[PF] Advanced Class Guide Announced!

[HylianKnight]

Apparently it was first announced during Gen Con, but I completely missed it until just now and figured others might have too.

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lf8m?Advanced-Class-Guide

Thoughts?

[Psyren]

Bloodrager is an interesting concept and one I have always wanted to see realized. If Hunter is a magicless Ranger with full companion advancement and some supernatural abilities that would be very cool. Similarly, Slayer as the companionless Ranger with a damage mechanic would be neat. Warpriest seems mostly a way to shuffle the Paladin away somewhere though. Swashbuckler I'm not too interested in.

What will the others be I wonder? A Rogue/Wizard hybrid would be quite nice if they can pull off Beguiler 2.0. And Rogue/Clerics have yet to be really done right by anyone. A Fighter/Druid that focuses on the shapeshifty beatdown rather than the animal companion and spells would be nice too.

[Greenish]

I wouldn't mind a Magus/Paladin (Sorcadin!), and yeah, Bloodrager sounds like potentially interesting.

Though I'm left wondering why PF even has Prestige Classes if they intend to fill every niche and combo with base classes.

[Bhaakon]

Though I'm left wondering why PF even has Prestige Classes if they intend to fill every niche and combo with base classes.


To sell more books.

Not that I particularly mind, as long as they're not doubling up the same abilities exactly.

[Psyren]

Though I'm left wondering why PF even has Prestige Classes if they intend to fill every niche and combo with base classes.

The way I see it:

PrCs (particularly theurges in this context) are designed for concepts that are capable of higher top-end power from the component classes - For example, an EK, AT and Rage Prophet can hit 8ths/9ths.

"Hybrid classes" are for that theurge feel from 1st-level, as well as synergistic abilities, but lack the raw power of a theurge's higher ceiling. For example, a Magus has a better blend of casting and melee than an Eldritch Knight, but tops out at weaker spells.

Note that this model does allow them to selectively poach powerful spells to discount for the hybrid. For instance, a Magus gets Walk Through Space at a discounted level compared to an EK.

[IronFist]

I'm less than thrilled by these 5 classes. All of it could pretty much be done with archetypes, specially the Hunter and Slayer (hello, Guide!).
Still, I think something great come out of it. If Slayer gets a reasonable chassis, full bab and full sneak attack, you can be sure I'll be playing the heck out of it, for example.

[Greenish]

I'm actually cautiously optimistic about the Swashbuckler. Grit is a (somewhat) limited resource, and when it comes to giving cool abilities to players, that's where the designers usually look at. "Oh, he can only do it enough times a day to basically make no difference to at will power, surely the effect can be decent!"

[Edit]: Of course, I base most of my hopes on DSP's Path of War. :smalltongue:

[Dusk Eclipse]

Color me cautiously optimistic, while I like some things in PF there are several which I dislike, but oh well only time will tell if I do end converting to PF (convincing my group on the other hand; might be a tad more difficult).

[Greenish]

Color me cautiously optimistic, while I like some things in PF there are several which I dislike, but oh well only time will tell if I do end converting to PF (convincing my group on the other hand; might be a tad more difficult).Well, if you have a stable group, getting the right mix of 3.5/PF would probably work better than a straight conversion.

[Ultimate_Coffee]

Looks cool!
I have always liked the idea of multiclassing, but I find that in Pathfinder, doing so genrally kinda sucks... You miss out on some really cool abilities of both classes and never get the awesome lvl 20 abilities.
Most of the time cross classes don't synergise well anyways...
Magus is probably my favorite class in Pathfinder now, and more cross-classy base classes is just awesom in my opinion... As long as they don't upset the balance too much...

[Dusk Eclipse]

Probably, I guess I could ask my DM to change my character for a PF one (heck maybe even the stalker playtest!), we just started a campaign so I don't think it would be unreasonable.

[Hytheter]

Combining classes kinda seems like a semi-boring and perhaps lazy way to create new classes...

That said, some of them do seem interesting. Bloodrager has an unusual premise, and Swashbuckler could be cool. Maybe, unlike the 3.5 Swashbuckler, it will actually be proficient with the goddamn buckler (and also be useful).

Sadly, Slayer doesn't really sound like what I'd want out of a Ranger/Rogue hybrid based on the description. And Warpriest sounds an awful lot like a Paladin with a new name.

[Zubrowka74]

...and never get the awesome lvl 20 abilities.

Unless you're playing well into the epic levels, the capstone abilities wont see much play.

[Keneth]

Not really sure what to make of this. Seems like a book of watered down gestalt classes. Hopefully they won't go breaking existing mechanics like they did with Summoners, and they'll include plenty of fun new options instead.

[Larkas]

Color me cautiously optimistic as well, if nothing else because I love what they did with the Magus. The concepts are solid, and the results can be too.

Even the Warpriest has potential: there are a few areas where Cleric and Paladin don't overlap. They can make a spell-less class that can self-buff and channel energy (some overlap here, granted), or something more related to domain powers. But, eh, they could've come up with a more original concept, if nothing else.

[Psyren]

I'm less than thrilled by these 5 classes. All of it could pretty much be done with archetypes, specially the Hunter and Slayer (hello, Guide!).
Still, I think something great come out of it. If Slayer gets a reasonable chassis, full bab and full sneak attack, you can be sure I'll be playing the heck out of it, for example.

I disagree on the archetype front, Magus was different enough that making it a Fighter or Wizard archetype wouldn't have been nearly as effective. By making it an entire class they were free not only to really flesh out the excellent Spell Combat mechanic, they were even able to tweak the chassis enough to create spinoff archetypes of its own. Given the success of the Magus and the lessons learned there, I'm confident that they can apply that to the other hybrids.



Sadly, Slayer doesn't really sound like what I'd want out of a Ranger/Rogue hybrid based on the description. And Warpriest sounds an awful lot like a Paladin with a new name.

Slayer sounds like it will be merging Stealth, Favored Enemy and Precision Damage of some kind into a very bursty situational mechanic. I could definitely see a niche for it, and there are plenty of players who'd want to sacrifice their spells and animal companion for a more focused approach like that.

While I agree that Warpriest has the potential to step on the Paladin's toes, I can see a niche for it as well - a divine bruiser that lacks the Code-based baggage and defensive/protective nature of its cousin. The Paladin would still have uniqueness in the form of Smite, Divine Grace and LoH/Mercies, while the Warpriest can simply eschew all of that in favor of smashing face with more powerful magical buffs on, and doing so better than most clerics at low levels. It would also lack the detective/tracker flavor of its cousin the Inquisitor.


Unless you're playing well into the epic levels, the capstone abilities wont see much play.

One idea I thought might be cool was if, during a climactic/cinematic boss battle of some kind, the party received a divine blessing that grants them access to their class' capstone for the duration of the fight. I'd have the Magus using spell combat without provoking, the Bard one-shotting an important foe with his Deadly Performance, the Bard Mighty Raging, the Wilder Perfect Surging etc while I pour in waves of monsters. It would essentially be a nova, "kill these guys or else!" moment to finish off the campaign.

[Fax Celestis]

Wonder if they're going to include an Archetype Builder the way they made a Race Builder in the ARG.

My 2gp says "Yes, but it'll suck".

[Axinian]

Why are they doing a Cleric/Fighter combo? That's just a Paladin flavor-wise, only probably better because it gets more casting.

Really want Blood-Rager though. It just better get 9th level spells still.

[HylianKnight]

Wonder if they're going to include an Archetype Builder the way they made a Race Builder in the ARG.

"The final chapter in this book will give you a peek inside the design process for classes and archetypes, giving you plenty of tips and guides to build your own! Since class design is more art than science, this won't be a system (like in the Advanced Race Guide), but rather a chapter giving you advice on how the process works."

So the answer to your question is... mostly.


Why are they doing a Cleric/Fighter combo? That's just a Paladin flavor-wise, only probably better because it gets more casting.


Not necessarily. I see the flavor more along the lines of the standard Frontline Fighting Cleric from 3.5 that became a lot less effective in the change over to Pathfinder. Even if there's overlap with the Paladin flavor, I can imagine there's more than enough mechanical differences so they won't be stepping on each other's toes in that respect at least.

[Larkas]

Wonder if they're going to include an Archetype Builder the way they made a Race Builder in the ARG.

My 2gp says "Yes, but it'll suck".


Last but not least, the final chapter in this book will give you a peek inside the design process for classes and archetypes, giving you plenty of tips and guides to build your own! Since class design is more art than science, this won't be a system (like in the Advanced Race Guide), but rather a chapter giving you advice on how the process works.

So, there you have it.

EDIT: Shoo, swordsages, shoo!

[Dusk Eclipse]

Why are they doing a Cleric/Fighter combo? That's just a Paladin flavor-wise, only probably better because it gets more casting.

Really want Blood-Rager though. It just better get 9th level spells still.

The bloodrager is most likely to be like a magus with 6th-level spells, but some at discounted level, hopefully they get full BAB, but I kinda doubt that.

[Fax Celestis]

"The final chapter in this book will give you a peek inside the design process for classes and archetypes, giving you plenty of tips and guides to build your own! Since class design is more art than science, this won't be a system (like in the Advanced Race Guide), but rather a chapter giving you advice on how the process works."

I hope it's better than the advice given in the DMG.

[HylianKnight]

Though I'm left wondering why PF even has Prestige Classes if they intend to fill every niche and combo with base classes.

Honestly this is why there's always been one instance of a Pathfinder splatbook adding Prestige Classes (the CRB doesn't really count because it's whole point was adapting everything found in 3.5 Core wit a few changes here and there).

3rd PrCs were created using one of 5 goals:

To allow for specialization by the core classes, particularly involving resonant tropes or archetypes - Implemented with the Archetype subclasses
To allow for two class combinations (see: Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, Rage Prophet) - Now done better through Hybrid classes (if the Magus is anything to go by). 3.5 eventually did the same pretty lazily through hybrid feats.
To give players the experience or feel of leveling up in regards to their class (see: The Archmage from 3.5) - Pathfinder's design philosophy has eliminated this as a raison d'être. If a player doesn't already get that from taking a Wizard to 20 then something is wrong.
To represent specific world-building flavor, or represent entrance into a particular group or organization. - Fully supported by Paizo, but since it's inherently world-specific they only show up in the Pathfinder Campaign Setting books, and not in the Rules Line.
To fulfill a niche or role that doesn't fit neatly into an existing class (see: Assassin, Master Spy, Shadow Dancer). - The only way now likely to show up in any more Pathfinder splat books, but even then it's tough because it's usually a judgment call to say whether or not it deserves to be a PrC or a new base class.


So yeah, I know a lot of people like to talk about how they wish there were more Prestige Classes in Pathfinder, but it's not suprising given that Paizo intentionally set out to figure out all the uses and appeal of PrCs, and replaced most individual roles when they figured out a better implementations for it.

[Dr. Yes]

I'm all for adding new classes and features as long as they aren't "like [x], but better". Knowing only what's in that press release, though, it looks to me like the Hunter, Warpriest, and Shaman are all re-treading well worn ground. Druids and Rangers, with all their various and sundry archetypes, have the whole "magical nature warrior" niche pretty well covered; I'm not sure how much more granularity they think that concept family needs. Warpriest, as several other posters have mentioned, sounds suspiciously like a Paladin or Inquisitor archetype. The Shaman might or might not bring some interesting new mechanics to the table, but conceptually the Witch is already well situated as the "arcane/divine hybrid caster with spooky flavor".

[Craft (Cheese)]

I'm game: For me, more of Paizo's base classes have been winners (Magus, Inquisitor) than losers (Cavalier, Gunslinger). Let's just hope they look more like the former and less like the latter!

If nothing else the guide to making your own classes should be good for comedy value, if it's anything at all like the custom spell guidelines in Ultimate Magic.

[Novawurmson]

I adore new classes. I'm so pumped..

Probably more pumped for Path of War (as I'm not hearing anything about new subsystems, just shufflings of old subsystems - these sound more like big archetypes than completely new classes), but still excited.

[Hunter Noventa]

I'm certainly intrigued, lord knows I've nearly destroyed campaigns with half-baked prestige classes. I think some of the advice for building archetypes and classes will be very interesting, and the new classes overall will be nice as well.

[Raven777]

Heard IRL gossip about an Arcanist class which would be a Sorcerer/Wizard hybrid. It would prepare a selection of spells for the day like a wizard but be able to cast any combination of them up to a maximum daily allotment like a Sorcerer. Anybody else heard anything about that, or did my friends make stuff up?

[Fax Celestis]

Heard IRL gossip about an Arcanist class which would be a Sorcerer/Wizard hybrid. It would prepare a selection of spells for the day like a wizard but be able to cast any combination of them up to a maximum daily allotment like a Sorcerer. Anybody else heard anything about that, or did my friends make stuff up?

Sounds like an arcane Spirit Shaman.

[Keneth]

Sounds more like a poor man's vanilla sorcerer (literally, since you need a lot of gold to gain more spells on a sorcerer). :smallbiggrin:

[Psyren]

Sounds like an arcane Spirit Shaman.

The Vitalist has a similar mechanic as well.

[Craft (Cheese)]

And Rogue/Clerics have yet to be really done right by anyone.

Inquisitors work pretty well at this if you refluff away the "CONFESS, HERETIC!!" aspect and instead play the class as James Bond, but with divine spells instead of fancy gadgets. With a homebrewed archetype to smooth over the rough spots for this it works even better.

My personal wishes:

A Barbarian/Druid, with the druid half focusing on nature-y spells instead of wild shape. All I want out of melee characters is a big hulky dude who can cause an earthquake by punching the ground and can start a hurricane by roaring. Since Paizo apparently hates Tome of Battle this is probably our best chance for getting that as an official option.

A Cleric/Wizard hybrid that actually manages to be neither completely crippled compared to its parent classes (straight mystic theurge) or superior to both (Archivist with a lenient DM).

[Psyren]

Inquisitors are more "Ranger/Cleric" to me, or maybe "Ranger/Paladin," with a dash of Bard for seasoning. What's more, they're utterly without the scoundrel aspect I'd expect of a more roguish hybrid. I think there's still a niche there for the servants of a trickster god, or a devout tomb-raider type. Perhaps with an archivist-like mechanic for their spells, to better explain why they turned to underhandedness in the first place.

[IronFist]

I disagree on the archetype front, Magus was different enough that making it a Fighter or Wizard archetype wouldn't have been nearly as effective. By making it an entire class they were free not only to really flesh out the excellent Spell Combat mechanic, they were even able to tweak the chassis enough to create spinoff archetypes of its own. Given the success of the Magus and the lessons learned there, I'm confident that they can apply that to the other hybrids.
Let's hope so, then!

[Craft (Cheese)]

Inquisitors are more "Ranger/Cleric" to me, or maybe "Ranger/Paladin," with a dash of Bard for seasoning. What's more, they're utterly without the scoundrel aspect I'd expect of a more roguish hybrid. I think there's still a niche there for the servants of a trickster god, or a devout tomb-raider type. Perhaps with an archivist-like mechanic for their spells, to better explain why they turned to underhandedness in the first place.

I disagree: They've got the skill points, most of the class skills (just missing disable device, easily fixable with a trait), and most of the important spells a casting rogue-ish character would need. They can be a perfectly acceptable Rogue/Cleric answer to the Magus with just a few tweaks at most, and they do the job admirably out of the box.

All they're missing is Sneak Attack. If that's really important, I'd fix this with an archetype that gives them Sneak Attack at Level - 2 progression (1 fewer die than an equivalent-level rogue) replacing Bane/Greater Bane, and lets them select Ninja Tricks/Rogue Talents in place of bonus teamwork feats. Maybe replace Discern Lies with trapfinding/trapsense too. Combine with Heretic or Infiltrator for extra goodies.



That's not to say you *couldn't* do something really cool with a new base class that's an alternate interpretation of the idea. Like, maybe something that runs with the Ur-Priest's "I trick/steal my way into divine powers" except with actual new mechanics instead of just a refluffing of the Cleric's spell preparation mechanic.

[Hytheter]

That's not to say you *couldn't* do something really cool with a new base class that's an alternate interpretation of the idea. Like, maybe something that runs with the Ur-Priest's "I trick/steal my way into divine powers" except with actual new mechanics instead of just a refluffing of the Cleric's spell preparation mechanic.

That sounds like it could be a cool Int based divine caster who uses knowledge to exploit loopholes that grant divine power. Reduced progression, but with sneak attack and/or skill monkeying to reflect an overall tricky nature.

Although that would probably look a lot like an Int based inquisitor...

[Larkas]

Eh, Ranger is already a mix of Rogue/Druid/Fighter to me, so...

[Psyren]

I disagree: They've got the skill points, most of the class skills (just missing disable device, easily fixable with a trait), and most of the important spells a casting rogue-ish character would need.

If by "roguish character" you mean "skillmonkey," I'll point out that Rangers are skillmonkeys too, and Inquisitors actually have equal skill points to them (not to Rogues.) Inquisitors also get Track and are missing a number of rogue skills - no Acrobatics, no Appraise, no Escape Artist, no Disable Device, no Sleight of Hand, no UMD etc. But they have in common with Rangers things like Ride, Survival, Heal, and Knowledge (nature.)

Inquisitors are designed to wander the land hunting down their quarry and ferreting out heresy, being generally disliked so they have to survive alone and often out in the wilderness due to being granted lodging only grudgingly. They are more likely to flush out a parson-turned-cultist than flush a deer out from behind a tree, but many of the principles are still the same. They are not designed for the kind of generally unfocused skulduggery that actual rogues are capable of, like cutting purses, second-story work or breaking out of prison.

Sneak Attack is the last thing I expect such a class to get. Aside from the Ninja and a couple of PrCs, Paizo seems to want to keep that as the rogue's "thing."




That's not to say you *couldn't* do something really cool with a new base class that's an alternate interpretation of the idea. Like, maybe something that runs with the Ur-Priest's "I trick/steal my way into divine powers" except with actual new mechanics instead of just a refluffing of the Cleric's spell preparation mechanic.

I could see their magic being a combination of Archivist and Ur-Priest. They believe the gods are the biggest con of all creation, and that divine power can be accessed independently them - but to get it, they have to follow divine formulae the way wizards and magi need to track arcane. And they would fill a very different thematic niche than the Inquisitor - opposing almost every church instead of being in their secret employ.

[Craft (Cheese)]

If by "roguish character" you mean "skillmonkey," I'll point out that Rangers are skillmonkeys too, and Inquisitors actually have equal skill points to them (not to Rogues.) Inquisitors also get Track and are missing a number of rogue skills - no Acrobatics, no Appraise, no Escape Artist, no Disable Device, no Sleight of Hand, no UMD etc. But they have in common with Rangers things like Ride, Survival, Heal, and Knowledge (nature.)

Inquisitors are designed to wander the land hunting down their quarry and ferreting out heresy, being generally disliked so they have to survive alone and often out in the wilderness due to being granted lodging only grudgingly. They are more likely to flush out a parson-turned-cultist than flush a deer out from behind a tree, but many of the principles are still the same. They are not designed for the kind of generally unfocused skulduggery that actual rogues are capable of, like cutting purses, second-story work or breaking out of prison.

Sneak Attack is the last thing I expect such a class to get. Aside from the Ninja and a couple of PrCs, Paizo seems to want to keep that as the rogue's "thing."

You make good arguments, but I still stand by mine: I've played an Inquisitor as a rogue-like and it worked better than an actual rogue, though that was probably the spellcasting talking. Honestly, I think the problem here is that I think the Ranger and the Rogue are very similar thematically, rather than a genuine disagreement.


I could see their magic being a combination of Archivist and Ur-Priest. They believe the gods are the biggest con of all creation, and that divine power can be accessed independently them - but to get it, they have to follow divine formulae the way wizards and magi need to track arcane. And they would fill a very different thematic niche than the Inquisitor - opposing almost every church instead of being in their secret employ.

I Can't Believe It's Not Cleric!

[Dusk Eclipse]

You make good arguments, but I still stand by mine: I've played an Inquisitor as a rogue-like and it worked better than an actual rogue, though that was probably the spellcasting talking. Honestly, I think the problem here is that I think the Ranger and the Rogue are very similar thematically, rather than a genuine disagreement.


You can play a barbarian as a wizard too (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=195049):smallbiggrin:

That thread is always relevant

[Blyte]

it looks like they are making more hybrid classes to further discourage multi-classing.

some of these seem like they were just fine as multi-class, archetypes, or PrCs...

IE the barbarian/sorcerer could be an archetype just like the quingong monk.. were they get different spell like abilities available to them that run off rage, with a few more rage powers added in that synergize well with them.

[Novawurmson]

it looks like they are making more hybrid classes to further discourage multi-classing.

some of these seem like they were just fine as multi-class, archetypes, or PrCs...

IE the barbarian/sorcerer could be an archetype just like the quingong monk.. were they get different spell like abilities available to them that run off rage, with a few more rage powers added in that synergize well with them.

On the other hand, it could be a functional Rage Mage. I guess it'll actually turn out similar to the Wilder, come to think of it, especially because the PF Wilder makes a pretty decent melee combatant.

[Turion]

On the other hand, it could be a functional Rage Mage. I guess it'll actually turn out similar to the Wilder, come to think of it, especially because the PF Wilder makes a pretty decent melee combatant.

There is actually a Wilder archetype that gets rage in PsiEx. Something like it can only surge while in a rage or something?

In any case, I'm hopeful. What I'd really like to see is some sort of wizard/rogue (or sorcerer/rogue) hybrid, although the Slayer also looks really interesting. (PLEASE tell me it keeps the spellcasting.)

Still curious why they're bothering with a Warpriest, though. Kinda felt like Oracle/Cleric/Paladin already covered that particular niche to one extent or another.

[Psyren]

There is actually a Wilder archetype that gets rage in PsiEx. Something like it can only surge while in a rage or something?

Yep! (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/psionics-unleashed/classes/wilder#TOC-Raging-Surge) But obviously that is considerably more powerful than a Barbarian or even a Magus so it's understandable if Paizo wants to aim for something a little lower-tier with their version.



Still curious why they're bothering with a Warpriest, though. Kinda felt like Oracle/Cleric/Paladin already covered that particular niche to one extent or another.

I think there's room for it. Paladins and Oracles carry baggage in the form of the Code and Curse respectively that a player may not want on their character, and furthermore both are charismatic where you might want something a bit more gruff. Clerics also tend to be Charismatic due to channel and they take a little while to get going on the melee front, plus they don't have as much synergy between their spells and melee as the Magus does, plus the reduced armor proficiency and only being proficient with the deity's favored weapon - I could go on. There is thematic space for it.

[IronFist]

I really doubt Slayer has any spellcasting ability.

[togapika]

I'm hoping for two things with this book, a Swashbuckler that doesn't make me cry, and a guy who says "screw druid spells, I just wanna turn into stuff and maul people"

[Psyren]

I really doubt Slayer has any spellcasting ability.

Ditto. Much more likely that it focuses on a bonus damage mechanic (likely a fusion of sneak attack and favored enemy), skills and ranger weapons.


I'm hoping for two things with this book, a Swashbuckler that doesn't make me cry, and a guy who says "screw druid spells, I just wanna turn into stuff and maul people"

I really want these too, especially the latter. A spell-less shapeshifter would be positively brilliant.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Ditto. Much more likely that it focuses on a bonus damage mechanic (likely a fusion of sneak attack and favored enemy), skills and ranger weapons.

How about normal sneak attack , but automatic or increased sneak attack damage (while bypassing immunity) when used vs. a Favoured Enemy? That would be really good. And did you mean ranged weapons?




I really want these too, especially the latter. A spell-less shapeshifter would be positively brilliant.
Isn't Wildshape quite weaker in PF? As in not enough to be worth it just by itself.

[Psyren]

How about normal sneak attack , but automatic or increased sneak attack damage (while bypassing immunity) when used vs. a Favoured Enemy? That would be really good. And did you mean ranged weapons?

No I meant Ranger, though I think "ranger combat styles" is what I really intended. i.e. I could see a Slayer choosing between Ranged or Dual-Wielding.




Isn't Wildshape quite weaker in PF? As in not enough to be worth it just by itself.

It gives natural attacks, movement modes, size and AC, that's really all you need to be capable melee. Throw in some skill boosts and you practically have a Totemist. If they made it like DSP's Metamorph and gave it a scaling selection of supernatural abilities it could borrow from later forms that would be gravy.

[Dusk Eclipse]

You did say Ranger weapons. but I get what you mean and yes combat style a la ranger could be really awesome.

Then I misread the entry on Beast Shape and it's derivatives (I missed the natural weapon part), still I would vastly prefer the second option... perhaps something similar to the Astral Construct's menu options or maybe like a Synthetist Ediolon (would also help if they cleared some of the rules interactions)? That way you could customize your forms.

[Fax Celestis]

It gives natural attacks, movement modes, size and AC, that's really all you need to be capable melee. Throw in some skill boosts and you practically have a Totemist. If they made it like DSP's Metamorph and gave it a scaling selection of supernatural abilities it could borrow from later forms that would be gravy.

Or like the Shapeshift PHB-II variant for Wildshape.

[Psyren]

You did say Ranger weapons.

What do you think the "combat style" refers to? That's right, archery, dual-wielding etc. Weapons.



Then I misread the entry on Beast Shape and it's derivatives (I missed the natural weapon part),

It's rolled into the polymorph descriptor. You're also immune to other size-changing effects, can choose to be immune to later polymorphs (including attacks, like Baleful Polymorph), and the +10 to disguise checks wording is there as well. You gain the base speed of the form you assume, which can be good or bad.

[Keneth]

You can choose to be immune to later polymorphs (including attacks, like Baleful Polymorph)

Any polymorph effects on the target are automatically dispelled when a target fails to resist the effects of baleful polymorph, and as long as baleful polymorph remains in effect, the target cannot use other polymorph spells or effects to assume a new form.

So no, you can't just refuse to be polymorphed by baleful polymorph.

[Craft (Cheese)]

So guys (http://www.somnambulant-gamer.com/2013/09/interview-with-erik-mona-of-paizo.html).

Relevant news:

- The hybrid classes will work using rules similar to alternate classes, so you can't level in the hybrid classes and the two base classes at the same time.

- Open playtest starts this month.

[Greenish]

- The hybrid classes will work using rules similar to alternate classes, so you can't level in the hybrid classes and the two base classes at the same time.Eh, you probably wouldn't even want to. But can't alternate classes use the base classes' archetypes? That might yield interesting combos with two base classes.

The mention that the new classes will have their own core mechanic (instead of just mashed class features) and that they're using magus as their yardstick look promising.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Eh, you probably wouldn't even want to. But can't alternate classes use the base classes' archetypes? That might yield interesting combos with two base classes.

Yes, but only if the alternate class shares all of the features that the archetype modifies.

Count how many Fighter/Wizard archetypes work with the Magus.

Now count how many archetypes have been made that work with the alternate classes (Antipaladin, Ninja, Samurai).


Time will tell I suppose, but I still wonder as to the reason behind this design decision: How many Magus builds are there running around dipping Fighter/Wizard to break the game?

Still excited for the Bloodrager and Shaman though, and at least interested in what they might do with the Warpriest.

[Keneth]

Seems like a rather silly rule, especially if all (or the majority of) classes are gonna be T3 or lower. I mean a magus can benefit somewhat from dipping a level or two into fighter or a level into sorcerer, but no amount of dipping is gonna break the game.

[Greenish]

Yes, but only if the alternate class shares all of the features that the archetype modifies.

Count how many Fighter/Wizard archetypes work with the Magus.

Now count how many archetypes have been made that work with the alternate classes (Antipaladin, Ninja, Samurai).Well, there might be some, and stuff like Cavalier/Samurai Orders.


Time will tell I suppose, but I still wonder as to the reason behind this design decision: How many Magus builds are there running around dipping Fighter/Wizard to break the game?Paizo just doesn't like multiclassing, I guess. At least they're not expressing said dislike with multiclassing penalties or the like.

[Craft (Cheese)]

Seems like a rather silly rule, especially if all (or the majority of) classes are gonna be T3 or lower. I mean a magus can benefit somewhat from dipping a level or two into fighter or a level into sorcerer, but no amount of dipping is gonna break the game.

The silly part is that arguably the most broken dip a Magus can take is into Sorcerer for crossblooded shenanigans, and under these rules that would still be allowed!


Paizo just doesn't like multiclassing, I guess. At least they're not expressing said dislike with multiclassing penalties or the like.

I think it's more accurate to say they love the idea of mashing different classes together and getting something unique out of them (or else we wouldn't be seeing these hybrid classes or so many "multiclass" archetypes), they just can't stand the standard multiclassing mechanics.

And, honestly, I mostly can't really blame them. Even with PF's improvements the system still doesn't do even a tenth of what it was intended to do, a few cool ideas like the Oradin aside. I don't think that's an invitation to go around restricting what little actual good you can get out of multiclassing, though.

[137beth]

Well I can say that my games will definitely allow multiclassing hybrid classes with the classes they are based on.

[JusticeZero]

Well yeah, just look at how much rage people have at complex builds for being overpowered cheese - as they let a Druid 20 in without blinking.

[Raven777]

Well yeah, just look at how much rage people have at complex builds for being overpowered cheese - as they let a Druid 20 in without blinking.

Current party gets a munchkin vibe from me because I plan to dip 2 levels of Ranger on my Paladin, because they see it flags me a bunch of additional useful class skills, even if I do it because it fits exactly the flavor I want the character to have (his God is a God of Hunting, he vowed to track down setlement raiding outlaws in a beleaguered wild frontier region). Go figure.

Ok, sure, I also made sure to wring as much juice out of it by also tagging the Trapper and Falconer archetypes because I can, but still... >.>

Speaking of which, do you know what would be cool? Some kind of Paladin / Ranger or Paladin / Rogue. Not sure if the Inquisitor fills that niche already, though.

[Dusk Eclipse]

There was some discussion on this thread concerning what kind of "hybrid" was the inquisitor, by pure flavor I would say ranger/paladin.

[Psyren]

- The hybrid classes will work using rules similar to alternate classes, so you can't level in the hybrid classes and the two base classes at the same time.

I don't think all 10 of them will be alternate classes like the Ninja. Some will be like the Magus, where you can be a Magus/Fighter if you choose.


Well yeah, just look at how much rage people have at complex builds for being overpowered cheese - as they let a Druid 20 in without blinking.

To be fair, (a) a Druid 20 in PF is much less likely to break your campaign and (b) the point is less that you'll be weaker as that your DM will be able to tell at a glance what you're capable of.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Overall, I'm just kind of nonplussed by the concept. As other have stated, just combining two classes together isn't the most exciting way to make new classes. The Slayer, Hunter, and especially the Swashbuckler don't really interest me.

It just feels creatively boring (A Warpriest!? What an imaginative concept!!) and power-creepy at this point. I expect the latter won't be the case (feats and spells always cause more issues), but that's just how it feels to me from the outset.

[Psyren]

In terms of "power creep" I think the only class they've mentioned that might hit T2/T1 status is the Shaman, and even then it's unlikely to be more powerful than the standard Wizard/Cleric. None of the new classes have been able to breach that particular ceiling.

I'm not interested in the Hunter or Swashbuckler either, but have high hopes for the Bloodrager, Slayer and yes, the Warpriest. I think there's still a niche for the concept that the Inquisitor didn't quite manage to hit.

[Raven777]

Overall, I'm just kind of nonplussed by the concept. As other have stated, just combining two classes together isn't the most exciting way to make new classes. The Slayer, Hunter, and especially the Swashbuckler don't really interest me.

It just feels creatively boring (A Warpriest!? What an imaginative concept!!) and power-creepy at this point. I expect the latter won't be the case (feats and spells always cause more issues), but that's just how it feels to me from the outset.

How would you have perceived these new classes if it never had been explicitely said that they were conceived as "hybrids of current classes"? Say, you open the new book and see a new class called a Swashbuckler with a points based mechanic to fuel special moves with his rapier who also happens to have a sneak attack equivalent and an archetype that mixes guns into his style? Does your mind immediately jump to "Rogue / Gunslinger" hybrid or do you think "that mix of abilities makes for an interesting class concept"?

[Greenish]

How would you have perceived these new classes if it never had been explicitely said that they were conceived as "hybrids of current classes"? Say, you open the new book and see a new class called a Swashbuckler with a points based mechanic to fuel special moves with his rapier who also happens to have a sneak attack equivalent and an archetype that mixes guns into his style? Does your mind immediately jump to "Rogue / Gunslinger" hybrid or do you think "that mix of abilities makes for an interesting class concept"?Swashbuckler is fighter/gunslinger, though, and hopefully doesn't have SA.

[Squirrel_Dude]

How would you have perceived these new classes if it never had been explicitely said that they were conceived as "hybrids of current classes"? Say, you open the new book and see a new class called a Swashbuckler with a points based mechanic to fuel special moves with his rapier who also happens to have a sneak attack equivalent and an archetype that mixes guns into his style? Does your mind immediately jump to "Rogue / Gunslinger" hybrid or do you think "that mix of abilities makes for an interesting class concept"?It would make some classes feel different (especially the Shaman), I'll give you that, but that wouldn't change the lack of creativity. Many of the proposed classes are simply filling a niche that's already been filled, or that I've already been able to do with feat and archetype selection. The Shaman, if you hadn't told me was a witch/oracle combination (why should it be, anyway?) sounds interesting.

The Hunter, Swashbuckler, Warpriest, and Urban Ranger Slayer all just bore me upon first impressions. Their descriptions make me feel like I've already played these classes. The gunslinger already sometimes feels like an alternate fighter class.

I'll reserve my judgement until I see them, but for now their descriptions don't seriously garner my interest.

[MukkTB]

Bloodrager - Meh could be good. For all that I like gishes I've never felt a great need for my spellcaster to rage. Arcane caster + rage is however an open niche as far as I can tell.

Hunter - I thought the Ranger was the Druid / Fighter. So what is it a 3/4 Druid / 1/4 Fighter? Do we really need this? Couldn't we just fill the gap with a few ACFs?

Shaman - Cool. I actually like to play this kind of character. The Oracle was serving just fine but I am interested.

Slayer - I can get behind this. The fluff just feels right. Drop the Druid stuff off the Ranger and make it a bad ass mundane. At least as bad ass as any mundane could be in PF. D3 comes to mind.

Warpriest - My god why? Did the Paladin need to get kicked in the balls again? Look, all you need to do is loosen the Paladin's code of conduct.

Swashbuckler - **** yeah. This could be a lot of fun if they get it right. The flavor is excellent.

[Psyren]

Hunter - I thought the Ranger was the Druid / Fighter. So what is it a 3/4 Druid / 1/4 Fighter? Do we really need this? Couldn't we just fill the gap with a few ACFs?

I'm guessing it is actually Ranger/Fighter, with the Slayer being Ranger/Rogue. I predict full animal companion progression, favored enemy, teamwork feats and perhaps a handful of Ex/Su boons to benefit their partnership, with all the Ranger spellcasting removed.



Warpriest - My god why? Did the Paladin need to get kicked in the balls again? Look, all you need to do is loosen the Paladin's code of conduct.

Why is everyone reacting to the Warpriest this way? The Paladin still has Divine Grace, Smite, Lay on Hands + Mercies, and the intelligent mount to distinguish it. Warpriest is highly unlikely to get any of these. It might not even get Channel Energy, being designed more as holy bruiser than party medic.

[Greenish]

I'm guessing it is actually Ranger/Fighter, with the Slayer being Ranger/Rogue. I predict full animal companion progression, favored enemy, teamwork feats and perhaps a handful of Ex/Su boons to benefit their partnership, with all the Ranger spellcasting removed.No spellcasting, hmm. I do like my Ex/Su classes, but Paizo's best track record is in medium casters (which I also hope the Bloodrager will be).

[Craft (Cheese)]

It would make some classes feel different (especially the Shaman), I'll give you that, but that wouldn't change the lack of creativity. Many of the proposed classes are simply filling a niche that's already been filled, or that I've already been able to do with feat and archetype selection. The Shaman, if you hadn't told me was a witch/oracle combination (why should it be, anyway?) sounds interesting.

The Hunter, Swashbuckler, Warpriest, and Urban Ranger Slayer all just bore me upon first impressions. Their descriptions make me feel like I've already played these classes. The gunslinger already sometimes feels like an alternate fighter class.

I'll reserve my judgement until I see them, but for now their descriptions don't seriously garner my interest.

Well, the thing is they aren't just mash-ups of different classes: Supposedly each class has its own unique mechanics that come attached with them. It all comes down to how these are implemented in practice, but best case scenario each of these classes is like the Magus: Able to stand out and feel unique even in a party alongside a fighter and a wizard. (Unlike an Eldritch Knight which is just a ****tier version of both.)

True they're not going to be as unique mechanically as the Binder, the Truenamer, or Incarnate, but I think these hybrid classes form a real gameplay need.

(Also, I still want my Barbarian/Druid mashup.)


Why is everyone reacting to the Warpriest this way? The Paladin still has Divine Grace, Smite, Lay on Hands + Mercies, and the intelligent mount to distinguish it. Warpriest is highly unlikely to get any of these. It might not even get Channel Energy, being designed more as holy bruiser than party medic.

Because they see "Fighter/Cleric" and immediately think "Wait, Paladin is already a Fighter/Cleric! It's just gonna be a Paladin ripoff!"

I agree that there's sufficient design space for the Warpriest to be a great class... assuming Paizo explores that space and doesn't just give us a Paladin with a better spell list (the fact that they still seem to assume Cleric == Healbot is troubling).

Personally, I'm hoping to see something similar in concept to the Crusader archetype, except make it not strictly inferior to a cleric in every way (seriously, giving up much of your spellcasting for some crappy bonus feats... what?). More Cleric than Fighter, but Tier 3 and with a distinct edge over what a Clericzilla can do.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Well, the thing is they aren't just mash-ups of different classes: Supposedly each class has its own unique mechanics that come attached with them. It all comes down to how these are implemented in practice, but best case scenario each of these classes is like the Magus: Able to stand out and feel unique even in a party alongside a fighter and a wizard. (Unlike an Eldritch Knight which is just a ****tier version of both.)Here's hoping. I do really like the Magus, so I'll be very glad if these new classes end up being similar to that.


True they're not going to be as unique mechanically as the Binder, the Truenamer, or Incarnate, but I think these hybrid classes form a real gameplay need.See, that's where I disagree. I'm not so sure that they all do. Shaman. Probably. Warpriest? Kind of. Blood Rager? Yeah.

I am not as optimistic about the slayer, hunter, or swashbuckler, though. The hunter, if it's a 3/4 caster, seems the most likely to interest me. The slayer just sounds like an Urban/Skirmisher Ranger, but maybe it can have some niche.

Seriously though, I don't know what to do with the swashbuckler.


(Also, I still want my Barbarian/Druid mashup.)There is a PrC for that, but I forget what it's called. I don't remember it being anything special, but it's there.

[Raven777]

On the other hand, I'd give both my arms for core Paizo certified Binder, Dread Necromancer and Warblade equivalents.

[Psyren]

On the other hand, I'd give both my arms for core Paizo certified Binder, Dread Necromancer and Warblade equivalents.

Be careful what you wish for. Paizo noted that they don't actually like the way some of the 3.5 subsystems were done and would make significant alterations if they were to try their own, official take. They mentioned that they were actually glad there were such talented 3rd-party devs out there that were able to handle more faithful translations in their stead.

Though they were speaking about ToB and Psionics when they said that, I've little doubt Incarnum/Binding/Truenaming etc. would fall under that umbrella as well.

If it's a PF Binder you want though, Radiance House's Occultist (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/radiance-house/occultist) does a pretty good job of converting it over.

[Hytheter]

The more I think about the Swashbuckler the cooler I think it could be. Think the gunslinger's grit and deeds, but instead of gunslinging it can be used for swordsmanship, daring stunts and witty repartee. Its the Dashing Swordsmen!

It could be terrible, but it definitely has potential. And it does sort of fill an adventuer archetype not explictly filled by existing classes.

[Craft (Cheese)]

See, that's where I disagree. I'm not so sure that they all do. Shaman. Probably. Warpriest? Kind of. Blood Rager? Yeah.

I am not as optimistic about the slayer, hunter, or swashbuckler, though. The hunter, if it's a 3/4 caster, seems the most likely to interest me. The slayer just sounds like an Urban/Skirmisher Ranger, but maybe it can have some niche.

Seriously though, I don't know what to do with the swashbuckler.

Well, thing is, "I personally have no interest in playing this class" does not mean "This class should not be made and nobody should get to play it." They all but flat-out admit the Swashbuckler is James Jacobs's pet class idea, so it'll make at least one person happy.

[Psyren]

I have no interest in Swashbuckler myself, but even with the classes that currently exist, I find it unlikely I'll get to play every single archetype and PrC that I've every wanted to play in my lifetime. Even if all 10 completely flop, I've got a ton of play left in PF, and I don't think they (all) will.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Well, thing is, "I personally have no interest in playing this class" does not mean "This class should not be made and nobody should get to play it." They all but flat-out admit the Swashbuckler is James Jacobs's pet class idea, so it'll make at least one person happy.To be fair, it's not like I'll have to buy the book to play with the classes.

[JusticeZero]

Why is everyone reacting to the Warpriest this way?
Because that particular concept is hideously oversaturated already.
We pin "Fighter" at one end.
Paladin is a Fighter with a Clerical spin to it.
Warpriest is a hybrid of a Fighter and a Cleric.
Inquisitor is a fighting hybrid Cleric/Fighter combo.
The Cleric itself is a fighting priest.

I mean seriously, how many classes do we really need before we feel confident that we have "Priestly warrior" covered? We already have at least four up there, not counting various PrC's and alternates! The "Cleric" end is armored, capable in combat, and has 3/4 BAB! This is not a large space to work with here!

[Squirrel_Dude]

Because that particular concept is hideously oversaturated already.
We pin "Fighter" at one end.
Paladin is a Fighter with a Clerical spin to it.
Warpriest is a hybrid of a Fighter and a Cleric.
Inquisitor is a fighting hybrid Cleric/Fighter combo.
The Cleric itself is a fighting priest.

I mean seriously, how many classes do we really need before we feel confident that we have "Priestly warrior" covered? We already have at least four up there, not counting various PrC's and alternates! The "Cleric" end is armored, capable in combat, and has 3/4 BAB! This is not a large space to work with here!You're forgetting Oracle with Battle mystery.

[JusticeZero]

Yes of course, you're correct. GMing a campaign where spellcasting doesn't exist full stop skews my awareness of classes sometimes. FIVE. Five classes! The only thing I can see fitting there is an outright Paladin replacement.

[Psyren]

Because that particular concept is hideously oversaturated already.
We pin "Fighter" at one end.
Paladin is a Fighter with a Clerical spin to it.
Warpriest is a hybrid of a Fighter and a Cleric.
Inquisitor is a fighting hybrid Cleric/Fighter combo.
The Cleric itself is a fighting priest.

I don't agree with... well, any of this.

- Paladin carries a lot of thematic baggage/expectations from prior editions that simply can't be stripped away en masse. So for a much simpler "divine warrior," a new class is needed.

- Inquisitor, as has been stated multiple times in this very thread, is Cleric/Ranger, not Cleric/Fighter.

- Clerics can fight, but aren't designed for it specifically. Middling BAB with none of the magus' synergy between their caster half and melee half, no heavy armor proficiency, simple weapons + deity favored etc. There is a lot of thematic space there for something less... general.

When the regular cleric can channel spells through its melee attacks, wear plate without a feat and use martial weapons their deity hasn't signed off on first then I'll consider the Warpriest to be redundant, but for now there is a place for it. And clearly Paizo thought so too or we wouldn't be getting one.

[MukkTB]

Cleric - The most powerful divine warrior off the bat anyway. Its tier 1 and it can wreck things. The 3/4 BAB is a bit of a drawback, but not much. The right build on a Cleric leads to a full out caster that can turn around and impersonate a fighter better than the fighter himself at times. It probably should be a 1/2 BAB clothy as a full caster but that didn't end up happening. The class is totally supported by strong divine magic but it can have a pretty solid martial element.

Inquisitor - 6/9 cleric casting is supplemented by a lot of skills and some nice class abilities. I personally think of it as the Cleric / Rogue, because the non cleric bit has solid skills. Cleric / Ranger is also possible. It may be play style. When I play inquisitor I play down the 'Burn the heritic!' and pump up the 'Willing to get down and dirty.' part. Anyway its a jack of all trades that relies on skill and divine magic. Its not competing directly for the Cleric / Fighter slot.

Paladin - Full BAB and crappy casting. As far as I can tell this is a Fighter with some Cleric mixed in. Full martial glory, a spattering of divine power.

Battle Oracle - This is the spontaneous version of the Cleric. They occupy pretty much the same space but just split on the prepared/spontaneous caster thing like the Wizard and Sorcerer do.


So, what space is there for a Warpriest? If it gets full BAB its stepping all over the Paladin. At 3/4 that's right in line with the Cleric. If Cleric was a 1/2 BAB clothy then this thing would have a clear role as a 3/4 BAB armored character with 6/9 casting. However that is not the case. There is no legitimate way Paizo can combine BAB and casting progression to make a Warpriest that doesn't overlap with or step on the toes of the Cleric and the Paladin. They're going to have to come up with a really unique set of class abilities that sets it apart.

[Squirrel_Dude]

They're going to have to come up with a really unique set of class abilities that sets it apart.I trust them to do this, as they've done it before, but I share the concerns that it's a concept I don't necessarily need a new class to achieve.

[Hruken]

It seems a little early to get up in arms over speculations of these new classes, we only have a tiny bit of info on each.

As for Warpriest, maybe it doesn't get casting? Full BAB, heavy armor, martial weapons, domain powers/channel energy, and some way to blend the domain powers/channel with attacks? I don't think this would step on the toes of most of the other divine characters. Paladin would still be thematically similar, but the Warpriest probably won't have the restrictive code.

Admittedly, I am a little confused about the Hunter, but I will wait to pass judgement. The others seem like they will fill required niches (Swashbuckler!).

[Honest Tiefling]

I have...Mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I really enjoy hybrid classes. The few times I've been able to pull off Arcane Trickster or Mystic Theurge, I played them and had a blast.

And from a role playing perspective, it feels more organic if there are more ways to tweak characters in such a way that not every divine caster has either 4th level spells max, or 9th. It can also add flavor to a god to favor one sort of divine warrior over others. And I too, feel that there is a need for divine warriors that are not LG/CE.

People also disagree on what they like to play. Some like paladins, hate inquisitors, meh on clerics and love druids. More choices isn't bad.

But I'll eat my own shoe if they make Swashbuckler decent. Given that dex-based characters, and the rogue itself have not fared well in Pathfinder I will be very surprised if they made the Swashbuckler decent. And Slayer? Yes, focus on the most fiddly and hard to get right part of the Ranger, and combine it with the power of situational usefulness of the Rogue. Combined they are Captain Circumstantial! Just me, or do the most interesting (And workable) combinations seem to be spellcasters from the list?

And I do not know how others felt about it, but I feel that the Advanced Race guide was a bit...Questionable when it came to building races, so I am not going to really care about the Class Builder, either.

[Craft (Cheese)]

But I'll eat my own shoe if they make Swashbuckler decent. Given that dex-based characters, and the rogue itself have not fared well in Pathfinder I will be very surprised if they made the Swashbuckler decent. And Slayer? Yes, focus on the most fiddly and hard to get right part of the Ranger, and combine it with the power of situational usefulness of the Rogue. Combined they are Captain Circumstantial! Just me, or do the most interesting (And workable) combinations seem to be spellcasters from the list?

Well, look on the bright side: At least they haven't announced any Monk hybrids!

(As for the slayer, here's hoping they go with the Guide (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/ranger/archetypes/paizo---ranger-archetypes/guide)'s Ranger's Focus ability instead of the base Favored Enemy thing.)


And I do not know how others felt about it, but I feel that the Advanced Race guide was a bit...Questionable when it came to building races, so I am not going to really care about the Class Builder, either.

Well, it's not actually a "class builder" like how the race builder was, it's a set of guidelines like the Ultimate Magic custom spell chapter. ...So it still has a good chance of being worse than useless, but time will tell.

As for the race builder, I've used it in a few games with satisfactory results. So long as you stay under 20 RP and don't let players go nuts with Advanced Attribute or SLA purchases, it works reasonably well. It's only when you allow access to Monstrous traits that things really go to ****. The biggest problem is with the SLA traits since they're either stupidly overpriced or stupidly underpriced depending on which spells you pick.

[Keneth]

Well, look on the bright side: At least they haven't announced any Monk hybrids!

"Announced" being the key word here.

Personally, I don't expect much of swashbuckler either. It's very clear from a vast number of cases that the devs have little to no sense of balance for melee classes (they get scared by big numbers), so I imagine it'll turn out rather weak.

[MukkTB]

The Qinggong Monk is halfway decent. If that got to come along for the ride it would not be terrible. I'm not sure what people would want to be hybridizing with their monk though. Anyone out there want a Monk / Something? It feel's like anytime you want to dip monk you do it for 2 levels and then move on to the main event.

[Dusk Eclipse]

Monk and psionics go hand in hand, but I doubt they would do something like that since it was Dreamscarred Press who updated Psionics to PF.

[Larkas]

- The hybrid classes will work using rules similar to alternate classes, so you can't level in the hybrid classes and the two base classes at the same time.

… This is stupid on so many levels… On one hand, I don't see how multiclassing with the base classes would break anything, on the other hand they are supposed to be different classes, so why put an arbitrary limitation to multiclassing? Furthermore, most people won't multiclass anyway. Seriously, the guys at Paizo have some good ideas, but their love of Positivism bothers me greatly. Put it as a guideline if you'd like, but as a hard rule? Ack…

[HylianKnight]

… This is stupid on so many levels… On one hand, I don't see how multiclassing with the base classes would break anything, on the other hand they are supposed to be different classes, so why put an arbitrary limitation to multiclassing? Furthermore, most people won't multiclass anyway. Seriously, the guys at Paizo have some good ideas, but their love of Positivism bothers me greatly. Put it as a guideline if you'd like, but as a hard rule? Ack…

I think this is just a case of having to wait and see what the class mechanics look like. That rule makes perfect since when you look at the Ninja and Samurai classes.

I'm guessing they're going to do it because even as they talk about how each class will have new mechanics, they're definitely going to be using features specific to the individual classes. I would see how it wouldn't make much sense, or even not be compatible within the rules (sans restriction), to do things like multiclass in another class that granted you Weapon Specialization, or Wild Shape, or Rage Powers.

But as always, if we don't like it we can always ignore it. :smallsmile:


it looks like they are making more hybrid classes to further discourage multi-classing.

some of these seem like they were just fine as multi-class, archetypes, or PrCs...

IE the barbarian/sorcerer could be an archetype just like the quingong monk.. were they get different spell like abilities available to them that run off rage, with a few more rage powers added in that synergize well with them.

As someone who loves more character creation options, I'll disagree. One thing that's noticeable when you step back and look at the archetype process is just how restrictive it really is. You can only change a few abilities (with the exemption of things like the Monk, with an absurd number of class features) and the have to be of relative power-level. While I love the way archetypes evolved the alternate class feature concept, they do confine you quite firmly to the core classes.

Just look at something like the Swashbuckler Rogue archetype. A martial weapon, an extra combat feat, and bravery...not exactly the thing that gets the mind racing.

I would much rather see these than what I always thought were somewhat annoying PrC's in 3.5 where the purpose was 'here's you Monk/Paladin class to make the thing viable after you suffer through 6 levels.' Or the supremely useful but still lazily done feats that allowed multi-classing. 'You want to be a Rogue/Scout? Take this onetime feat tax and your done.'

When I multiclass I want to feel like I'm putting together something unique. If you need to give me a auto-include enabler feat to make it even viable, then I'd rather have a cool new class to play with from the start.

[Greenish]

I would see how it wouldn't make much sense, or even not be compatible within the rules (sans restriction), to do things like multiclass in another class that granted you Weapon Specialization, or Wild Shape, or Rage Powers.Well, the simplest would be just to let them stack, like Sneak Attack or Uncanny Dodge.

[Larkas]

Well, the simplest would be just to let them stack, like Sneak Attack or Uncanny Dodge.

Exactly! Stacking is nice! Stacking is good! It can make an otherwise subpar option like multiclassing in PF actually decent!

[Psyren]

As someone who loves more character creation options, I'll disagree. One thing that's noticeable when you step back and look at the archetype process is just how restrictive it really is. You can only change a few abilities (with the exemption of things like the Monk, with an absurd number of class features) and the have to be of relative power-level. While I love the way archetypes evolved the alternate class feature concept, they do confine you quite firmly to the core classes.

I'm not sure I totally agree with this. Even classes with very few class features got a lot of differentiation from archetypes. For example, the Witch has exactly three class features (Patron, familiar and hexes), yet they ended up with a ton of cool and flavorful archetypes all the same.



I would much rather see these than what I always thought were somewhat annoying PrC's in 3.5 where the purpose was 'here's you Monk/Paladin class to make the thing viable after you suffer through 6 levels.' Or the supremely useless but still lazily done feats that allowed multi-classing. 'You want to be a Rogue/Scout? Take this onetime feat tax and your done.'

When I multiclass I want to feel like I'm putting together something unique. If you need to give me a auto-include enabler feat to make it even viable, then I'd rather have a cool new class to play with from the start.

This I agree with 100%.

[Beowulf DW]

I'm welcoming these hybrid classes, because if I want to play a raging caster, or a magic swordsman, I don't want to have to wait 6-7 levels for it all to come together. I want to play it from level 1, darn it! Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate multiclassing and prestige classes. I certainly think that they have their places, especially as an option in long-running games for a player to adjust a character to compensate for perceived weaknesses in the group dynamic. For example, in a recent Kingmaker game, I started steering my fighter toward wizard and Eldritch Knight when I realized we had no arcane casters. Worked out pretty well, too.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I'm not sure I totally agree with this. Even classes with very few class features got a lot of differentiation from archetypes. For example, the Witch has exactly three class features (Patron, familiar and hexes), yet they ended up with a ton of cool and flavorful archetypes all the same.

I'd point to the Alchemist as the flagship example for what archetypes can do, actually. You can run an Alchemist-only campaign and have a party just as diverse as a group of entirely different classes.

(To be fair, the hexes and patron are like, 19 different class features.)

[Larkas]

Anyone out there want a Monk / Something?

Certainly. Monk/Cleric sounds pretty neat and flavorful, as does Monk/Sorcerer.

[Da'Shain]

So ... is Bloodrager pretty much a class for those who want to play the Dragonborn from Skyrim? Because I heartily approve. The "brute force in everything" archetype feels fairly underrepresented in Pathfinder to me, and if they can make it near as viable as the Magus it'll be a success.

I feel like the Swashbuckler will need major work to ... well, work. A mix of two classes that can be pretty good at one thing but generally only one thing? I don't know, it seems like the Swashbuckler archetype could be filled by Duelist-type characters, but I suppose if they made it viable from level 1 that'd be a big improvement. And will we finally get a class that actually does add Dex to damage? Pretty please?

I find that most people I play with agree that Favored Enemy is nice if you've got an idea what the campaign will entail to start with, but overall it's too hit or miss to make people really like playing Rangers ... so if the Slayer is basically that taken to the next level, it'll be too sporadically useful in the typical campaign where you fight multiple different types of creatures. I could be wrong, though.

In terms of new mixes I'd like to see, I'd have to say +1 for mixes of monk with ... well, almost anything. Monk/Druid, though, would be pretty great - basically a dedicated Wild-shaping class that uses actual Tiger Style. Monk and Wild Shape are all about mastery of the self, after all; why not make a class that takes this to its extreme with multiple polymorphing abilities and the martial skill to make them effective?

[Palanan]

Originally Posted by Paizo [under Swashbuckler]
For those of you who don't use guns in your campaign, fear not—the base class is not proficient in firearms (although there will certainly be an archetype in the book that fix that).

Just saw this. Apparently "that fix that" needs fixing itself. Is there a rogue/expert hybrid that can make stealth edits?

:smalltongue:

[Squirrel_Dude]

Just saw this. Apparently "that fix that" needs fixing itself. Is there a rogue/expert hybrid that can make stealth edits?

:smalltongue:I don't understand. Before I posted this I sat messing around with words a couple of minutes trying to explain why it didn't make sense, but all I could come up with is this:

If getting an archetype that let's you use guns is all it takes to be advertised as a combination of a class and gunslinger, then isn't the cavalier already one with it's musketeer archetype?

And here's a picture to better express how I feel.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o37cyGp8-wk/US9WTjMlYGI/AAAAAAAAAZ4/0dNScOLlkw8/s1600/jackie-chan-confused.png

[Greenish]

If getting an archetype that let's you use guns is all it takes to be advertised as a combination of a class and gunslinger, then isn't the cavalier already one with it's musketeer archetype?No, no, obviously to be a combo with gunslinger, you need to fuel your class features from a limited point pool. So actually, monk and ninja are gunslinger combinations!

[Tokuhara]

I'm looking forward to the Bloodrager and hope it goes up on the SRD soon so I can play one. Heck, I'd half buy the book for that alone

Speaking of, has any definitive writeups come online for any of these?

[Beowulf DW]

Just saw this. Apparently "that fix that" needs fixing itself. Is there a rogue/expert hybrid that can make stealth edits?

:smalltongue:

Dear Paizo,

Please stop trying to gimp the martial classes. It's not the end of the world if they're actually better at fighting than other classes. That's more or less what they're suppose to do.

[Craft (Cheese)]

I think they're doing that because many DMs are allergic to firearms and don't allow them: This way, you can still play a swashbuckler even in a "no guns" campaign.

[Palanan]

Yoicks. I posted a typo from the Paizo page as a humorous aside, and people are apparently thinking I meant it as a comment on Paizo's entire philosophical approach to base classes?

:smalleek:

[IronFist]

Yoicks. I posted a typo from the Paizo page as a humorous aside, and people are apparently thinking I meant it as a comment on Paizo's entire philosophical approach to base classes?

:smalleek:

It's just the Paizo hate taking over. Happens in every PF thread around page 3.

[Psyren]

Hey, if everyone predicts the worst for these new classes, we may end up pleasantly surprised even if they're average! :smallbiggrin:

[magwaaf]

my thoughts are that i don't wanna wait that long lol

i can't wait to see swashbuckler in all honesty. 3.5 tried then pathfinder gave us an awesome duelist prestige but i wanna see the PF 1-20 swashbuckler.

[magwaaf]

I wouldn't mind a Magus/Paladin (Sorcadin!), and yeah, Bloodrager sounds like potentially interesting.

Though I'm left wondering why PF even has Prestige Classes if they intend to fill every niche and combo with base classes.

to give us everything we want, some of us like the power game of a few levels of 4 classes, some of us like to play 1 and prestige, some of us even like to play a character to 20 in 1 class.

this way we can fill all kinds of roles and it will be awesome.
what sucks is im not hating 5th ed but i want paizo to win

[magwaaf]

I'm game: For me, more of Paizo's base classes have been winners (Magus, Inquisitor) than losers (Cavalier, Gunslinger). Let's just hope they look more like the former and less like the latter!

If nothing else the guide to making your own classes should be good for comedy value, if it's anything at all like the custom spell guidelines in Ultimate Magic.

how do you not like cavalier? i loved my dual revolver wielding gunslinger.

cavaliers are ridiculously awesome. they deal ungodly amounts of damage and can be anywhere on the battlefield in no time. the orders are a great idea and oh yes... DRUID PET MOUNT!!!

i even tried a samurai (renamed knight) and it was sweet being a fighter with more abilities (resolve is just amazing) and a flanking buddy that is a druid pet that you can use as a mount to get around a combat area fast.

[Larkas]

Hey, if everyone predicts the worst for these new classes, we may end up pleasantly surprised even if they're average! :smallbiggrin:

... This is either the most brilliant or the most silly thing I've read/heard all day. A virtual cookie to you, good psyr! :smallbiggrin:

[Squirrel_Dude]

It's just the Paizo hate taking over. Happens in every PF thread around page 3.It's true.

[Psyren]

... This is either the most brilliant or the most silly thing I've read/heard all day. A virtual cookie to you, good psyr! :smallbiggrin:

Cookie! *noms*


It's true.

How does the Swashbuckler needing an archetype to pick up firearms make it worse as a martial class? You could just... use the archetype, after all.

[Squirrel_Dude]

How does the Swashbuckler needing an archetype to pick up firearms make it worse as a martial class? You could just... use the archetype, after all.Oh, I meant the stuff about it jut Paizo hate taking over, and me and others probably overreacting a bit.

[Starbuck_II]

I don't understand. Before I posted this I sat messing around with words a couple of minutes trying to explain why it didn't make sense, but all I could come up with is this:

If getting an archetype that let's you use guns is all it takes to be advertised as a combination of a class and gunslinger, then isn't the cavalier already one with it's musketeer archetype?

And here's a picture to better express how I feel.
http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-o37cyGp8-wk/US9WTjMlYGI/AAAAAAAAAZ4/0dNScOLlkw8/s1600/jackie-chan-confused.png

Wait, you are Jackie Chan? Sweet.


No, no, obviously to be a combo with gunslinger, you need to fuel your class features from a limited point pool. So actually, monk and ninja are gunslinger combinations!

No, gunslinger pools unlike Monk/Ninja can be regenerated without resting.

[Craft (Cheese)]

how do you not like cavalier? i loved my dual revolver wielding gunslinger.

cavaliers are ridiculously awesome. they deal ungodly amounts of damage and can be anywhere on the battlefield in no time. the orders are a great idea and oh yes... DRUID PET MOUNT!!!

i even tried a samurai (renamed knight) and it was sweet being a fighter with more abilities (resolve is just amazing) and a flanking buddy that is a druid pet that you can use as a mount to get around a combat area fast.

Problems with the cavalier:

- The class is based both mechanically and fluff-wise around mounted combat, which is a highly situational sub-system at best, and there are plenty of campaigns where you'll never see a moment where running around on a horsie will be viable. If you're not on a horse then half of your class features don't work (yes, I'm aware there are archetypes that trade away the mounted combat stuff). Of course the DM can adapt and give you lots of battles in open fields so you can take advantage of your class but if a class needs the campaign built around it in order to be viable/fun then that's a major problem with the class's design. It's one thing to have build options for campaign-specific stuff; it's entirely another thing to have a campaign-specific character the DM has to cater to by default. It's the same problem as with Favored Enemy/Favored Terrain.

- Both in flavor and mechanics, the cavalier is a Paladin with all the supernatural elements taken out. Now, this is not an entirely bad idea, there are plenty of players who want to play a Knight In Shining Armor type and don't want the magical baggage. The implementation, however, is awful: They dumped all the Paladin's already sucky supernatural powers (that did get buffed quite a bit in PF I admit) and replaced them with either nothing in most cases or with even worse versions in other cases: It feels like going back and playing the old 3.5 Paladin. The only part of the cavalier that meets the already low bar set by the Paladin is the stick shoved up the arse, because at least the Cavalier chooses what stick they have to shove up there. (Supplements like Faiths of Purity have tinkered around with the idea of mutable Paladin codes based around deity, but they're pure fluff and they're all slight variations of the standard code.)

- The only part of the cavalier I can honestly say I like, the Orders, would have been better implemented with PrCs or, even better, feats.

(Also, I'm somewhat embarrassed to say, I've never actually *read* the Samurai class, let alone played it, so I can't really talk about whether I like it better or worse than the base Cavalier. So yeah.)

Problems with the gunslinger:

- Really, my main problem with the gunslinger is a subset of my problems with the firearms rules as a whole. Historically speaking, guns were actually pathetically inferior to bows: Until the 19th century a trained marksman could both cause more damage, be more accurate, and shoot faster and in more weather conditions than any firearm ever could. Guns were adopted because they were cheap and easy to acquire and very easy to pick up and use. You could be competent with a gun after an afternoon's training if you've never seen one before, but it took decades to get good with a bow. You could win battles by filling conscripts' hands with muskets and dominate through pure numbers. And after new firearm technology was invented it spread and was adopted very rapidly.

So how did they handle guns in Pathfinder? Guns are extremely rare, extremely expensive, actually exist in only one part of the world, and require massive amounts of training and luck to use without killing yourself. Everything in the firearms rules is there to discourage characters from picking up and using guns without sucking down a ****load of feat taxes first, and even then you're usually better off doing something else.

The fundamental problem is when you hear the word "Gunslinger" you think "Oh sweet, I'm gonna play The Man With No Name" but what you actually get is "Dude who only sorta sucks with guns instead of being completely unable to use them."

- My other problem is that deeds... do not work. They suffer from the same Non-Casters Can't Have Nice Things syndrome all the other martial classes do, the designers stack tons of penalties and bull**** and problems onto you through the combat rules, then they give you the ability to spend resources (both build resources and daily resources) to negate some of those penalties and then act like they're doing you a favor. Look, what I want when I hear the name "Gunslinger" is something like Black Rain (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5471518). Can we have Black Rain, Paizo?

[Turion]

No, gunslinger pools unlike Monk/Ninja can be regenerated without resting.

Hungry Ghost monk. Also, from what I've read, the swashbuckler isn't actually using grit; he's using something similar called panache. So, it's a gunslinger hybrid, but without guns, and without true Grit.
In related news, I have decided I shall now refer to grit as John Wayne Ki.

[JusticeZero]

Pitch it to DSP?

We know that historically, guns were used because they were even easier to use than crossbows. However, in system, crossbows are as easy to use as they get, and nobody uses them because of all the feat taxes needed to bring them up from "realistic weapon" to "viable in actual combat involving midlevel characters". Realistic guns would likely be even more rage-inducing.

[Khosan]

The only part of the cavalier I can honestly say I like, the Orders, would have been better implemented with PrCs or, even better, feats.

I think the Tactician part could have been cool. The problem with it is that there aren't really any good teamwork feats, so granting one teamwork feat to the whole party probably doesn't affect half of them and it's barely noticeable for the half it does.

Also, I'm gonna guess there's going to be an Archivist-like class. Essentially a Cleric/Wizard.