Hm, it seems like being to extend spells over from a previous day seems pretty abusable, especially since the Arcanist can pretty easily extend the spell using their arcane exploits, then re-prepare their spells the next day.
Most DMs I know probably wouldn't allow that, but I'm curious, are there any restrictions on that in PFS? If not, it's probably something that should get looked at...
Yes, we've got a level 20 wizard, level 20 cleric, and a level 20 barbarian. The wizard and cleric don't often do damage, it's a lot of save or dies, or debuffs, or disjunctions (holy crap that spell is mandatory at level 20). When they do use offensive spells, it depends on the spell, obviously! Wizard as Spell Perfection Distintigrates for an average of around 300 or so. The AoE spells do a lot less, but they can kill giant groups of people. The cleric does a lot of summoning and buffing with occasional implosions. The barbarian is nigh immune to magic, and full attacks for around 300/round against most enemies.
Edit: Forgot to mention, they all started at level 1. Not too much thought was put into late game builds, other than qualifying for spell perfection.
So, the more I look over this, the more... balanced it actually seems to be when I make some sample characters. For example, let's do a level 8 comparison, and say each character has 20 in their primary casting stat:
Wizard (specialist) spells per day: 4/7/5/5/4
Wizard: Prepares one spell per slot, each slot must be cast as prepared
Wizard: Opposed skills require 2 slots, must prepare 1 of specialty spell.
So here's my analysis on this: Arcanists are best for their mid level spells, and suffer the most for high level spells. In this example, not only do they have the lowest number of 4th level spells, but can only cast a single spell for those 3 times, like the sorcerer. At the next level, they get an additional prepared spell, but at this point, the wizard is already on 5th level spells, and the sorcerer learns two more spells (one being bloodline) while still being up a slot. The lower level slots have A LOT more flexibility, on the other hand, but will eventually be 2 behind the sorcerer, and 1 behind the specialist wizard, which I think is still pretty significant.
In no way does the Arcanist look overwhelmingly powerful, but I'll have to look at more levels of play. They're still really strong at higher levels... I think the spells prepared could maybe be a *little* bit lower to compensate for their flexibility, but they don't seem as stupidly overpowered as it seemed at first. This is of course, ignoring class features for the meantime, I'm just looking over the spells/day and prepared list which is causing a lot of concern.
Adamantine Dragon wrote:
Just because they haven't released a detailed list of what they'll change, doesn't mean they aren't planning on making mechanics changes. They're keeping the core identities of the classes the same, but pretty much anything else can be changed, so lets just wait and see before jumping to any conclusions.
There's nothing wrong with theory crafting, it's definitely useful. It's just that it needs to be tempered with actual play experience. It can't always pick up on the benefits of noncombat class features, utility abilities, or sometimes defensive abilities (I've noticed in the brawler vs monk analysis, high will saves seem to be dismissed for some reason). Some abilities may be useful, but only in certain circumstances which may come up more or less frequently in different groups. Theory crafting also typically assumes very high levels of optimization, which is certainly not the case for a significant portion of the Pathfinder fan base. How does the class work in casual settings?
The biggest reason, however, is that theory crafting can't answer one extremely important aspect of he class: is it fun to play?
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
How about altering the numbers a bit? I think that's one of the biggest balance concerns, that they get as many spells per day as a specialist wizard, but without any opposed schools and they have the ability to cast their spells in any combination that they prepared.
Vic Wertz wrote:
The fighter will still be Valeros, with the iconic Wayne Reynolds art... but Skull & Shackles Valeros will be mechanically different from Rise of the Runelords Valeros.
New mechanics for the repeated classes? Well this just keeps getting better and better.
I think that the class could take out a lot of the class features from barbarian (uncanny dodge, fast movement, damage reduction) in favor of adding features that synergize with its casting. Maybe spellstrike or something that lets them cast a spell when entering a bloodrage. As it is, they have very little use for offensive spells, since they're way better off just attacking with their weapon. I also think that just way too much was copied over from the barbarian, which takes away some uniqueness from the bloodrager.
Except for the Ki powers, I'm fairly certain the Brawler just punched out the Monks teeth, took his money and his niche and ran off with it. I guess the Monk is now the Brawler's follower. He's not the Brawler's cohort because those are actually useful, no, the Monk gets to follow the Brawler around and carry all of his stuff and sing praises about how amazing the Brawler is.
Nah, the monk is still pretty decent. Brawler is probably best in straight up combat, but don't forget the monk's high will saves, ki pool (extra attack per round that stacks with haste is nice), and archetype support. They still have a lot going for them, I'd say.
Hm, maybe it would be more balanced if it had to rely on two different stats for casting. Maybe INT as the default casting stat (used for determining bonus spells, concentration checks, highest level spell castable), but charisma for spell DCs, and class features.
Personally I think the magus should be the baseline for these classes. It combines the fighter and wizard in a fairly novel way. A lot of these classes just take a smattering of class features from each (or sometimes from 3 classes... Warpriest gets a sacred bond-ish ability, Swashbucklers get Precise Strike from duelist, etc.)
Now, maybe that's not feasible. After all, magus was just one class, and this is 10 being released. Still, I don't want to buy a book whose main feature is 10 slightly more convenient multiclass combinations.
Eh... monks still seems fine to me. They want to be full attacking anyway, so I'm not sure how big of a deal full BAB is (monks get that during a flurry). With their Ki pool, monks can also get an extra attack or 4AC, or other bonuses based on their feats - I feel like that's a really big bonus that isn't always considered when comparing the monk to other classes.
Brawlers also have low will saves... This is huge. It also makes monk a much more appealing dip (I recently dipped monk for my magus kensai; int and wis to AC, a nice save bonus, and deflect arrows), and a class with more staying power later on. As someone who's played many frontline fighters at various levels, high will saves are not to be underestimated. DPR calculations are all well and good, but it doesn't matter much when you're out the first round from Dominate Monster. Monks also have some really nice archetype support with the Qinggong Monk, Monk of Many Styles, Martial Artist, Zen Archer, Sensei, and other awesome ones.
One nice thing the brawler has, however, is armor proficiency and the AC bonus. Even though monks get wisdom, this will probably result in more AC for the brawler in the long run, and focus their stats more.
Overall, no, I don't think the monk has been obsoleted, but then again, I always thought it's been a perfectly fine class. It's my favorite class, and I've never had issues with their relative power.
Honestly, the rogue has been obsoleted since Ninja and Vivisectionist. It's one of the weakest classes compared to the others in many player's experiences (yes, not everyone, but I hear them the most in the threads), so I don't think it should have been a balance baseline for any of the new classes.
But yeah, the ones that are part rogue seem much better than a rogue by itself.
Fairly certain that's intentional. That's how the duelist ability works; it's based on that, not sneak attack.
This class seems really limited, build wise.
You HAVE to use one handed piercing weapons for pretty much everything. Same reason I didn't really like the gunslinger. And it's going to be an absolute no-brainer to take Dervish Dance or Agile Weapons (I really hate those two...)
I think panache is a dumb name for a class feature. That's subjective, I know, but I'm going to feel silly talking about how many panache points I have.
The finesse feat should be given out at level 1. Going from level 1 to 2 shouldn't increase your hit by around +5. It should also count as Weapon Finesse for the purpose of feat pre-reqs.
Out of all the classes this one probably seems the least inspired. There are a couple of issues:
Channel Energy: This seems completely unnecessary. Channel Energy already heals or damages a very small amount per level, and having it even lower than the cleric's pretty much means it will only be used out of combat. It's yet another resource to keep track of (this class has a lot of that...), and it spreads the stats way too thin, especially considering their terrible skill point amount. It also doesn't help differentiate them from their two closest thematic roles: cleric and paladin, since both those classes get the channel. Channel Smite could be useful with this, I suppose, but I'd rather have a class feature resembling that instead of the whole channel package.
Weapon proficiency: They should be proficient in their deity's weapon by default. Maybe they should get proficiency OR weapon focus, depending on if they're already proficient.
Blessings: Just seem too thematically close to domains. Actually, overall the class is look way more similar to cleric than fighter. I do like how the duration-based ones last for a minute flat - that really helps out at level 1. Maybe all of them that affect allies should be a swift action if used on yourself? This would really get closer to the combat theme, instead of making the character primarily a buffing class (c'mon, you're a WARpriest!)
Sacred Weapon/Armor: Eh... not too sure what to think on this one. This is an ability that's been done plenty of times before. It's a bit weird that the weapon is rounds/level while the armor is minutes/level. I think I'd prefer a more flashy or dynamic buff, rather than just giving the weapons or armor certain properties. Maybe a bonus that lasts for a round, or a defensive boost you can use as an immediate action? Right now it's just a bit boring, and piling on the buffs and resources this class will be keeping track of.
By the way, this is what every Warpriest needs to keep track of:
I feel like some of this should be cut down to reduce book-keeping headaches.
Vic Wertz wrote:
It's too early to provide exact numbers, but just to give you an idea: The current list of ally cards for S&S—that's including all 6 Adventure Decks—has exactly 2 repeats from RotR. Not surprisingly, the card type with the highest number of repeats is blessings, yet still fewer than half of those blessings appear in RotR. Loot is all new, as are the other highly story-driven card types. Overall, the vast majority of the cards in S&S will be new.
Good to hear. I'm guessing Blessing of Besmara is a given. :)
I can honestly say I don't know a single person who uses that system (or who has called Dec 21 midwinter) for the seasons.
Mike Selinker wrote:
Figured as much. I don't think the Mayor would want to stick around with the adventurers when she has a town to run. Still, it can be a lot of fun coming up with silly rationalizations for cards we encounter in weird locations :P
I noticed a lot of these scenarios are using regular monsters as the villains, or using villains/henchmen from other scenarios.
Wouldn't it also be fairly easy to make up your own villains, and then take a villain card from the box as a proxy? I think that could make for some more unique encounters.
Regardless, a lot of these adventures look really fun, and I can't wait to try some of them :)
Hm, haven't received part 2 yet, but my highest was 50 I believe. The way we play, only one card of each type can be played on a check, regardless of who plays the card (so no double blessings, basically).
Used Scorching Ray as Seoni, recharged Poog for +3, friend played Blessing of Pharasma, and Harsk helped out with his power.
I recognize I may be wrong on the Secret Stash, but it is pretty clear to me that Pit Trap should definitely go back into the location deck.
Yep! You only get the choice to banish it if it's undefeated. Evading doesn't count as it being defeated or undefeated.
Hm, interesting. So if Ezren picks up an extra spell he doesn't need, Merisiel would be forced to take that one if her slot is empty?
While it would be interesting, it definitely seems like a less than optimal choice, especially since the biggest problem I've had with Merisiel is not getting my weapons when I need them. So I'd probably take all the weapon slots before even thinking about spells.
That being said, since she can put in a basic spell at any time (or a non basic one when you get to Hook Mountain Massacre), you could theoretically always get the spell you need for each part. And if you don't end up needing that spell, Merisiel can always recharge or discard it to give her a combat bonus.
Mm, but all we have to work with are specific cards. If none of them are worth using a blessing to recharge, then the blessing isn't worth playing.
What I'm saying is even when you have a bunch of recharge cards, the blessing still isn't worth it in any conceivable situation.
Dave Riley wrote:
Huh, in practice I've seen plenty of times where I wished I could have put it back on the top.
If you shuffle it back in, the odds aren't that you won't see it again. If there's one henchman or villain in the deck, you're just as likely to shuffle the monster in front of them as behind them. And if you don't manage to close the location, you'll definitely see that creature again. It also helps bring characters like Ezren toward Mystic Inscription, and lets you keep henchman at the top of a location so you can make sure a character able to close the location fights them.
And has been pointed out, you can also use it for boons you aren't likely to acquire. If you're playing with Valeros, and find a magic greataxe, you're going to want to leave it on the top for him to acquire next turn.