"Advanced Class Guide" Wish List


Product Discussion

51 to 100 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

137ben wrote:
Jack Rift wrote:
Warlock (3.5ish), Swashbuckler, and rogue-mage. More spontaneous casters, like spontaneous magus.
Adamant Entertainment already updated both the Warlock and the Swashbuckler to PF, and made them OGL, so there's no need for Paizo to do it again.

A couple folk already responded to this with reference to Pathfinder canon and PFS. Almost every concept posted here has been attempted/designed/released to OGL by enterprising 3PPs. I'm very happy with a lot of them, and even some Base classes I hae found here in the Homebrew section or other sites like Giant in the Playground.

Having any particular concept given the Pathfinder seal of approval will move the game alon way forward in terms of versatility and options - some may still be banned in home games, but they will be "official classes". Plus, I'd like to see what/how Paizo comes up with, be able to participate in open playtesting (regardless of whether Paizo implements any of the feedback they receive) and see some fantastic art iconics etc to go with the finished product.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
137ben wrote:
Jack Rift wrote:
Warlock (3.5ish), Swashbuckler, and rogue-mage. More spontaneous casters, like spontaneous magus.
Adamant Entertainment already updated both the Warlock and the Swashbuckler to PF, and made them OGL, so there's no need for Paizo to do it again.

Paizo isn't really concerned what 3rd party publishers write.


I am shocked by the number of people who want a Swashbuckler class. Is that really code word for "I want to a non-strength stat to damage without a specific enchantment or a scimitar?" Because, while I understand concept, I'm not really sure what mechanical space is really available for such a class.

Anyway, 2e Skills and Powers is my favorite supplement for any RPG ever--it's great in every way, and creating my own classes was huge for making me love roleplaying. In an ideal world that absolutely can't conceivably exist, I want another class building system. There are hundreds of reasons they won't do this (it's lots and lots of work, for example), but the real reason it will never be is PFS. I can't even begin to describe how much I hate "living" roleplaying games like it and how harmful I think they are to the hobby .

Anyway, that said, what I would want most (and know will almost certainly never happen though not because of PFS) are:

1) More than anything, I want classes without daily resources. The 3.5 Warlock and Dragonfire Adept were perfect for what I want mechanically (though I hated the flavor of both), but even something like the Binder would be acceptable (though again, I despised the flavor). While they provided the groundwork for the 4e "encounter power" with their 5 round cooldowns, and I hate the idea of an "encounter power" from an immersion standpoint, I thought it was mechanically excellent.

2) The 4e Warlord, or just a spell-less Bard that doesn't blow or have weird baggage (like the Cavalier is kind of leadery, but must have a pet). I want to buff and support the party with how clever and awesome I am, not with magic. I don't even care about "martial healing," just give me a tactical leader dude that's really versatile so it can kind of compete with magic a little.

3) A combined Fighter/Rogue class that serves as silent errata to fix the horrendous balance issues they each have. They'll still be weaker than having magic, but at least they'll function in and out of combat, rather than only one of them.

4) The late era 3.5 "focused casters" (Warmage, Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, etc.) were really a great way to have spellcasters in your game without having to worry about "I CAN DO ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING." You'd need a bunch of them, of course, for each concept, but ultimately, replacing the universal casters with them would do a lot for balance.

5) An Arcane Paladin/Ranger equivalent that preferably isn't a Hexblade.

6) If all else fails, give me a spontaneous version of every prepared caster that doesn't already have a spontaneous version (Druid, Magus, Witch).


mplindustries wrote:

I am shocked by the number of people who want a Swashbuckler class. Is that really code word for "I want to a non-strength stat to damage without a specific enchantment or a scimitar?" Because, while I understand concept, I'm not really sure what mechanical space is really available for such a class.

No. There was a whole thread down in Suggestions/Homebrew dedicated to the range of flavor/theme and mechanical approaches to a Swashbuckler. Your posited concept may have been one, but I'm not sure. From reading and participating in that thread there was a a wide variety of mechanical options posted, and even more styles, flavors and tropes.

Personally I don't think I'd ever play one, but I'd like to see Paizo make one! ;)


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:
mplindustries wrote:

I am shocked by the number of people who want a Swashbuckler class. Is that really code word for "I want to a non-strength stat to damage without a specific enchantment or a scimitar?" Because, while I understand concept, I'm not really sure what mechanical space is really available for such a class.

No. There was a whole thread down in Suggestions/Homebrew dedicated to the range of flavor/theme and mechanical approaches to a Swashbuckler. Your posited concept may have been one, but I'm not sure. From reading and participating in that thread there was a a wide variety of mechanical options posted, and even more styles, flavors and tropes.

Personally I don't think I'd ever play one, but I'd like to see Paizo make one! ;)

I used the heck out of the 3.5 Swashbuckler and constantly put it into builds for both myself and my wife, but it was basically a 3 level class. Free Weapon Finesse and Int to damage were all I cared about, and the rest of it was pretty much garbage anyway.


Here's the link to the Swashbuckler Base Class Advocacy Thread.


Spontaneous caster using the Druid list. Give me that, and I'm super happy.


I know what ever they make I will enjoy it and it won't be over powered or unbalanced

The one thing I hope that is not in this book or ever put in a paizo book is a personal class maker it's unneeded and its the fastest and easiest way to break a game


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
mplindustries wrote:
I am shocked by the number of people who want a Swashbuckler class. Is that really code word for "I want to a non-strength stat to damage without a specific enchantment or a scimitar?" Because, while I understand concept, I'm not really sure what mechanical space is really available for such a class.

Here's my own take on the class, which is a heavily acrobatics-focused melee combatant. Which, yes, uses dexterity as the damage stat, but scaled on a "add your DEX modifier at the rate of 1/2 your class level to damage", so as to avoid the usual "dip and skip" process of min-maxers.


magnuskn wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
I am shocked by the number of people who want a Swashbuckler class. Is that really code word for "I want to a non-strength stat to damage without a specific enchantment or a scimitar?" Because, while I understand concept, I'm not really sure what mechanical space is really available for such a class.
Here's my own take on the class, which is a heavily acrobatics-focused melee combatant. Which, yes, uses dexterity as the damage stat, but scaled on a "add your DEX modifier at the rate of 1/2 your class level to damage", so as to avoid the usual "dip and skip" process of min-maxers.

i have no issues with dip and skip

i think the classes should be more dip friendly, personally

think of it as compensation for losing

so many levels worth of class progression

so many levels worth of favored class bonuses

potential eventual loss in BAB, skills, and saves


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want my Gnome Artificer back. GIVE ME!

Other than that I like some of the other ideas from posters. Divine Magus, Swashbuckler(even though I probably wont play one), Shaman, ect. But the Artificer (Or whatever they name it) would be my number one.

Sovereign Court

Wish list?

Absolutely nothing that was a base class in 3.5 Dungeons and Dragons that we don't already have and something that lets your character turn itself into a pony!

Of course I haven't read anything about what this book is about yet...

Still totally want more ponies in pathfinder.


Cori Marie wrote:
137ben wrote:
Jack Rift wrote:
Warlock (3.5ish), Swashbuckler, and rogue-mage. More spontaneous casters, like spontaneous magus.
Adamant Entertainment already updated both the Warlock and the Swashbuckler to PF, and made them OGL, so there's no need for Paizo to do it again.
Unless the GM (like me) doesn't allow 3rd party classes. I'll pull bits and pieces from 3rd party adventures, (looking at you Adventure Path Plug-Ins!) but I will not allow 3rd party classes.

That's a GM issue, not a content issue: Adamant's version of the swashbuckler exists and is available for free. Paizo could copy it or modify it only slightly, but that wouldn't add any resources not already available.

Now, if you feel the class is unbalanced or there's something you don't like about the crunch or fluff, then sure, it could benefit from someone else (such as Paizo) rewriting it. On the other hand, if you are going to restrict classes based on reasons which have nothing to do with the class itself (e.g., what book the class was printed in), then there isn't really anything a re-write can do to fix it, since the issue isn't with the class, it is something unrelated which bothers you. GMs can always ban stuff for any reason--reprinting something that already exists won't change that.

Even worse, if Paizo published a class that was very similar to an existing class of the same name, they would be competing with an already-existing product for the exact same sector of the market. There would be no reason to purchase a book for the "new" class, since the class would already be available in another book and online for free.

Note, all of what I just wrote assumes that there is nothing to improve on the class itself. That is, of course, debatable. For the swashbuckler, I'm pretty happy with AE's version. The warlock, on the other hand, is something I feel could definitely use a rewrite: AE's version just seems incomplete to me.


mplindustries wrote:
I am shocked by the number of people who want a Swashbuckler class. Is that really code word for "I want to a non-strength stat to damage without a specific enchantment or a scimitar?" Because, while I understand concept, I'm not really sure what mechanical space is really available for such a class.

What is a "swash" and why do they have buckles?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Racial paragon classes, at least for core and some guidelines for making them for other races.t


Vod Canockers wrote:
mplindustries wrote:
I am shocked by the number of people who want a Swashbuckler class. Is that really code word for "I want to a non-strength stat to damage without a specific enchantment or a scimitar?" Because, while I understand concept, I'm not really sure what mechanical space is really available for such a class.
What is a "swash" and why do they have buckles?

A swash is a belt and you hang your buckler from it when not actually fighting.

And they're held shields, not strapped to the forearm.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
137ben wrote:

That's a GM issue, not a content issue: Adamant's version of the swashbuckler exists and is available for free. Paizo could copy it or modify it only slightly, but that wouldn't add any resources not already available.

Now, if you feel the class is unbalanced or there's something you don't like about the crunch or fluff, then sure, it could benefit from someone else (such as Paizo) rewriting it. On the other hand, if you are going to restrict classes based on reasons which have nothing to do with the class itself (e.g., what book the class was printed in), then there isn't really anything a re-write can do to fix it, since the issue isn't with the class, it is something unrelated which bothers you. GMs can always ban stuff for any reason--reprinting something that already exists won't change that.

Even worse, if Paizo published a class that was very similar to an existing class of the same name, they would be competing with an already-existing product for the exact same sector of the market. There would be no reason to purchase a book for the "new" class, since the class would already be available in another book and online for free.

Note, all of what I just wrote assumes that there is nothing to improve on the class itself. That is, of course, debatable. For the swashbuckler, I'm pretty happy with AE's version. The warlock, on the other hand, is something I feel could definitely use a rewrite: AE's version just seems incomplete to me.

And, once again, third party classes are not a concern of Paizo and are not official to their product canon, so they don't have to concern themselves with their existance when designing their own products.


magnuskn wrote:
137ben wrote:

That's a GM issue, not a content issue: Adamant's version of the swashbuckler exists and is available for free. Paizo could copy it or modify it only slightly, but that wouldn't add any resources not already available.

Now, if you feel the class is unbalanced or there's something you don't like about the crunch or fluff, then sure, it could benefit from someone else (such as Paizo) rewriting it. On the other hand, if you are going to restrict classes based on reasons which have nothing to do with the class itself (e.g., what book the class was printed in), then there isn't really anything a re-write can do to fix it, since the issue isn't with the class, it is something unrelated which bothers you. GMs can always ban stuff for any reason--reprinting something that already exists won't change that.

Even worse, if Paizo published a class that was very similar to an existing class of the same name, they would be competing with an already-existing product for the exact same sector of the market. There would be no reason to purchase a book for the "new" class, since the class would already be available in another book and online for free.

Note, all of what I just wrote assumes that there is nothing to improve on the class itself. That is, of course, debatable. For the swashbuckler, I'm pretty happy with AE's version. The warlock, on the other hand, is something I feel could definitely use a rewrite: AE's version just seems incomplete to me.

And, once again, third party classes are not a concern of Paizo and are not official to their product canon, so they don't have to concern themselves with their existance when designing their own products.

Of course they are a concern of Paizo--no one would buy a product which didn't offer anything they didn't already have. If Paizo released a book of classes which were identical to DSP's psionics classes...well then, they wouldn't be offering a new product, and anyone with Ultimate Psionics wouldn't buy Paizo's "new" product. Whether a 3rd party book is "cannon" or not (whatever the heck that means in a completely customizable game), 3rd party products exist, people own them, and what people already have in their collections of books affects what they are willing to buy in the future. Putting out a product which offers nothing beyond what a previously-published product offers is a sure-fire way to make sure anyone with the old product does not buy the new one.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Tome of Secrets was poorly designed, and I actually managed to forget it even exists. And certainly Paizo didn't mind the existence of Spellblade and Knight when they put out Magus and Cavalier.

Also, PFS.


Sohei (Paladin + Monk)
Animal Lord (Rage + Wild Shape & Totem Transformation)
Beast Master (Animal Companion + Bardic Performance)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
137ben wrote:


Of course they are a concern of Paizo--no one would buy a product which didn't offer anything they didn't already have. If Paizo released a book of classes which were identical to DSP's psionics classes...well then, they wouldn't be offering a new product, and anyone with Ultimate Psionics...

Paizo has published a lot of things which already existed in some form or other in 3.5 (which, as we all know, is theoretically compatible with PF). And 3rd Party products are not really widely circulated, compared to Paizo products, so I don't see why they should concern themselves with the few people who share your point of view in regards to Publishing their own Versions of classes. Legendary Games doesn't own the concept of "Swashbuckler".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Regardless of whether a concept or class has been published before by a 3PP, there is still the desire of many folk, including me to see Paizo's incarnation. Whether for reasons of PFS or just to see Paizo create it in Paizo's inimitable fashion - like I said above - with great artwork and iconics. And as magnuskn pointed out the exposure of 3PP's is somewhat less than Paizo.

Also - Paizo can provide support for these new "already created by 3PP" classes in the way of archetypes - does Adamant's Swashbuckler provide many options in the way of archetypes? If so, then great, but either way I'd like to see the Paizo development team release 10 fantastic classes with archetypes and potential for alternate classes and Prestige Classes.

The great thing is that then 3PP's have 10 more classes to tinker with!!! :)

As an aside, more Paizo support for Samurai, Ninja and Antipaladin's in the way of archetypes would be great.

More racial archetypes too.


Thematic archetypes that can be taken by multiple classes. Like the Seeker and Scroll Scholar from PFS Field Guide.


Quote:
Paizo has published a lot of things which already existed in some form or other in 3.5 (which, as we all know, is theoretically compatible with PF).

Yes, and Paizo altered, updated, and improved them. Because just reprinting 3.5 material wouldn't sell nearly as well as developing their own versions. Which they did.

Quote:
And 3rd Party products are not really widely circulated, compared to Paizo products,

Not widely circulated? It's available for FREE, on the internet, on SAME FREAKING SITE AS PAIZO CLASSES!

Quote:
so I don't see why they should concern themselves with the few people who share your point of view in regards to Publishing their own Versions of classes.

I'm not sure what you are referring to by "my point of view"...my "point of view" is that I don't want to buy identical material twice. If they make improvements to a class, great, but if they just republish something I already have access to...sorry, no.

Also, is your contention really that "most" people would be willing to buy the exact same content twice? I think you are going to have a hard time supporting that...

Quote:
Also - Paizo can provide support for these new "already created by 3PP" classes in the way of archetypes - does Adamant's Swashbuckler provide many options in the way of archetypes? If so, then great, but either way I'd like to see the Paizo development team release 10 fantastic classes with archetypes and potential for alternate classes and Prestige Classes.

Indeed, an updated Paizo version would likely also include archetypes, and potentially mean even more archetypes in future products.

Even more than that, though, I'm interested in how much they can improve existing classes. For example, I love the updated Binder (renamed "occultist"), I have yet to be impressed by any revision of the Warlock. There was a lot to improve on in the 3.5 warlock, but AFAIK, only one publisher (Adamant) has updated it. And their version of the warlock, in my humble opinion, was...underwhelming. I'd love to see what Paizo (or really any other publisher) could do with it.
Also, I'd like to see Paizo update the 3.5 Truenamer from tome of magic. It is a tricky concept to design, but it is possible (there's been some well-written homebrew-fixes of the truenamer, but nothing official AFAIK). It seems like the kind of thing Paizo should be able to work out...

Quote:
More racial archetypes too.

[U]YES![/U] More racial archetypes, please!


@Ben, I highly doubt that paizo's gonna just copy paste that swashbuckler and resell it. I highly doubt anyone made that claim but you. If you use the terribly broken 3rd party one, that's fine. Me I'm going to wait for paizo's own unique take on it.


I hope the slayer class is more like Buffy then just a assassin class.

I hope the Shaman is a cha based spontaneous caster with the druid spell list and no wild shaping.

I hope they change the war priest's name to Templar or Crusader.

I hope the Hunter class is more a bounty hunter then a woodsmen.

I hope this book will have many new archetypes(standard and racial), feats, prestige classes, sorcerer bloodlines, oracle mysteries/revelations, witch patrons/hexes, rage powers, rouge talents, bardic performances, alchemist discoveries, wizard schools, some new spells, and magic items would be nice but are optional.

Sovereign Court

I want to see an alchemist/summoner hybrid that focuses on the creation of life. Change the eidolon to a magical beast, and make the class a "mad arcanist" such as those that created the original bullette or owlbear. The other option would be start with a druid's animal companion and begin throwing evolutions on top of it.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories, Pawns, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
137ben wrote:
Cori Marie wrote:
137ben wrote:
Jack Rift wrote:
Warlock (3.5ish), Swashbuckler, and rogue-mage. More spontaneous casters, like spontaneous magus.
Adamant Entertainment already updated both the Warlock and the Swashbuckler to PF, and made them OGL, so there's no need for Paizo to do it again.
Unless the GM (like me) doesn't allow 3rd party classes. I'll pull bits and pieces from 3rd party adventures, (looking at you Adventure Path Plug-Ins!) but I will not allow 3rd party classes.

That's a GM issue, not a content issue: Adamant's version of the swashbuckler exists and is available for free. Paizo could copy it or modify it only slightly, but that wouldn't add any resources not already available.

Now, if you feel the class is unbalanced or there's something you don't like about the crunch or fluff, then sure, it could benefit from someone else (such as Paizo) rewriting it. On the other hand, if you are going to restrict classes based on reasons which have nothing to do with the class itself (e.g., what book the class was printed in), then there isn't really anything a re-write can do to fix it, since the issue isn't with the class, it is something unrelated which bothers you. GMs can always ban stuff for any reason--reprinting something that already exists won't change that.

Even worse, if Paizo published a class that was very similar to an existing class of the same name, they would be competing with an already-existing product for the exact same sector of the market. There would be no reason to purchase a book for the "new" class, since the class would already be available in another book and online for free.

Note, all of what I just wrote assumes that there is nothing to improve on the class itself. That is, of course, debatable. For the swashbuckler, I'm pretty happy with AE's version. The warlock, on the other hand, is something I feel could definitely use a rewrite: AE's version just seems incomplete to me.

Again, 3PP material can NOT be used in PFS no matter how good, balanced and widely available it is. Many GMs will also not allow 3PP stuff, because despite it being free, it's much less easy to find a hard copy. I don't allow my players to have access to a class or race unless I have it in hard copy, and I don't buy 3PP so that leaves my players with Paizo material. I know I'm not alone in this either, as many of my friends who GM hold to the same ideas.


There are multiple reasons why Paizo would do there own swashbuckler, etc, instead of using a 3pp

1) They don't know the 3pp exists...which seems to be very common. Hard to keep up with all the releases by the dozen (and more?) companies out there, which have been publishing since Pathfinder began

2) They don't like the mechanics

3) They don't like the flavor

4) They already had something completely different in mind before even coming across the class.

At any rate, there is precedent for this. A lot of folkloric monsters done by 3pp have been "redone" by Paizo, often with completely different stats/abilities/appearance/flavor. They obviously are not willing to constrain themselves based on whether or not a third party option exists, unless they really really like that product (see Advanced Bestiary, Tome of Horrors)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
+5 Toaster wrote:
@Ben, I highly doubt that paizo's gonna just copy paste that swashbuckler and resell it.

Cool, that puts you and me in the same boat...

+5 Toaster wrote:
I highly doubt anyone made that claim but you.

No, Cori Marie has expressed a desire to purchase a copy-paste product if Paizo is the one doing the copying and pasting.

+5 Toaster wrote:
If you use the terribly broken 3rd party one, that's fine. Me I'm going to wait for paizo's own unique take on it.

Cool, while we're waiting, I'm just gonna use my homebrewed version, since, ya know, DMs can do that. If Paizo ever rewrites the class, I'll probably use their version. But until then, I'll just enjoy my non-broken swashbuckler.

Quote:
Again, 3PP material can NOT be used in PFS no matter how good, balanced and widely available it is. Many GMs will also not allow 3PP stuff, because despite it being free, it's much less easy to find a hard copy. I don't allow my players to have access to a class or race unless I have it in hard copy, and I don't buy 3PP so that leaves my players with Paizo material. I know I'm not alone in this either, as many of my friends who GM hold to the same ideas.

I guarantee you that anyone who already has access to a particular class would not want to have to pay for another book with that exact class copied word for word. Sure, your players might like it, since it would mean you would be more likely to buy it, but anyone who bought the previous book would not by the second one. So Paizo can either

a)copy a class from a 3PP with minimal modifications. This would only sell to people who both do not have the 3PP book AND require having a hardcopy of a book to allow it,
b)update/improve/give their take on a class from a 3PP book. This would sell to everyone, or
c)make an entirely new class...this would also sell to everyone.
Do you seriously think there is any value in (a)?

Scarab Sages

Vod Canockers wrote:
Classes that are NOT way better than the core classes.

This. A thousand times this.

New classes should not be "better" than existing classes.

Scarab Sages

137ben wrote:

I guarantee you that anyone who already has access to a particular class would not want to have to pay for another book with that exact class copied word for word. Sure, your players might like it, since it would mean you would be more likely to buy it, but anyone who bought the previous book would not by the second one. So Paizo can either

a)copy a class from a 3PP with minimal modifications. This would only sell to people who both do not have the 3PP book AND require having a hardcopy of a book to allow it,
b)update/improve/give their take on a class from a 3PP book. This would sell to everyone, or
c)make an entirely new class...this would also sell to everyone.
Do you seriously think there is any value in (a)?

If the existence, or lack thereof, of a single class is the determining factor for a person purchasing this book either:

1. There is something horribly wrong with the rest of the content.

or

2. The customers focus is so limited they would most likely not have purchased the book to begin with.

In the second case, for every customer that would refuse to buy the book because they already owned a 3PP version of the class, somebody else will purchase a copy just to play the character in PFS.


For the most part, I don't want new classes. Then again, I didn't want Gunslinger, Summoner, Magus, Witch, and all the others, either, but I sure love them.

What I really want in more class archetypes, and more class options. The addition of those in the game was a stroke of brilliance as far as I am concerned. Well, another stroke of brilliance.

I also want psionics, but I doubt they will appear in this book. Maybe Paizo could simply reprint Psionics Unleashed with their logo on it? My add some new art and it would be "official"?

Ya know, like it is anywhere near that simple.


I remember reading something by a Dev saying they wouldn't want to do psionics because of how well Ultimate Psionics was done. I could see Paizo officially endorsing it, and possibly expanding on material from it, assuming it's OGL, that would be cool.


I've read multiple times that most everyone at Paizo prefers vancian over the point system of Psionics. I doubt they will ever adopt the Ultimate Psionics classes as Pathfinder canon.


master_marshmallow wrote:
I remember reading something by a Dev saying they wouldn't want to do psionics because of how well Ultimate Psionics was done. I could see Paizo officially endorsing it, and possibly expanding on material from it, assuming it's OGL, that would be cool.

They have used it in there module line and I'm sure will use it more


Artanthos wrote:


New classes should not be "better" than existing classes.

No, but arguably hybrid classes should be "better" than the equivalent multiclass (compare Magus with a multiclass Fighter/Wizard)

Of course, there are multiple definitions of "better" in this case - personally, I would like to see them better themed, better balanced, and better supported. More powerful should not factor into the equation...


Joey Virtue wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
I remember reading something by a Dev saying they wouldn't want to do psionics because of how well Ultimate Psionics was done. I could see Paizo officially endorsing it, and possibly expanding on material from it, assuming it's OGL, that would be cool.
They have used it in there module line and I'm sure will use it more

They have said they are adding a Vancian-style "physic magic" (as oppose to arcane/divine magic), and that they are avoiding calling it psionics because they don't want it to be "competing" with DSP's psionics.


Dragon78 wrote:
I hope the slayer class is more like Buffy then just a assassin class.

I kind of hope it's a shapeshifting avatar of the god of murder.

Isidore Philanthes wrote:
I want to see an alchemist/summoner hybrid that focuses on the creation of life.

A few seconds before reading this I was thinking that an alchemist/cavalier would be a funny way to do the tinkerer idea people want. Animal companion mount becomes a mechanical construction companion and the whole potions and discoveries aspect becomes gadgets and tinkering.

Whatever they do though, I will always enjoy crazy class mash-ups. When I read oracle/witch I almost fell in love!


They have said they are adding a Vancian-style "physic magic" (as oppose to arcane/divine magic), and that they are avoiding calling it psionics because they don't want it to be "competing" with DSP's psionics.

This is awesome, for two reasons. First, that they recognize that another publisher did something great with their system. I mean, really, how often do we see that? It's like Chevy turning an import into a proper muscle car, and Toyota publicly announcing how amazing the car is, instead of suing, or raising a stink.

And secondly, its awesome because its...well, awesome. I look forward to it.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
137ben wrote:
Also, is your contention really that "most" people would be willing to buy the exact same content twice? I think you are going to have a hard time supporting that...

Um, Paizo will (hopefully) create their own version of the class, but it'll use the same name. No idea where you get the idea that they would just copy-paste it.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Definitely would like guidelines for building classes. Something that makes things homebrew friendly.

Because otherwise, I do have mixed feelings. Part of me is excited about seeing new possible classes -- the ones listed look interesting, and as a player, I too hope for some unfilled niches like a non-spellcasting shapeshifter.

But then, see... I was working on my own homebrew shapeshifter. And some other homebrew classes. And every time Paizo puts out a new official class I feel like, "why bother?" Because of course no one's going to be interested in seeing what I've come up with (not that anyone is now, but at least otherwise I can dream that there's that chance ;) ).

I've been gaming for a long time, but the homebrew bug has only bit me over the last few years--it's done it STRONG. I really like now when there's a system where I can fiddle and fill in niches. But if "it's been done" I feel like I got half of my RPG toybox just got emptied and thrown away. Likewise, it is nice there are 3PPs that have room to play and develop things. No, honestly, I don't in fact use much, if any, 3PP stuff myself. But I still want them to exist and have room to play and do well too, because it means more opportunities for budding game designers, and thus more game designers in the field doing more great stuff in the future.

At the same time, I certainly do understand and appreciate the alternate argument, that a "Paizo official" class means everybody can use it, PFS and otherwise, "otherwise" including GMs who often prefer to use Paizo-only material (which 99% of the time, includes myself--my preferences as a GM and my creative yearnings don't always get along).

So anyway, thinking about the prospect of the book gives me a simultaneous yay/awww... feeling.

But again, I guess if among the things they include is guidelines for designing your own classes, and is thus homebrew friendly in that sense, then I can also certainly deal with the prospect of new classes, even if all I do is go, "Oh, that's interesting, I won't use that," like I've done with half the new base classes so far. ;)

Also, while we're talking about stuff we want... ideas for class design or alteration for alternative settings would be lovely (I've got this d20 Modern revision I've been playing with for awhile...)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My wish list...

A Full Base Attack Swashbuckler (warrior base, not rogue)

A martial shapeshifter (maybe a 3/4 BAB class provided it gets some of the specials for what it turns into)

An engineer/artificer type class

Spontaneous druid and witch options

A Full Base Attack Swashbuckler (hey, if all the Firefly fans can list it twice on any lists I can do it with this)

A working crossbowman archetype that isn't less effective than an un-archetyped bow user at ranged combat. This wouldn't need an archetype, but once one got made it needed to be effective rather than a trap option.

An archetype making guide.


There is a huge difference between updating a class from 3.5 to PFRPG and then building a new class with the same name.

I wouldn't expect the PF version of the Swashbuckler, if it's ever made, to have much in common with the 3.5 class besides its name. If they're going to make a new class that was the "Dex-based fighter" it better not just look like something you can cobble together with a few levels of fighter and rogue then tack on Weapon Finesse. It'd need a signature ability that is unique to the Swashbuckler and only the Swashbuckler and it should be more exciting than "Dexterity to damage instead of Strength!"


DeathQuaker wrote:

Definitely would like guidelines for building classes. Something that makes things homebrew friendly.

Because otherwise, I do have mixed feelings. Part of me is excited about seeing new possible classes -- the ones listed look interesting, and as a player, I too hope for some unfilled niches like a non-spellcasting shapeshifter.

But then, see... I was working on my own homebrew shapeshifter. And some other homebrew classes. And every time Paizo puts out a new official class I feel like, "why bother?" Because of course no one's going to be interested in seeing what I've come up with (not that anyone is now, but at least otherwise I can dream that there's that chance ;) ).

I've been gaming for a long time, but the homebrew bug has only bit me over the last few years--it's done it STRONG. I really like now when there's a system where I can fiddle and fill in niches. But if "it's been done" I feel like I got half of my RPG toybox just got emptied and thrown away. Likewise, it is nice there are 3PPs that have room to play and develop things. No, honestly, I don't in fact use much, if any, 3PP stuff myself. But I still want them to exist and have room to play and do well too, because it means more opportunities for budding game designers, and thus more game designers in the field doing more great stuff in the future.

At the same time, I certainly do understand and appreciate the alternate argument, that a "Paizo official" class means everybody can use it, PFS and otherwise, "otherwise" including GMs who often prefer to use Paizo-only material (which 99% of the time, includes myself--my preferences as a GM and my creative yearnings don't always get along).

So anyway, thinking about the prospect of the book gives me a simultaneous yay/awww... feeling.

But again, I guess if among the things they include is guidelines for designing your own classes, and is thus homebrew friendly in that sense, then I can also certainly deal with the prospect of new classes, even if all I do is go, "Oh, that's...

If you are interested in getting people to use your homebrew classes, you can use my method...

I rarely design base classes from the bottom up without a request: if a player has an idea for a character which isn't clearly represented by an existing class, some people go to forums and ask for a combination of ACFs/archetypes/multiclassing/prestige classes which together sort of imitate the idea they want. Another option, which I encourage my players to do, is to ask the GM, and together work out a class designed specifically for that character. Bam, you automatically have at least one person who wants to play that class.
Now, if you want people to be interested in ideas you develop entirely on your own...that is somewhat harder. If you introduce them in your games, players are likely to be curious about them and try them. Getting someone else over the internet to want to try your class, though...you have to get pretty darn lucky.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Regarding the swashbuckler talk... I don't want a class called the "swashbuckler" -- there are about 8 billion ways to build a perfectly fine swashbuckler with the classes and archetypes that exist (including the swashbuckler archetype, whose existence means it is a small chance they will make a class by the same name).

But a finesse-based warrior would be nice. "Slayer" looks promising.

Oh, one thing I do want if we are listing classes we want, is a d10 combat focused class specializing in unarmed fighting. Monk is not a combat focused class, it is a mystic/decent at lots of stuff but not a specialist class that can be decent at unarmed fighting if it wants. Fighter's unarmed fighter and brawler archetypes aren't good enough, especially as they don't boost unarmed strike dice (to do that you have to have Monastic Legacy which means you also have to dip three levels into monk). Even if one boosted it to 1d4 that would be nice (because 1d3 is annoying to roll). And the utter armor restriction on a non mystic class makes no sense. Mostly because I really want to make Veronica Santangelo from Fallout: New Vegas in Pathfinder rules and I can't (unarmed/fist weapon fighting and heavy armor--it's possible certainly with straight fighter but doesn't have a right feel to it).

137ben, that is good advice. My muse may not listen--it wants to make what it wants to make--but it is certainly a way to seek focus.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
DeathQuaker wrote:
Fighter's unarmed fighter and brawler archetypes aren't good enough, especially as they don't boost unarmed strike dice (to do that you have to have Monastic Legacy which means you also have to dip three levels into monk). Even if one boosted it to 1d4 that would be nice (because 1d3 is annoying to roll).

Bit off topic, but...

Actually, the Brawler archetype is *really* good at unarmed damage at later levels. Early on, they're better off with two handed weapons, but late game, they get a crap-ton of combat modifiers.

+7 damage from weapon training
+4 from weapon specialization

+5 to hit from weapon training
+1 to hit from GWF

Those off-set Power Attack's final penalty (-6 hit, +12 damage), which puts you at +23 more damage per strike than a monk (or +6 hit/+11 damage if the monk is also using power attack). That easily makes up for the damage dice, and even then, you can use a monk's robe, or take a few levels in Style Master for crane/dragon style and then pick up Monastic Legacy.

51 to 100 of 221 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / "Advanced Class Guide" Wish List All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.