[PF] Advanced Class Guide classes now on D20 Pathfinder SRD

[Libertad]

They're called "hybrid classes." (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/hybrid-classes)

So, what do people think of them? I for one really like the Brawler and how it can swap around [Combat] feats.

[Snowbluff]

The problem is that they've been up for a while and that we have 2 threads of this already.

Brawler gets the ability of the type of feats that aren't caster feats, so Paizo designed them to suck.

[Novawurmson]

The problem is that they've been up for a while and that we have 2 threads of this already.

Brawler gets the ability of the type of feats that aren't caster feats, so Paizo designed them to suck.

I'm inclined to say the Brawler is the best designed 3.5 or PF purely mundane class ever (obviously removing things like ToB/PoW). Granted, most of the book isn't near that level of design (the Skald is just a Bard archetype. Bloodrager is just a Barbarian archetype), and the Swashbuckler really just wallowed in the "non-casters can't have nice things" mindset.

[Snowbluff]

Well, yes, if you ignore all of the well designed options, it looks good. :smalltongue:

[Novawurmson]

Well, yes, if you ignore all of the well designed options, it looks good. :smalltongue:

I mean, I obviously love Psionics, ToB/PoW, Binding, etc., but not everyone likes learning a subsystem. The Brawler looks like it can be built and contribute meaningfully to a party in a variety of ways. It encourages system mastery, but doesn't require it to be competent. Besides that, Pummeling Style+Pummeling Charge are the probably best two official PF feats to ever be printed for unarmed builds.

Plus, it's even better with subsystems added. I'll be GMing tonight for a Brawler with the Martial Training line of feats to pick up some Broken Blade maneuvers.

[Snowbluff]

I'd think the flexible feats would make it worse for newer players. :smalltongue:

Besides that, Pummeling Style+Pummeling Charge are the probably best two official PF feats to ever be printed for unarmed builds.


From what I hear, they work with all weapons. So, we can not use unarmed builds and fight with real weapons. Yay.

[Psyren]

I'd think the flexible feats would make it worse for newer players. :smalltongue:

How does this even remotely make sense? You can change something that for most similar characters is locked down/static without begging your DM to incorporate retraining rules or the downtime to use them.

[Shinken]

I'd think the flexible feats would make it worse for newer players. :smalltongue:
Considering the alternative is PoW with hundreds of maneuvers to choose from and extreme book keeping, I don't think your comparison is fair.

[Raven777]

Considering the alternative is PoW with hundreds of maneuvers to choose from and extreme book keeping, I don't think your comparison is fair.

However, I'd posit that every single class in PoW is more interesting than the ones in ACG. But I assume here's not the place to debate 'bout that.

[Shinken]

However, I'd posit that every single class in PoW is more interesting than the ones in ACG. But I assume here's not the place to debate 'bout that.

I like PoW as much as the next guy, but I have no idea how your comment is relevant to the discussion at hand (which is about simplicity).

[The Insanity]

Considering the alternative is PoW with hundreds of maneuvers to choose from and extreme book keeping, I don't think your comparison is fair.
I'm not sure what comparison you are talking about.


How does this even remotely make sense?
New players might have problems with keeping track of what their character is capable of. Having those abilities possibly be different each in-game day just adds to the confusion of a noobie. It's not on the same level as for example a Wizard, but it's still there.

[Snowbluff]

How does this even remotely make sense? You can change something that for most similar characters is locked down/static without begging your DM to incorporate retraining rules or the downtime to use them.
In addition to what those lovely thighs said, the floating feats are atypical to most classes.

I think retraining feats is assumed in PF, as in I don't think it's a variant. Not sure about that sort of thing, though.

Considering the alternative is PoW with hundreds of maneuvers to choose from and extreme book keeping, I don't think your comparison is fair.
True. However, the similiarities to vancian casting in ToB/PoW (which my PF DMs do not allow D: ), may be a more relevant lesson.

[Shinken]

I think retraining feats is assumed in PF, as in I don't think it's a variant. Not sure about that sort of thing, though.
It is assumed indeed. You can even do it during downtime.


True. However, the similiarities to vancian casting in ToB/PoW (which my PF DMs do not allow D: ), may be a more relevant lesson.
Agreed. There are some PoW archetypes that I really wish are changed into a simpler form, though. Crimson Countess, for example, is a logistics nightmare shaped as a class. This is not really the place to discuss this, though.

[Psyren]

New players might have problems with keeping track of what their character is capable of. Having those abilities possibly be different each in-game day just adds to the confusion of a noobie. It's not on the same level as for example a Wizard, but it's still there.

As you yourself just pointed out, there are core classes with much more involved bookkeeping than this. I'm not seeing the issue with giving options, and it's certainly less complicated than bringing on a whole new subsystem.



I think retraining feats is assumed in PF, as in I don't think it's a variant. Not sure about that sort of thing, though.


Even when it is assumed, you still need downtime to do it in, and a trainer who has the feat you want. Neither of these are guaranteed in many campaigns. And that is where you start to enter handwave territory.

[Oazard]

I think retraining feats is assumed in PF, as in I don't think it's a variant. Not sure about that sort of thing, though.


It's an optional system from the Ultimate Campaign's "Campaign Systems" chapter. :smallsmile:

[oldkingkoal]

I think I remember hearing the new book added a few archetypes to the normal classes? Is'at right?

[Psyren]

I think I remember hearing the new book added a few archetypes to the normal classes? Is'at right?

It did, like the Exploiter Wizard. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/wizard/archetypes/paizo---wizard-archetypes/exploiter-wizard) Not sure if they're all up there yet, haven't checked.

[The Insanity]

As you yourself just pointed out, there are core classes with much more involved bookkeeping than this.
I'm not sure where's the relevance. There are more complecated things than Brawler's Martial Flexibility. So? That doesn't make Martial Flexibility any less complicated. It just makes it not as complecated as other stuff. :smallconfused:

[Psyren]

I'm not sure where's the relevance. There are more complecated things than Brawler's Martial Flexibility. So? That doesn't make Martial Flexibility any less complicated. It just makes it not as complecated as other stuff. :smallconfused:

It means that your concern is likely overblown/misplaced. Even Arcanist, aka Vancian Training Wheels, is more complicated.

[The Insanity]

It means that your concern is likely overblown/misplaced.
You're entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong, I guess.

[Psyren]

You're entitled to your opinion, even if it's wrong, I guess.

Such wit! Lo, am I stricken! :smallbiggrin: