| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Am I the only one tired of looking at archetypes that look really interesting and flavorful on the surface, but actually really suck when you get a good look at them?
Here are a few examples that have stood out to me recently:
-----
The Concept: Summon Nature Ally instead of Summon Monster.
Where it All Went Wrong: In exchange for a few extra options to summon at some levels they completely nerfed the Eidolon's combat ability. Seriously, +7 BAB at 20th level? D6 HD? No Darkvision? And some of the summon options are garbage as well (I can now summon Satyrs at SNA V instead of at SNA IV! wait... what?)
How it Could Have Been: Instead of completely nerfing the Eidolon, swap out other abilities. Since a First Worlder can't really use his Eidolon in combat, Shield Ally and Greater Shield Ally are all but worthless to them. I think just giving up these two abilities for the handful of summon options would have been a much fairer trade.
The Concept:You are a Paladin, but now with a Gun.
Where it All Went Wrong: Holy Guns can only Smite on a single attack as a standard action at the cost of 1 Grit. Let me repeat that in case you didn't understand. A Holy Gun Paladin's smite only applies to a single attack made as a standard action. Oh and Paladins only have 1 Grit till 11th level, and they don't get the smite AC bonus.
How it Could Have Been: Smite is left alone. Honestly, Smite + Ranged Touch attacks is extremely powerful. However, a 1 lvl dip into Mysterious Stranger and 19 levels of Paladin already gives you just that and makes for a much better Holy Gun than the Holy Gun does.
The Concept: A Paladin who uses ranged weapons.
Where it All Went Wrong: Other than the Precise Shot bonus feat at first level, there is nothing in this archetype that really makes you better at being a ranged Paladin. Instead he gives up DR and his immunity to fear, charm, and compulsion to grant allies some bonuses that they don't need or already have.
How it Could Have Been: Ranged attackers are feat hungry. Although Precise Shot was nice, a couple more bonus feats would have been much better than random useless bonuses.
The Concept: A Cavalier without the mount (wait, what?)
Where it All Went Wrong: Ever since the Cavalier has come out, people have been clamoring for a mountless Cavalier option (Hound Master anyone?). Well, when UC came out, we finally got one. The problem was that it replaced one thing that a lot of people didn't want (a mount) with just another thing that a lot of people didn't want (a gun).
How it Could Have Been: Hound Master. Or maybe a Tactician that could share feats better instead of having a mount.
The Concept: A Druid with connections to Dragons!
Where it All Went Wrong: This isn't a Dragon Shaman. It's a Lizard Shaman. What's worse, the Saurian Shaman is pretty much the same thing, except it's abilities affect dinosaurs and all reptiles, whereas the Dragon Shaman's abilities just work with lizards.
How it Could Have Been: Drop the whole lizard theme. Give them access to the Form of Dragon line of spells at the minimum. Something like a Fairy Dragon companion would be amazing, but would need to be handled well.
Is anyone else tired of this kind of stuff? Or do you have any more examples of good class archetype ideas that were executed rather horribly?
I haven't read up on all of those archetypes, but I am familiar with Dragon Shaman and First World Summoner. I agree with you on those: they are garbage. Such a waste of potential, especially the Dragon Shaman.
but actually really suck when you get a good look at them?
Explain to me how are you able to determine if something sucks by just looking at the stat block, instead than trying it in a actual game situation and not a theoretical one.
| 19 people marked this as a favorite. |
but actually really suck when you get a good look at them?Explain to me how are you able to determine if something sucks by just looking at the stat block, instead than trying it in a actual game situation and not a theoretical one.
The same way you can know a girl is crazy without marrying her.
but actually really suck when you get a good look at them?Explain to me how are you able to determine if something sucks by just looking at the stat block, instead than trying it in a actual game situation and not a theoretical one.
A feat that gives you a -10 penalty to all ability scores pretty much sucks.
No, seriously: probably the same way a game designer does. With a lot of experience, and mental experiments.
Your point is mostly valid, but I am not really tired of misses, they are bound to happen and archetypes really take up a minimum ammount of space, so it is not a big loss.
As long as the idea is actually good I have an easy time to fix it with a simple houserule and thank paizo for the inspiration behind the archetype.
In the case of first world summoner I would change a few options in the list of evolutions and possibly add a few more, I'd also increase the HD advancement and slightly change the base stats to make it a more likely magic eidolon or skill monkey, rather than an engine of destruction. DR/cold iron comes to mind as an option, I'd increase the HD to increase 1 on 1 with the summoner, and change the stat increases to focus on dexterity and charisma instead of constitution and strength or something like that.
Holy Gun could have been done better, at least give them extra grit, though a level dip is not a great way to make a point.
I do not really see a problem with Divine Hunter.
Musketeer doesn't strike me as a problem either, I reckon some people like mounts, some like guns instead, some don't like either option, but some people probably will use it, I can imagine a fine NPC with this archetype.
Dragon Shaman, it is bland and I kinda feel cheated because they used the same name as the 3.5 class, which looks less like this archetype than a lizard looks like a dragon. I'd suggest a pseudodragon or firedrake-like companion and the form of the dragon spells as well, though it still wouldn't look like the 3.5 dragon shaman at least it wouldn't be boring.
I would add totem warrior to the list, since it does nothing at all.
|
Divine Hunter is fine - especially for ranged-heavy parties who usually groan that most buff spells are melee-focused.
Musketeer is totally subjective, if you don't like guns you won't like him. I have several players who are totally over a gun-toting chivalrous scoundrel idea, and that's just the right thing for them.
Dragon Shaman is a victim of the somewhat unwise policy of "let's name something just like a 3.5 thing" that plagued Ulitmate Magic (Vow of Poverty, I am looking at you).
The same way you can know a girl is crazy without marrying her.
Wrong example. You could know if a girl is crazy if you met her, not if you looked at her job resume.
|
|
Divine Hunter is going to be a bro in our Carrion Crown campaign. Especially with a whip-fighter and sorcerer in the party.
Regarding the opening question...I do wish Flowing Monk didn't lock out the possibility of starting on Marid or Djinni styles until near the end of an AP, but if that's the only bad thing I can really say about it, can't complain too loudly. Just banging my head against the wall looking for solutions.
|
I keep wondering about the Dragon Shaman - it's as if the designer was going for Komodo dragons, but midway through the process sombody misunderstood and edited it to try to conform(unsuccessfully, I might add) to the fantasy dragon type.
I disagree with the rest of the OP's post. Preferences run deep and what somebody might find to be mechanically inferior and therefore unexciting(I'll never understand that line of thought) someone else will consider a must-play. Paizo has kept a pretty strict power balance with their new stuff. The original classes and APG are the norm powerwise and none of the Ultimate or the Inner Sea stuff have so far gone above that line.
If you keep that in mind, you'll notice the archetypes that seems to take away a lot with little gain are given to classes that already were top tier in their initial conception - paladins, druids, etc. The archetypes sacrifice power for flavor, but never cripple the original class, since full casters and paladins - to continue with the example given - are well-rounded enough to be able to weather losing some powerful - and therefore fan-favorite - options.
Now Dragon Shaman and Shapeshifter ranger just dropped the ball. The shamans never get to do draconic stuff(or even linnorm stuff, which would have been a more apt thing considering linnorms are natural and dragons aren't) and the Shapeshifter ranger never shifts shape.
The same way you can know a girl is crazy without marrying her.Wrong example. You could know if a girl is crazy if you met her, not if you looked at her job resume.
Its like: looking at two poles. You need to hit something that is 10 ft away with out walking closer or throwing the object. One is 10 feet long, the other is 4 feet long. By looking at them you can clearly see which would be effective at doing so.
Its like: looking at two poles. You need to hit something that is 10 ft away with out walking closer. One is 10 feet long, the other is 4 feet long. By looking at them you can clearly see which would be effective at doing so.The same way you can know a girl is crazy without marrying her.Wrong example. You could know if a girl is crazy if you met her, not if you looked at her job resume.
The 4 foot one, cause it's easier to throw?
The 4 foot one, cause it's easier to throw?Its like: looking at two poles. You need to hit something that is 10 ft away with out walking closer. One is 10 feet long, the other is 4 feet long. By looking at them you can clearly see which would be effective at doing so.The same way you can know a girl is crazy without marrying her.Wrong example. You could know if a girl is crazy if you met her, not if you looked at her job resume.
ninja'ed, I just made that exception. Assume you are not good at throwing anything.
ANYWAY.
Sometimes inferiority is blatantly clear.
If you still don't believe me; how about you invest in my psychic hotline business? You won't know it is a total scam till you try.
I agree, some archetypes aren't very good at making even swaps, alas. I can't comment on any of the examples in the original post, though. But you can see the same thing at work in the terrain druid variants in the APG. Most of them swap out abilities on a roughly one-for-one basis, but then on top of that they all get hit with an arbitrary penalty to wild shape.
Is there a polish joke in here somewhere? poles? throwing poles?
Is there a polish joke in here somewhere? poles? throwing poles?
Funny you bring that up, I am 50% polish.
Is there a polish joke in here somewhere? poles? throwing poles?Funny you bring that up, I am 50% polish.
Oddly enough, I always found the way written Polish looks to be quite terrifying, until I learned Russian, and realized you guys just needed some Cyrillic to sort yourself out. That said 'Polish' is the only nationality that is also an English verb as far as I know. And nobody says Finlandize anymore.
Why are so many people confusing criticism of the Holy Gun with the Divine Hunter ( which is a pretty rad archetype if your group has more than one ranged physical damage dealer )?
I have to agree. Some of this archetipe sucks, and many are not well balanced. By the way, the majority of them are very nice, and help roleplay. It's just some of them (like many of the prestige classes) that don't worth the paper they used.
|
As an example of identifying something that is inferior to another without the need to play here are two traits from the Inner Sea Primer:
Shackles Seafarer
Fluff: You’re familiar with the treacherous coastlines, currents, and tides of the Shackles, and can use that knowledge anywhere.
Mechanics: You gain a +1 trait bonus on Knowledge (nature) and Knowledge (geography) checks while on the ocean. You also gain a +1 trait bonus on Swim checks, and Swim is always a class skill for you.
Oagan Diver
Fluff: You know how to operate the diving bells of Oagon at the mouth of the Black Flow. You’ve dived the streets of sunken Lirgen yourself, and you know what to expect.
Mechanics: You gain a +1 trait bonus on Swim checks, and Swim is always a class skill for you.
The fluff from Shackles Seafarer seems to have a much broader usefulness than Oagan Diver, and from a mechanics point of view Shackles Seafarer does what Oagan Diver does and then some.
The only time Oagan Diver will outshine Shackles Seafarer is if the adventure involves operating diving bells or exploring Lirgen, both very specific things.
I don't need to play a characters with these traits to know that Shackles Seafarer is superior.
I was just wondering where the First Worlder archetype comes from? I haven't seen it.
|
|
The Concept:You are a Paladin, but now with a Gun.
Where it All Went Wrong: Holy Guns can only Smite on a single attack as a standard action at the cost of 1 Grit. Let me repeat that in case you didn't understand. A Holy Gun Paladin's smite only applies to a single attack made as a standard action. Oh and Paladins only have 1 Grit till 11th level, and they don't get the smite AC bonus.
How it Could Have Been: Smite is left alone. Honestly, Smite + Ranged Touch attacks is extremely powerful. However, a 1 lvl dip into Mysterious Stranger and 19 levels of Paladin already gives you just that and makes for a much better Holy Gun than the Holy Gun does.
I think the reason it was changed was to give it a bit of gunslinger flavor. Grit is also a rechargeable mechanic allowing the holy gun to potentially use the smiting shot against multiple different targets, even at lower levels. It also lets you take other grit feats, but thats not really for everyone so its a minor selling point.
I do think that a holy gun should gain grit from charisma instead if wisdom and if I ever run a game with a holy gun in it, I'll give the player the option to change it.
I also really liked the idea of the hound master.
The Crusader Cleric Arch.
So I get my choice of one domain every day, I lose one of my non-domain slots at every level, and this is somehow worth a bonus feat every five levels? No.
Like all archetypes, I am okay with it being less powerful than the base class, but there are some trades you'd have to be stupid to make.
The Crusader Cleric Arch.
So I get my choice of one domain every day, I lose one of my non-domain slots at every level, and this is somehow worth a bonus feat every five levels? No.
Like all archetypes, I am okay with it being less powerful than the base class, but there are some trades you'd have to be stupid to make.
Agreed. Then again, many times people have no concept of balance at all. Think of how many people raged about the Holy Warrior archtype in the original Pathfinder Campaign Setting (the 3.5 one). The holy warrior was a cleric who traded their domains (and domain spell slots) for a d10 HD and a perfect base attack bonus. Nobody seemed to consider the fact that a normal cleric could just pop divine favor to get a perfect base attack bonus without losing any of their spellcasting abilities at all.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
but actually really suck when you get a good look at them?Explain to me how are you able to determine if something sucks by just looking at the stat block, instead than trying it in a actual game situation and not a theoretical one.
I am offering you the choice of two things. Your favorite food or a punch in the face. How can you know the punch in the face is worse?
Your point is mostly valid, but I am not really tired of misses, they are bound to happen and archetypes really take up a minimum ammount of space, so it is not a big loss.
Actually it is. You should hear the devs go on and on about wordspace and how they have to be miserly with it, then they use who knows how much wordspace to toss out crap because either it was unreviewed or someone convinced the devs that flavor trumps balanced and sensible mechanics.
but actually really suck when you get a good look at them?Explain to me how are you able to determine if something sucks by just looking at the stat block, instead than trying it in a actual game situation and not a theoretical one.I am offering you the choice of two things. Your favorite food or a punch in the face. How can you know the punch in the face is worse?
Your point is mostly valid, but I am not really tired of misses, they are bound to happen and archetypes really take up a minimum ammount of space, so it is not a big loss.Actually it is. You should hear the devs go on and on about wordspace and how they have to be miserly with it, then they use who knows how much wordspace to toss out crap because either it was unreviewed or someone convinced the devs that flavor trumps balanced and sensible mechanics.
I love your posts Cartigan. :P
Your posts are filled with wisdom and cold logic, and I think that's a wonderful thing. :)
|
|
but actually really suck when you get a good look at them?Explain to me how are you able to determine if something sucks by just looking at the stat block, instead than trying it in a actual game situation and not a theoretical one.I am offering you the choice of two things. Your favorite food or a punch in the face. How can you know the punch in the face is worse?
Your point is mostly valid, but I am not really tired of misses, they are bound to happen and archetypes really take up a minimum ammount of space, so it is not a big loss.Actually it is. You should hear the devs go on and on about wordspace and how they have to be miserly with it, then they use who knows how much wordspace to toss out crap because either it was unreviewed or someone convinced the devs that flavor trumps balanced and sensible mechanics.
I enjoy being punched on the face. Your point?
If you enjoy being punched in the face over your favorite food; then I guess we know who the archtype bloat is for, don't we?
|
|
Actually he does... just not until 20th level as noted below.
Now Dragon Shaman and Shapeshifter ranger just dropped the ball. The shamans never get to do draconic stuff(or even linnorm stuff, which would have been a more apt thing considering linnorms are natural and dragons aren't) and the Shapeshifter ranger never shifts shape.
You are exactly right, but(and I assume you were implying this) for the entire length of his career in regular pre-mythic/epic play he does nothing of the sort.
I think the beast shape forms should have been in play at level 11 the latest. That's where most of the early top tier abilities(Stalwart, Greater Rage, Greater Mutagen, etc), the stuff you have staid single class for, are gained. Then increase the level of the beast shape spell until you gain the highest one at level 20. Another option could have been to make something akin to the beastform alchemist options, a more utility kind of transformation, but lasting longer than the standard Shapeshifter options.
That said, the forms as they stand are pretty powerful. They don't make the ranger into an engine of destruction, but the movement modes and other abilities grant much needed versatility to the class.
I disagree with the rest of the OP's post. Preferences run deep and what somebody might find to be mechanically inferior and therefore unexciting(I'll never understand that line of thought) someone else will consider a must-play.
Something people NEED to understand (including devs) - flavor is not tantamount to good mechanics. No matter HOW much you like the flavor and feel you MUST play the class because the flavor is exactly what you want, that does not make the mechanics good or balanced.
I play a level 20 Paladin - normal, not Holy Gun.
I take Gunsmithing and EWP (Firearm)
I am now better at being a Gunslinging Paladin than the Holy Gun. Does the Holy Gun get them for free? Yes, but they also replace the good and useful Pathfinder Smite Evil with the crappiest possible combination of Amateur Gunslinging and 3.5 Smite Evil.
And replace Divine Bond with Divine Bond where it only applies to firearms.
Paladin with a gun > Holy Gun Paladin. In every possible way.
Hell, the Divine Hunter Paladin w/ a gun is better than the Holy Gun Paladin.
The Crusader Cleric Arch.
So I get my choice of one domain every day, I lose one of my non-domain slots at every level, and this is somehow worth a bonus feat every five levels? No.
Like all archetypes, I am okay with it being less powerful than the base class, but there are some trades you'd have to be stupid to make.
I actually thought the crusader was fine, it gets one less spell and one less domain, gets a total of 5 feats 1/5/10/15/20 and legion's blessing is a very nice ability (saves money too on restoration and true seeing), it can also cast enlarge person as a full round actionif you have the strength domain and the crusader uses the spell as a (SU) ability, so not likely to be disrupted.
|
The only time Oagan Diver will outshine Shackles Seafarer is if the adventure involves operating diving bells or exploring Lirgen, both very specific things.
I don't need to play a characters with these traits to know that Shackles Seafarer is superior.
It doesn't even outshine, when used in that narrowly-specific situation, unless the GM houserules it, to give a bonus that's not visible in the text.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If you enjoy being punched in the face over your favorite food; then I guess we know who the archtype bloat is for, don't we?I wouldn't be so conclusive about that, but I'm postivie on who's going over the "don't be a jerk" rule.
It's alright. I forgive you.
Something people NEED to understand (including devs) - flavor is not tantamount to good mechanics. No matter HOW much you like the flavor and feel you MUST play the class because the flavor is exactly what you want, that does not make the mechanics good or balanced.I play a level 20 Paladin - normal, not Holy Gun.
I take Gunsmithing and EWP (Firearm)I am now better at being a Gunslinging Paladin than the Holy Gun. Does the Holy Gun get them for free? Yes, but they also replace the good and useful Pathfinder Smite Evil with the crappiest possible combination of Amateur Gunslinging and 3.5 Smite Evil.
And replace Divine Bond with Divine Bond where it only applies to firearms.Paladin with a gun > Holy Gun Paladin. In every possible way.
Hell, the Divine Hunter Paladin w/ a gun is better than the Holy Gun Paladin.
EWP gives profieceny in one gun, not all of them. A Holy Gun can grab Signature Deed at lvl 17 and smite all day, everyday, endlessly. Your level 20 paladin can't. Every time a level 20 paladin smites an outsider, they save or die and the smite ends, same for the holy gun. However the holy gun can smite next round, because he didn't use any resources.
Just cause you use the greater then symbol doesn't make you right, you should probably think things through a little bit more.
At level 17, a non-smiting full-attack is probably going to consistently do more damage than a standard action smite. When one paladin doesn't need to smite to do better than the other, something is seriously wrong.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Actually there were a lot of people who acknowledged that the 3.5 cleric was entirely broken melee wise with just a couple of the right spells. Paizo answered those issues with the modifications to the cleric and those spells in particular.Agreed. Then again, many times people have no concept of balance at all. Think of how many people raged about the Holy Warrior archtype in the original Pathfinder Campaign Setting (the 3.5 one). The holy warrior was a cleric who traded their domains (and domain spell slots) for a d10 HD and a perfect base attack bonus. Nobody seemed to consider the fact that a normal cleric could just pop divine favor to get a perfect base attack bonus without losing any of their spellcasting abilities at all.The Crusader Cleric Arch.
So I get my choice of one domain every day, I lose one of my non-domain slots at every level, and this is somehow worth a bonus feat every five levels? No.
Like all archetypes, I am okay with it being less powerful than the base class, but there are some trades you'd have to be stupid to make.
Which was entirely my point. This was pre-Pathfinder. People raged at the idea of a cleric with a full BAB and a d10 HD who gave up their domains. Raged like a legion of barbarians on a booze binge with porcupines in their shorts. They raged because it was "so unbalanced" and "so overpowered", when factually it was weaker than the core Cleric that it was an archtype for. I personally liked it, even though it was indeed weaker than the core.
But that's just the thing. It was weaker than the core and people had no idea, and yet they raged. That is the essence of my point. People who have no concept of balance, or mechanics will still rage. Worse yet, most of the people I've found like this are also vehemently opposed to actually looking at the facts, mathematics, or experience behind such things.
Imagine how many people acted like the cloistered cleric was somehow neutered from a normal cleric (cloistered cleric had a 1/2 HD base attack, d6 HD, and light armor proficiency, got an extra knowledge domain, 6 + Int modifier skills, and access to several divination spells as cleric spells, and yet with a single buff spell it laughed at its +10/+5 base attack). Yet the cloistered cleric was actually stronger than the core cleric by a noticeable margin.
It saddens me. I feel like Paizo did a good job with Core Pathfinder, and I feel a lot of that work was so good because of the pressure of making sure it was well balanced and built on good mechanics. However, with each subsequent splatbook they are putting out, I notice the overall quality decreasing rapidly. We are getting more and more poor, trap, or outright useless mechanics; and I can't help but wonder if perhaps it is our fault.
By our fault, I mean we the fans. When Pathfinder was conceived, we were skeptical. We expected more. We demanded more than just a half-pitch effort. Now we have people who vehemently chastise people for caring about the mechanics at all, or will argue endlessly that Vow of Poverty is somehow not a bad game option, or forsake reasoning and cognitive ability to praise stuff that is worse than half the stuff you'll find being given out for free on Giant in the Playground's homebrew boards.
It makes me sad, and it makes me angry, to see this happening.
EWP gives profieceny in one gun, not all of them.
Clearly, but why are you going to need proficiency in all guns, exactly?
How many Fighters use both long and shortbows? How many Wizards use both light and heavy crossbows? Sure, people might venture into secondary melee weapons, if only to have a close (if focusing on reach weapons) or light melee weapon, but who multiples up on ranged?A Holy Gun can grab Signature Deed at lvl 17 and smite all day, everyday, endlessly.
And a Paladin can smite a single target until dead for a single use of smite. From level 1.
Your level 20 paladin can't.Every time a level 20 paladin smites an outsider, they save or die and the smite ends, same for the holy gun.
...and?
However the holy gun can smite next round, because he didn't use any resources.
I used 1 smite use out of 7 to destroy an Evil outsider.
You have gained a feat at level 17 to make your Smite Evil wannabe ability actually usable. Congratulations. The normal Paladin has been better with the gun for 16 levels.
The suckometer is called logical reasoning. It's that meter that people naturally have that allows them to weigh options. It's a survival mechanic, and it's also a great tool when designing and comparing mechanics.
"I don't like this" is not the same as "this choice is bad for me".
You can like something that is bad for you.
You can dislike something that is good for you.
All relative issues, all matter of tastes, of course within the bonduaries of a roleplaying game of imagination (but sometimes also irl).
So please, don't use real life exaples for something that is not real life. No more punch in the face analogies, no more chocolate full of spiders. They are out of place. You want to discuss mechanics? Discuss them. But I'll doubt you will reach a satisfying conclusion unless you put them to the test in an actual game situation.
But I'll doubt you will reach a satisfying conclusion unless you put them to the test in the game.
No one needs to test SQUAT in a game when something is demonstrably worse at doing the SAME thing as something else.
Is or is not the Archivist Bard's ability to disable Magical Traps worse than the Rogue's?
Likewise, please explain why I have to playtest the Dragon Shaman to know it is worse than the Lizard Shaman even though the Lizard Shaman both covers the same type of creatures as the "Dragon" Shaman AND other types of creatures from the "Dragon" Shaman?