Are classes outside of some PrCs referred by name In-Universe?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Depends on the universe. But it still messes with the players' heads if you use a really stupid name for a concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aren't Blackguards Lawful Evil?
I find the name Antipaladin...amusing. It's the sort of name I could see a twelve year old kitten strangling monster of a kid coming up with in order to sound badass while he kicks puppies and pulls the wings off flies. It's such a childish name, and it comes off as really try-hard.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Meh... it doesn't bother me. I'm kind of ambivalent to the whole thing really. Could there be a better name for the class? Of course, but it could be much worse as well. It describes exactly what the class does in one simple name, so it functions the way it should.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think we should just agree to spell it "Antepaladin" from now on, with the rationale that they're remnants the evil past before, like, paladins were brought forth to redeem the land, I guess?
. . .
(Look, I'm trying.)
Are classes outside of some PrCs referred by name In-Universe?
Absolutely! It's just like how the verbal components for all spells are the name of the spell at so many tables. Seems prevalent with Color Spray and Magic Missile.
In all seriousness, I've met a number of characters who introduce themselves by their class name, particularly when it's intuitive like the alchemist or investigator.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I'm pretty sure the antipaladin name is inspired by the historical antipope. Might not make you like it anymore, but it is an example of a religious opposite using anti, and I thought I read somewhere that this was the inspiration for the antipaladin name.
Are classes outside of some PrCs referred by name In-Universe?Absolutely! It's just like how the verbal components for all spells are the name of the spell at so many tables. Seems prevalent with Color Spray and Magic Missile.
In all seriousness, I've met a number of characters who introduce themselves by their class name, particularly when it's intuitive like the alchemist or investigator.
But the Archeologist Bard wouldn't call himself a Bard, and if I play a Rogue with the same theme or that is just a skill-based combatant I'd never call myself Rogue, especially because in my language it has been translated as Thief.
Some classes are prone at indicate the actual "job" of the character, but others are much more open-ended.
Anti-Paladin is just a name to indicate that he's the complete opposite of a normal Paladin, and shows it with class features that are flipped. But In-Universe they can be anything that represents a champion of chaos and evil fueled by demons.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure the antipaladin name is inspired by the historical antipope. Might not make you like it anymore, but it is an example of a religious opposite using anti, and I thought I read somewhere that this was the inspiration for the antipaladin name.
Or also the Antichrist
Or the antibodies.
Meh... it doesn't bother me. I'm kind of ambivalent to the whole thing really. Could there be a better name for the class? Of course, but it could be much worse as well. It describes exactly what the class does in one simple name, so it functions the way it should.
Precisely this. But if you have a problem complain to Gary Gygax who came up with the name in the first place for 1st edition. While I can agree that thematically anti-paladin is a bit bland, without the need for explanatory text, "anti-paladin" suggests exactly what it is (which makes it a good choice).
Or the anticipation
Or rather anticlimactic
Are classes outside of some PrCs referred by name In-Universe?
For the most part, actually.
A person casts arcane spells from a spellbook? They're a wizard.
A person casts arcane spells from seemingly nowhere? They're a sorcerer.
A person casts divine spells, can take the shape of an animal and has an animal following them? They're a druid.
I think the only classes that can justify getting away without being recognizable by class name are the martials: Fighter, Rogue, Cavalier... they could always be something else. Lots of people fight, lots of people fight dirty, and lots of people fight on horses. That doesn't necessarily mean as much as a specific magical ability you don't see other people flinging around.
Are classes outside of some PrCs referred by name In-Universe?For the most part, actually.
A person casts arcane spells from a spellbook? They're a wizard.
A person casts arcane spells from seemingly nowhere? They're a sorcerer.
A person casts divine spells, can take the shape of an animal and has an animal following them? They're a druid.
I think the only classes that can justify getting away without being recognizable by class name are the martials: Fighter, Rogue, Cavalier... they could always be something else. Lots of people fight, lots of people fight dirty, and lots of people fight on horses. That doesn't necessarily mean as much as a specific magical ability you don't see other people flinging around.
Arcanists have spell books...
Magus have spellbooks also....
An oracle of the darktapesty can shapechange into an animal, cast divine spells, and with a feat has an animal.
What about druids with no AC... aka the domain druid?
A wizard with Eschew Materials looks really damn similair to a sorcerer...
A witch can look indistinguishable from a wizard also...
Are classes outside of some PrCs referred by name In-Universe?For the most part, actually.
A person casts arcane spells from a spellbook? They're a wizard.
A person casts arcane spells from seemingly nowhere? They're a sorcerer.
A person casts divine spells, can take the shape of an animal and has an animal following them? They're a druid.
I think the only classes that can justify getting away without being recognizable by class name are the martials: Fighter, Rogue, Cavalier... they could always be something else. Lots of people fight, lots of people fight dirty, and lots of people fight on horses. That doesn't necessarily mean as much as a specific magical ability you don't see other people flinging around.
Arcanists have spell books...
Magus have spellbooks also....
An oracle of the darktapesty can shapechange into an animal, cast divine spells, and with a feat has an animal.
What about druids with no AC... aka the domain druid?
A wizard with Eschew Materials looks really damn similair to a sorcerer...
A witch can look indistinguishable from a wizard also...
Arcanists and Magi are later introduced classes. But worth noting is that they represent the mechanical solution to multiclass problems, so many people likely read them as "Wizard - Sorcerer" and "Wizard - Warrior" respectively unless the setting was built with their practices as equally common to the generic wizard.
An oracle doesn't cast with holly and mistletoe. And anyone who spent some time around them would realize they cast spontaneously. Also, again a class that came later.
A wizard with eschew materials still prepares from a spellbook.
A witch has a familiar, a feature most wizard eschew for the extra spell in my experience. Even so, a witch, once again, lacks a spellbook.
All of these might create problems in identification but that's only because there's already a standard that's been set.
Can we call them Sith Lords?
A strict improvement.
Meh... it doesn't bother me. I'm kind of ambivalent to the whole thing really. Could there be a better name for the class? Of course, but it could be much worse as well. It describes exactly what the class does in one simple name, so it functions the way it should.Precisely this. But if you have a problem complain to Gary Gygax who came up with the name in the first place for 1st edition. While I can agree that thematically anti-paladin is a bit bland, without the need for explanatory text, "anti-paladin" suggests exactly what it is (which makes it a good choice).
I just went down to the basement to pull out the old 1st edition books and it confirmed my suspicion - no mention of anti-paladin in 1st core books (Player's Handbook, DM's Guide, Monster Manual 1, Monster Manual 2, Field Folio or Unearthed Arcana). The earliest source I could find was from Dragon Magazine which published an article by George Laking and Tim Mesford on an Anti-Paladin NPC in 1980. It certainly wasn't an official source - Dragon wasn't owned by TSR or anything.
So, blame some random dudes 35 years ago who wrote a throw-away article for a gaming mag.
you could always try Hellknight
Are classes outside of some PrCs referred by name In-Universe?For the most part, actually.
A person casts arcane spells from a spellbook? They're a wizard.
A person casts arcane spells from seemingly nowhere? They're a sorcerer.
A person casts divine spells, can take the shape of an animal and has an animal following them? They're a druid.
I think the only classes that can justify getting away without being recognizable by class name are the martials: Fighter, Rogue, Cavalier... they could always be something else. Lots of people fight, lots of people fight dirty, and lots of people fight on horses. That doesn't necessarily mean as much as a specific magical ability you don't see other people flinging around.
Arcanists have spell books...
Magus have spellbooks also....
An oracle of the darktapesty can shapechange into an animal, cast divine spells, and with a feat has an animal.
What about druids with no AC... aka the domain druid?
A wizard with Eschew Materials looks really damn similair to a sorcerer...
A witch can look indistinguishable from a wizard also...
Arcanists and Magi are later introduced classes. But worth noting is that they represent the mechanical solution to multiclass problems, so many people likely read them as "Wizard - Sorcerer" and "Wizard - Warrior" respectively unless the setting was built with their practices as equally common to the generic wizard.
An oracle doesn't cast with holly and mistletoe. And anyone who spent some time around them would realize they cast spontaneously. Also, again a class that came later.
A wizard with eschew materials still prepares from a spellbook.
A witch has a familiar, a feature most wizard eschew for the extra spell in my experience. Even so, a witch, once again, lacks a spellbook.
All of these might create problems in identification but that's only because there's already a standard that's been set.
That os very meta-gamey...
If your on a battlefield, there is no distiguisable difference between a Wizard with eschew materials, a sorcerer, or an arcanist. If you see a staff magus casting a spell he simply looks like a wizard with a little armor (again, not horridly uncommon).
A cleric casts spells with a.holy symbol but even that is easily circumvented.
Also, with all the archetypes amd such there is an even harder time trying to "identify" on sight. If you see him pound down a potion and get beefy what is he? Mutagenic Fighter? The mutagenic mauler brawler? An alchemist?
If you see a very dex based guy suddenly vanish into thin air is he a ninja? Maybe he is a arcane trickster? Or a illusion focused wizard/sorcerer?
Are classes outside of some PrCs referred by name In-Universe?For the most part, actually.
A person casts arcane spells from a spellbook? They're a wizard.
A person casts arcane spells from seemingly nowhere? They're a sorcerer.
A person casts divine spells, can take the shape of an animal and has an animal following them? They're a druid.
I think the only classes that can justify getting away without being recognizable by class name are the martials: Fighter, Rogue, Cavalier... they could always be something else. Lots of people fight, lots of people fight dirty, and lots of people fight on horses. That doesn't necessarily mean as much as a specific magical ability you don't see other people flinging around.
I would completely and entirely disagree with these as in-universe classifications. They certainly don't work that way in my game.
If your on a battlefield, there is no distiguisable difference between a Wizard with eschew materials, a sorcerer, or an arcanist. If you see a staff magus casting a spell he simply looks like a wizard with a little armor (again, not horridly uncommon).
A cleric casts spells with a.holy symbol but even that is easily circumvented.
Also, with all the archetypes amd such there is an even harder time trying to "identify" on sight. If you see him pound down a potion and get beefy what is he? Mutagenic Fighter? The mutagenic mauler brawler? An alchemist?
If you see a very dex based guy suddenly vanish into thin air is he a ninja? Maybe he is a arcane trickster? Or a illusion focused wizard/sorcerer?
Show my one non-setting specific feature that allows a cleric to cast without a holy symbol.
The only way the staff magus is going to be confused is if they're not hitting anything with their staff and they are specifically wearing a mithril chainshirt.
If the item is a potion it's a fighter using bull strength. If it's a mutagen it will manifest natural armor that's easily identifiable. If he's wearing light armor, he's either an alchemist or mutagenic mauler? If he has bombs? Probably an alchemist. If he just stabbed the guy in the liver with a knife? Probably an alchemist. If he's tearing up things with his bare (or bear) hands and has no bombs on his person? Probably a mutagenic mauler. But again, brawler and fighter are the exception classes. All of these except the first would fit under the broad heading "Alchemist", just like Magus fits under the broad heading "Wizard - Warrior".
A spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana) check will identify what kind of vanish it was, and from that and the person's gear one can identify what class they were within a close spectrum. Again, you've having to resort to the classes I initially slanted as not being identifiable. Martials are nonunique, anyone can do what they do. (That's one of the problems with their design if fact.)
Say what you want about the name "antipaladin" -- it's still more accurately descriptive than either "magus" or "oracle," so by that measure I'm fine with it.
Are classes outside of some PrCs referred by name In-Universe?For the most part, actually.
A person casts arcane spells from a spellbook? They're a wizard.
A person casts arcane spells from seemingly nowhere? They're a sorcerer.
A person casts divine spells, can take the shape of an animal and has an animal following them? They're a druid.
I think the only classes that can justify getting away without being recognizable by class name are the martials: Fighter, Rogue, Cavalier... they could always be something else. Lots of people fight, lots of people fight dirty, and lots of people fight on horses. That doesn't necessarily mean as much as a specific magical ability you don't see other people flinging around.
Arcanists have spell books...
Magus have spellbooks also....
An oracle of the darktapesty can shapechange into an animal, cast divine spells, and with a feat has an animal.
What about druids with no AC... aka the domain druid?
A wizard with Eschew Materials looks really damn similair to a sorcerer...
A witch can look indistinguishable from a wizard also...
Arcanists and Magi are later introduced classes. But worth noting is that they represent the mechanical solution to multiclass problems, so many people likely read them as "Wizard - Sorcerer" and "Wizard - Warrior" respectively unless the setting was built with their practices as equally common to the generic wizard.
An oracle doesn't cast with holly and mistletoe. And anyone who spent some time around them would realize they cast spontaneously. Also, again a class that came later.
A wizard with eschew materials still prepares from a spellbook.
A witch has a familiar, a feature most wizard eschew for the extra spell in my experience. Even so, a witch, once again, lacks a spellbook.
All of these might create problems in identification but that's only because there's already a standard that's been set.
"... so many people read them as..." That's an entirely out-of-game situation.
There's no wizards guild in Golarion like in, say Dragonlance. In Dragonlance, there absolutely are Wizards - they're individuals who are members of the Towers of High Sorcery.
But as far as an individual in the world, I can't see them having any sort of classification. The random guy who doesn't have Knowledge (arcana) probable doesn't even know the difference between arcane and divine magic, or spontaneous and prepared magic. Maybe some very specialized sage would lump out all the different categories. Maybe. But the random on the street isn't going to look at a guy and say "That's a wizard but THAT is a magus and THAT is an adept". He's going to duck and hide and use whatever word he knows - mage, magic user, wizard, sorcerer, shaman, whatever.
But as far as an individual in the world, I can't see them having any sort of classification. The random guy who doesn't have Knowledge (arcana) probable doesn't even know the difference between arcane and divine magic, or spontaneous and prepared magic. Maybe some very specialized sage would lump out all the different categories. Maybe. But the random on the street isn't going to look at a guy and say "That's a wizard but THAT is a magus and THAT is an adept". He's going to duck and hide and use whatever word he knows - mage, magic user, wizard, sorcerer, shaman, whatever
In a world filled with gods, you can bet the average layperson knows there's a difference between the holy prayers of their priests and spellcasting of abyss spawned sorcerer even if they're comprehension of the differences amounts to "priests can heal you."
Again, you're resorting to martials and excluded classes to make your point. The wizard designation includes magus[a mechanical solution to the eldritch knight problem]. Adept can be identified by only once level 2 hits, otherwise they will get lumped in with other divine casters. Sorcerer, shaman, they're all easily identifiable if you know what to look for. And if you're living in a world with that many different types of magic users, you probably do.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is anyone with little to no knowledge/experience with magic going to be able to tell the difference between a wizard, an arcanist, and a sorcerer, though? Is it even common knowledge that there is a difference? Sure, a holy symbol marks someone as a servant of a deity, but that doesn't necessarily narrow their class down all that much.
Better question. In a world with Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers, Wizards, Alchemists, Inquisitors, Magus, Oracle, Summoner, Witches, Arcanists, Bloodragers, Hunters, Investigators, Shamans, Skalds and Warpriests. Who has been exposed to so little magic that they don't know the the broader designations for spellcasting?
If your on a battlefield, there is no distiguisable difference between a Wizard with eschew materials, a sorcerer, or an arcanist. If you see a staff magus casting a spell he simply looks like a wizard with a little armor (again, not horridly uncommon).
A cleric casts spells with a.holy symbol but even that is easily circumvented.
Also, with all the archetypes amd such there is an even harder time trying to "identify" on sight. If you see him pound down a potion and get beefy what is he? Mutagenic Fighter? The mutagenic mauler brawler? An alchemist?
If you see a very dex based guy suddenly vanish into thin air is he a ninja? Maybe he is a arcane trickster? Or a illusion focused wizard/sorcerer?
Show my one non-setting specific feature that allows a cleric to cast without a holy symbol.
The only way the staff magus is going to be confused is if they're not hitting anything with their staff and they are specifically wearing a mithril chainshirt.
If the item is a potion it's a fighter using bull strength. If it's a mutagen it will manifest natural armor that's easily identifiable. If he's wearing light armor, he's either an alchemist or mutagenic mauler? If he has bombs? Probably an alchemist. If he just stabbed the guy in the liver with a knife? Probably an alchemist. If he's tearing up things with his bare (or bear) hands and has no bombs on his person? Probably a mutagenic mauler. But again, brawler and fighter are the exception classes. All of these except the first would fit under the broad heading "Alchemist", just like Magus fits under the broad heading "Wizard - Warrior".
A spellcraft or Knowledge (Arcana) check will identify what kind of vanish it was, and from that and the person's gear one can identify what class they were within a close spectrum. Again, you've having to resort to the classes I initially slanted as not being identifiable. Martials are nonunique, anyone can do what they do. (That's one of the problems with their design if fact.)
Who says alchemists need bombs or a knife? Beastmorph is a thing... and vivisectionist is a go to for mutagen alchemists.
As for the vanish. Your not limiting anything. Its a ninja, a rogue with a ninja trick, a stygian slayer, a bard, a magus, a warlock vigilante, a zealot fey vigilante, it could have HiPS, a arcanist, a wizard, a sorcerer... It can really be damn near anything. Vanish is a pretty common spell...
And also, you seem to be falling on tired tropes. Who says an alchemist isnt in medium armor wielding a greatsword? And the guy using magic and a sword. Not necessarily a magus... the blade adept arcanist is very similair, same with the Eldritch scrapper sorcerer...
Heck, the ONLY thing i cn think.of as a semi dead give away is the mystic theurge.. and ypu still dont know what combination of classes he is...
Occultists can rip s@++ up :-)
But as far as an individual in the world, I can't see them having any sort of classification. The random guy who doesn't have Knowledge (arcana) probable doesn't even know the difference between arcane and divine magic, or spontaneous and prepared magic. Maybe some very specialized sage would lump out all the different categories. Maybe. But the random on the street isn't going to look at a guy and say "That's a wizard but THAT is a magus and THAT is an adept". He's going to duck and hide and use whatever word he knows - mage, magic user, wizard, sorcerer, shaman, whateverIn a world filled with gods, you can bet the average layperson knows there's a difference between the holy prayers of their priests and spellcasting of abyss spawned sorcerer even if they're comprehension of the differences amounts to "priests can heal you."
Again, you're resorting to martials and excluded classes to make your point. The wizard designation includes magus[a mechanical solution to the eldritch knight problem]. Adept can be identified by only once level 2 hits, otherwise they will get lumped in with other divine casters. Sorcerer, shaman, they're all easily identifiable if you know what to look for. And if you're living in a world with that many different types of magic users, you probably do.
I didn't mention a single martial and don't know what an "excluded class" is. I mentioned a core class, a base class, and a common NPC class, all of which could be standing in the street casting burning hands at the goblins rolling up. Toss in a sorcerer, a cleric of a fire god, a shaman, a witch, and a bloodrager and they all could be standing in the street casting exactly the same spell. How does a commoner tell which is which?
That said - "if you know what to look for" - is covered by Knoweldge (Arcana), which isn't something that the average person is going to know.
Finally, you repeatedly said "Priest" instead of "Cleric", which is because in Golarion they nearly always refer to "priests" and not clerics.
Who says alchemists need bombs or a knife? Beastmorph is a thing... and vivisectionist is a go to for mutagen alchemists.
As for the vanish. Your not limiting anything. Its a ninja, a rogue with a ninja trick, a stygian slayer, a bard, a magus, a warlock vigilante, a zealot fey vigilante, it could have HiPS, a arcanist, a wizard, a sorcerer... It can really be damn near anything. Vanish is a pretty common spell...
And also, you seem to be falling on tired tropes. Who says an alchemist isnt in medium armor wielding a greatsword? And the guy using magic and a sword. Not necessarily a magus... the blade adept arcanist is very similair, same with the Eldritch scrapper sorcerer...
Heck, the ONLY thing i cn think.of as a semi dead give away is the mystic theurge.. and ypu still dont know what combination of classes he is...
Vivisectionists have easily qualify under the "stab a guy in the liver" category. Beastmorphs have bombs.
And again you're ignoring the limitation of my original post. So let's throw out everyone I already said doesn't qualify.
Rogue, Ninja, Vigilante, Slayer, Magus.
Is it spell-like? If yes -> No spellcasting.
If no... is it arcane? If yes -> Wizard, Sorcerer or Witch.
If no... is it divine? If yes -> Cleric, Druid, Oracle or Shaman.
Does the caster have a familiar? If no -> Remove Witch, Wizard and Shaman from the list.
If yes, reduce the list to those classes plus maybe Sorcerer and maybe druid.
etc
etc.
Is anyone with little to no knowledge/experience with magic going to be able to tell the difference between a wizard, an arcanist, and a sorcerer, though? Is it even common knowledge that there is a difference? Sure, a holy symbol marks someone as a servant of a deity, but that doesn't necessarily narrow their class down all that much.
Razmiran False Priest laughs at your assumptions...
Is anyone with little to no knowledge/experience with magic going to be able to tell the difference between a wizard, an arcanist, and a sorcerer, though? Is it even common knowledge that there is a difference? Sure, a holy symbol marks someone as a servant of a deity, but that doesn't necessarily narrow their class down all that much.Better question. In a world with Bards, Clerics, Druids, Paladins, Rangers, Sorcerers, Wizards, Alchemists, Inquisitors, Magus, Oracle, Summoner, Witches, Arcanists, Bloodragers, Hunters, Investigators, Shamans, Skalds and Warpriests. Who has been exposed to so little magic that they don't know the the broader designations for spellcasting?
Who has been exposed to so much magic that they can tell the differences between them? They're all spellcasters and they all wield power I don't understand and can't tell apart - unless I've spent a lot of time studying Knowledge (Arcana).
Who says alchemists need bombs or a knife? Beastmorph is a thing... and vivisectionist is a go to for mutagen alchemists.
As for the vanish. Your not limiting anything. Its a ninja, a rogue with a ninja trick, a stygian slayer, a bard, a magus, a warlock vigilante, a zealot fey vigilante, it could have HiPS, a arcanist, a wizard, a sorcerer... It can really be damn near anything. Vanish is a pretty common spell...
And also, you seem to be falling on tired tropes. Who says an alchemist isnt in medium armor wielding a greatsword? And the guy using magic and a sword. Not necessarily a magus... the blade adept arcanist is very similair, same with the Eldritch scrapper sorcerer...
Heck, the ONLY thing i cn think.of as a semi dead give away is the mystic theurge.. and ypu still dont know what combination of classes he is...
Vivisectionists have easily qualify under the "stab a guy in the liver" category. Beastmorphs have bombs.
And again you're ignoring the limitation of my original post. So let's throw out everyone I already said doesn't qualify.
Rogue, Ninja, Vigilante, Slayer, Magus.Is it spell-like? If yes -> No spellcasting.
If no... is it arcane? If yes -> Wizard, Sorcerer or Witch.
If no... is it divine? If yes -> Cleric, Druid, Oracle or Shaman.Does the caster have a familiar? If no -> Remove Witch, Wizard and Shaman from the list.
If yes, reduce the list to those classes plus maybe Sorcerer and maybe druid.etc
etc.
The random person on the street can't tell any of these differences and frankly wouldn't care. Classes are an abstraction. They're not an in-game, real world thing.
Who says alchemists need bombs or a knife? Beastmorph is a thing... and vivisectionist is a go to for mutagen alchemists.
As for the vanish. Your not limiting anything. Its a ninja, a rogue with a ninja trick, a stygian slayer, a bard, a magus, a warlock vigilante, a zealot fey vigilante, it could have HiPS, a arcanist, a wizard, a sorcerer... It can really be damn near anything. Vanish is a pretty common spell...
And also, you seem to be falling on tired tropes. Who says an alchemist isnt in medium armor wielding a greatsword? And the guy using magic and a sword. Not necessarily a magus... the blade adept arcanist is very similair, same with the Eldritch scrapper sorcerer...
Heck, the ONLY thing i cn think.of as a semi dead give away is the mystic theurge.. and ypu still dont know what combination of classes he is...
Vivisectionists have easily qualify under the "stab a guy in the liver" category. Beastmorphs have bombs.
And again you're ignoring the limitation of my original post. So let's throw out everyone I already said doesn't qualify.
Rogue, Ninja, Vigilante, Slayer, Magus.Is it spell-like? If yes -> No spellcasting.
If no... is it arcane? If yes -> Wizard, Sorcerer or Witch.
If no... is it divine? If yes -> Cleric, Druid, Oracle or Shaman.Does the caster have a familiar? If no -> Remove Witch, Wizard and Shaman from the list.
If yes, reduce the list to those classes plus maybe Sorcerer and maybe druid.etc
etc.
Vivisectionist and beastmorph stack. And not to many mutagenics tend to use bombs unless against things like swarms.
Why should we remove the classes? All you saw was a vanish ability. You saw him move acrobaticy (help establish he is a dex guy) then vanish.
And familair is a poor way to determine. There are easy ways to hide your familair, and not everything HAS a familair and things that dont NORMALLY have a familoar CAN have a.familair. Tattooed sorcerer or EH Arcane are easy examples.
Your assumptions are pretty weak and depend on people playing OotS... for instance, your assumptions would be WAY off with my Fetchling Shadow Sorcerer. The thing played more like a bard shadow dancer than anything..