LOL. I think people will be happy with the new design. Solved some problems with the class, still have some things rolling around the skull about it, but I'm excited to see what people think and how it plays. James Jacobs used the new design in an internal playtest last weekend and had a lot of fun with it. He also gave me some excellent feedback for bits of last-minute fine tuning.
Thank you all for all the great and positive feedback. I really appreciate it. Keep it up when the new document hits.
Sneak attack will be replaced by two abilities that work in concert: studied combat and studied strike.
You may not have heard from me, but I'm here and reading. I consider all feedback constructive. It has helped us a great deal in the iterations of the updated classes, which are on the way.
Yeah. I know the first one is not true. The second one is just a strange statement in general.
We are. A lot of the issues brought up in this thread will be made clearer and have resolution in the next draft. Thank you all for the feedback.
Oh, trust me. I'm crueler than Jason. Much crueler. :)
You are just going to have to wait. We are still discussing and thinking about the issue. This is just one possible solution.
Funny. Studied Strike. I put something together with that name before I left the office on Friday. It works differently, but it was fun seeing the name up here.
Well, I think that the Parry/Riposte combo needs to change.
Ayep. I entirely agree. My quick fix is to make riposte and immediate action instead of taking an attack of opportunity. I'm still thinking about the panache cost and looking through playtests.
Because it is a playtest. We are asking primarily for playtest experience and data from those experiences. It's all in the name.
We know we will get other types of analysis. It is also very helpful and we do look at it and take it to account. We welcome all sorts of feedback on the classes. We love it actually.
But Christmas (a.k.a. my birthday) is coming, and all we want for the holidays is some playtest. Did I mention that this is called a playtest? :)
Thank you. And consider every playtest you do just an early birthday gift to me. Or not. :)
Cap. Darling wrote:
Right now the bloodrager lacks the exception that both the paladin and the ranger have on their caster level. One of the things we are testing is whether or not they need it or should have it. Assume in playtesting the caster level is the bloodrager level.
I have my own thoughts on the subject, but I want to see what comes out of playtesting.
Stephen. Please validate my existence on this forum by considering my idea...
Not what I do. But, I do read and consider all the feedback and suggestions on this and other playtest boards, not to validate anyone's existence on the forum, but because that is what playtesting is all about.
Existence is validated by the act of...well...existing. :)
That said, thank you for your feedback.I appreciate it.
Also, have you seen the Advanced Classes Playtest? Specifically their Swashbuckler class. I think they're ripping off SGG's Fusilier from "Grit and Gunslingers".
As the designer of the both the gunslinger and the swashbuckler, and as a person who has not read Grit and Gunslingers, I assure you there was not ripping off.
The fact that I have not read Grit and Gunslingers is no slight on Owen, who is a wonderful designer, not to mention a fantastic fella. I do plan on reading that book sometime in the future--I just purchased it a couple of days ago, actually--I just haven't been able to find the time, and now I will probably have to wait until Advanced Class Guide design is concluded.
(Playtests are hard on the time and the energy to do anything other than spend time with the family and watch occult melodramas when the long workday is over. ;-) )
All that said, I'm sure there is probably some unintentional parallel design.
When I designed the gunslinger, I wanted to create a very cinematic, action-oriented class. Something that was more action hero than other traditional class designs. That design lends itself to certain other concepts, the swashbuckler being top on that list. And it was during the gunslinger playtest that discussion started about eventually doing a swashbuckler class using the design.
We just finally got around to doing it.
The following changes have been made to the bloodrager. These changes have also been added to the first post of this thread.
• Add Spellcraft to the list of Bloodrager class skills.
• At 4th level, the Bloodrager gains Eschew Materials as a bonus feat.
The following changes has been made to the swashbuckler. They are also now listed in the first post of this thread.
• Change "daring-do" to "derring-do". Delete the last sentence of the ability. It can be reduced by the Signature Deed feat. For this playtest, treat swashbuckler levels as gunslinger levels for grit feats. Treat panache as grit for those feats.
• In the Precise Strike deed, change the second sentence to "To use this deed, a swashbuckler cannot attack with a weapon in her other hand or use a shield other than a buckler." Delete the third sentence. Only creatures immune to sneak attacks are immune to precise strike. In the second paragraph, replace the first sentence with the following: "As a swift action, a swashbuckler can spend 1 panache point to double her precise strike's damage bonus on the next attack". Add the following to the end of the paragraph: The cost of this deed cannot be reduced by the Signature Deed feat, or any other ability that reduces the amount of panache this deed costs".
Zombie Ninja wrote:
I'm a little surprised nobody cared for the suggestion on the thread Playtest Data: Thoughts on the bloodrager. A poster there going by, The dragon, made a interesting suggestion. His suggestion was to take a cue from the old Suel Arcanamach prestige class, and give a limited selection to around 3 or 4 schools of magic, to the bloodrager, that seemed most appropriate. I know I'm reiterating, but I thought it was a cleaver halfway point between a custom spell list and a already standardized one.
That is actually one of the options I'm looking at.
It will change in the final draft. Derring-do it is. :)
Yeah, I'm beginning to think that the bloodrager needs its own spell list or there needs to be a better way to organize his spells.
There are many problems with creating new spell lists. The least of which is filling up the book with more text. Taking a look at the magus, we have a simple and easy format for presenting the basic spell list for the class.
The other problems have to deal with spell presentation and aspects of backward compatibility, not only in our core rulebook, but also the other Pathfinder lines (and by extension, third party publishers).
All of that said, we are looking into the possibilities, their pros and cons, and will make the right decision for the classes and the game.
Gentleman Alligator wrote:
That doesn't mean its a good name though. For example, lets say the Wizard had the name "Magic Man" instead. It tells us what the class does, but its not a good name.
Well if you consider that the origin of the word wizard means someone who is wise, and the origin of magician is a someone who does magic, both of those things are variations of "magic" man, without the sexist language.
Just because we don't hear the component parts because we have multiple ways in English to construct such names (some seeming more awkward or jarring to the ears than others, other so archaic that they just seem natural), it doesn't mean that those names were constructed with the simple sensibility of it does what it says.
No snark intuited. :)
I don't think the rogue requires a redesign, and no matter your feelings on that particular subject it is beyond the scope of this book and it is not something the design team is planning on doing.
At the end of the day, I want the investigator to be fun, useful, and playable to people who want to play this type of character. That is the goal. I think we are well on our way, unless more playtest feedback says something different.
Conjecture is less certain, and I did say injury poisons, which is what poison use speaks to. :)
We considered that, but we knew from the start that we didn't want the investigator to be a divine caster. We already had a divine and religious investigator, that was the inquisitor.
You will see a number of more investigator-themed formula for extracts in the final book, which will fill aid the class in their primary objective.
Avon Rekaes wrote:
Why is this different for the Swashbuckler?
Because in the current draft we decided to make it precision damage. And (despite what your intuition might tell you) class are designed, not hatched entirely out of prestige classes. To be honest, precise strike should be precision damage also (and one could argue is, since the description you site above does not provide and exhaustive list), but the point is moot.
Precision damage might be a poorly defined term in the game, but the ability is clear and purposeful. Though the discernible anatomy line is going to be removed, for sure. And the final class will allow you to use a buckler and still use your precise strike.
N N 959 wrote:
Even in the recent movies, Watson was the superior surgeon, but now you're going to let Holmes subsume that ability as well? Sherlock was never required to share the spotlight with a group of other skilled adventurers as is the case in PFS. So yeah, this screams Sherlock Holmes to me in the depth of its abilities, but that isn't necessarily a good thing.
Actually Watson is an excellent surgeon in the original stories as well. A veteran of his era's war in Afghanistan he was also good with a pistol and--while the narrator of the story, and in awe of his friend--is a much better character and companion than is commonly assumed. There were also other side characters in the Holmes tales, so he wasn't always on his own.
Investigators have fewer skill ranks than the rogue, often can't use inspiration if they are not trained in a skill, and will undoubtably lack the punch of rogues in combat. That said, in the initial design process, I frequently told the team that this guy is better than the rogue in some key things, but we decided to playtest that and see what the reaction is. Hence, the version you have and are playtesting.
As for my motivation, these aren't my toys, they are the players. I'm just the designer. I want players to have a good experience with the class, without invalidating other people's experience. The investigator is difficult in this regard. Common messageboard consensus is that the rogue is lower than low. Common messageboard consensus right now is that the investigator is fun, does it job, and is much better than the rogue. If I were entirely basing this on the current consensus, I'm caught in a trap.
But again, that is why we are doing a playtest.
Aberrant Templar wrote:
I'm the lead on the investigator. I can tell you that my main influence was, of course, Sherlock Holmes. As a consulting investigator, a chemist, and with a capable but often unorthodox approach to melee combat, the mix of rogue and alchemist was a perfect fit.
Of course, there are other great investigators, and many of those niches will be filled by archetypes and the expansion of investigator talents. For the base class my other influence were (believe it or not) Doctor Who, Will Graham (from the books and the Hannibal TV show) and John Luther (from the BBC show), among others.
Jack the Ripper was definitely not an influence, and given that the Ripper likely worked alone, and there is no evidence that he used injury poisons (to use the Pathfinder parlance), I find the suggestion that this class is more based on him than Sherlock Holmes to be more than a little...well...overstated.
That said, using raw poison use (and it's implications) may not be the best fit, and we are talking about and brainstorming possible replacement. We also reconsidering sneak attack for something that might fit the theme better, but I think sneak attack works pretty well ("Stand here Watson...you're providing a flank" "A flank, Holmes? Whatever do you mean?"). Adding Bluff and Use Magic Device to inspiration is on the list, as is coming up with more investigator talents.
I disagree. I have been through a number of playtests (I think this is my fifth one as a designer at here at Paizo) and this vibe is very similar to the all other ones I've been a part of, and I think it is wonderful.
People who are unhappy are offering alternative ideas and criticism and we take those very seriously, whether we are responding to them on the messageboards or talking about that in design meetings here at the office.
This has happened with every single playtest we have done. We take these criticisms seriously...very seriously. They are weighed, measured, inform our design process, and we move forward the better for it.
As for debating your opinions...we do. We do occasionally on the messageboards, but our main concern is reading, absorbing, and having internal design discussions about the topics that are brought up. We can't respond or spend time to debate every point online.
Also, allow me to be frank: while theorycraft is useful and considered, actual playtest feedback has more weight in our decisions. After all, people are going to end up playing these classes, and playing them a lot, so we want to make sure that the folks who really like the concepts each class provides are happy with the end result.
That said, we are not afraid to go back to the drawing board, but remember just because something does not sing as a concept to you, it does not mean that is true for everyone. All and all we are getting excellent feedback for all the classes. We are compiling lists of things that seem to work well, and things that need fixing, expansion, or more advance redesign.
So, yeah, it's the same vibe, and I'm sure it will happen again, because it is incredibly useful. And I thank you and every other person taking the time to do this with us. We have the best and most passionate fans in the world, and I wouldn't change that vibe for all the gold in Absalom.
Alexander Augunas wrote:
#2 — The class's primary mechanic, panache, leaves a sour taste in a veteran's player's mouth because it is literally an old class feature painted new. There is absolutely no reason that the gunslinger's grit should have been relabeled as panache, and in the long run this change causes more problems then it solves. For one, there is a good chance that an Extra Panache feat needs to be written. Magic items that interact with grit (such as a ring of grit mastery) do not function for the Swashbuckler and instead new versions of those magic items need to be developed. Finally, this is an opportunity to expand a seldom expanded feat category; Grit Feats. The idea of having a swashbuckler with the No Name grit feat is awesome, as is a Swashbuckler with the Signature Deed. Finally, as written changing the mechanic from grit to panache causes more trouble then it is worth. Several character types can easily grab a grit pool, namely the Holy Gun paladin. Whereas these pools might have stacked, allowing for interesting interactions, instead I now have two separate pools of points that mechanically function in the same manner.
Well, you do gain some flavor. The word panache fits better than grit. This is part of the class that we are waiting on playtest results to come in and see what people do and want to do with the class. That said, this one has been weighing on my mind since the start, and we will come up with a solution and it will be in the final class. My favorite option right now is a sidebar that just tells people that that panache and grit are the same thing with different names, and they do the same thing when it comes to feats, magic items, and other rules items that deal with grit or panache. But I can see the pros and cons of this approach, and I'll wait for more playtesting information to come in before I pitch my answers to the rest of the design team.
Why not just come with these answers now? We are waiting for playtest feedback on a number of things that will actually inform our decision on many items of development and even design philosophy with this book. Here is a secret. We have a good idea of where we want to be at the end of the book with these classes, but often are not entirely certain by the exact route on how to get there. The broad strokes are there, but perfecting them absolutely benefits from the strange and faceted lens of playtesting. It's the main reason why we do this. Players give us their feedback on reading the class, and let us know if it whets their appetite. The theorycrafters (for good and ill). And most importantly, GMs and players let us know how the classes actually played and their level of satisfaction with the class as it currently stand. We take all of this together, and it gives us a better sense of the best route to get to our design goals.
Not a typo. That's on purpose. Enjoy, and let us know what you think after some playtesting.
I don't necessarily generally think it's safe to assume that coworkers know each others' intent.
When it comes to our team, you can count on it. Trust me, we talk every day about the rules, we discuss the wording in the rulebook and the intent of the rules, where they collide and where they deviate. We have had a number of discussions about this thread.
You've asked your question, we have answered it. You have made your viewpoint plain on many posts in this thread. Thank you.
It means what is says until the start of your next turn. It meant this way so it does not create a chain of stun lock. In other words, it may not be smart to use this ability on an attack of opportunity just before the start of your next turn, because you will not get a lot of bang for your buck.
Cardinal Disco wrote:
Please tell me this is compatible with the Mines Map Pack?
Yes! It will be compatible with Mines, Dungeon Corridors (and through that set, other compatible Map Pack sets) and at least one future Map Pack and another Flip-Mat that are yet to be announced.
Despite the sometimes vocal minority who passive agrresively attack you and the Paizo Development Team just please remember there are those of us who always appreciate the time and effort you all put in to clarify the rules despite whether we like the ruling. Some people definitely cross the line into being disrespectful to the Paizo staff and I hope thats not what sticks with you at the end of the day.
Oh, we know. One we all have pretty thick skins. Two, we all love what we do and want to make the most enjoyable game we can. Three, we have the best fans and players in the world. That goes for the grumpy ones too. ;)
No, that is not this designer's explanation, and since the I am the one "developer" commenting on this thread I'm going to assume you are talking about me.
Our take is that it was the rule before. It was not explained as fully as it could have been (with the blanket line "Aasimars are defined by class levels--they do not possess racial Hit Dice", and really didn't need to be because the rules before were for monster design. When we opened up the rules for PC design, and created a book that was designed to be the go-to book for PC expanded race selection in Pathfinder, we were more explicit with those rules.
We also had to be more explicit with those rules because we started making PC playable races (0-HD) of other creature types. So it became even more important for us to clarify the rules in that book and for that subject. As brief look at weapon and armor proficiencies granted to creature types in the Pathfinder RPG will show that they are really not created for robust character generation. There is a lot of loose statements there giving GMs and critter designers a lot of leeway in their creation for a number of design reasons.
Thus the stronger wording in our book dedicated to the expansion of PC races beyond the Core Rulebook and the Bestiary. Two audiences, two related solutions. The only contradiction is the ones perceived, or ones trumped up by bringing in the 3.5 FAQ which we do not and can't use.
With that, I'm closing down this thread. We have review the arguments, I have explained the rationale, and we have made our decision on this particular subject.
Good gaming and have a great weekend.
I would also like to point out--as I have done in other threads--that we do not and cannot reference the 3.5 FAQ on the Wizards of the Coast website. That document is not Open Game Content. While you are all free to debate the arguments and merits of that collection of document, we make our own decisions about Pathfinder.
Anyone find it amusing that this thread was marked "no response required" by the developers when a developer specifically gave a response in the thread? Ahhh. . . the limitations of multiple choice.
When we say "no response required" what we typically mean is that we are not going to include this item in the FAQ. It does not mean that designers or developers are not going to answer questions in threads. I answered questions and explained the design decision process to those interested in the discussion.
All I'm really saying is that I don't use the ARG. The only Aasimar that has appeared in one of my campaigns at all recently was an NPC. This topic is relevant to NPCs built using the Bestiary.
Let us assume that is all you are saying, which I don't think it is, but let's just assume that.
First, if the aasimar is an NPC, there was absolutely no problem with you giving it martial weapon proficiency by the rules as written. We often say that monsters are proficient in certain types of weapons as well as any weapons that are listed in the entry. Why do we do that, because want monsters to have the weapons we want monsters to have. There is only the illusion to universality to in monster design when it comes to proficiency because we don't want to needlessly limit monster design.
So you could have given your NPC aasimar a bastard sword, and that would have been fine. You're the GM, and we want you to make the stories you want, with critters that make sense to you.
The clarification was mainly for people who wanted to use it as a PC race, be it in their home game or in Pathfinder Society (especially in Pathfinder Society). We realized that the line "Aasimars are defined by class levels—they do not possess racial Hit Dice. Aasimars have the following racial traits," did not have the clarity required. Though you will notice the traits after that section say nothing about weapon or armor proficiency, and the sections in the monster entries are purposefully vague. The armor sections much more than the weapon sections.
Then we created the Advanced Race Guide, which was a book that expanded the options for PC races. Because that book dealt not with stocking a world full of critters to serve as adversaries and NPCs, it had different design needs. We had to be clearer on some things we were purposefully unclear on before. You may not like that lack of clarity, but often it serves a purpose. Either a certain amount of flexibility for monster design, or even brevity where needed.
In short, if you gave your NPC aasimar martial weapon proficiency (or even exotic), don't worry. The game doesn't break down, and you have the flexibility to do so. If you house rule that your PC assimar has them, so be it. People house rule things all the time, and Pathfinder thugs never show up at their door to tell them they are doing it wrong. I'm a strong believer that the ability for individual GMs to house rule is a feature of our game, not a bug.
What we are saying is that we will not design them in official product with those proficiencies (and to my knowledge have not done so purposely) nor do you get them for free in Pathfinder Society.
If you find this disappointing, I'm sorry. But it is the truth. It is highly unlikely we will change the wording in any of the Bestiary books. Frankly because this is not a issue, and those books have a different focus. The definitive answer for PC creation of 0-HD non-humanoids in general is covered in the Advanced Race Guide (a book designed to expand on that subject in greater detail) and I have talked about the rationale in depth here.
Good gaming and have a fantastic Halloween!
The rule got changed with the Pathfinder Bestiary, but it was not state as explicit as it could have been. When we created even more 0-HD non-humanoid races for the Advanced Race Guide (and were in the process of doing even more after) we decided to make it as explicit as possible. Before there was two races. Now there are may. Things change. We changed them, didn't explain it as well as we could, and then we stated it in a way that is crystal clear. That was the process.
You are right. While it was always the assumption that 0-HD creatures, no matter their type, had weapon and armor proficiencies based on their class levels, we did not state that explicitly in the Bestiary. That is why we did in the Advance Race Guide.
Saying that it is listed specifically in the Advanced Race Guide only, and somehow that does not make is core, is just wrong. It is part of the core line, and one about races, and it contains a number that are not of the humanoid type. We were able to make the clarification and we did.