Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder Base Classes You'd Like to See

[rgard]

Next week we'll be adding The Archon, which is your "traditional" fighter/mage. It casts spells, but from a limited list, and also wears armor and fights in melee. Here's the intro:



It'll be out next Wednesday along with our first monster book "Mythic Menagerie: Winter Ravagers", both just in time for Christmas.

Hyrum.

Sounds good to me. I'll be picking this one up. In addition, I'll eventually get around to converting the Battlesorcerer to PF.

Thanks for the heads up on the Archon.

Rich

 

[jaerdaph]

I've added 4 Winds Fantasy Gaming's Paths of Power to the first post.

Here's my thoughts on base classes, new and existing: Make them interesting enough to play through all 20 levels so you don't necessarily want to multiclass out to another base class or prestige class. I like that Paizo took this approach, and I hope others continue to take up that challenge.

 

[HyrumOWC]

I've long bemoaned 3E's reliance on spells as a way of making classes interesting. If one wants to run a low fantasy game, there simply aren't enough mundane options. The rogue just became really versatile, however, which is nice.

Ben,

If you're up for it, I recommend our Shadow Assassin class. No spell lists at all.

Hyrum.

 

[GlassEye]

As a related aside, am I the only one who thought it strange they didn't rewrite lycanthropes to incorporate beast shape?

Nope. Lycanthropes seem like the ideal monster to use those rules. Using them would give the idea (often seen in fiction) of the progressing curse. For the natural lycanthrope, it would be more of growing into their full power. Seems ideal to me.

Don't get me wrong--I love the spellcasters that Paizo has been coming up with, but I think there are enough now.

I would agree. Five of the six new classes in their upcoming Advanced Player's Guide are spellcasters.

 

[MerrikCale]

Ben,

If you're up for it, I recommend our Shadow Assassin class. No spell lists at all.

Hyrum.

I've gotta check that out

 

[Ares]

I've heard that many of the other classes don't need updating because of how strong they already are (ToB classes come to mind). I understand that, but what about non-core classes that were actually much weaker than their standard counterparts? I'm thinking of the Warmage a little bit but really am focusing on the poor widdle Wu Jen. I love the flavor of this class (essentially playing the Xian/Sennin from Asian myth) but I don't think there has ever been any real playability to the class.

It still has scary spells like disintegrate and baleful polymorph, but no mage armor or flying spells--save for very limited ones.

On that note, has anyone tried pathfinderizing the OA classes?

 

[Will]

I'd love to see a 'trickster' type, someone who can do odd stunts. Not quite a swashbuckler so much as, oh, Indiana Jones.

I've tried to pull it off with rogues before (hello, Indiar Jonis), but it often doesn't feel right.

 

[HyrumOWC]

FYI, the Archon, our new base class for Pathfinder is now up at the Paizo store: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizo/products/v5748btpy8bvi&page=1#0

It's our version of the fighter/mage, written b yindustry vet Owen K.C. Stephens.

Hyrum.

 

[MerrikCale]

Looks pretty cool

The Shaman was for PF was very well done

 

[lightgun_suicide]

This is one area where Castles & Crusades and D&D4e are doing brilliantly, they both have tons of base classes that largely make sense. Particularly 4e, but then if you plan to release another PHB every year you had better have room in your system for an absurd amount of classes.

I'd like to see a Pathfinder:
-Shaman
-Anti-paladin
-Witch (possibly included under shaman?)
-Samurai (some good attempts already posted online)