What other Hybrid classes would you like to see?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

351 to 400 of 628 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>

With variant rules to just select extra feats instead of some class features (which should include armor proficiencies) I will be happy enough. I often dip in monk/brawler/fighter for the extra feats for my NPC.


Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I've been toying with a paladin/gunslinger hybrid class... think "The Lone Ranger."


Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:
Goth Guru wrote:

I'm about to add disguise. Here's a clue, doppelgangers can choose another class besides identity thief. Also MPD can be a special feat.

Back on topic, would a combination alterationist wizard/ rogue be a Master of Disguise?

Alterationist(*)? Do you mean Transmuter? This would work. But since Disguise is a Charisma-based skill (anyone know of a trait that changes it to Intelligence-based?), you might want to consider Sorcerer/Ninja instead.

(*)Shadows of 1st Edition?

Clever Wordplay lets you take a Charisma-based skill and make it Intelligence-based.

So I could make that a first level class ability. Nice.

I wanted my Master of disguise to have class focus, but now I see I just need to give them their own spell list.


That's weird that Clever Wordplay lets you make Disguise an Intelligence-based skill, since what you say it just one aspect of maintaining a disguise, but upon rereading it, Rules As Written, this really seems to be the case.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Does anyone else wish instead of having tons of super specific traits, they had fewer more general traits?

For example, instead of having traits like Hunter (pick Stealth or Survival, you get a +1 on the selected skill checks and the selected skill is always a class skill for you) or Low Down Dirty Deceiving Deceiver (pick Bluff or Disguise, you get a +1 on the selected skill checks and the selected skill is always a class skill for you), they had a trait like Skilled (Pick a skill. You get a +1 on the selected skill checks and the selected skill is always a class skill for you) or Cross Training (Select 1 skill, you can use a different ability score of your choice when using that skill's standard ability score).


^Not a bad idea if you didn't want to tie the traits to specific flavor text.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I'm a big proponent of ignoring flavor text in traits. I see traits as a useful tuning knob to get your character to start off slightly more in line with your concept. Since character concepts are way more varied than the flavor text of traits suggests, it makes more sense to keep the mechanics and ignore things like "You were beaten up a lot as a kid" which dictate your backstory rather than supporting it.


^This is not all wrong, but you do run the risk of just making everything have a bland flavor that way -- not guaranteed to happen, but a risk nevertheless.


Hybrid of Superhero/Person:

A class that can learn from what they see others doing.

hoho:

Primary Ability: ~
Class Reqs: Int 4+
Class Skills: Bluff, Perception
Class W&A Proficiency: Club, Mace, Crossbow.

Class Abilities:
Not a Vegetable(Not meaning to insult any Treants or Awakened Plants here): Cut physical reqs & penalties for non-proficiency in 1/2.
Steal Proficiency: DWISOTT
Steal Feat: DWISOTT
Steal Skill: DWISOTT
Steal Mundane Class Ability: DWISOTT
Oh and "Hey I Was Using That! Give It Back!:" Maintain ClassReq Progression.
Survive BBEG: Spend 25gp to go on holiday.

Given that PC's learn how to be better wizards, clerics, barbarians, rogues & members of classes they've never even heard of before all by killing goblins and mindless undead, it stands to reason that Mohammad Smith can too.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Has anyone mentioned Fighter/Witch? I realize the Hexcrafter Magus is sort of in that vein, but I'm talking more about a spell-less warrior with hexes. Or maybe a very limited list of Witch spells.

I'd also like to see a Fighter/Summoner hybrid which focuses on raising disposable undead companions. This would really scratch my Death Knight itch.


This may have been mentioned before (my headache is too bad to go back and read 8 pages of entries) but what about a sorcerer/monk hybrid or wizard/monk hybrid?


DungeonmasterCal wrote:
This may have been mentioned before (my headache is too bad to go back and read 8 pages of entries) but what about a sorcerer/monk hybrid or wizard/monk hybrid?

How about the Esoteric from Occult Adventures?


This one has probably been said already, but my personal hybrid class request is:

Cleric/Rogue.

It's a really common multi-class, particularly for clerics of Calistria. It would be nice to do that without losing caster levels.

Oracle/Rogue would be even better, but that's probably just me (because I freakin love the Oracle class).


JiCi wrote:
DungeonmasterCal wrote:
This may have been mentioned before (my headache is too bad to go back and read 8 pages of entries) but what about a sorcerer/monk hybrid or wizard/monk hybrid?
How about the Esoteric from Occult Adventures?

That's pretty close to what I was thinking, actually. I never finished reading OA. Guess I need to get around to that. Thanks!


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Zelgadas Greyward wrote:

This one has probably been said already, but my personal hybrid class request is:

Cleric/Rogue.

It's a really common multi-class, particularly for clerics of Calistria. It would be nice to do that without losing caster levels.

Oracle/Rogue would be even better, but that's probably just me (because I freakin love the Oracle class).

Sanctified slayer inquisitor?


Gunslinger/sorcerer!

I've had this idea bouncing around in my head for a while now, and even have a name for it (Blackpowder Adept) but I have no idea how I would make it remotely balanced. So far I just have the general idea for the class. A Blackpowder Adept has a mystical connection to gunpowder, firearms and explosives. They can innately use magic to improve, alter, and repair gunpowder based weapons, and use gunpowder to augment other attacks such as causing a warhammer or fist to hit with the force of a gunshot.


WatersLethe wrote:
Has anyone mentioned Fighter/Witch? I realize the Hexcrafter Magus is sort of in that vein, but I'm talking more about a spell-less warrior with hexes.

You want to make a hybrid with a full caster that doesn't have spells? Seriously? The bloodrager was already stretching the hybrid concept! If you only want a single class feature, there is not the slightest reason to make it a whole class instead of an archetype.

With spells, it's basically a Hexcrafter. The witch's spell list is focused on offensive stuff and probably the worst spells list you could have on a gish. I also don't really see the Fighter connection.
How about a Bloodrager archetype that get's hexes instead of a bloodline?

Zelgadas Greyward wrote:

This one has probably been said already, but my personal hybrid class request is:

Cleric/Rogue.

It's a really common multi-class, particularly for clerics of Calistria. It would be nice to do that without losing caster levels.

What do you want from a rogue? More skill ranks? That's archetype stuff. Trap Finding/Disable Device? That's trait stuff. Sneak Attack? That would be more fitting for a Warpriest archetype (It would work nicely with Darkness or Trickery blessing!).


Hybrid and Archetype have a lot of overlap on my venn diagram.


Full BaB Fighter (or "Paladin") x Cleric Hybrid, maybe with casting more similar to the Adept than the Bloodrager, Paladin or Ranger, maybe with Domain(s) Spells and (Warpriest like) Blessings.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

MidsouthGuy wrote:

Gunslinger/sorcerer!

I've had this idea bouncing around in my head for a while now, and even have a name for it (Blackpowder Adept) but I have no idea how I would make it remotely balanced. So far I just have the general idea for the class. A Blackpowder Adept has a mystical connection to gunpowder, firearms and explosives. They can innately use magic to improve, alter, and repair gunpowder based weapons, and use gunpowder to augment other attacks such as causing a warhammer or fist to hit with the force of a gunshot.

The Powder Mage trilogy is a series of epic/flintlock fantasy novels written by American author Brian McClellan.

Powder Mages use magic to sense and ignite powder, alter the trajectory of bullets, and even consume gunpowder to rage and heal.


Dragonchess Player wrote:
Sanctified slayer inquisitor?

Except that's an Inquisitor, not a Cleric/Rogue. Inquisitors have a very unique flavor all their own.

Derklord wrote:
What do you want from a rogue? Sneak Attack?

What do I want? Paizo are the ones who keep creating Cleric/Rogue NPCs in their adventures - particularly in temples of Calistria. I was just saying it would be nice to have a hybrid to avoid unnecessary multiclassing.

But, since you bring it up, Sneak Attack is pretty sweet, yeah.

Of course, as you point out, that could also be done with an archetype. Maybe an archetype that trades out channel energy for a sneak attack progression (maybe at every 3rd level or something?).

Either way is fine.

Derklord wrote:
That would be more fitting for a Warpriest archetype (It would work nicely with Darkness or Trickery blessing!).

Except that Warpriest is basically the opposite of the flavor I'm going for here. Calistria. Satinder Morne, cleric of calistria 5, rogue 1, from adventure 4 of Kingmaker is the specific example of this trope that I'm thinking of. She is not even close to being a warpriest.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I once made a rogue//cleric "divine trickster" PrC that advanced and combined channel energy and sneak attacks.

Something that combined domains and rogue talents (revelations?) would be neat, too.


Derklord wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
Has anyone mentioned Fighter/Witch? I realize the Hexcrafter Magus is sort of in that vein, but I'm talking more about a spell-less warrior with hexes.

You want to make a hybrid with a full caster that doesn't have spells? Seriously? The bloodrager was already stretching the hybrid concept! If you only want a single class feature, there is not the slightest reason to make it a whole class instead of an archetype.

With spells, it's basically a Hexcrafter. The witch's spell list is focused on offensive stuff and probably the worst spells list you could have on a gish. I also don't really see the Fighter connection.
How about a Bloodrager archetype that get's hexes instead of a bloodline?

I did mention a wish for a Hexrager archetype a while back. You wouldn't necessarily want to trade out Bloodline -- instead trade out Uncanny Dodge(*) for a Hex and trade out Bloodline Feats for more Hexes (at level 10 also Major Hexes, and at level 18 also Grand Hexes), and trade out Blood Sanctuary and Eschew Materials for augmenting your spell list with all spells having the [Curse] descriptor (they still count against your spells known).

(*)Improved Uncanny Dodge is left in without Uncanny Dodge, as I have seen in 1 other archetype of some other class that I can't remember. This would let you also take the Metamagic Rager archetype, which you probably want so that you can use Persistent Spell and eventually Heighten Spell (and for Ill Omen, also Quicken Spell) to make your [Curse] spells stick. If Improved Uncanny Dodge without Uncanny Dodge after trading out Uncanny Dodge is considered overpowered, then have Improved Uncanny Dodge degrade to Uncanny Dodge, but add text that says "this still counts as Improved Uncanny Dodge for the purpose of other Bloodrager archetypes that replace Improved Uncanny Dodge".

Derklord wrote:
Zelgadas Greyward wrote:

This one has probably been said already, but my personal hybrid class request is:

Cleric/Rogue.

It's a really common multi-class, particularly for clerics of Calistria. It would be nice to do that without losing caster levels.

What do you want from a rogue? More skill ranks? That's archetype stuff. Trap Finding/Disable Device? That's trait stuff. Sneak Attack? That would be more fitting for a Warpriest archetype (It would work nicely with Darkness or Trickery blessing!).

Trading out Channel Energy for full progression Sneak Attack would probably be fair, given how Vivisectionist Alchemist trades out Bombs for full progression Sneak Attack and is thereby nice (er, I mean MEAN) but not overpowered. Might also want to tweak the class skill list a bit (and really need more skill ranks per level, but that's equally true for vanilla Cleric) -- maybe remove Medium Armor and Shield proficiency to pay for this, while also adding Rogue Weapon Proficiency. This would be a very fitting Cleric archetype for Norgorber.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Zelgadas Greyward wrote:
Dragonchess Player wrote:
Sanctified slayer inquisitor?
Except that's an Inquisitor, not a Cleric/Rogue. Inquisitors have a very unique flavor all their own.

An inquisitor is already roughly a cleric/rogue hybrid, occupying similar design space as the bard* (a rogue/sorcerer or rogue/wizard hybrid). The sanctified slayer archetype makes it even closer by trading out the inquisitor's judgements for Studied Target, Sneak Attack (1d6 at 4th, +1d6 every 3rd level after), and rogue/slayer talents.

As to why cleric/rogue multiclass NPCs are still used: The NPC is intended to be primarily one class with a small splash of the second (mostly cleric with +1d6 Sneak Attack like Satinder Morne's cleric 5/rogue 1 to provide better PC party support as a healer, etc.) and not a "true hybrid;" the same reason people still make barbarian/sorcerers instead of bloodragers, fighter/wizard/eldritch knights instead of magi, etc.

*- the 3.x/Pathfinder version is based on the 2nd Ed AD&D bard (mage/thief) and not the 1st Ed AD&D bard (fighter/thief/druid)


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Trading out Channel Energy for full progression Sneak Attack would probably be fair, given how Vivisectionist Alchemist trades out Bombs for full progression Sneak Attack and is thereby nice (er, I mean MEAN) but not overpowered. Might also want to tweak the class skill list a bit (and really need more skill ranks per level, but that's equally true for vanilla Cleric) -- maybe remove Medium Armor and Shield proficiency to pay for this, while also adding Rogue Weapon Proficiency. This would be a very fitting Cleric archetype for Norgorber.

Or better yet, let the Channel Energy feature work interchangably with Sneak Attack.

For example, the class could have the ability to take 2 uses of Channel Energy to apply Sneak Attack to the next attack they make, the extra damage taking the form of Positive/Negative Energy (based on how they channel, with a saving throw for half damage), reducing to 1 use if the enemy is already flat-footed/flanked by the class (but only treating the extra damage as positive/negative, with no saving throw).

Of course, there would be a clause that says "Only Sneak Attack Dice granted from [class name] levels apply to this ability," so you can't have level dipping cheese.


UnArcaneElection wrote:
Trading out Channel Energy for full progression Sneak Attack would probably be fair, given how Vivisectionist Alchemist trades out Bombs for full progression Sneak Attack and is thereby nice (er, I mean MEAN) but not overpowered. Might also want to tweak the class skill list a bit (and really need more skill ranks per level, but that's equally true for vanilla Cleric) -- maybe remove Medium Armor and Shield proficiency to pay for this, while also adding Rogue Weapon Proficiency. This would be a very fitting Cleric archetype for Norgorber.

See? This guy right here is actually doing what this thread is supposed to be doing - talking about how new, currently unsupported combinations could create flavorful characters that match a given deity. Norgorber, Calistria, and several others PCS deities could benefit from a hybrid class (or archetype, that's fine too, I'll take what I can get).


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Yes, but when asking for a "new" hybrid, requesters need to articulate what specific combination of abilities they want that can't be realized with an existing class/archetype*. Otherwise, the design is already done and asking for effectively redundant versions of the same character class is not useful.

What's the "deal-breaker" between a +3/4 BAB, 6th-level spells, cleric/rogue that trades out channel energy for Sneak Attack vs. the inquisitor that trades out judgements for Studied Target/Sneak Attack (mechanically)? The spell list? Two domains vs. one? Domain spells?

*- For example, "a shifter class" is not useful; "a combat-capable shifter class with versatility between creature types (metamorph alchemist is limited to humanoids and monstrous humanoids) that is not nature based (wild shape) or reliant on spells (Transmutation/Shapeshift school wizard 5/fighter 1/eldritch knight)" is useful


Zelgadas Greyward wrote:
What do I want? Paizo are the ones who keep creating Cleric/Rogue NPCs in their adventures - particularly in temples of Calistria. I was just saying it would be nice to have a hybrid to avoid unnecessary multiclassing.

So you want an NPC class? Otherwise, what stupid NPCs Paizo may put in APs is irrelevant. PC classes are for players first.

Zelgadas Greyward wrote:
Except that Warpriest is basically the opposite of the flavor I'm going for here.

So you do not want a character who "blend[s] divine magic with martial skill"? You sure you want to make a hybrid with a martial class then? Also, if you're only interested in flavor and not at all in mechanics, you need neither a hybrid class nor a (new) archetype. You can play a Claric as a rogue without having any mechanical part from the Rogue.

Satinder Morne seems to be a pure cleric with a wasted level. The tactics section of her stat block doesn't mention attacking or using weapons at all, rather she uses Inflict spells. "confidence, bravado, and charm in all she does" doesn't sound even remotely rogueish, either.

Sorry, but "specific example of this trope that I'm thinking of" is excactly how you don't start designing a class.

Zelgadas Greyward wrote:
See? This guy right here is actually doing what this thread is supposed to be doing

No, he isn't, actually. He's talking about an archetype, while this thread is supposed to be about hybrid classes.

You don't seem to understand what makes a class.
If you can't think of multiple different flavors, it's not suited for a class. If you can't think of multiple different (mechanical) directions, it's not suited for a class. If you can't think of multiple different archetypes for it, it's not suited for a class. If you can't think of unique new class features that blend the two classes in a way that couldn't be (elegantly) done before, it's not suited for a hybrid class.
An archetype for a specific diety would be fine. A prestige class for a specific diety would be fine (cf. Paths of the Righteous). A full class? Not!


UnArcaneElection wrote:
I did mention a wish for a Hexrager archetype a while back.

I remembered that someone did (but was too lazy to look it up). It's where I got the inspiration from in the first place.

My idea was to basically replace the Sorcerer portion of the Bloodrager with Witch. Patron spells (the first four) instead of bloodline spells, hexes instead of bloodline powers, and something instead of bloodline feats*. Probably leave the spellcasting as it is, though.

*) To once again pick up your idea, maybe a fixed list like Spell Focus [Curse]+Greater, Spell Penetration+Greater and the regular stuff like Imp.Init to go with the Curse spells thing (note: only Witch curse spells!).

UnArcaneElection wrote:
Trading out Channel Energy for full progression Sneak Attack would probably be fair

I'd prefer a warpriest archetype. Rogue Weapon and Armor Proficiency plus deity's weapon, Sneak Attack instead of the healing from Fervor, Evasion instead of Channel Energy. Maybe Weapon Finesse instead of sacred weapon damage for balance reasons.


Dragonchess Player wrote:

Yes, but when asking for a "new" hybrid, requesters need to articulate what specific combination of abilities they want that can't be realized with an existing class/archetype*. Otherwise, the design is already done and asking for effectively redundant versions of the same character class is not useful.

What's the "deal-breaker" between a +3/4 BAB, 6th-level spells, cleric/rogue that trades out channel energy for Sneak Attack vs. the inquisitor that trades out judgements for Studied Target/Sneak Attack (mechanically)? The spell list? Two domains vs. one? Domain spells?

*- For example, "a shifter class" is not useful; "a combat-capable shifter class with versatility between creature types (metamorph alchemist is limited to humanoids and monstrous humanoids) that is not nature based (wild shape) or reliant on spells (Transmutation/Shapeshift school wizard 5/fighter 1/eldritch knight)" is useful

+1 to all that.

Derklord wrote:
Zelgadas Greyward wrote:
What do I want? Paizo are the ones who keep creating Cleric/Rogue NPCs in their adventures - particularly in temples of Calistria. I was just saying it would be nice to have a hybrid to avoid unnecessary multiclassing.
So you want an NPC class? Otherwise, what stupid NPCs Paizo may put in APs is irrelevant. PC classes are for players first.

No, he/she wants an Hybrid class to avoid/limit multiclassing.


Derklord wrote:
Zelgadas Greyward wrote:
What do I want? Paizo are the ones who keep creating Cleric/Rogue NPCs in their adventures - particularly in temples of Calistria. I was just saying it would be nice to have a hybrid to avoid unnecessary multiclassing.

So you want an NPC class? Otherwise, what stupid NPCs Paizo may put in APs is irrelevant. PC classes are for players first.

{. . .}

When faced with a party that optimizes heavily, some GMs might appreciate tools for optimizing NPCs . . . .


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me, an artificer composed of Alchemist/Wizard.

The alchemist kinda tries to do it, the wizard kinda tries to do it, but neither of them really pull of a real artificer. Now it doesn't have to be like 3.5 and to to really try to would be madness incarnate.

Rather you could house a number of things with it.

Class Archetypes could focus on different items that are created (With obviously nothing for potion, cause that would just be a straight up alchemist.)

So like the core class would be about making any and all magic items and doing a general enhancement on said magic items. Like the Artificer could pick up Item Mastery feats as an artificer discovery, a few of the alchemist discoveries and a few of those special wizard feats (Like the wand-like staff feat).

Additional discovers could also lead to mundane enhancements for gear, new ways to use some mundane or magical gear Possibly with a few that are focused on specific items.

Archetypes could include..

Gizmologist - A Techbased support class for the technology guide/starfinder. Has a tighter spell selection than that of the standard Artificer and gives up its magic item creation stuff for gizmos that cast "spells" but as ex abilities. Like Jump or Shield being something like Jump Boots or Shield bracelet

Wand Master - Pretty much simply as is on tin. A character that gives up the rest of the item creation stuff, but gains better use of wands.

Scroll Master - Like the Skald archetype for bard, The scroll master expands on the wizard archetype, enhancing the ability to make and use scrolls, and the whole scroll combat stuff the archetype was trying to do.

Ioun Savant - Focused particularly on the use of Ioun Stones, allowing them to do new and unusual things like actually use them to defend or attack.

Prestige Mage - Less magical, more showmanship, the Prestige Mage builds devices similar to the Gizmologist, still being semi-magicy in nature.

Cogsmith - Keeper of time, specializes around more time based magics such as slow and haste. Spell list changes up a bit here as well.

War Machinist - Golem crafter that creates various kinds of robotic servants. Can 'cast' summon spells to summon animals and such.


Derklord wrote:
Zelgadas Greyward wrote:
What do I want? Paizo are the ones who keep creating Cleric/Rogue NPCs in their adventures - particularly in temples of Calistria. I was just saying it would be nice to have a hybrid to avoid unnecessary multiclassing.

So you want an NPC class? Otherwise, what stupid NPCs Paizo may put in APs is irrelevant. PC classes are for players first.

Zelgadas Greyward wrote:
Except that Warpriest is basically the opposite of the flavor I'm going for here.

So you do not want a character who "blend[s] divine magic with martial skill"? You sure you want to make a hybrid with a martial class then? Also, if you're only interested in flavor and not at all in mechanics, you need neither a hybrid class nor a (new) archetype. You can play a Claric as a rogue without having any mechanical part from the Rogue.

Satinder Morne seems to be a pure cleric with a wasted level. The tactics section of her stat block doesn't mention attacking or using weapons at all, rather she uses Inflict spells. "confidence, bravado, and charm in all she does" doesn't sound even remotely rogueish, either.

Sorry, but "specific example of this trope that I'm thinking of" is excactly how you don't start designing a class.

Zelgadas Greyward wrote:
See? This guy right here is actually doing what this thread is supposed to be doing
No, he isn't, actually. He's talking about an archetype, while this thread is supposed to be about hybrid classes.

Once again, lots of overlap. A hybrid can be an archetype of 2 or more classes.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Darche Schneider wrote:

For me, an artificer composed of Alchemist/Wizard.

The alchemist kinda tries to do it, the wizard kinda tries to do it, but neither of them really pull of a real artificer. Now it doesn't have to be like 3.5 and to to really try to would be madness incarnate.

Over in the Suggestions/House Rules/Homebrew subforum I outlined a couple of possible approaches:

Dragonchess Player wrote:

1) Make it an archetype or alternate class version of the alchemist (probably an alternate class, to change the "spell" list), changing extracts ("potions") to "infusing" other items (making them one-shot command word items, effectively), switching out bombs for something like the magus arcane pool to enhance weapons, replacing mutagen with a feature to grant an enhancement bonus to ability scores, giving them Craft Wondrous Item instead of Brew Potion as a bonus feat, etc.

2) Use the occultist class as the basis, but the occultist attunes the implements (in a simple ritual that costs 10 gp) instead of requiring that they be "of some historical value or of personal significance."

The alchemist approach (with the Infusion discovery to hand out items ot other party members) is probably closer in concept to the 3.5 artificer, while the occultist approach is more personal and provides a bit more flexibility in use of "spell" slots. Either way, they should probably be a +3/4 BAB class with 6 levels of "spells."

Both also prevent the "multiple chained effects with a single action" abuse of a craft reserve (i.e., a 5 charge magic missile item that can release all 5 charges at once).


Guy St-Amant wrote:
No, he/she wants an Hybrid class to avoid/limit multiclassing.

To prevent multiclassing done by Paizo, purely for NPCs, apparently. You really think a new hybrid class will prevent Paizo from designing sub-par NPCs? The only example we've been given, Satinder Morne, has no mechanical reasons to dip Rogue, nor does there seem to be any flavor reason. Seriously, it's like they already had the picture and tried to justify her wearing a bunch of knifes.

The basic idea is also extremly faulty - Paizo are still using cRogues instead of unRogues, possibly exclusively. Paizo writers already have access to better stuff, they choose to use crappy, outdated options. We can presume that if a Cleric/Rogue hybrid class existed, Paizo would still put C/R multiclass NPCs in their APs etc.!

UnArcaneElection wrote:
When faced with a party that optimizes heavily, some GMs might appreciate tools for optimizing NPCs . . . .

True, but completely missing the point. GMs already have the choice not to make Cleric/Rogue multiclass NPCs. An archetype, instead of a hybrid class, would be just as suited for optimization.

Goth Guru wrote:
Once again, lots of overlap. A hybrid can be an archetype of 2 or more classes.

Read the bolded part in post 379, please. Seriously, I'm not making stuff up to antagonize the people in this thread, I'm only advocating Paizo's own guidelines!

Advanced Class Guide pg. 240:

Class: Classes are vital to the game. Progressing from level 1 to 20, each class is designed to give a player a complete experience. Each one has a strong concept and rules niche separating it from the others in the game. In essence, this “flavor,” in terms of its ideas and mechanics, allows it to interact with the game in a way that no other class does.
Archetype: An archetype is a close relative of, and builds itself off of, one of the existing classes, modifying a few of its rules and shifting its concept a bit to make for a new way to play. (...) An archetype uses most of the rules and background of its parent class (so you don’t have to repeat the same information), while changing a few details and mechanics to make it play a bit differently.
(...)
Design: (...) If the class you want to design is very close in concept to an existing class, with just a few variations, you might want to investigate creating it as an archetype instead (...).


I think there's also the issue that if we start replacing ubiquitous Cleric/Rogues in APs with a Clerogue class in the next hardcover, that's yet another thing that a GM running that AP will have to look up on the SRD or buy another hardcover to understand how it works.

Whereas a Cleric 5/Rogue 3 is something anybody who is familiar with the CRB can figure out.

I'm not sure that "Roguish Clerics" are the sort of thing that's sufficiently well-defined beyond "A cleric who moonlights to various degrees with malfeasance". From a player character perspective, it seems like "Gritty Cleric, has tons of skills, more combat acumen and less spellcasting" is really the Inquisitor's job anyway.


This may seem odd at first, but I'd like to see another class that is a hybrid of fighter / wizard. The Magus is themed as a fighter who augments their attacks with magic, it is very offensive heavy (hammer). This proposed class, perhaps called the Eldrich Knight (although there's already a fighter archetype of the same name) would focus on a fighter focusing magic to augment their defenses (anvil).

D10 hit die, 2 (maybe 4, but they are int based spell casters) skills per level, good saves fort, will, full BAB (full since the magus gets offensive boosts from their spells)

Weapon proficiencies: simple, martial
Armor proficiencies: light, medium, Lv 6 heavy and shields (changed since they'd get advanced armor training at 7)

spells: from a dedicated spell list focusing on defensive spells of the illusion and transmutation school (sorc/wiz), perhaps add a few control spells and offensive boosts from those schools as well, such as shadow trap and enlarge person. 6th level casting int based

At first level can cast spells in light or medium armor, at 6th gain ability to cast in heavy armor and with shields.

Lv 4 a fervor (warpriest) like ability to cast swift action buffs on himself. I chose a higher level since the sorc/wiz list is generally considered stronger than the cleric list and comparing when bloodragers get the ability to cast while blood raging.

full Armor training with a note that they can get advanced armor training options.

Bonus feats as a warpriest

Spell book and maybe familiar (the fighter archetype has one)

Archetypes:
one that gives the magus arcane pool for more limited armor selection (or other trade)

increased spell list with reduced armor selection

one with a sacred armor (warpriest) equivalent, perhaps no bonus feats and other trades.

Necromancer focused option with trades


Sample spell list (Eldrich Knight) with abjuration, illusion and transmutation WIP as an example

L1: Alarm, Endure Elements, shield, Protect (alignment), Shadow trap, enlarge person, mage armro ?, Expeditious retreat, feathrer fall, long arm, magic weapon

L2: protection from arrows, protection (allignment) communal, resist energy, shadow anchor, blur, air walk, spider climb, glide, Bull's str, bear's endurance, angelic aspect: lesser, badger's ferocity, blood armor

Perhaps take out the bonus feats (and ability to qualify for fighter feats) to keep full BAB, would it be too strong to have both?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Colour me a little confused here, Derklord (and a couple of others), but given you're not the OP, why are you trying to police what people are suggesting?

When it ain't your thread, you don't get to (aggressively) set the parameters for discussion.


I think the thing is, if someone can suggest a currently existing class or achetype that fills the same niche/concept as a suggested hybrid (or perhaps a potential archetype for an existing class), it probably does not need to be a hybrid class. I've learned about a few archetypes I was previously unaware of via this class (though I wish the 4-level INT based caster fighter archetype was better.)

Like the Sanctified Slayer does legitimately seem to be a good way to play a "six level divine caster with a lot of skills and sneak attack" which is probably what a Cleric/Rogue hybrid would be. The Cleric is a tough thing to hybridize since it honestly does not have many class features to trade away or put in another class.

I mean, if it comes down to it "reflavoring an archetype" is a practical solution that all of us are capable of, but "designing a class" is a lot more work if you want to do it well.


A Wewather Witch Druid/Witch hybrid.


dysartes wrote:

Colour me a little confused here, Derklord (and a couple of others), but given you're not the OP, why are you trying to police what people are suggesting?

When it ain't your thread, you don't get to (aggressively) set the parameters for discussion.

Yeah it seems a little bizarre to me that some of the people in this thread seem so... angry that some people want classes that they don't.


Swoosh, a lot of people only see life as a zero-sum game. If you get something, that means I don't. Not a happy way to be, but very common.


Daw wrote:
Swoosh, a lot of people only see life as a zero-sum game. If you get something, that means I don't. Not a happy way to be, but very common.

Well, this is practically zero sum in the sense that if Paizo were to do another set of hybridized classes, there probably wouldn't be significantly more than the 10 that were in the ACG.

So any hypothetical hybrid class that makes it in that book edges out whichever hybrid class that was first on the chopping block. Whichever your least favorite class from the ACG is (I am personally not fond of the Arcanist), it kept a potentially better hybrid out of that book.


tbd, when the topic is about x, it's annoying seeing people repeatedly talk about y instead.


I can't resist, Milo, Sorry :)

You fail to see the inherent connections between x and y, and that a discussion of how y relates to x is invaluable towards our understanding of x, furthermore .........


dysartes wrote:

Colour me a little confused here, Derklord (and a couple of others), but given you're not the OP, why are you trying to police what people are suggesting?

When it ain't your thread, you don't get to (aggressively) set the parameters for discussion.

What he's trying to say is that you don't always need a hybrid class to combine features from two classes into a single class.

He even cited several rules that say that very same thing, and in that light, I agree with him; especially if this is serving as (what I can presume is) a suggestion thread for Paizo to look over in terms of generating ideas for content regarding class creation.

In other words, it's an objective waste of Paizo's design space (relative to books and PDFs and such) to create X when you can create Y archetype that has all of the relevant benefits of X, and thereby saving the design space meant for X for something more different and interesting than what Y archetype can already accomplish.

All Derklord did is point out that potential complication. That's not "policing suggestions." You can say you want a Cleric/Rogue hybrid all you want, all he's saying is that what a Cleric/Rogue "hybrid" can do, can be accomplished with an archetype, and for the most part, he's right. Unless you're implementing new mechanics that neither class can emulate (see my suggestion for combining Channel Energy and Sneak Attack effects), it isn't exactly worthwhile to treat it as a true Hybrid class.

And, if you haven't noticed, archetypes, when they were originally designed well before these hybrid classes existed, served the purpose of "hybridizing" classes, or implementing new features that the original class didn't possess. So of course you're going to run into the Hybrid Class V.S. Archetype conundrum, because both subjects were created in relation to a similar dynamic of altering/changing existing features/classes.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like to see some 9 level casting hybrids that have some delayed spellcasting to balance it out, especially front-loaded features.

For example, gaining new spell levels at levels 1, 4, 7, 10, 12, 14, 16, 18, and 20. Cantrips at level 1, too, naturally.

I would also like to see a spontaneous/prepared hybrid class, like the arcanist, but for divine casters, like a cleric//druid.


When considering hybrid classes it would be helpful IMO to compare them to existing options. For the Eldrich Knight the examples I can think of are, on the arcane side: Bloodrager, perhaps synthesist summoner. Divine: Paladin, warpriest. Perhaps there are other classes that it should be compared to?

Bloodrager: EK has better armor eventually, but doesn't start with shield proficiency. EK has stonger spell casting. Bloodrage is a very strong offensive buff, probably leading most bloodragers to be more hammer than anvil, but it's the closest I could think of a arcane anvil withought considering a fighter/wizard/EK (maybe a diffent name for the hybrid class is in order. :P) In short I'm pretty sure that between fast movement, bloodline, (Improved) Uncanny dodge, DR and other benifits the reduced spell casting is OK. Some of the EK abilities should also be considered though, amror training is at least as good as Imp and uncanny dodge. The bonus feats still leave the EK behind on offense IMO. Charisma vs int as a casting stat may be a mild benefit of the EK over the bloodrager, but that is probably debatable. This could be a very important class comparison to make, that I'll consider more at a later time.

Compared to a paladin:
The EK has worse armor proficiency starting out, but changes at level 6 where it is the same. The paladin class has smite evil (powerful offensive and defensive boost), lay on hands and many defensive immunities that I believe make up for a weaker spell casting ability. The bonus feats a EK gets is not going to bring it ahead of a paladin offensively even with the EK having full BAB. The paladin will most likely have fewer skills, as it is a charisma based caster.

Warpriest: Has slower BAB, lower hit die (but can fervor to swift heal), has the same spell casting type (but divine, perhaps worse depending on a finalized EK spell list). Like the Paladin will probably have fewer skills since wisdom based casting. The warpriest has swift action buffing, with many offensive boosts, thus the slower BAB. The EK also has some offensive boosting spells, potentially, but if the list is made properly wont be as strong. Same bonus feat progression. Warpriest gets free weapon focus at lv 1, some dieties provide exotic weapon proficiencies. The warpriest has 2 blessings, channel energy (I'm not sure how big a boon this is), sacred weapon (another offense booster, further why not full BAB), Sacred Armor. All in all, I would imagine that the EK compares well enough IMO.

A class should also be evaluated on how it interacts with multi-classing with other classes and prestige classes. Are there any imbalanced options for the EK (hybrid fighter/wizard) that is apparent to anyone? Investigator could be worth considering, but it's probably not overly strong. Most of the big abilities come in later, making it a bad dip, but having a dip to increase the offense (like from barbarian) could become very strong. Barbarian would prevent the spellcasting, which would help balance that out.

351 to 400 of 628 << first < prev | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What other Hybrid classes would you like to see? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.