|
There's an excellent review found offsite. Note the lack of spellcasters.
Are these guys related with Wolfgang Baur's Open Design? That art is the same as one of the Kobold Quarterly design tipbooks.
No, we just like the same art. That cover is by Jon Hodgson. I am completely in love with it.
This book is super awesome! Just bought it yesterday, had a chance to go over it a bit. Every bit worth every penny, actually I'd venture to say it is worth more. Not a dead class in the lot! Way to go! Looking forward to see what comes next!
|
I am just flicking through this now - first impressions here and I may well post a review.
good
1. The writing and layout are very clear and comprehensible.
2. The creator understands the design expectations of PFRPG.
3. Some very good design ideas - the writer has successfully identified niches that current classes will struggle to fill.
4. Nothing i too niche (ie. the Corsair is not useless off a boat).
bad
1. Power creep, sometimes in odd ways (ie. it makes no sense for a Corbie to have an animal companion superior to that of a ranger, especially as a cheap bonus ability - imagine that one of the rogue tricks was an animal companion and you'll get the idea).
2. Power creep, the designers have taken to "no dead levels" maxim to heart but have overloaded to power given at every level.
3. Power creep, the fighter is dead to you now, as is the barbarian, both replaced by a skirmishing fighter who replaces his bonus feats with full sneak attack and a load of cool extras - one feat on heavy armour prof and he dominates your fighter.
|
|
I will never alow any of the classes from this book in my game ever! well put to gether but the classes are way over powered and I only look at the first two. If there a indacation of how the others are if you like uber charters and your DM is willing to alow them by all means feal free.
Ok finshed half of the classes now and there all band from my games. After a serten point its not even worth looking at the rest of them becous you have a perty good idea where this is going.
|
|
I wanted to write more.
This product is deeply frustrating. The ideas are excellent, the writing is lucid and the classes combine flavour and mechanics effectively. The mathematics appear to be correct.
This should be an exciting release.
But, but, but...
My suggestion, perhaps the obvious one to Paizo fans, would be that the designer subjects these classes to some serious, independent play-testing, perhaps even a Paizo-style open-playtest, to find the correct balance for these classes.
As an advocate of play-testing I know I should probably take the time to playtest these classes but right now the power-creep is so flagrant I don't need to. The Beastmaster laughs at the puny Barbarian, the Corsair mocks the clumsy fighter, the Scout mocks the Ranger and the Rogue and every Ranged Fighter with his attacks-of-utter-doom (my phrase).
Please, please would the designers look again at these classes and hold them up honestly, in the clear light of day, against base classes. Then this product might be pulled from the mire.
Now that you point it out, GeraintElberion, Signature Mount and Animal Friend are both level -2, whereas the Ranger's companion is level -3. I may errata that.
I appreciate the feedback. Obviously, I cannot tell you what "power creep" constitutes, but perhaps I can help by illuminating some of my thoughts during the design process. First and foremost, I wanted to avoid creating classes that were too strong, or too weak. Therefore, I designed boldly, but with great attention.
Let's compare the Barbarian to the Beastmaster. They have the same hit dice, BAB, Fortitude and Will saves and get the same number of skill ranks for a very similar skill list. They both have fast movement. The Beastmaster loses proficiency with shields and rage, while gaining animal companion, animal agility (a skill bonus), and speak with animals. I don't think speak with animals is going to present a balance problem, unless maybe you have a druid in the party. I think an animal companion is a fair trade for shields and rage. The Beastmaster gets good Reflexes, but does not gain the +2 to Will while raging.
As they advance, they both gain trap sense, uncanny dodge, and damage reduction at the same rate. A barbarian gains four enhancements to rage, plus ten rage powers. Any of those rage powers is easily the equal of an ability a Beastmaster gains. If you look at their advancement charts, you will see there are actually fewer levels where a Beastmaster gets more than one ability compared to a Barbarian (eight versus nine). Scent and low-light vision are both available as Rage Powers. Animal agility and animal instincts, while available all the time, are not as flashy and powerful as Raging Leaper or Strength Surge.
Not only are they roughly balanced in terms of their special powers, but they work differently and hence the Beastmaster cannot really be compared directly to the Barbarian by the numbers. A 12th level barbarian gets +6 to Strength and Constitution and +3 to Will while raging, and a Beastmaster gets nothing equivalent. Instead, the Beastmaster relies on their animal companion and abilities like opportunist and greater battle roar.
There is no question the Beastmaster is strong. But so is a Pathfinder Druid, or a Pathfinder Barbarian. These classes are intended to be viable replacements for existing classes, which means they have to have to be good at what they do. I don't think the Pathfinder Barbarian is a poor cousin, I think it's a great class, and I can only hope the Beastmaster is a good match for it.
|
|
My fighter has lost his bonus feats, heavy armour prof., shield prof. and masteries.
In return he has... more skill points, full sneak attack, uncanny dodge/improved uncanny dodge, DR, Vital Strike feat chain, crippling strike, auto-sneak attack in surprise round, blind fight, a once-a-day luck bonus, a few other bits and bobs...
I'm not saying it's a bad idea, I'm saying it seems to have been laid on a little too thick.
In any case, this is a fruitless debate: I have your product, you have my money, you have your views and have expressed them, I have done the same.
adieu
|
I'm going to go ahead an agree with GeraintElberion. These classes are purty powerful. I like the idea behind some of them, especially the Scholar and Corbie, but even they are a bit much. I can see using these classes, but taking away some of the abilities like all those sneak attacks and DRs, and some of those free feats at first level. Cool ideas, but too much stuff for one class.
Don't discount the Figher. Compared to the Corsair, he has heavy armor proficiency, plus armor training, which allows him to have a higher Dex and hence AC. He can also move wear heavier armor and retain his movement rate. He also has Bravery; the Corsair has no save bonuses of any kind. Finally, masteries represent, at 20th level, +5 to hit and damage witha fighter's best weapon (before taking into account Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization). None of that even takes into account that a fighter's numerous bonus feats can help him close the gap in various other ways.
As far as DR is concerned, Armor Mastery at level 19 gives a Fighter the same DR as a Corsair, or a Barbarian.
|
Yeah, a lot of the fears about overpowered classes are, from my POV, well-founded. A properly tweaked Scholar can have access to "Only Mostly Dead" at 10th level, which is to say Resurrection once per day. True, you still need the material component and a divine focus, but when you can pull off at 10th level what a Cleric can't do until 13th...
Great ideas behind all the classes (love the martial artist!), but needs editing and dialing back on the power scale vis-a-vis Pathfinder core.
I stand by my previous post. Great work! Woot for fighter killin paladins!
I'm all about letting these classes into games I run, because I think they're inspiring, and to me, it's more important that my players are inspired and into their characters than worrying about such academic arguments. If one of my players takes one of these classes and it becomes a problem, I'll make the necessary adjustments, but I don't see it being an issue, to be honest.
Yeah, a lot of the fears about overpowered classes are, from my POV, well-founded. A properly tweaked Scholar can have access to "Only Mostly Dead" at 10th level, which is to say Resurrection once per day. True, you still need the material component and a divine focus, but when you can pull off at 10th level what a Cleric can't do until 13th...
Sure, but what do you do for an encore?
The class rundown is beastmaster, bounty hunter, corbie, corsair, gladiator, hunter, knight, martial artist, scholar, scout and spy, so I think it would probably be a big asset in a low magic campaign. Some of the classes have a handful of spell-like abilities or supernatural abilities, especially at higher levels, so you might tweak that if the items-only rule is applied absolutely. The scholar has the potential for magical abilities, but many good options are still available even if you remove those options. While I can't promise you it will be ideal for your purposes, I am pretty confident in saying you'll be better off that when you started if you want non-magical characters.
In fact, scholars don't necessarily have magical abilities. They get talent selections, much like a rogue, and one of the available talents is minor magic, basically the same as the rogue talent. Scholars do get supernatural SR at 13th level, but other than that, can be entirely non-magical. I've been posting some design notes on my blog at rjgrady.webs.com which may help give you an idea, but I'm happy to summarize.
The beastmaster is a barbarian-like character who gets an animal companion and some related abilities instead of raging.
The bounty hunter is a sneak attacking warrior with a special affinity for tracking people.
The corbie is a skill-based warrior who is less adept than a fighter, but has an uncanny knack for survival.
The corsair is a sneak-attacking warrior with some barbarian abilities and some sea-related bonuses.
The gladiator is a melee specialist who relies on tactics.
The hunter is a non-magical ambusher with the favored enemy ability.
The knight is a warrior whose resplendent powers give him and his allies special bonuses.
The martial artist is an unarmored warrior who relies on mobility.
The scholar is a wildcard character who is good at identifying magical items, exploring tombs and jungles, and identifying enemies' weaknesses.
The scout is a skill-based stealth and perception expert who uses deadly accuracy to fell foes.
The spy is a tricky and charismatic character who can assume false identities and has a rogue's sneak attack.
Will there ever be a print edition?
"Ever" is a long time. Honestly, I do not know. I am considering Lulu or something along those lines. I know RPGnow has something in the works, which may be an option, as well.
|
|
With a bit of time to review the book, some of my concerns over the power level of the classes are misplaced. There's a lot to like in this book, in particular if you were a bit disappointed with all of the spellcasting classes in the APG. I prefer this version of the Knight over the Tome of Secrets version.
The martial artist, though... still feels a bit overpowered, particularly if you add on the Signature Weapon feat.
and here, I started a thread that there are too many spell casting base classes in the Core Rule Book and the upcoming APG
ERRATA: Martial Artist has no skill point listing.
Additional ERRATA: Scout has no skill point listing.
Bah! How did that sneak through all this time? Martial artist is 2 and Scout is 8.
Something to add to the discussion about whether some of these classes are overpowered: the Scout's "Targeted Strike" gives you damage equivalent to Sneak Attack but instead when taking an single standard action attack. The only drawback I can see over Sneak Attack is that you can't use Targeted Strike on a full attack, but given how slowly the class gains extra attacks it's not really a drawback.
It warrants discussion. My thinking was long these lines: the Complete Adventurer scout would virtually always move and get their skirmish bonuses, although skirmish was split between extra damage and extra AC. Scouts do not gain extra attacks quickly, but Two-Weapon Fighting is a popular rogue option and Rapid Shot and Manyshot are good for bow users. I designed targeted strike the way is it since sneak attack is hard to pull off with a ranged attack. My original thought was to use the Vital Strike feats, but there weren't enough grades and I wanted to divoce the extra damage from powerful weapons, as sneak attack does.
Except the CA Scout had an extra drawback to skirmish: Attack of Opportunity provoked from that movement. And while moving and using ranged attacks worked pretty well moving and using melee attacks was tricky against a single target because you either had to spend time moving away and back or you had to continually move around the target's threatened area. Targeted Strike eliminates those difficulties. Also by taking away the option for multiple attacks what you've created is an ability that gains rather than take away drawbacks, making it really useful early on, but then progressively less useful.
IME, a CA scout's improved movement rate and Tumbling meant that AoOs were never an issue. In any case, my player quickly settled on focusing on the shortbow.
In the scout I wrote, targeted strike is probably slightly stronger than sneak attack at 1st level, but after that you will always have competing opportunities between extra dice of damage versus extra attacks. At very high levels, the feat Precision Critical should address the multiple attack issues somewhat.
If you've got mechanical reasoning that's good enough for me for now.
One last question: What was the reasoning behind giving the Bounty Hunter so much stuff? Fighter BAB, two good saves, 6+Int skill points, and Sneak Attack. Are the BAB and saves what you consider a fair exchange for not having Rogue Talents to choose from?
The bounty hunter is more like a ranger. He has the same BAB and saves, the same skill points, and the same tracking ability. Compared to a ranger, he gives up hunter's bond, spellcasting, favored terrains and enemies, and martial weapon proficiency, and gains sneak attack and a smattering of bonus feats and rogue talents.
Compared to a rogue they gain full BAB and an extra good save and lose 2 skill points. They lose rogue talents, evasion, and improved uncanny dodge, instead receiving bonus feats (which are a nice list, but not as strong as a fighter's list or a rogue talent in most cases) and some pre-selected abilities. They also, like the scout, lose Use Magic Device. Note that without trap sense, trapfinding, or evasion, the bounty hunter lacks a rogue's most basic ability. So even though the bounty hunter looks like a rogue at first glance, he's really a skill-based warrior class.
Mixing in two levels of rogue to get evasion, trapfinding and UMD as a class skill is not a bad idea. Or consider, also, taking a level of barbarian to get martial weapon proficiency and fast movement. I think by that comparison, the bounty hunter seems balanced, since there are tradeoffs to each approach.
I think the bounty hunter is comparable to the existing classes. He took some fiddling, but I think I got him to occupy a cozy place between rogue and ranger. The bounty hunter and corsair both started as, essentially, the sneak attacking "thug" fighter from Unearthed Arcana, overlaid with new abilities gained by the core classes in Pathfinder.
You think they'd pay for a Lulu saddle-stitched thingy? It might not be, you know, super-cheap.
You think they'd pay for a Lulu saddle-stitched thingy? It might not be, you know, super-cheap.
How much are we talking?
You think they'd pay for a Lulu saddle-stitched thingy? It might not be, you know, super-cheap.How much are we talking?
Last time I checked, something more than $10 and less than $15.
If would be awesome if a few of you could post some reviews here.
While I like the concept behind the classes and most of the mechanics seems sound there are a few issues that bugs me.
Beastmaster: I don't think this class should have D12 HD, for some reason it just doesn't feel right. I know the class is based on the barbarian, but I think the beastmaster should have D10 HD. I don't think this is a big balance issue, just a personal preference. I'm also not keen on the beastmaster gaining the evasion ability, just doesn't seem to fit IMO, especially with the medium armor proficiency the class gets.
Knight and Gladiator: Drop the tower shield proficiency, I think this should be reserved to fighters only, again not a balance issue only a personal opinion. Also the knights unnamed bonuses to stats bugs me. The bonuses should have some kind of type.
Martial artist: Additional damage equal to half martial artist weapon with chosen weapon!? I think this should be rephrased as being additional damage dice or precision damage to avoid exploiting high crit weapons, other than this I love the class.
Scholar: The ability to get Int bonus to AC is a pretty powerful ability IMO. I don't think this should stack with similar bonuses (like the monk's ac bonus from wisdom) to avoid dipping, the class is front loaded as is.
Another thing that worries me (and this is from gaming experience). Is full base attack classes with full sneak attack. This steps on both the rogues and the fighters toes. Not only will the class hit as often as other martial classes, it will out damage them as well, making these classes clearly optimal to other martial classes when it comes to hitting and damage dealing. I had a player in my curse of the crimson throne campaign that played a pathfinderized version of the swashbuckler class with best bab and full sneak attack. He hit as often as the groups focused fighters and regularly dealt twice as much damage due to his sneak attack. The other fighter types in the party felt really inferior to this guy and he wasn't even really optimized. Just the combination of full base attack and full sneak attack made him outshine the other fighters and especially the party's rogue. I would recommend leaving the sneak attack of these classes at 1d6 per three or four levels instead of half level to compensate for the high base attack bonus.
If some of these issues are addressed (and maybe you should have a playtest by those who have bought the pdf? I would be more than happy to participate) I would certainly be interested in buying a print version for a reasonable price.
|
|
Martial artist: Additional damage equal to half martial artist weapon with chosen weapon!? I think this should be rephrased as being additional damage dice or precision damage to avoid exploiting high crit weapons, other than this I love the class.
I wondered about this one at first too, but compare it to a Fighter with Weapon Training, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization. Comes out to a similar attack and damage bonus, all of which does multiply in the hands of a Fighter with a high crit weapon.
I wondered about this one at first too, but compare it to a Fighter with Weapon Training, Weapon Focus, Weapon Specialization, Greater Weapon Focus, and Greater Weapon Specialization. Comes out to a similar attack and damage bonus, all of which does multiply in the hands of a Fighter with a high crit weapon.
You are right, I think I will test this class a bit before I decide if I will change anything. I really like the concept of this class.
Last time I checked, something more than $10 and less than $15.You think they'd pay for a Lulu saddle-stitched thingy? It might not be, you know, super-cheap.How much are we talking?
I'd buy it. I regularly pay that for Pathfinder Companions.
While I like the concept behind the classes and most of the mechanics seems sound there are a few issues that bugs me.
Beastmaster: I don't think this class should have D12 HD, for some reason it just doesn't feel right. I know the class is based on the barbarian, but I think the beastmaster should have D10 HD. I don't think this is a big balance issue, just a personal preference. I'm also not keen on the beastmaster gaining the evasion ability, just doesn't seem to fit IMO, especially with the medium armor proficiency the class gets.
I did think about the hit die very carefully, and in the end decided I would probably be making them weak versus the barbarian if I took it away. As for evasion, rangers get it. In the end, I decided it would be weird if their animal companions got evasion and they did not.
Knight and Gladiator: Drop the tower shield proficiency, I think this should be reserved to fighters only, again not a balance issue only a personal opinion. Also the knights unnamed bonuses to stats bugs me. The bonuses should have some kind of type.
Gladiators get tower shields because many gladiators used very large shields, especially in "military reenactments."
Martial artist: Additional damage equal to half martial artist weapon with chosen weapon!? I think this should be rephrased as being additional damage dice or precision damage to avoid exploiting high crit weapons, other than this I love the class.
The new benchmark has to take into account the fighter's weapon training. The martial artist pays a large price just by being specialized. For instance, a fighter can take weapon training (swords +5, bows +4 etc) and have Weapon Focus and Specialization with both longsword and longbow, but a martial artist has no secondary weapon. Their backup attacks will always lack additional bonuses, and a second chosen weapon is two feats away.
Scholar: The ability to get Int bonus to AC is a pretty powerful ability IMO. I don't think this should stack with similar bonuses (like the monk's ac bonus from wisdom) to avoid dipping, the class is front loaded as is.
It is powerful. I'm not sure what else to add, except that it's the main punch the class has. A wizard might be tempted to take one level for that and Skill Focus, but probably wouldn't want to lose a level for it, which I think is just about the right balance point. Other classes would be splittng their abilites between Int and whatever else... a monk/scholar sounds like a neat concept, but assuming they go half Wis and half Int, isn't any stronger than either one.
Another thing that worries me (and this is from gaming experience). Is full base attack classes with full sneak attack. This steps on both the rogues and the fighters toes.
Those clases are balanced in other ways. The bounty hunter and corsair get a very narrow range of options comparied to a fighter or a rogue. The original idea resides in Unearthed Arcana, which ranked sneak attack equal with a fighter's bonus feats. The corsair can hit very, very hard... but compared to a high level fighter, he lacks around +5 to hit from weapon training, has no access to Greater Weapon Focus, and if he wants to go the two-weapon fighting route, three of his levels basically sit idle (Vital Strike and its improvments). Remember, some things in Pathfinder have changed from 3e, and the balance point versus the rogue and fighter is definitely different.
I can see the reasoning behind many of your choices and the product is very well made and professional (especially for its price). As I said with the hit dice and tower shield thing, these are most personal preferences. I can understand your reasoning for giving tower shield proficiency to knights and gladiators, and its in no way a broken or unbalanced addition, although I feel that the military reenactments of gladiators would be more appropriately represented by taking a level dip ion the fighter class or taking the tower shield proficiency. As for knights, I really can't see them normally getting training in these shields, at least that is not how I picture a classical knight (hiding behind a wall).
That said, I have extensive playtesting when it comes to sneak attack and full base attack bonuses. While this may not have been a big issue in 3.5, this has changed quite drastically with the Pathfinder version of the ability, which works against almost anything. This is worst for the rogue however, since sneak attack is his trademark combat ability, and being out-shined by several classes in this area really lowers that class' appeal to many players (at least most of the players I have played with.)
The scholar's int bonus to AC is easily balanced by making it a named bonus (thus preventing stacking, insight comes to mind). Or making it "unstackable" with similar class features. I have seen this AC "combo" misused in several occasions with classes and prestige classes with similar abilities and the results can get really ridiculous in the hands of an experienced power gamer. The worst part isn't actually the bonus itself, (although this can get ridiculously high if exploited), but the appeal of dipping into a class with such an ability since the ability isn't balanced by class levels.
That said, what I really like about this supplement is the love for the non-magical classes. There has been tons of new spell-caster classes out there in one version or another covering all kinds of occult practices from folklore and pop-culture, but the basic concept of a guy with a sword (or axe, or roundhouse kick or knife or punch or etc.) has been really neglected, and while many fighting styles can be mimicked by feats there are certain archetypes that has been sadly pushed aside for more flashy or mystical concepts. This book really brings a lot of these forgotten heroes back to the gaming table and enables the DM and players to bring more variety and style to the table.