points to 6 or even 4/ level since skill consolidation helped them out a lot.


Frogboy, I would agree on the scout being rolled into the ranger however I think the scout stood well on it's own too. The Knight's focus on mounted combat seemed odd to me, as mounts in D&D just aren't worth it normally, and the mobility of the mounted combat style just didn't suggest "Great defender" like the rest of the class abilities did.

Dennis da Ogre

I personally would probably leave the HD alone, but I could see a reason to raise it. Dropping the skill points wouldn't hurt my feelings at all either. Maybe even changing them over to a CHA caster, but probably not.

Something else they did get, was a way to make bluffing a free action (done once a round after clarification from WotC).

Don't forget they also got the augment spell list ability were they could choose other spells to add on.


MerrikCale wrote:
Dennis da Ogre wrote:
FS is a divine class... more appropriate to compare to cleric than sorcerer. FS is one of the more powerful non-core base classes though.
yes but the favored soul is to cleric what the sorcerer is to the wizard

Wizard has far fewer special abilities outside his casting than the cleric does because the wizard's spell list is more powerful. The same is true for the sorcerer versus the favored soul.

Favored souls don't channel, they can't spontaneously cast healing spells (which will likely burn some of their spell slots), and they don't get cleric domains. They also are not proficient with heavy armor (which is now relevant).

Compare this to the sorcerer who has virtually everything the wizard has save a bonus feat per 5 levels, in particular after the PfRPG changes where the sorcerer gets bloodline powers, bonus spells, and bonus feats 1/6 levels. Tomorrow we'll see the wizard changes which will be interesting to see.

So my take is that Spells are a much bigger part of the arcane caster's primary role so it's more relevant to compare favored soul to the classes it shares spells with, the cleric.


Abraham spalding wrote:

I personally would probably leave the HD alone, but I could see a reason to raise it. Dropping the skill points wouldn't hurt my feelings at all either. Maybe even changing them over to a CHA caster, but probably not.

Something else they did get, was a way to make bluffing a free action (done once a round after clarification from WotC).

Don't forget they also got the augment spell list ability were they could choose other spells to add on.

I thought I had access to the Beguiler class but I don't... is that in complete scoundrel? If it's augment spell list ability is anything like the warmages then I am underwhelmed. Warmage IMO is one of the most overrated 'sorcerer killer' classes out there. But then I've never really really played blasters anyhow. As a caster I much prefer enabling the fighters and rogues to do unto others than getting my hands dirty.

The reason I suggest the HD is because Paizo has pretty much standardized on 3/4BAB=d8HD. I kind of think 8 skill points/ level for a class that has INT casting is a bit crazy but whatever... Seems to me like the beguiler steps on the rogues toes more than the sorcerer's. "It's got everything the rogue has plus spell casting!"


Dennis

It's in the PHB 2. The augment spell list ability gives an enchantment or illusion spell. Warmage was a waste of space I agree. Blasters are significantly underpowered IMO. The Beguiler is a 1/2 BAB class, which is why I went with d6, and it's full 9 level spell progression. It really is like a super rogue + sorcerer - sneak attack and familiar.

EDIT: The class is 6+Int but still is intelligence based casting.

Some of the spells it has: Color Spray, Sleep, Charm person, Blur, Blinding Color Surge, glitterdust, knock, mirror Image, touch of idiocy, silence, hold person, slow, greater invisiblity, break enchantment, , spell turning, mind blank, time stop, PW kill...

By no means a complete list of course, but they still have plenty of other spells too.

The capstone for the class? If your opponent is denied his dex you automatically over come SR and add 2 to the DC.

They also get proficiency with rapier hand crossbow, shortbow and short swords as well as light armor.


Abraham spalding wrote:

Some of the spells it has: Color Spray, Sleep, Charm person, Blur, Blinding Color Surge, glitterdust, knock, mirror Image, touch of idiocy, silence, hold person, slow, greater invisiblity, break enchantment, , spell turning, mind blank, time stop, PW kill...

Yeah, so mechanically like the Warmage but better spell selection (mostly because evocation is weaksauce and never improves much past fireball).

Ultimately I still prefer the sorcerer because I like being able to tailor the spell selection.


This is rather off-topic, but I can't resist the chance to tell my own "alternate class" story.

Years and years ago, when I started playing 3.0, I hated it. I only played it because it's what my friends wanted to play. I ranted about how much I hated it to a lot of people, many of whom knew nothing about RPGs and cared less than nothing about them. There was much I didn't understand about it. After several months, though, I began to concede that 3rd edition allowed you to do some nifty things you couldn't do in previous editions.

Still, my mind rebelled against it. There was a lot of Second Edition material I wanted to try. So I ordered an old copy of an out-of-print book, Al-Qadim: Arabian Adventures, from Noble Knight Games, thinking that this would be a good incentive to go back to 2nd Edition, and somehow I would convince my friends to go back as well.

When I got the book into my greedy hands, and flipped through it, I soon said "I so do not want to play this in Second Edition!" I started working on a 3E conversion for it. My conversion would have been terrible, but fortunately, I found a couple of websites with such conversions. (Today, you can find both of those conversions on this site.) Reading those conversions gave me a better understanding of the intent of some of the 3E rules.

Here comes the point: One of these conversion guides implemented the Hakima and Sha'ir as alternate classes. One glance at those made me say "I so want to play those!" And in time, I did.

The neat thing about alternate classes is having a different sort of ability from typical PCs, that can affect the adventure in unexpected ways. I didn't even realize the consequences of the Hakima's "Detect Illusions and Mirages" ability, until the party came to an invisible opponent. Hey - Invisibility is an Illusion spell, so she should see him! And can warn the rest of the party about him! Neat!

And later, as a DM, I found some of the other types of characters useful for creating NPCs.

Since discovering those Al-Qadim conversion guides, I considered 3.X to be the D&D. I never seriously considered reverting to AD&D, despite my heavy use of AD&D material with 3E mechanics.

Come to think of it, maybe this post isn't quite so irrelevant. After all, the last installment of Legacy of Fire is coming out right about now.

I'm just sayin'. ;)


Oh, and another thing. A "monster as a class" is an alternative class, of a sort. Over in this thread was a message that grabbed my attention:

thefishcometh wrote:
I can't wait to see how you guys handle the "Savage Species" type book, as I love having the odd monstrous character in campaigns.

I wholeheartedly agree. I just took "Savage Species" out of my local public library. I'm creating a low-level Djinni character now, and I hope to use the Astral Deva and Winged template someday. I've created lots of monster PCs before - Pixie rogues, goblin clerics, bugbear fighters, etc. - but Savage Species lets you create a low-level character with a race that's otherwise too powerful. Neat!

thefishcometh wrote:
And gnolls are just awesome (I think hyenas rock, too), and anything to make them playable is welcome!

Ah, gnolls! Just reading the first post in this thread made me want to play one! Read that post, and you'll never forget it! Yes, a "Savage Species" type of book could go a long way to convince me to switch to Pathfinder RPG.


Slatz Grubnik wrote:
Personally i'd like to see a "Pathfinder-ized" Marshal. Too bad it's not OGL...

There are some updated marshals here.

Paizo Link

Dark Archive

Aaron Bitman wrote:
Still, my mind rebelled against it. There was a lot of Second Edition material I wanted to try. So I ordered an old copy of an out-of-print book, Al-Qadim: Arabian Adventures, from Noble Knight Games, thinking that this would be a good incentive to go back to 2nd Edition, and somehow I would convince my friends to go back as well.

The Sha'ir, despite only being able to cast a single spell in any given combat (since it would be many rounds before his Gen could fetch a replacement), was my favorite Al-Qadim class. Being able to put Mage Armor on the entire party was a great thing in a desert campaign (not friendly to heavy armor wearers), and being able to call up Stoneskin or whatever a dozen times a day was also quite nice.

The Hakima, the Mameluke (I even made my own Mameluke order, complete with tattoo progression, I was so geekishly into that concept), etc. were all great additions and I would love for Wolfgang, etc. to have been able to fully port those concepts over to 3rd edition (particular with inspirations pillage from the Al-Qadim setting stuff in the Complete Necromancer's Handbook and the Dragon article, Scimitars Against the Dark).


Set wrote:
The Sha'ir, despite only being able to cast a single spell in any given combat (since it would be many rounds before his Gen could fetch a replacement), was my favorite Al-Qadim class. Being able to put Mage Armor on the entire party was a great thing in a desert campaign (not friendly to heavy armor wearers), and being able to call up Stoneskin or whatever a dozen times a day was also quite nice.

Exactly. And in 3.0, the Sha'ir can give the whole party Bull's Strength and Cat's Grace, too. And right before entering the next room where there might be a battle, you can prepare that one offensive spell... and who knows? You might get lucky and roll a 1 for the number of rounds it takes to get your next spell.

Come to think of it, didn't Arabian Adventures have a Sand Slumber spell, at 1st level, good for putting any one target to sleep, regardless of HD? I never used that. Hmm...


In our Rise of the Runelords game, our DM let me adapt a warforged Artificer from Eberron (bringing him in as an ancient thassalonian creature, the PC's discovered in one of the dungeons) with some minor structural changes. Sufficed to say I am a big fan of Artificers, and while its a little bit of a stretch to include them in PF, they make a great party buffing class.

Artificer modifications:

• instead of being able to fake any spell for the purposes of item creation, the artificer keeps a spellbook that works as his accumulated spell knowledge, allowing him to fake a spell he has copied in there. The limit on the available spell level for copying a spell is 1/2 the artificer's level (round up). We had a wizard in the party and the DM did not want the artificer to become a scroll anything machine.

• Artificers can cast some of their minute casting time infusions as full round action, but have to make a Use Magic Device roll. In combat buffing was something we decided to encourage with some risks.

• At every 5 levels they learn to splice an infusion, infusing 2 items for one casting at 5th, 3 items at 10th, etc. This is to help encourage party buffing.

• At 20th level they get a capstone ability to spread an infusion to items of a similar slot (weapon, armor, amulet, cloak, etc) to any friendly target within 30' (this one is just theortical, we haven't even begun to playtest it, it just sounded like a cool battlefield power)

• One slight change, is we decided that the Bane weapon enchant, was too powerful to be applied with the weapon enhancement infusion. There was just no reason to choose anything else, if you can just apply the Bane effect of your choice. we upped it to a +2 equivalent enhancement bonus for the purposes of infusions.

• We don't use XP as a cost for magic item crafting, so for the Spell Storing Item infusion we decided that it drains HP instead. 1d8+1 per spell level of the spell stored.

• Another change due to no XP costs was to get rid of the craft reserve feature and move Retain Essence to 1st level. Thusly an artificer creates there own form of a reserve by breaking down magic items to be used in the creation of other magic items. No +1 longsword goes unused!


I believe the Tome of Secrets will have a Pathfinderized artificer class.


MerrikCale wrote:
I believe the Tome of Secrets will have a Pathfinderized artificer class.

That's a class I really liked. That "weird science" thing destroyed the class IMO. I would like to see a Paizo-made version.

51 to 85 of 85 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / New Classes? I wouldn't mind seeing some. All Messageboards
Recent threads in General Discussion (Prerelease)
Druid / Monk?