3.x classes that you'd like to see in PF

[Manly Man]

Sort of embarrassingly, I want to see the Frenzied Berserker as an archetype for Barbarians; I've actually been homebrewing this up myself, but I forget whether I've gotten the rough draft finished yet or not. I should probably go have a look.

Also, while we do have Path of War already, I would like to see the Tome of Battle classes get adapted to Pathfinder. Have updated abilities (probably a few extra class features added properly), get their maneuver and stance progressions corrected, and have some archetypes for them. However, that would all have to come from homebrew. The different classes do, in fact, have much different feels compared to those in Path of War, so they don't just replace one another.

[Psyren]

Sort of embarrassingly, I want to see the Frenzied Berserker as an archetype for Barbarians; I've actually been homebrewing this up myself, but I forget whether I've gotten the rough draft finished yet or not. I should probably go have a look.

Wild Rager is sort of the PF Frenzied Berserker.

[Ssalarn]

Indeed. And if you want full-attack channeling, there's always the Myrmidarch archetype.

I'm also in agreement regarding the aura classes. Auras are nice.

For a class that takes the Marshal and Pathfinderizes and builds on that concept, check out the Battlelord from Amora Games' Liber Influxus: The Book of Communal Influence. It's a full BAB Int-based class with auras, drills, and military specialties.

[Fatal Rose]

I love the class diversity available in 3.5, however I prefer the pathfinder system.

[Equilibria]

I want my dragon fire adept!!!!

[AOKost]

Overall? Virtually everything that hasn't already been ported over yet to official PF.

Specific cases?

Warlock (with an expanded and improved/revised selection of abilities), Hellfire Warlock, Swordsage (along with all of the stances and disciplines, there's some really great stuff there!), Dervish, Tempest, Kensai (Both), Deepwood Sniper, Psychic Weapon Master, Disciple of Dispater, Rainbow Servant, Archivest, Savant, Psion (and the entire 3.X psionics system in general), Mind Flayers (and Illithid Savant of course, or a class, not necessarily race bassed that can do something similar), Champoin of Correllion, Radient Servant of Pelor, Combat Medic, Dread Necromancer, Bone Knight, and so so many more that I would almost literally have to start a new thread to list everything...

Something else that would be super nice would be a supplemental book that contained every known substance/material in the games, such as Mithral, Adamantium, etc. for item crafting, templates that can be added to items such as Dwarf-Craft, Elf-Craft, etc. Or Serrated, Laminated, Hardened, Dragonbone, etc. I know that for tons of people that would be one of their favorite go-to books for materials reference, as I personally scour the net constantly for those kinds of things... It's a real pain in the ars to say the least, and if they were all in one place, that would be a godsend!

I know that many feats are considered too weak or too powerful, but the Multiweapon Fighting feat tree is a must for those that have many arms such as the Kasatha, Thri-kreen and others. It adds a unique flavor and asthetics that's currently lacking. Marilith, Xill, and many others have better attacks due to their inherant ability to do so, so are more of a threat if they take these feats, but they already show what is possible. Feats in general should be imported, or improved/revamped.

Magic and Psionics with an interchangable point system similar to the Psionics system is very handy. I run a similar system in my homebrew games and my players love it.

I know some of my suggestions have been covered in 3rd party material, but I felt they generally deserve to be official PF material.

[Extra Anchovies]

if they were all in one place, that would be a godsend!

Wait, what? You're welcome :D

[AOKost]

Wait, what? You're welcome :D

That is a good resource, but it doesn't even cover half of what D&D has, like Solarian True Steel, and MANY others. There are sorces that are not part of the official D&D that should be recognized as well, and that source does not cover templates added to items such as Dwarf-Craft, etc.

[Extra Anchovies]

That is a good resource, but it doesn't even cover half of what D&D has, like Solarian True Steel, and MANY others. There are sources that are not part of the official D&D that should be recognized as well, and that source does not cover templates added to items such as Dwarf-Craft, etc.

Oh, I thought you were referring to Pathfinder special materials (after all, this thread is about both systems). Sorry.

[AOKost]

Oh, I thought you were referring to Pathfinder special materials (after all, this thread is about both systems). Sorry.

No worries! :D I hope I didn't sound snappish. It would be awesome to have a reference book that contained all of the materials from all sourcebooks that things could be made of from A to Z, and all the ways items could be modified during their creation. Such as an Elf-Craft Dragonbone Longbow, or a Dwarf-Craft laminated Breatplate made of Orgacraft Living Metal... As an example of course... I'm not even sure that that would be possible, but it would be very interesting none the less. Or a material and templates from another source: Heartstone Masterpiece Ballanced Damascus Serrated Bastardsword...

[Nightraiderx]

I got a few, Ordained Champion and Ruby Knight Vindicator,

[Manly Man]

Wild Rager is sort of the PF Frenzied Berserker.

It is close, true. I might use it for a bit of inspiration.

[Ssalarn]

Overall? Virtually everything that hasn't already been ported over yet to official PF.

Specific cases?

*** Psion (and the entire 3.X psionics system in general),***


I know some of my suggestions have been covered in 3rd party material, but I felt they generally deserve to be official PF material.

Paizo has been pretty clear that if you want 3.5 psionics, you should use Dreamscarred Press because they're never going to do it, both because DSP did such an amazing jo and because it's just not something their design team is interested in getting into. Their Occult Adventures release for next GenCon with their new "Psychic Magic" classes is their version, and it really has nothing in common other than some terminology.

They're fairly adverse to new subsystems in general, viewing that as the intended purview of the 3pp community.

[AOKost]

I have yet to get any DSP material as yet... I've heard that Piazo doesn't want to get into Psionics, but the thread was about what would we like to see in PF, and it would be nice, at least in my opinion, to see an oficial release of Psionics.

My group uses Psionics regardless, but some groups don't allow it because 'it's not official, so therefore no' attitude is a bit too strict on many things.

[Petrocorus]

I will add my voice to those who said Warlock and Aura-based classes. But fixed of course to be actually relevant at high level, about T3.

I will also add the Sha'Ir, just because i like that class.

Prestige classes:
Vigilante

I second the Vigilante

Magus is a dumber DB in a lot of ways. So many missteps there (Not full BAB but many fiddly bonuses, a damage mage that's not spontaneous, stupidly specific channeling mechanic, arcana is just bad and could have been replaced by the class's own casting). Ugh, DB should be converted. Did you know that you can shadow pounce to trigger a DB's full channel? Do you know why that is important?

According to me, not being spontaneous is not bad, since it also means no limit on spell known. The Magus has out-of-combat spells. Contrary to the DB. And the Magus has more combat option than the DB.
The DuskBlade is a good idea totally spoiled by a very poor and inconsistent spell list. Inconsistent with the flavour and the logic of the class. The Magus, even with its flaws, is not a 3 tricks pony.

[Psyren]

Plus, you can make Magus spontaneous if that really rustles your jimmies

[Snowbluff]

According to me, not being spontaneous is not bad, since it also means no limit on spell known. The Magus has out-of-combat spells.

It doesn't necessarily mean that. Magi don't need complete access to their spell list anyway, because most of the spells aren't ones you'll be needing. People make this mistake a lot when they think about 6/9 casters. They treat them like full casters while forgetting basic things like how to properly weigh stats.

The problem is that they made magus kinda-spontaneous through a point system, when they could have had the Arcanist method that isn't exactly rocket science and would have streamlined the class.

DB did have a crummy list, but it had a ton of options for expansion, and their abilities worked with all of their spells innately. Full Channeling is a full attack, allowing it to be combined with other attack methods.

[Psyren]

The "Arcanist method" was developed/tested with, well, the arcanist, which came out years after Ultimate Magic. After the debacle that was the Summoner you can't fault them for being a little more cautious with new casting classes and especially methods.

Also, there's nothing wrong with blending spontaneity (point system) with prepared casting. Indeed, Spell Recall created a lot of synergy between the two.

[Ssalarn]

DB did have a crummy list, but it had a ton of options for expansion, and their abilities worked with all of their spells innately. Full Channeling is a full attack, allowing it to be combined with other attack methods.

Per the FAQ, Spell Combat is a type of Full Attack and benefits from things like haste that only enhance full attacks. IMHO, Magus is vastly better than the Duskblade, with better integration of all his class features right out the gate.

[Snowbluff]

Per the FAQ, Spell Combat is a type of Full Attack and benefits from things like haste that only enhance full attacks. .

Oh, cool. Does activating take a full attack or a full round action?

The "Arcanist method" was developed/tested with, well, the arcanist, which came out years after Ultimate Magic. After the debacle that was the Summoner you can't fault them for being a little more cautious with new casting classes and especially methods.

It wasn't that hard. Other classes before it, like the Spirit Shaman, had done it before. 3.5 starts you with classes that blend spontaneous and prepared casting. In fact, the only casters that aren't spontanenous in the PHB are the Wizard, Paladin (not really much of a caster), and Ranger (same). Exclusively preparing spells is unusual.

It also doesn't make sense when you have a relatively few spell slots per day compared to a wizard, and not many bonus spell slots because pumping Int would have meant lowering Str/Dex and Con. You can repeat spells with your points, but you can't expand the variety of the spells you cast in a day.

And FYI, you could say the same about DB and its channeling abilities. "They were being cautious" isn't really helpful to... well, anything.

Also, there's nothing wrong with blending spontaneity (point system) with prepared casting. Indeed, Spell Recall created a lot of synergy between the two.

Nope. It means you have another resource to manage with no benefit. "Okay, I have these spell slots and then these spell slots." Additionally, making your spells dependent on your points (casting the same time sometimes requires this) means you have less points available for the other class features. So yeah, there is something definitely wrong with it.

[Kurald Galain]

Per the FAQ, Spell Combat is a type of Full Attack and benefits from things like haste that only enhance full attacks. IMHO, Magus is vastly better than the Duskblade, with better integration of all his class features right out the gate.

Correct. What's more, the dusky's full attack channel works only from level 13, and the Magus's goes online a whopping ten levels earlier (with e.g. a natural weapon). And there are a lot more campaigns that run at level 3 than that ever get to level 13.

I think that's the core of the disagreement here. With a theory-op maxed out build at level 20, there's probably some things the dusky does that the Magus doesn't. But almost nobody plays theory-op maxed out level 20, ever. So in actual gameplay, Magus wins, hands down.

[Snowbluff]

Correct. What's more, the dusky's full attack channel works only from level 13, and the Magus's goes online a whopping ten levels earlier (with e.g. a natural weapon). And there are a lot more campaigns that run at level 3 than that ever get to level 13.

I think that's the core of the disagreement here. With a theory-op maxed out build at level 20, there's probably some things the dusky does that the Magus doesn't. But almost nobody plays theory-op maxed out level 20, ever. So in actual gameplay, Magus wins, hands down.

1) Your statements are in conflict. "Let's give a Magus Natural Attacks!" "Don't optimize the DB or account for all levels." Not to mention that if we optimize it, the DB gets options for pounce, his own natural attacks, and 3.5 Arcane Strike. So this argument is a pretty good one to toss out the window when comparing the classes as wholes in their systems.

2) Before optimization, Magus doesn't get another attack until level 8. For a lot of levels you're only making 1 or 2 attacks with spell strike while not moving.

It is a good point about how DB is built toward optimization. The way that full channeling works is pretty damn good. There's a just a huge problem with the spell list. When I first read it, I said "Is this a joke? Do they have any touch spells?" In general, I prefer classes that take some work and have a high ceiling. The DB is definitely a worse designed class than the Beguiler, which is future proof.

[Psyren]

In general, I prefer classes that take some work and have a high ceiling.

See, and this is fine. But then you come into a discussion on... well, any PF class really and say "nah this is dumb, because it's less powerful than {3.5 class + specific 3.5 PrC and feat selection} or {T1/T2 class engineered to do X in addition to doing everything else, because T1/T2}" without acknowledging this preference or even appearing to believe that it may deviate from the PF norm.

Lots of folks don't want "work" or high ceilings, rather they prefer to just pick up and play. This is exactly what classes like the Magus, and the later hybrids in ACG based on it, are designed to do.

[Ssalarn]

2) Before optimization, Magus doesn't get another attack until level 8. For a lot of levels you're only making 1 or 2 attacks with spell strike while not moving.

Spell Combat comes online at first level allowing the Magus to "two-weapon fight" with sword and spell from level 1. At level 2, he gets Spellstrike and can blend the extra spell with his weapon attack, borrowing the weapon's crit range. That means for the first 5 levels of play he's actually capable of making more attacks and functionally casting more spells than the Duskblade (since every Spellstrike crit is essentially a second application of the applied damage spell). The Duskblade's full BAB is actually just helping him try to play to play catch-up to the Magus

1) Your statements are in conflict. "Let's give a Magus Natural Attacks!" "Don't optimize the DB or account for all levels." Not to mention that if we optimize it, the DB gets options for pounce, his own natural attacks, and 3.5 Arcane Strike. So this argument is a pretty good one to toss out the window when comparing the classes as wholes in their systems.
It is a good point about how DB is built toward optimization. The way that full channeling works is pretty damn good. There's a just a huge problem with the spell list. When I first read it, I said "Is this a joke? Do they have any touch spells?" In general, I prefer classes that take some work and have a high ceiling. The DB is definitely a worse designed class than the Beguiler, which is future proof.

I didn't see him say "Don't optimize one but do optimize the other in a comparison" I saw him say "Someone with a lot of system mastery might be able to come up with a few things the Duskblade can do that the Magus can't at the highest levels, but most people don't play there" which is true. The Magus blends sword and spell better than the Duskblade at far more levels of play, and those levels are the levels that more people play in. This is part of why the Magus is a much better designed class; it hits the ground doing the things it's supposed to do. It's also fairly foolish to compare a 20th level 3.5 class to a 20th level Pathfinder class - the design philosphies are different in both editions and 3.5 had many more high level exploits than Pathfinder. Even so, I'd generally still rather play a Magus than a Duskblade at 20th level. By that point I've been able to cherry-pick my favorite spells off of the Wizard spell list, Spell Combat all day long with Wand Wielder, and pick up a substantial array of abilities to enhance whatever idea it is I've got for my Magus.

[Snowbluff]

See, and this is fine. But then you come into a discussion on... well, any PF class really and say "nah this is dumb, because it's less powerful than {3.5 class + specific 3.5 PrC and feat selection} or {T1/T2 class engineered to do X in addition to doing everything else, because T1/T2}" without acknowledging this preference or even appearing to believe that it may deviate from the PF norm.

Lots of folks don't want "work" or high ceilings, rather they prefer to just pick up and play. This is exactly what classes like the Magus, and the later hybrids in ACG based on it, are designed to do.

It's not just that, Psyren. It's dumb because the class design assigns a resource management mechanic to a class type that already has one. Most of the class features cover what would have been easily fixed with 1 decision, or fill in for spells.

Spell Combat comes online at first level allowing the Magus to "two-weapon fight" with sword and spell from level 1. At level 2, he gets Spellstrike and can blend the extra spell with his weapon attack, borrowing the weapon's crit range. That means for the first 5 levels of play he's actually capable of making more attacks and functionally casting more spells than the Duskblade (since every Spellstrike crit is essentially a second application of the applied damage spell). The Duskblade's full BAB is actually just helping him try to play to play catch-up to the Magus

The problem here is that you probably shouldn't in a lot of cases. It is TWF as a second level feature after you've use your 2-3 melee attack spells, which is if you're into that. However, the damage per regular hit on a magus is lower (no 2 handing), and with the TWF penalty the to-hit is lower, so I would say use your move action to provide a flank for a spell strike instead. A 20% difference is handy, especially at lower levels.

DBs do have the blades of blood spell at first level, which functions like channeling a spell at first level.

[Ssalarn]

DBs do have the blades of blood spell at first level, which functions like channeling a spell at first level.

Except it doesn't get the crit benefits, so it's still inferior to Spellstrike, unless you're taking 1/2 your hit points in damage.

The problem here is that you probably shouldn't in a lot of cases. It is TWF as a second level feature after you've use your 2-3 melee attack spells, which is if you're into that. However, the damage per regular hit on a magus is lower (no 2 handing), and with the TWF penalty the to-hit is lower, so I would say use your move action to provide a flank for a spell strike instead. A 20% difference is handy, especially at lower levels.

Spell Combat comes online at first level. So pretty much every time you cast a touch spell right from character creation, there's not much reason not to take your weapon attack (unless you've moved that round, of course). If you're fighting opponents who you really can't afford a to-hit penalty against, you use Spell Combat to tag your boosters onto attacks immediately; things like true strike and vanish.

[Petrocorus]

DB did have a crummy list, but it had a ton of options for expansion, and their abilities worked with all of their spells innately. Full Channeling is a full attack, allowing it to be combined with other attack methods.

What ton of options?
What other attack methods?

It is a good point about how DB is built toward optimization. The way that full channeling works is pretty damn good. There's a just a huge problem with the spell list. When I first read it, I said "Is this a joke? Do they have any touch spells?"

That's the core of my point. The spell list is so lame and limited, it make the DB limited too. I don't really know if Arcane Channelling is better than Spellstrike / Spell Combat; I don't know if the DB would be better or worse than the Magus if it had a decent spell list, but as it is, it does not have a decent spell list. Mostly blast and a few debuffs, and Vampiric Touch, only a handful of BFC and buffs, and not the best ones. The DB end up being a 3 trick pony: Cast a blast or a debuff, melee attack while channelling a blast or a debuff, melee attack with Arcane Strike. The Magus can do that, but can also use other things, notably using buffs spell before attacking, using some BFC, and because it has no limit of spell know, still has out-of-combat thing to do with some utility spell. Because of this, i would play a Magus over a DB any time. If i want to play a DB without PF, i would build a Wizard / Spellsword with a lot of CL lost or go psionic with a PsyWar.

[GreyBlack]

Regarding the duskblade, there is one thing that duskblades can do that magi can't: TWF. Magi are forced into a single combat style (one-handed fighting), whereas the duskblade can be more varied.

[Snowbluff]

It's a bit of a wash on that. You can TWF, but you can't channel with it until 13. If you have Arcane Strike, you will destroy your targets pretty fast.

What ton of options?
What other attack methods?

Anything that grants spells known in 3.5, like Arcane Disciple or Wyrm Wizard, depending on your needs and available options. Arcane Preparation adds the Sanctified and Vile spells. Mother Cyst, but I think that uses a lot of saves. It's been pointed out that that's not really relevant. Actually, now that I look at it, DB does have a ton of buffs and debuffs on their spell list. It just doesn't have any of the good touch spells.

Anything that gives a full attack, like Shadow Pouncing. By using a different attack action, the DB makes itself more available for optimization. Shadow Pouncing is definitely the most notable and powerful option, IMO.

[Kurald Galain]

Regarding the duskblade, there is one thing that duskblades can do that magi can't: TWF. Magi are forced into a single combat style (one-handed fighting), whereas the duskblade can be more varied.

Actually a number of Magus archetypes solve that issue.

The point still stands that all the duskblade tricks mentioned so far require level 13 plus probably multiclassing, whereas the Magus tricks work from level 1 or sometimes 2. Theory op all you like, but in actual gameplay that's a huge twelve-level strike in favor of the Magus.