What 8 Classes Would You Keep?

[Wheldrake]

Spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, spam, wizards and spam.

<g>

[FancyZergling]

Dasrak wrote:

Talley

Haha I was in the middle of doing this thank you!

Ascalaphus wrote:

Maybe a good solution would be to instead make some bard archetypes available that get rid of spell casting.

I'v been waiting for this archetype though I am not sure what to replace it with, preformances maybe? I am not sure, but in the end I feel like it is just saying "Hey now I really am the new rogue," if one does pop up.

[Majuba]

Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Wizard

[Adjule]

Oracle, Sorcerer, Hunter, Slayer, Barbarian, Bard, Alchemist, Fighter.

2 full casters (oracle, sorcerer), 2 2/3 casters (hunter, alchemist), 1 buff-focused caster (bard), 3 martial types (slayer, barbarian, fighter). Could possibly switch out Bard for Paladin.

[JD Ashelman]

Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Monk.

[Snorb]

Arcanist, mostly because it plays like a Fifth Edition caster, and I enjoy 5e casters, but also because the arcane exploits more or less act as extra spells. (Somebody remind me to work on my variant arcanist that actually does use the arcane exploits as spells. It's been too long since i looked at that Google Doc.)

Slayer, partially because I get to make my snark about how it's a better rogue than the rogue because it has a better Hit Die and BAB. Also, it could make a pretty good assassin minus that whole "Thou Must Be Evil" thing the actual assassin class requires because (NO OFFICIAL ANSWER GIVEN).

Fighter, mostly because I'm a big fan of this underdog. Also tower shields.

Bard, because not only are they a great buff/unbuff class if done right, you can also hide behind the mountain of dead bards when things go wrong!

Alchemist, because I enjoy having to keep track of a consumable per-day class ability by drawing a little Bob-Omb from Super Mario Bros. on my character sheet. (No. Really. I have done this, and modified the drawing based on discoveries. Safe Bomb was the Bob-Omb with little blush stickers.)

Monk so I can not only make random Bruce Lee/Jackie Chan combat yells with justification, we also get a class that fist fights with the power of anime/ki.

Inquisitor because every inquisitor I've ever seen or played in my group turned out to be an unkillable juggernaut of a character.

Samurai, because katanas. That is all the explanation you get. Katanas.

[bulbaquil]

Barbarian - big, meaty, raw-power fighter-type (d12, 4+Int, full, mundane)

Slayer - stealthy, tactical fighter-type (d10, 6+Int, full, mundane)

Fighter - versatile (through feats) fighter-type, more military/"trained" in nature than the barbarian (d10, 2+Int, full, mundane). Better if you give them 4+Int skill points.

Bard - versatile buffer/healer type who's still competent in combat and stealth. (d8, 6+Int, 3/4, arcane 6 spontaneous)

Magus - archetypical battlemage, Int as primary stat helps mitigate low skill points. (d8, 2+Int, 3/4, arcane 6 prepared)

Warpriest - like the magus, but with divine casting. Low skill points mitigate duplication with bard and encourage greater combat focus with warpriest and skill focus with bard. (d8, 2+Int, 3/4, divine 6 prepared)

Sorcerer - archetypical full arcane caster. Lack of versatility of spells known plus squishiness (d6 hit die) helps mitigate overwhelming power of certain spells. (d6, 2+Int, 1/2, arcane 9 spontaneous)

Oracle - divine equivalent of sorcerer. Mandatory flaw and limited spell selection help mitigate overwhelming power of certain spells. (d8, 4+Int, 3/4, divine 9 spontaneous)

For a "no 7th- and higher level spells" game, replace sorcerer and oracle with inquisitor (divine 6 spontaneous to mirror the bard) and brawler (unarmed combat fighter-type to mirror the slayer).

[Deadmanwalking]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I guess Slayer may be the next best thing, although the Ranger Combat Style slayer talent means that they do some niche invasion. And I guess the point of reducing the number of classes is also to cut down a bit on niche invasion. Maybe a good solution would be to instead make some bard archetypes available that get rid of spellcasting.

Slayer only invades people's niches if your list includes Fighters, Rangers, or Rogues. For something like this the fact that it can easily replace all three of those for most purposes is an unalloyed advantage, you can just grab Slayer as one of your choices, and there's no need for any of those other three.

[redliska]

Barbarian

Bard

Inquisitor

Investigator

Magus

Monk

Slayer

Warpriest

[Bandw2]

if 3pp is involved, and archetypes remain the same.

Dragon rider(if no 3pp replace with barbar), Bard, Monk, paladin, Alchemist, Cavalier, Inquisitor, Magus.

I would like a lot of low casters, mixed with some powerful martial classes.

[GoldEdition42]

Barbarian, Cleric, Druid, Ninja, Inquisitor, Sorcerer, Cavalier, Paladin

The Paladin just squeaked in for me.

[Kerney]

Witch, Oracle, Ranger, Ninja (w/rogue weapon and renamed rogue), Fighter, Alchemist, Bard, Sorcerer.

I like direct contact to the divine to be rarer. Most clerics would be experts and Oracles would be prophets. This makes the gods more mysterious.

Ranger and Fighter can fill in most martial roles. You can make a "cavilier", you can make a "barbarian" with these classes.

Witch is closer to what I want in a "druid" than the druid class.

Alchemist is like a wizard, i.e. studying magic as a 'science'.

Nothing is like a bard.

Rogue is too weak. Ninja, de orientalized makes a good rogue.

Sorcerer almost looses to summoner.

Hope this is interesting.

[Kudaku]

My list is:
Barbarian, Slayer and Warpriest cover the normal, sneaky and holy approaches to playing a heavily martial class.
Bard, Alchemist and Magus split the "I do a little bit of everything" between them.
Oracle and Arcanist cover the primary spellcasters.

I really wanted to fit the paladin and the inquisitor on my list. If the Paladin was alignment-free I'd probably put that up in place of the warpriest. If there was a 9th level divine caster who used the arcanist's spell mechanic I'd probably pick that over the Oracle.

It would be interesting to remake this thread in about six months and see how the rankings change as people become more familiar with the ACG classes. :)

[Lord Mhoram]

For me:

Fighter, Ninja, Cleric, Arcanist (to fill the core 4 classics).

Summoner, Gunslinger, Alchemist, Monk - for the odd interesting flavor.

[Jamie Charlan]

Hm...
Psion, Marksman, Aegis, Bard, Alchemist, Paladin, Stalker, Warlord.

[Arnwolf]

Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Thief, Cleric, Wizard, Monk, Bard

[Addem Up]

Barbarian, Bard, Rogue/Ninja, Sorceror, Witch, Oracle, Inquisitor, Magus.

[wraithstrike]

Bard, Inquisitor, Ranger, Barbarian, Sorcerer, Cleric, Witch, Druid

[Silent Saturn]

Silent Saturn wrote:

Barbarians, the raw muscle/savvy mountain man
Bards, the jacks-of-all-trades
Clerics, the divine spellcaster as versatile as the pantheon
Sorcerers, the avatars of the arcane
Cavaliers, the classically trained soldiers
Inquisitors, the holy warriors and cunning cluefinders
Witches, those granted arcane power through eldritch collusion
and Ninjas, the ones who wield trickery as deftly as any blade

I feel like I should explain my choices a little more.

For full BAB, I kept Barbarians and Cavaliers because they represent the opposite ends of the spectrum: the "man-at-arms" who's gone through formal military training, and the "natural born brute" who lets sheer strength and determination see him through. A Fighter can easily be either one, and because of that it was hard to cut him.

It amazes me just how versatile Clerics really are. With the right deity and domains, is there ANY character idea or play style that doesn't work as a cleric? This is half the reason I cut druids-- clerics of Gozreh can do all of that, including an animal companion with the right domain.

Speaking of animal companions, how important is it to everybody to include a class that gets them in your Elite Eight? The biggest reason I chose Cavalier over Fighter is that I had already cut every other class that gets an animal companion by default. If nobody in my group had any interest in having animal companions, I'd replace Cav with Fighter, but on some level I thought it was important to leave at least one "pet class" in.

I like that my Elite Eight includes prepared and spontaneous casters in both arcane and divine-- I didn't do it on purpose. I also didn't look at primary casting stats, but I ended up including a pretty good mix: two Wisdom casters, two Cha-casters, and one Int-caster, none of whom share a spell list. How much "caster diversity" is everybody else aiming for?

Once my list was done, I went through each class I cut and asked myself "Which of my final eight best covers what this class is good at?" Witches and sorcerers cover the oracle's "magic through mysterious means", barbarians and ninjas can both be built to fight unarmed, either cavalier or cleric can do what we expect of a paladin, etc. Nothing comes close to a summoner's eidolon, but all three of the full-casters I kept get Summon Monster spells. Even firearms aren't off the table-- the cavalier gets a Musketeer archetype, there's the Black Powder inquisition, and if ninjas can still take rogue talents, they can get firearm proficiency and grit feats with them. If you think there's a class I dropped that can't be replaced by one I kept, you're welcome to challenge me on it.

[Insain Dragoon]

1. Bard
2. Magus
3. Inquisitor
4. Hunter-buffed a bit though since they're weak, but the idea is good
5. Barbarian-no more courageous weapon enchant
6. Brawler
7. Alchemist
8. Sorcerer-slight changes to spell list since it's no longer shared
+a lot of new archetypes to fill in gaps

I feel that each of these classes has a lot of good design decisions behind them, but are held back by classes from 3.5 or be the balance of other classes.

Bard, Magus, alchemist, and Inquisitor are the best designed classes in the game and wouldn't really have any changes made to them base. Maybe some archetypes to get some roles like "priest" or "rogue"

The Hunter, without the OP Druid to overshadow it in almost every facet is a pretty cool class and with archetypes I feel it could take the place of Druid and Ranger within the system.

Barbarian is a perfect "uncultured" melee type and with some pruning of oddly designed choices like the courageous enchant they'd fit in pretty well in power level.

Brawler has a lot of class features and can be moved in a lot of directions via archetypes. They could be soldiers if they could wear heavy armor and flurry with categories of weapons such as spears. They could be swashbucklers by gaining a dex focus and dueling weapons for flurry. They could be Monks by getting some mysticism.

Sorcerer as a class is really well designed. The spell list would probably need some minor changes to accommodate the lack of other full casters. Some spells like Planar Binding or simulacrum would need rewriting as they gave the player way too much narrative power compared to his compatriots. Maybe some archetype to make a bookworm "wizard" type.

Why the obvious decrease in power level?
Due to some choices made when carrying over from 3.5 I believe Paizo made some mistakes. Not gonna get into that, but martial-caster disparity is the one that is most displeasing to me. These choices in classes and changes represent a move toward a ore balanced set of classes who can still fulfill the many roles and archetypes a player likes. Except now a party is now "Mike the Wizard, Dave the Spearman, Drew the Bard, and Cain the Priest" as opposed to "Mike, Cain, and some meatbags."

[Ector777]

Definitely, the classic four classes are Fighter, Cleric, Rogue and Wizard, and they should remain. My additional 4 classes are:

Bard - something like fighter/wizard, but CHA-based and having the rich roleplaying flavor. It isn't just a strange mix like Magus, but quite a natural adventuring class: who would know about the heroes without the bards?

Oracle - a very rich field for roleplaying again, especially the oracle's curse. She can perform many various roles, from "fighter/cleric" to the very specialized clerics with unique abilities.

Cavalier - a great fighter variant, much better than the classic Paladin. He can have any alignment, and his abilities (mounted attacks, duels) add a lot of flavor to the game. He may not have the fighter's martial training, but he provides aid for the entire team instead.

Summoner - not just a "fighter/wizard", but a very interesting and specialized class that can potentially be very powerful with Augment Summoning.

Why not the other classes? Well, Barbarian is essentially a fighter variant that trades some martial training for the rage power. Druid is the Cleric of Nature. Monk should be removed from the base classes at all, since the very idea of unarmed fighter contradicts all the western fantasy traditions. Paladin is just stupid. Ranger is essentially a fighter specialized to fight versus special enemies; this could be abused sometimes (if the whole adventure is about fighting the Orcs), and if it couldn't, the Ranger is just a bad fighter. Sorcerer is essentially a wizard, but I don't like the whole theme of "stupid, but charismatic wizard with powerful heritage". Alchemist is just too weak. Inquisitor is a fighter/cleric without much essential flavor; does all deities support their own Inquisition? Witch has the great flavor, but she is just a specialized wizard: she also casts Int-based spells, she also has a familiar, and the differences aren't that much to justify having a separate class. Magus doesn't seem believable to me, and even if he's powerful enough in combat, his abilities lead to much more debates and calculations than the abilities of the other classes.

[Nipin]

FancyZergling wrote:

If you could choose only 8 Pathfinder classes to keep, what 8 Would they be and why?

First off, all of this is my personal opinion and has no effect on your ability to play and enjoy your preferred classes. Now let's get to the why of it all!

I chose these classes, because they all lend toward a variety of interesting options for characters. I was surprised that I ended up with 4 divine casters (I prefer arcane characters).

Arcanist:

The Sorcerer, Wizard, and Arcanist overlap too much to have all three. The Arcanist feels like the middle point and probably the most interesting to play.

Bloodrager:

We need to have that "fueled by battle rage" type and the Bloodrager is more interesting to me than the Barbarian (but I favor arcane typically, ymmv).

Inquisitor:

An amazingly versatile class that can easily fit any role for any party in any setting. This guy can be a true master switch hitter and even switch role character. Change out your judgements and get +dmg, +hit, +AC, +whatever_I_need_right_now! Good spell selection and interesting class options with enough skill ranks to potentially have RP skills.

Investigator:

Skill monkey, alchemical dabbler, skilled strategist, competent combatant. This class fills in some needed roles RP-wise and has enough going to be a strong option for the roles it fills mechanics-wise.

Oracle:

I went back and forth a bit on this and the Cleric. I am not a fan of the curses (too many are either pointless or overpowered). However, I think the Mystery and Bloodline class features are more interesting than the Domain and School class features. Also, spontaneous casting is typically better for newer players (and well-liked by many veteran players). Overall, I feel the Oracle package was better than the Cleric package. Though I will add that I have played even numbers of Oracles and Clerics.

Shaman:

I have always felt the Druid was a weak base class in terms of RP versatility. The Druid features heavily favor a few options and leave many out. The various Shaman archetypes have tried to fix this, but fall a bit short of the goal. The Shaman class feels like a much stronger class in terms of RP versatility and competitive in terms of power balance.

Slayer:

Fighting guy with flavor. I would add a weaponmaster archetype, but this is my preference of the various fighting guy options. He makes a great combatant, can have...you know...skills, has plenty of feat options through rogue talents and ranger feats.

Warpriest:

More divine caster than the Paladin, more a champion for your (non-LG) deity than a Paladin, more versatile in viable weapon options than anyone. Great spell selection with the ability to really use these spells in melee while still being the frontliner. The various blessings are just icing on my favorite divine class. In summary, I like this class a lot!

[EntrerisShadow]

Ector777 wrote:

Alchemist is just too weak.

I'm very curious about this, particularly since your preferred list includes both the rogue and fighter. Why would you call the alchemist weak? I've heard a lot of complaints about flavor, but I don't think I've ever heard an alchemist called weak, so I'm wondering what strikes you as weak about it?

[DrDew]

Barbarian, Fighter, Inquisitor, Magus, Ninja, Shaman, Slayer, Sorcerer

Barbarian: I think it should be called Berserker but I think this type of character is necessary because sometimes it's just fun to hulk out and crush things.

Fighter: It's a very flexible class and necessary for a lot of builds that don't involve magic.

Inquisitor: Fills the role of a divine hybrid class.

Magus: Fills the role of an arcane hybrid class.

Ninja: Fills the role of a sneaky thief-type better than the rogue.

Shaman: Fills the nature-oriented divine role without being locked into shape-changing like the Druid. I hate that Druids are so focused on shape-changing.

Slayer: Fills the role of the skirmisher warrior without being so focused on specific types of enemies like the Ranger is. Ranger requires too much knowledge of what you're going to be fighting in a campaign. If your DM can't tell you then you can't plan for effectiveness.

Sorcerer: Fills the full arcane caster role with lots of flavor built in. I like magic as innate more than magic as a science. It also forces the caster to be more focused than a Wizard.

[Aldizog]

1. Fighter, with Barbarian and Cavalier archetypes (Viking, and some sort of modified Dragoon or Roughrider).
2. Archivist bard, with the Magician's "Expanded Repertoire" in place of Jack of All Trades, class now renamed "Wizard."
3. Warpriest, renamed "Cleric."
4. Rogue

Nothing else really seems worthy of being its own class rather than a multiclass combination or an archetype. But to fill the list:

5. Monk
6. Bard (all archetypes except Archivist and Magician)
7. Ranger
8. Paladin

No 9th-level casting, no built-in pets (aside from Cavalier, maybe), no new bonus types (sorry alchemist).

[Jason Rice]

I want all of them, but if I had to choose:

Fighter
Rogue
Wizard
Alchemist
Witch
Cleric
Oracle
Paladin (slightly modified to include variations on all 9 alignments)

[London Duke]

Arcanist, barbarian, bard, druid, investigator, inquisitor, slayer, witch

[Mexcalibur]

Martials

1. Slayer- My favourite non-magical class. Plenty of options in and out of combat, and isn't bogged down by class features that are too intense. A good introductory class for new players as the combat style talents direct you to pick combat feats that work well together, unlike the fighter's completely free-form feats which might be overwhelming or the ranger's spellcasting.

2. Barbarian- The opposite of the skilled Slayer, as someone earlier in this thread already mentioned. Great for those who want to play a martial a bit more wild.

Middle Ground

3. Bard- My favourite support caster and skill monkey, a proper jack-of-all-trades. Well, nearly all trades. Still, it's hard to go wrong with one in a party.

4. Inquisitor- I've never played one, but I do intend to make up for that shortcoming sometime soon. A skillful, spontaneous divine caster who is a bit more focused on combat with judgements and bane than a bard, but it's hard to go wrong with this one too.

Full Casters

5. Arcanist- Apparently it's pretty powerful, but my main draw is the combination of both Wizard and Sorcerer aspects. I'm a fan of the Sorcerer, but I know the Wizard would fill a bigger niche than the Sorcerer would- this is my way of getting what I want and what I should include.

6. Cleric- If I knew more about the Shaman, that might have taken this spot. Once again, although I'm more of a fan of the Oracle than the Cleric, I do think a Cleric is more viable as a class in this situation. Many of the spells on their spell list are very situational, and with the Oracle having only a limited number of known spells, it's hard to justify their inclusion because of the spell list. In a world without Clerics, scrolls of those situational spells would be hard to come by too.

The Others

7. Alchemist- The flavour of this class nets it the 7th spot. It's magic, but not-magic at the same time, making it possible to be used in a variety of settings.

8. Cavalier- I really wanted to put either a Magus here, or a Monk, but in the end I decided to take the Cavalier. I'm quite fond of making important NPCs of a more flavorful class than the NPC classes can provide. While a lot of character concepts can be made with the aforementioned classes, I feel that there's not much there for a non-magical soldier, officer, or noble going around. The cavalier fills that niche quite comfortably.

[ShadowcatX]

If you are ignoring 3rd party I'll redo my list, I don't have any knowledge of the new class book so that somewhat limits my answers.

Barbarian, cavalier, inquisitor, magus, witch, sorcerer, druid, oracle.

No wizard because I like class abilities, and variety in spell lists.

[LessPopMoreFizz]

You can end up with a surprisingly balanced roster using just the 4 and 6 level casters...

Magus, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Bard, Hunter, Paladin, Bloodrager, and Ranger is a shockingly well rounded class lineup.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Like many mine is based on setting. But I've been playing around with the idea of running either Serpent's Skull or Mummy's Mask adapted to Pulp Era Earth.

Pulp Adventure
Barbarian (Savage)
Slayer (Adventurer)
Alchemist (Scientist)
Arcanist (Occultist)
Brawler (Martial Artist)
Investigator (Detective)
Gunslinger (Gunslinger)
Oracle (Psychic)

[Exocrat]

Wizard, Witch, Arcanist, Sorcerer, Alchemist, Bloodrager, Magus, and Bard.

[DrDew]

Exocrat wrote:

Wizard, Witch, Arcanist, Sorcerer, Alchemist, Bloodrager, Magus, and Bard.

Arcane spells for everyone!

[bugleyman]

Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Wizard

Though if I were going to cut things down that far, I'd probably go all the way down to:

Cleric
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard

...and call it good. :)

[Deadmanwalking]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Like many mine is based on setting. But I've been playing around with the idea of running either Serpent's Skull or Mummy's Mask adapted to Pulp Era Earth.

Pulp Adventure
Barbarian (Savage)
Slayer (Adventurer)
Alchemist (Scientist)
Arcanist (Occultist)
Brawler (Martial Artist)
Investigator (Detective)
Gunslinger (Gunslinger)
Oracle (Psychic)

Ooh, I really like this one. I might be tempted to swap Shaman for Oracle (since I'm not sure Oracle makes a good psychic, while Shaman makes an excellent counterpart to Barbarian as, well, a Shaman...or keep Oracle, but still define it as a shaman rather than a psychic), but that's very good.

[Rynjin]

Slayer: Fills the role of the Fighter archetype and the Rogue archetype equally well, and can dabble in both just fine. Probably the most well designed martial in the game.

Barbarian: For just raw martial power, he can't be beat.

Inquisitor: One of the most versatile and well balanced classes in the game, and can fill a massive variety of roles.

Alchemist: Get that mad science in there, my boys. Also a well balanced class, and very fun.

Brawler: Because if I'm going to pick a character who can kick ass with just his fists, it needs to be this one. A Monk/Fighter multiclass is probably better, but no way in hell I'm wasting two of my 8 slots on two classes that only really work together, and then only for one thing.

Bard: Every party loves a Bard.

Sorcerer: More interesting and IMO better balanced than the Wizard. Really only on this list so I can include a full Arcane and a full Divine caster (below), though my preference would probably be to get rid of full casters if the only balanced 6 level Arcane caster weren't the Magus, whose spell list I don't really like.

Oracle: I like pretty much everything about this class.

If we're going 3PP, the Sorcerer and Oracle can suck it, and I'd replace them with:

Psion: Versatile, specialized, and more balanced overall than any arcane caster, while still being hella fun to play.

Vitalist: A great replacement for a Divine caster, with a bunch of nifty tricks that make them good healers without being relegated to a merely healbot role.

[KaiserBruno]

Hmmm we'll go with the Barbarian, Sorcerer, Witch, Druid, Oracle, Ranger, Cavalier, and Rouge

This gives us a heavy melee bruiser

A skill monkey (hopefully this the fixed rouge)

A mounted/leader type warrior

A combat specialist

1 preparered arcane caster and 1 spontaneous

And 1 prepared divine caster and 1 Spontaneous

I imagine the fighter and cleric type npcs would be warriors and adepts

[Thomas Long 175]

bugleyman wrote:

Bard

Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Wizard

Though if I were going to cut things down that far, I'd probably go all the way down to:

Cleric
Fighter
Rogue
Wizard

...and call it good. :)

Why stop there?

Cleric and wizard and you're good. :P

[Coriat]

Well, I didn't think too hard about the question, but at first cut:

Barbarian, bard, cleric, magus, paladin, ranger, slayer, sorcerer.

[bugleyman]

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Why stop there?

Cleric and wizard and you're good. :P

Imbalance between classes aside, True20 *did* cut to down to three: Warrior, adept and expert. IMO at that point you may as well remove classes altogether, but it seemed to work fine.

[Adam B. 135]

Slayer:

The slayer covers three core classes with ease (two of which being part of the big 4). It can be your fighter, rogue, or ranger. It's unique mechanic is cooler than weapon training and favored enemy and is the best representation of "skilled fighting dude."

Barbarian:

The barbarian covers fighter and ranger as well, but with a ferocious theme instead of a skillful theme. It is the perfect foil to the Slayer. Together with the Slayer, most fighting dude concepts can be created. Can also wear heavy armor with an archetype, further letting one be a "fighter." Through certain rage powers, the beast morphy/werewolf-like character is possible too.

Brawler:

The last full BaB class required to cover the rest of the concepts. The brawler is the fist fighting dude. He can also be a standard fighter dude if you use close weapons instead of fists. Through mutagenic mauler, the beast morphy/werewolf-like character is possible too.

Bard:

Bards can be bards, skalds, magical tacticians, orators, magical fighters, and many other fantasy archetypes. They are well balanced and making being the "skill guy" or the "buffing guy" very fun. Using a bard, a player can make a very fun and balanced character.

Inquisitor:

Personal preference here. To me, inquisitors mechanically make the best divinely-powered warriors. They have stern gazes and can pass judgement. They have tons of skill points to spend on being well rounded characters. Between the slayer, the bard, and the inquisitor, I think that my setting would have enough "skill guy" classes.

Magus:

Magus is Pathfinder's best rendition of the fighter-mage. Not only that, the magus is a very fun and well designed class. I'd have to be a fool not to include magus when so many players often want "some kind of magical swordsman." I personally prefer the spontaneous archetype in ACG, due to my preference for magic not being attainable via study. However my personal preference against this class's spellcasting feature is not enough for me to override the best magical swordsman class.

Sorcerer:

Personal preference here. I hate the idea of learned magic. I'd rather magic be something a person is born with, makes a deal to get, or is granted. Bloodlines are an insanely cool mechanic too. Lastly, I find spontaneous spellcasters more balanced.

Oracle:

My opinion of the Oracle is identical to the sorcerer. Mysteries are also too cool to ever want to give up. I'd want Oracles over Clerics in my setting every day. You don't need to be a cleric to be a preacher. You could be a commoner, expert, slayer, or sorcerer and be a preacher. Save the real divine magic for a character granted it.

[EntrerisShadow]

After rereading this I'm reconsidering some of my options.

I'd still keep Alchemist, Barbarian, Bard, Magus, Paladin, and Sorcerer.

But after taking another look at Brawler, I think I'd rather have it than Monk - even if it were an archetyped Monk. Warpriest I'm still ambivalent about, but I think the Inquisitor would ultimately be a better option. Clerics are simply too broken.

I was tempted to replace the Paladin/Cavalier with the Slayer as the skillful foil to the Barbarian - especially since I love the new class - but ultimately with medium armor proficiency, only 2 more skills per level and the fact that their class skills overlap, the Barbarian and the Slayer can both be used to build very similar adventurers.

So for whoever was keeping score, subtract 1 Warpriest and 1 Monk, and add 1 Brawler and 1 Inquisitor. So my new list:

"CORE 4":

Barbarian (Fighter)
Bard (Thief)
Inquisitor (Priest)
Sorcerer (Mage)

Unique/Difficult-to-Impossible to Recreate:

Alchemist (Potion brewing bombardier. Try building that with a wizard before the alchemist inspired archetypes came about.)
Brawler (Unarmed close-up, CMB focused maneuver master.)
Paladin (Classic knight in shining armor exemplar.)
Magus (Fighter/Mage multiclass gish - this can be done otherwise, but not well and not easily.)

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

Barbarian, Samurai, Bard, Inquisitor, Druid, Oracle, Witch, Sorcerer

I think I'm gonna change/update mine as well

.

"core 4"
-Slayer
-Alchemist
-Warpriest
-Sorcerer

"Core 8"
-Brawler
-Slayer
-Samurai
-Alchemist
-Bard
-Inquisitor
-Druid (changed to d6/poor bab)
-Sorcerer

[Thomas Long 175]

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

Barbarian, Samurai, Bard, Inquisitor, Druid, Oracle, Witch, Sorcerer

I think I'm gonna change/update mine as well

.

"core 4"
Slayer
Alchemist
Warpriest
Sorcerer

"Core 8"
Brawler
Slayer
Samurai
Alchemist
Bard
Inquisitor
Druid (changed to d6/poor bab)
Sorcerer

Out of curiosity why would you change druid to d6/ poor bab? They have one of the weakest spell lists out there, ranking definitely under the other 9th level casters, with the exception of perhaps witch.

Honestly, their buffs, which are mostly natural attack based, don't mesh well enough with most parties to be relevant. So short of the common things like glitterdust and entangle, they're basically reduced to being summoning agents at this point.

[Zhayne]

Now that I know there's a spontaneous magus, I'll drop Bard from my list in favor of that Magus.

[Darigaaz the Igniter]

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Out of curiosity why would you change druid to d6/ poor bab? They have one of the weakest spell lists out there, ranking definitely under the other 9th level casters, with the exception of perhaps witch.

Honestly, their buffs, which are mostly natural attack based, don't mesh well enough with most parties to be relevant. So short of the common things like glitterdust and entangle, they're basically reduced to being summoning agents at this point.

So that both the 9 level casters are poor bab/d6. This creates an inverse ratio of spellcasting power to hit die size/bab progression. Between the cleric and druid in the category of 9 level divine caster, I prefer the druid. Leave the group buffing to the arcane casters, the druid can either buff herself or her animal companion.

[Rynjin]

The Druid's main draw is turning into an animal and mauling face.

It can't do that with d6 HD and 1/2 BaB.

[Thomas Long 175]

Darigaaz the Igniter wrote:

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

Out of curiosity why would you change druid to d6/ poor bab? They have one of the weakest spell lists out there, ranking definitely under the other 9th level casters, with the exception of perhaps witch.

Honestly, their buffs, which are mostly natural attack based, don't mesh well enough with most parties to be relevant. So short of the common things like glitterdust and entangle, they're basically reduced to being summoning agents at this point.

So that both the 9 level casters are poor bab/d6. This creates an inverse ratio of spellcasting power to hit die size/bab progression. Between the cleric and druid in the category of 9 level divine caster, I prefer the druid. Leave the group buffing to the arcane casters, the druid can either buff herself or her animal companion.

... But spellcasting power between 9th level casters isn't directly proportional, as the vast majority of druid spells are inferior to cleric or wizard spells. This means they have less spellcasting power than other 9th casters and at the same time less martial ability than other martials.

[Ivan Rûski]

Cleric, fighter, rogue, sorcerer, alchemist, barbarian, monk, and druid.

[DM_aka_Dudemeister]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Like many mine is based on setting. But I've been playing around with the idea of running either Serpent's Skull or Mummy's Mask adapted to Pulp Era Earth.

Pulp Adventure
Barbarian (Savage)
Slayer (Adventurer)
Alchemist (Scientist)
Arcanist (Occultist)
Brawler (Martial Artist)
Investigator (Detective)
Gunslinger (Gunslinger)
Oracle (Psychic)

Ooh, I really like this one. I might be tempted to swap Shaman for Oracle (since I'm not sure Oracle makes a good psychic, while Shaman makes an excellent counterpart to Barbarian as, well, a Shaman...or keep Oracle, but still define it as a shaman rather than a psychic), but that's very good.

Honestly I'd probably replace the Oracle with the Psion or a homebrewed Pathfinderization of the Green Ronin Psychic.