Starting Ages for New Base Classes in APG?

[Taishaku]

Hello,

I was wondering if anyone could tell me where I can find the starting ages for the alchemist, cavalier, inquisitor, etc... I just flipped through the APG and looked through the index but could not find any chart for starting ages. Is it there and I'm just not seeing it? Or is it not there? And if not, where can I get this info?

Thanks in advance,

Michael

[KaeYoss]

I couldn't find anything, either. Probably forgot it.

Here's what I'd do:

Category 1 (Barbarian, Rogue, Sorcerer):
Oracle

Category 2 (Bard, Fighter, Paladin, Ranger):
Cavalier, Summoner

Category 3 (Cleric, Druid, Monk, Wizard):
Alchemist, Inquisitor, Witch

[Mauril]

I think I remember James or Jason mentioning right after the APG came out that they forgot to include that info.

I only differ on KaeYoss's suggestion on one point. I would put the Inquisitor in the same category as the Bard. Same casting, same BAB, similar amount of special features. But the starting age range between the two categories only differs by an average of 6 years.

[KaeYoss]

Mauril wrote:

I think I remember James or Jason mentioning right after the APG came out that they forgot to include that info.

I only differ on KaeYoss's suggestion on one point. I would put the Inquisitor in the same category as the Bard. Same casting, same BAB, similar amount of special features.

I put the inquisitor into the same category as the cleric because they are so much alike: Same BAB/HD, same saves, and both are dedicated spellcasters (i.e. casters based on wisdom) using divine magic.

I'd say they undergo an initiation period similar to clerics'.

[Name Violation]

KaeYoss wrote:

Mauril wrote:

I think I remember James or Jason mentioning right after the APG came out that they forgot to include that info.

I only differ on KaeYoss's suggestion on one point. I would put the Inquisitor in the same category as the Bard. Same casting, same BAB, similar amount of special features.

I put the inquisitor into the same category as the cleric because they are so much alike: Same BAB/HD, same saves, and both are dedicated spellcasters (i.e. casters based on wisdom) using divine magic.

I'd say they undergo an initiation period similar to clerics'.

i'd put'em with the bards and pallys. limited spell list, more martial focus, less preachy than clerics.

thats my 2 cp

[Karui Kage]

I'd keep em with Clerics. I'd say that, if anything, they have to learn just as much as a Cleric in terms of their church, they just go outside the normal bounds.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

So ask your GM, as an argument could be made for either :)

[waltero]

Why would Witch necesarily be like Wizard? I don't get the sense that there's any lengthy training involved.

[KaeYoss]

waltero wrote:

Why would Witch necesarily be like Wizard? I don't get the sense that there's any lengthy training involved.

They're all about learning Forbidden Knowledge.

[Starglim]

waltero wrote:

Why would Witch necesarily be like Wizard? I don't get the sense that there's any lengthy training involved.

I think disturbingly young witches are a good option for class flavour, equivalent to sorcerers. Maybe a GM could allow a player the choice of either the low or high category. I agree with putting the oracle in this band as well.

I'd put summoners with the other spellcasters.