So aside from the other discussions in this thread has there been any word yet on the next four classes?Exactly. I'm still confused as to what they are ;-(
Exactly what they are is still up in the air, the names were announced (this is third hand):
Cavalier, Summoning type character, Crazy Alchemist class, and Oracle.
The summoning class is a class that apparently creates a custom animal companion type creature. Sounds like something between Pokemon and something really cool I heard about in the Belgariad... I'm not sure which, I'm hoping more towards the demon things from the Belgariad.
Beyond that I haven't heard much in the way of details.
|
I think the Oracle might have something to do with those Tarot card things from the 2nd ap.I'd think not as those are very Golarion flavoured and I'd suspect these are going to be generic classes.
I don't have a deck......are there gods of Golarion in them and whatnot?
What I think supports my inference the best is the fact that it might move some cards.....money talks, wot wot.
|
|
Evil alignments if played as RAW tend to be nothing but disruptive to a game I have found. Having either a tyrannt, selfish b-stard or a megalomanic (or combinations thereof) while funny for a one off I don't think work well in the long term. If the party is working together then I would hazard a guess that "excuses" are being made to justify the party functioning "as a good party would".
As for the cavalier - a fighter or paladin with skills/feats in the area of horseys? Not sure how they would make it more unique? The alchemist does to me seem a strange PC, how many parties are going to start carrying 500 lbs of lab equipment around with them on an adventure? Oracle just seems like a cleric crossed with a sage/expert and could be already made with an intelligent cleric for more skills. Then again the sorcerer surprised me in 3e...
S.
|
|
I think I might have found a picture of the iconic alchemist.
Thanks for the cite! However, that does not preclude DMs from allowing evil characters in their campaign. It serves only as a warning to DMs. For the life of me though, I can't understand why neutral characters would have a more difficult time grouping with evil characters than good characters (that is, if they are truly neutral). Perhaps you can explain that part of the rule to me.
Furthermore, I detect a definite bias against evil characters in PF Society, these boards, and now the Core Rulebook. Is this an image thing? Has the paranoia that plagued D&D in the 80's regarding satanism, suicide and assorted other niceties <[please note sarcasm here](dispersions that were soundly disputed and defeated in a court of law and in the public debate) returned to haunt Pathfinder?
We're drifting far away from topic and should likely create a new thread if you want to continue the discussion, but this is not a new thing to D&D. You are correct that it doesn't say all DM's must ban Evil characters, and I've not seen anyone on this thread promoting such. It cautions DM's, because as many people are noting it can be very difficult to properly run a campaign with Evil characters. For a new player/GM picking up PFRPG as a starting game, the advice on page 166 is likely to diffuse many games from exploding into player (not character) conflict.
This guidance has been in place as long as I can recall in playing D&D, and it seems to be the preference of most groups I've encountered to not play Evil. There is a bias against Evil--it's stated and up front by the very subject matter and focus of most adventures. Evil is bad. We are (mostly) playing the "good" (or at least "gray") guys opposing the bad guys. It's been this way for decades. Some modules/campaigns give a nod to playing Evil (the Savage Tide sidebars come to mind), but I've never seen any consistent, successful D&D product that moves too far away from playing good guys.
|
Furthermore, I detect a definite bias against evil characters in PF Society, these boards, and now the Core Rulebook. Is this an image thing? Has the paranoia that plagued D&D in the 80's regarding satanism, suicide and assorted other niceties <[please note sarcasm here](dispersions that were soundly disputed and defeated in a court of law and in the public debate) returned to haunt Pathfinder?
It's probably just that most people like to be the heroes and play the game fighting the evil. It's a rare thing that people complain if an adventure like those published by Paizo has to be modified to be playable by evil characters. Turn this thing around and you have a lot of complaints (Shadow in the Sky I'm looking at you^^).
Evil tends to play really well with Lawful Evil - they're smart enough to work with most party members and not kill them. The only class you can't make them get along with is Paladins.
I've never had an issue with my PCs playing evil characters, because there's an OOC agreement that nobody tries to sabotage the party. I've seen characters of every alignment sabotage parties for some wierd little desire to be disrupted, but that has a lot more to do with the person than the alignment.
Some people just use it as an excuse, just like they use being the rogue as an excuse. Doesn't mean you should ban them, and I personally hate every time I see such a sidebar saying "don't do it, it causes party failure" in any sort of publication. Evil characters require maturity, but they shouldn't be maligned as much as they are.
Take a look at that Tome of Secrets. It seems to do exactly that: Create PFRPG versions of those concepts.
May I have a link to that? I'm curious.
... you have called one of their products by name and they will send their Infernal Lawyers Swarm at you.
You're not allowed to create stuff that builds on that stuff.
They could create, say, a warlock class of their own, and follow the concept without copying the layout and exact rules, but they cannot refer to the specific incarnation as it appears in Complete Arcane.
I see. I guess, then, that would be 2nd best choice. I would love to see their version of Warlock, Spellthief, etc. if that's the case.
One would think, but:
# Wizard wants OGL to die so people will be forced to buy GSL products. They want 3e to go the way of the dodo to get more people to buy 4e. Otherwise they wouldn't have pulled those PDFs.
# Wizards isn't selling any more Complete Arcanes. They have stopped production long ago and don't support 3e any more.
That's true. Unfortunately lame, but true. *sigh*
Well, you have to establish a baseline. They can't change the other classes, so they have to change the core classes.
And note that not all 11 classes got a power up. The weaker ones got power ups, and some of the strongest were even toned down (i.e. cleric).
While most classes are more powerful than before, and the average power level of classes is higher now, they didn't break the record for most powerful stuff. The classes are just a lot closer now.
That may leave some of those older classes even worse than before, but well, call them victim.
And some of those other classes should go away!
Some of those classes don't really offer any new character concepts that cannot be created with the core 11 - especially the new and more versatile core 11.
Some were just some game mechanics without any real innovation in concept, and I won't regret their going.
Some were attempts to fix problems with D&D. Like the scout, who was supposed to take care of the fact that moving and attacking was not that effective in 3e. I agree that it's bothersome, but creating a whole class for this? PF just made feats for it, which I think is a lot better. In fact, I could see turning the feats into general abilities everyone can use.
I guess. It just makes it that much harder for a player in my group to bother with, say, Dragon Shaman, Marshal, or some other class when they'll be comparing it constantly to the PF classes. Though you're right about the really weak core classes, like Fighter, getting a good boost. Though I think the Monk got a hefty boost when it didn't need much of one.
Actually the Scout class didn't just build on Skirmish. It had other abilities that defined it and it was also a way to play a wilderness rogue/warrior type without having to resort to Ranger, Fighter, Rogue, or Ranger/Rogue mix and dealing with the supernatural divine aspect of being a Ranger, the lack of versatility a Fighter has, and the lack of wilderness ability the Rogue had. I believe the Scout class was among the best and necessary of the new classes of D&D 3.5e, alongside Warlock, to be introduced. Many times I have created an NPC and found myself not wanting to give them Ranger or Rogue levels and finding Scout to fit perfectly for them in terms of theme and role. Especially in a military-type game or NPC.
Spellthief was also an innovative concept. Useful only in high-magic games, but fun and unique and some nice abilities to boost. It's one flaw was it was not multiclass-friendly at all.
Now classes like Samurai, from Complete Warrior, were lame. Especially since a Fighter can duplicate most of what the CW Samurai had. That one needs an overhaul and I remember reading Jason or Erik saying they wanted to do oriental classes like Samurai and Ninja in PF-style. Or Marshal, which has potential but was comparatively weak to other classes.
Now that I look at the class list for 3.5e, there are quite a number of classes that still have some good highlights even compared to the PF core classes. I guess when I playtest the PF core classes in my games, I'll be able to see it in action and have a better understanding.
|
|
I always get confused by people who say they are "worried" that Paizo is coming out with fresh, new game material for the Pathfinder RPG and not just hoping that the sales of the Core Rulebook will keep the game alive for the next 5+ years.
Probably depends on why you came to Paizo. When I came to Paizo (five or six years ago? No idea) it wasn't about the rules, it was about content. I loved what they did in Dungeon Magazine and I also loved what they did in Dragon Magazine but not a single time did I bought them because of the rule options. That is not to say that I didn't like those options, but it wasn't the reason for me buying all this stuff.
Then came Pathfinder 3.5 and once again I didn't buy it for the rules but for the content. I especially love all the rules-light stuff they published at the time when they weren't sure which system to support in the future.
Now comes the Pathfinder RPG and while I really like a lot of the changes, to be honest I don't really care about them. I understand why Paizo decided to release their own system and I wish them all success in the world with this stuff but I'm not even sure which system I'm playing in one year from now on. I'll definitely give it a try but it seems that I'm slowly developing a bit away from D&D-like systems.
But: regardless of which system I'll chose I'll definitely make heavy use of all the awesome stuff to be found in the AP-, chronicle- and companion line. So you'll probably understand why I'm much more interested in the longevity (and the quality) of those lines than in new rules books.
Though given Paizo's record with me so far, It's quite possible that I really like what I find in those books.
I always get confused by people who say they are "worried" that Paizo is coming out with fresh, new game material for the Pathfinder RPG and not just hoping that the sales of the Core Rulebook will keep the game alive for the next 5+ years. Yes, I know there are Adventure Paths and the Companions and Chronicles and all that... but for those of us who intend on using the PRPG rules for our home-brew campaigns, it would really suck not to have new material like base classes, races, etc.
Can't speak for everyone but personally I kind of felt that one of the big problems with late in life 3.5 is that WotC felt compelled to produce new material even if they didn't have any particularly compelling material. The realm of alternate classes has been pretty thoroughly explored and without retreading material from 3.5 I don't see a lot of new ground that needs to be covered. My big worry is that Paizo will fall into the same trap Wizards did and start publishing new stuff for the sake of publishing stuff, not because they have anything particularly new or unique.
Change for change sake is not improvement.
From what I can tell from this thread, Paizo's new "Base Classes" will be:
Cavalier : Marshal
Summoning type : Arcane Caster w/ Companion w/ Binder-like templates
Crazy Alchemist : Artificer
Oracle : Favored Soul w/ special Abilities ala Bloodlines/Domains, perhaps Divination focus
Does that sound about right to those were were there?
I can understand why the Blackguard would not be in the APHB. It's the evil version of the Paladin. It's not a class that PCs typically should be using.Last I looked, Lawful Evil, Neutral Evil, and Chaotic Evil are all potential Player Character alignments in the PF Core Rulebook. Have these been taken out of the rules? The fact that the Blackguard is the evil version of the Paladin is exactly why it should be a base class, the theory being that the choices player's have should be balanced, not skewed toward one alignment or another.
And while we're at it, why is this "not a class that PCs typically should be using." I'd truly appreciate you quoting the rule or rules that led you to this conclusion.
PC 1: "I'm going to play a Blackguard!"
PC 2: "I'm going to play a Paladin!"DM: Frak!
It is why I included the part about "It belongs in the ADMG" that you so cleverly clipped out in order to make your rant. :)
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Folks,
We're going to post summaries of development so far on these classes when we get back in the office on Tuesday. A lot of the conclusions people are making based on the name (that the oracle is just about divining the future, that the cavalier is based on horses, that the alchemist is an artificer clone) are not very accurate.
I would explain now, but we are off to the local all-you-can-eat Brazilian steakhouse to celebrate our most successful Gen Con so far and the most successful product launch at the show.
More very soon. I am VERY excited about these new classes, and I think most of you will be too!
How could anyone get the crazy idea that a Cavalier would have anything do with horses? Next thing you know, someone's going to get the crazy idea that the new Charcutier class has something to do with pigs!
Cavalier : Marshal
Summoning type : Arcane Caster w/ (non-Animal) Companion w/ Binder-like templates
Crazy Alchemist : Artificer / Transmuter focus?
Oracle : Favored Soul w/ special Abilities ala Bloodlines/Domains, perhaps Divination focus
I know you have visions of blood-dripping red meat dancing in your head,
but would this assessment be that far off from what you're thinking? :-)(and I know you probably hate the comparisons to WotC IP, but it's the most useful 'language' for comparison)
The summoning class is a class that apparently creates a custom animal companion type creature. Sounds like something between Pokemon and something really cool I heard about in the Belgariad... I'm not sure which, I'm hoping more towards the demon things from the Belgariad.
Beyond that I haven't heard much in the way of details.
Well I think it's safe to say that, as the classes are still in the design phase, if people keep bringing up the Belgariad, the designers are going to go read the Belagriad (assuming it's in English).
My guess is the Oracle is going to have a progression something like this.
BaB: Medium
Armor Use: Light
Weapons Use: Simple + Deities Favored
Save Progression: Cleric
First level, start off with three domains. No other spell list, just the domains. Get an advanced familiar / animal companion based on the favored animal of your deity or one bonus spell known. Cantrips.
Gain a new domain at level 5, 10 and 15.
Gain some type of Divine Avatar Form at Level 20.
Gain access to some type of greater domain powers feat at level 2 (gives the beta version of the feat as a bonus) and maybe again at level 8 or 12 (super charges the beta version).
One extra spell known ever 2 levels stating at 2nd level off a very restrictive spell list (so 1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1/1 max). For example first level has bless, bane and divine (power, focus can't remember).
Some type of power based off being in communication with ones god (maybe the ability to cast the variation ask your deity a question spells).
Hum might need a bit more infill, on the other hand the greater domain feat could make up a lot of that depending on how it was done.
|
Personally, I don't have a problem with people getting pissed off, especially on a message board. You get far more honest responses from people who have an emotional attachment to their position.
[threadjack] I don't like this sort of logic, that you haven't seen 'the real person' until you've seen them lose their temper. IMO, 'the real person' is the person they chose to be, represented by the words they say and the actions they perform, 364 days out of the year. If, on that 365th day, someone pushes them until they snap and say something outrageous or punch a wall, that's not 'seeing the real person.' That's just taking one tiny *out of character moment* and holding it up as some glimpse at their 'true self.'
That's not honesty. That's provoking someone and then cherrypicking the very worst thing they say or do and proclaiming to the heavens that that's the sort of person they are.
It's the very essence of trolling, attempting to instigate someone into saying something in the heat of the moment that you can then beat them over the head with for the rest of the discussion.
It also seems to be the basis for the rich people's popularity contest that is our political system, unfortunately, cherry-picking the most bone-headed thing someone's ever said and using it to bludgeon them like a harp seal. [/threadjack]
Personally, I don't have a problem with people getting pissed off, especially on a message board. You get far more honest responses from people who have an emotional attachment to their position.[threadjack] I don't like this sort of logic, that you haven't seen 'the real person' until you've seen them lose their temper. IMO, 'the real person' is the person they chose to be, represented by the words they say and the actions they perform, 364 days out of the year. If, on that 365th day, someone pushes them until they snap and say something outrageous or punch a wall, that's not 'seeing the real person.' That's just taking one tiny *out of character moment* and holding it up as some glimpse at their 'true self.'
That's not honesty. That's provoking someone and then cherrypicking the very worst thing they say or do and proclaiming to the heavens that that's the sort of person they are.
It's the very essence of trolling, attempting to instigate someone into saying something in the heat of the moment that you can then beat them over the head with for the rest of the discussion.
It also seems to be the basis for the rich people's popularity contest that is our political system, unfortunately, cherry-picking the most bone-headed thing someone's ever said and using it to bludgeon them like a harp seal. [/threadjack]
Threadjack or not, I'd agree with you. The scream at somebody until they scream back routine is not about communication.
|
|
Wilder: Accesses the power of her mind through emotions, so maybe instead of bloodlines, there are "emotional paths" for the wilder's defining traits, or the emotion that caused the outbreak of her latent psionic abilities.
Alternately, have the 7 virtues and 7 sins as paths. You'd have a wilder of justice and wrath, for example, or hope and lust.
Oh, that's just a plain HOT way to mix psionic stuff into the Golarion fluff. Nice idea!
|
|
Well said! I think that statement above could probably apply to 99.99% of all of the disagreements happening so far between people in this particular thread.
Think so. Even if I seem to disagree with Wu Chi on a lot of things, when he explained what kind of game he's running I could instantly imagine having a blast in his campaign. As long as I wouldn't need to play in team evil, that is ;)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'm at a loss at how a Cavalier will be completely different from something that you could make with a Fighter.I think the Cavalier is supposed to me more of a "leader" type. I'm picturing/imagining something similar to the Marshal.
Or worse, he thinks he's a leader type, but no-one listens to him. Bonus if the iconic is named 'Eric'.
Folks,
We're going to post summaries of development so far on these classes when we get back in the office on Tuesday. A lot of the conclusions people are making based on the name (that the oracle is just about divining the future, that the cavalier is based on horses, that the alchemist is an artificer clone) are not very accurate.
I would explain now, but we are off to the local all-you-can-eat Brazilian steakhouse to celebrate our most successful Gen Con so far and the most successful product launch at the show.
More very soon. I am VERY excited about these new classes, and I think most of you will be too!
I would also really love some tongue-in-cheek suggestions on how to incorporate those classes to Greyhawk, and based on your curriculum I am sure you woulnd't have qualms about it - no need to be too specific tho :)
Oh I love all you can eat brazilian steak houses. Just keep that card turned to green.
Folks,
We're going to post summaries of development so far on these classes when we get back in the office on Tuesday. A lot of the conclusions people are making based on the name (that the oracle is just about divining the future, that the cavalier is based on horses, that the alchemist is an artificer clone) are not very accurate.
I would explain now, but we are off to the local all-you-can-eat Brazilian steakhouse to celebrate our most successful Gen Con so far and the most successful product launch at the show.
More very soon. I am VERY excited about these new classes, and I think most of you will be too!
Wilder: Accesses the power of her mind through emotions, so maybe instead of bloodlines, there are "emotional paths" for the wilder's defining traits, or the emotion that caused the outbreak of her latent psionic abilities.
Alternately, have the 7 virtues and 7 sins as paths. You'd have a wilder of justice and wrath, for example, or hope and lust.
Oh, that's just a plain HOT way to mix psionic stuff into the Golarion fluff. Nice idea!
Agreed. I'm not going to pout about psionics not being the topic of the new book, but someone at Paizo should jot that down for future reference.
Seeing so many posters who sound abjectly offended by new classes continues to weird me out. I get the feeling that what may be happening, at least in some cases, is that we're hearing from a DM who doesn't get excited about new classes, gaming with players who do (and who are constantly bugging him for permission to play the new shiny.
That or people just feel burned by the "class glut" of late 3.5. But, as some have said, all those classes were released for a reason.
New classes are my favorite part of a book. And my favorite gaming book of all time was Arcana Unearthed/evolved, by Malhavoc Press, which gave me 11 of them.
|
|
Wilder: Accesses the power of her mind through emotions, so maybe instead of bloodlines, there are "emotional paths" for the wilder's defining traits, or the emotion that caused the outbreak of her latent psionic abilities.
Alternately, have the 7 virtues and 7 sins as paths. You'd have a wilder of justice and wrath, for example, or hope and lust.
Oh, that's just a plain HOT way to mix psionic stuff into the Golarion fluff. Nice idea!
I agree. I'm not particularly fond of Psionics but this is the type of idea that would get me interested in it. I'd definitely play a character like this.
|
Folks,
We're going to post summaries of development so far on these classes when we get back in the office on Tuesday. A lot of the conclusions people are making based on the name (that the oracle is just about divining the future, that the cavalier is based on horses, that the alchemist is an artificer clone) are not very accurate.
I would explain now, but we are off to the local all-you-can-eat Brazilian steakhouse to celebrate our most successful Gen Con so far and the most successful product launch at the show.
More very soon. I am VERY excited about these new classes, and I think most of you will be too!
Thank you Erik for speaking up. Initially I was intrigued, but the leaked news I read today left me disappointed -- I guess the bits of info weren't what I expected... So I'll check-in this Wednesday to see what's up regarding these 4+ new classes on the Paizo blog. :-)
Seeing so many posters who sound abjectly offended by new classes continues to weird me out. I get the feeling that what may be happening, at least in some cases, is that we're hearing from a DM who doesn't get excited about new classes, gaming with players who do (and who are constantly bugging him for permission to play the new shiny.
That or people just feel burned by the "class glut" of late 3.5. But, as some have said, all those classes were released for a reason.
New classes are my favorite part of a book. And my favorite gaming book of all time was Arcana Unearthed/evolved, by Malhavoc Press, which gave me 11 of them.
Not every class will fit every campaign. I'm excited about well done classes, as I expect Paizo's will be. Fewer game breakers and more gems would be my guess on what we'll get from them. Even the classes I don't use are sources of ideas / inspiration if they're well done. I think you hit it on the head with people being afraid of a glut of classes the quality of which, in the last edition, was not uniform...
I had trouble fully conveying what I heard at the Q&A through my phone whilst fighting to stay awake! So my apologies for any misleading or incorrect info.
One other tid-bit now that I'm home, we were told to think of the Alchemist more like an addict, and to think more like Dr. Jekyl or the Invisible Man (may be remembering that one wrong). There will also be provisions in place to not make it a class who just makes these concoctions and hands them out to the rest of the party. He's making this stuff for himself, and watching their effects, you as a party member, will probably think twice about using any of them.
Gimme some!!! Is it good as hagfish water?
don't......boggart it.....dude!......
I had trouble fully conveying what I heard at the Q&A through my phone whilst fighting to stay awake! So my apologies for any misleading or incorrect info.
One other tid-bit now that I'm home, we were told to think of the Alchemist more like an addict, and to think more like Dr. Jekyl or the Invisible Man (may be remembering that one wrong). There will also be provisions in place to not make it a class who just makes these concoctions and hands them out to the rest of the party. He's making this stuff for himself, and watching their effects, you as a party member, will probably think twice about using any of them.
Way cool.
One other tid-bit now that I'm home, we were told to think of the Alchemist more like an addict, and to think more like Dr. Jekyl or the Invisible Man (may be remembering that one wrong). There will also be provisions in place to not make it a class who just makes these concoctions and hands them out to the rest of the party. He's making this stuff for himself, and watching their effects, you as a party member, will probably think twice about using any of them.
Sounds freakin awesome!
Folks,
We're going to post summaries of development so far on these classes when we get back in the office on Tuesday. A lot of the conclusions people are making based on the name (that the oracle is just about divining the future, that the cavalier is based on horses, that the alchemist is an artificer clone) are not very accurate.
I would explain now, but we are off to the local all-you-can-eat Brazilian steakhouse to celebrate our most successful Gen Con so far and the most successful product launch at the show.
More very soon. I am VERY excited about these new classes, and I think most of you will be too!
I'm not sure I can wait until Tuesday....
I hope you guys are having a great time. Looks like Fogo de Chao.
Stuff.
This whole side topic seems to have died and I don't want to stir it up again, just wanted to say, I in no way meant to be offensive in my post. My intent was simply to defend a play style you were condemning even though it is widely accepted as 'standard'.
It sounds like you have a very homebrew game, and again that's great. But, not everybody plays by the rules you and your buddies came up with for your table.
Stay smurfy.
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
Hmm. The etymology of cavalier makes me think it would be rather silly to *not* have it based on horses, or at least the generic concept of riding (which is typified by horses for humans). It means "horseman", after all. Be rather like having a "fighter" that wasn't based on fighting.
I'd be hopeful it would embrace the rest of the chivalric tradition, though - and not just the frilly parts.
There is some literary precedent in terms of the musketeers not having a whole lot to do with muskets.
Hmm. The etymology of cavalier makes me think it would be rather silly to *not* have it based on horses, or at least the generic concept of riding (which is typified by horses for humans). It means "horseman", after all. Be rather like having a "fighter" that wasn't based on fighting.
I'd be hopeful it would embrace the rest of the chivalric tradition, though - and not just the frilly parts.
There is some literary precedent in terms of the musketeers not having a whole lot to do with muskets.
Hm, I'm wondering if the Paizo class might not be kind of an amalgam of the Cavalier/Knight/Marshal/Warlord/Noble concepts, since Erik mentioned that the Noble concept didn't seem to trip anyone's triggers during the earlier development rounds. Perhaps making a noble knight that is a competent warrior and inspiring personality will be the compromise.
Hmm. The etymology of cavalier makes me think it would be rather silly to *not* have it based on horses, or at least the generic concept of riding (which is typified by horses for humans). It means "horseman", after all. Be rather like having a "fighter" that wasn't based on fighting.
I'd be hopeful it would embrace the rest of the chivalric tradition, though - and not just the frilly parts.
There is some literary precedent in terms of the musketeers not having a whole lot to do with muskets.
I was about to mention them.
Or hermit-druids, or monks that have nothing to do with monasteries, or paladins who have never heard of Charlemagne. =p
|
|
Thank you Erik for speaking up. Initially I was intrigued, but the leaked news I read today left me disappointed -- I guess the bits of info weren't what I expected... So I'll check-in this Wednesday to see what's up regarding these 4+ new classes on the Paizo blog. :-)Folks,
We're going to post summaries of development so far on these classes when we get back in the office on Tuesday. A lot of the conclusions people are making based on the name (that the oracle is just about divining the future, that the cavalier is based on horses, that the alchemist is an artificer clone) are not very accurate.
I would explain now, but we are off to the local all-you-can-eat Brazilian steakhouse to celebrate our most successful Gen Con so far and the most successful product launch at the show.
More very soon. I am VERY excited about these new classes, and I think most of you will be too!
Ditto.
So I think I have this figured out. There are 4 new classes:
It's all clear now :)
Hey guys, this is a fun experiment in conjecture based on tiny tidbits of info. Getting frustrated is pointless because we really don't know enough to get any real sense of the thing.
So I think I have this figured out. There are 4 new classes:
Cavalier who doesn't have a horse
Alchemist who doesn't do alchemy
Summoner who doesn't use summoning spells
Oracle who doesn't predict the future It's all clear now :)
That pretty much sums it up for now, ;)