You just said to leave the casting and change the bloodlines to totem powers. Now you say to take both out and do something entirely new. Which is it?
@Lucus_Palosaari: It is in the Blog Post Thread from when they announced the Swashbuckler and such.
Thank you. Link to the Blog.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reread what I am saying!
I am saying leave the casting. Give them a custom spell list. Give them access to special Rage Powers based on Ancestry/Bloodlines akin to the Totem Powers. Make them more in line with a Barbarian with Self-Buff/Light Blasting Spells and access to special Rage Power Trees.
I am saying all of the CLASSES can have similar things done and be made into either alternate classes of a SINGLE Base Class or an entirely individual class as the Magus is.
I am reading what you're saying. You keep randomly switching contexts which makes your posts hard to follow.
They probably didn't do this due to time constraints and/or a desire to prevent actual design creep. That would be adding a ton more new content. As is, they can put to use already well-tested mechanics and reduce the amount of creep overall. This book is a bolt-on rather than an evolution of the classes of the game on its own.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I am proposing would be using old features and simply adding options to them.
The Hunter could be an Alternate Ranger that focuses on Favored Enemy and boosting their ability to hunt them down.
The Slayer could be an Alternate Inquisitor that is more of an Executioner/Bounty Hunter than a Judge.
The Arcanist... Well that could be dropped in favor of an alternate spellcasting method that could be used with any full caster.
The Bloodrager could be an Alternate Barbarian that provides the Arcane Psuedo-caster people have asked for.
The Brawler could be an Alternate Monk that provides a version of the Monk that provides most of what people have wanted from the Monk.
Warpriest... Well that needs a total overhaul or to be dropped...
Swashbuckler could be an Alternate Gunslinger who uses Grit to perform Deeds that focus on Melee Weapons instead of Firearms.
Skald could be an Alternate Bard that is more Martial and would go well with the Cavalier for Battle Herald. Or could be to the Battle Herald what the Magus is to the Eldritch Knight.
Shaman could be an Alternate Druid that focuses on Spirits and Summoning instead of Shapeshifting.
Investigator could be an Alternate Alchemist who focuses more of Skills.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing the magus has in common with a wizard is that he has a spell book. He has no schools, which is the real corner stone of the class, mechanically. If he had one, I would argue it would have been an alternate class instead.
Alternatively, he gains no feats or proficiencies like a fighter, else it might have been an alternate class of that. It's distinctly its own thing.
It'd be nice if these ten classes are all distinctly their own thing by the time the book is ready to print. Right now, they're mostly little more than archetypes. Some of them could be easily played by just dual-classing the two base classes (or one base class and a PrC) as they bring nothing new to the table at all.
I'd be happy to see a bunch of new archetypes and even to buy the book they wind up in. But right now, the entire book feels like its trying to accomplish two things I don't care for - make a new hardback book just to have a new hardback book and to kill prestige classes and multiclassing despite those being major parts of what makes d20 games fun.
I guess I should say this. I dont think all of them need that restriction, but I think it would require a lot more playtesting to figure out which ones would and would not be a problem so they took the safe route and applied it to all of them.
|
Personally I think handling them like the magus is the best way to go... and if the decision was to avoid things like rage/bloodrage it already doesn't stop that problem. What if my rage is from viking? Or inquisitor of the rage domain?
Channel has been dealt with already. You can get grit and stuff elsewhere. I meanv almost all abilities of that are defining of a class have a tendency to pop up in an archtype of something else somewhere.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Really I'm thinking we, as a community, might aught to band together and build the classes and propose them and see what Paizo thinks of them.
I mean I am still playtesting these but I see many ways that this could be handled better via single class alternates or archetypes.
Death Quaker is dead no the mark. Don't limit the creativity in character design, but perhaps have a tempering on how many make sense. Languages are limited by Int, why not multi classes. True polymaths are rare and usually very intelligent. Da Vinci, and others could do so many diverse jobs because they were intelligent. What if your int modifier was the limit. It would favour magical types and leave lower IQ race players with fewer option, but is more realistic!
But a noble beast parrot necromancer controlling a dead pirate, preparing for his work as a ninja at night and a Dayshift Druid with a human companion (the dead pirates cabin boy maybe?) has some great possibilities.
Death quaker= Christmas adventist= overdressed dukhobour?
Walk cheerfully over all the earth Friend.
What about Classes that are Fairly similar? Fighter/Barbarian wouldn't require to much intelligence.
That's true, like cook and baker there is a Venn diagram of overlapping skills.
I guess it could get too complicated to quickly to number base it all. You would soon end up with similarity and difference ratings and spending int points to span the gaps, less fun more rules-lawyer stuff.
Some of the multi class characters I see on these message boards are really interesting and help suggest great back stories about why someone has that particular mix of skills.
The other cool thing is that multi classing allows isolated small parties of players to play multi skilled players rather than wrangle several characters each. When there is just a gm and a player or two it helps if you have a couple of tool belts to wear.
The thing with that is if these were successful they really would be excellent for small groups but the same thing can be accomplished with a little bit of ingenuity and/or a Gestalt-Esque system.
I mean an Alchemist, Magus, & Inquisitor can be used in a Three Man Party and be very effective in an AP.
Gunslinger could be an Alternate Swashbuckler who uses Panache to perform Deeds that focus on Firearms instead of Melee Weapons.
Fixed that for ya. Otherwise, I agree completely with your proposals.
NOTE: I hate Deadlands in my Pathfinder.
Grit/Panache could be renamed Resolve or Style... Though that last one would make my Dante(DMC) Build even more ridiculous...
But given the order of things being released the Swashbuckler would have to be the Alternate Class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree that the multiclass restriction should be removed. It feels weird to think that multiclassing with these classes would make them overpowered, since the whole point of the book is to provide classes for niches because multiclassing is weak.
This should go the way of mandatory lesser trials from the Mythic Adventures playtest.
Why would they allow it? You could never multiclass with an alternate class version before. This just keeps it consistent by stating rules that have already existed.
In my opinion, the entire "alternate class" concept is unnecessary and arbitrary, and has been from the start. The first thing I did with the Ninja and the Samurai was to remove the multiclass-restriction. I'll do the same with these classes.
Of course, this could theoretically produce problems with class abilities that work the same or actually are the same. But that's a problem with class design, not with multiclassing. If the classes had been designed as their own classes, with the feel of both "parent" classes (like the Magus) without simply mashing together their class abilities (like many classes in this playtest seem to do), then multiclassing wouldn't have been an issue.
If the classes had been designed as their own classes, with the feel of both "parent" classes (like the Magus) without simply mashing together their class abilities (like many classes in this playtest seem to do), then multiclassing wouldn't have been an issue.
But this mashing is the point of the entire book, see.
|
Some of you are taking this way to serious. The designers at Paizo have decided to restrict multi-classing for a reason. How about play-testing the new hybrids that have been out for less than 24 hours, and then send that information to Paizo. Who knows, maybe with your feedback they'll agree that multi-classing hybrids are a good idea.
If the classes had been designed as their own classes, with the feel of both "parent" classes (like the Magus) without simply mashing together their class abilities (like many classes in this playtest seem to do), then multiclassing wouldn't have been an issue.But this mashing is the point of the entire book, see.
I realize that, and the classes may well work great in play, but it just feels uninspired. I was excited about this playtest, hoping for a Magus-feel from several of the new classes. After skimming through the book, though, I've lost most of that excitement (although a few of the classes still seem interesting).
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"Uninspired" is how I'd describe it too, yeah. The Uninspired Class Guide.
I've never been involved with a playtest before. but. I thought they didn't want multiclassing because they simply want to test the new classes?
As-is, the mutilclassing limit will continue to release and they cannot be multiclassed with things on their list when released. Of course, this is a playtest so that might change, which is why we have this thread.
Maybe it's just me coming from an IT/CS background, but from a playtest (beta) design standpoint, the multiclassing limitation makes sense. When testing a new product, you want to initially minimize unaccounted-for variables. By limiting multiclassing, they can see where the issues in the Hybrid Classes are, fix those issues, then see how they interact when multiclassed with the Hybrid Classes' parent classes.
If I recall correctly, this playtest is only running through the middle of December. It may be that they'll take the feedback from the playtest, make changes, then release a second playtest with the multiclassing restriction lifted so they can see how the class features interact with their parent classes.
I don't think this will carry through to print, and as has been said, many GMs will simply houserule it out in non-PFS play.
Also, if the fan response is overwhelmingly negative on the entire playtest, you may see some very broad, sweeping changes. After all, no one wants to spend money making on a product no one wants to pay for.
Yeah, that makes sense....except they have never done that before; and if that were the case, then it would have been part of the explanation of playtesting, and plea for actual feedback. It was presented as a rule restricting multiclassing.
In some cases the hybrids would stack with the original class and that would cause issues. These classes are kind of like watered down gestalt classes. The only way open multiclassing should be allowed is if it is explicitly stated that they don't stack with the original class. As an example the if a class gives you druid casting up to. 6th level spells and then you take levels in the actual druod class then have to track spell as if you were running two different casters.
I don't see how the situation would be any different than how multiclassing and stacking already works. Most class abilities don't stack unless explicitly indicated. I.e., existing caster classes don't stack their spells; an oracle and a cleric cast from the same spell list but a multiclass oracle/cleric would not stack their spell levels together any more than, say, a hunter and druid would.
All you'd need to do is add a line in appropriate abilities that say "this ability does/doesn't stack" (and I'm not sure there'd even be harm in some stacking of abilities... maybe a shaman/witch with stacking spells and familiar development wouldn't be broken at all... especially as you'd still probably be working off two spell lists).
Death Quaker is dead no the mark. Don't limit the creativity in character design, but perhaps have a tempering on how many make sense. Languages are limited by Int, why not multi classes. True polymaths are rare and usually very intelligent. Da Vinci, and others could do so many diverse jobs because they were intelligent. What if your int modifier was the limit. It would favour magical types and leave lower IQ race players with fewer option, but is more realistic!
I think the costs and flaws of multiclassing restricts itself. You gain some benefits but often sacrifice incremental level increases of abilities, and again, as spellcaster levels never have and never will stack, you're not ever going to want to over do it.
Death quaker= Christmas adventist= overdressed dukhobour?
Heh. I never heard of a dukhobour, had to look it up. Neat! Yeah that's sort of the idea. ;)
Walk cheerfully over all the earth Friend.
And thee, keep minding the Light. :)
If the classes had been designed as their own classes, with the feel of both "parent" classes (like the Magus) without simply mashing together their class abilities (like many classes in this playtest seem to do), then multiclassing wouldn't have been an issue.But this mashing is the point of the entire book, see.
I think Paizo may restrict themselves unnecessarily and even to the detriment of the game if they bind themselves too much to the idea of "hybrids" -- let the idea of the hybrid inspire the new classes, but then let the new classes evolve and have skills that make sense for THEIR CONCEPT, not rigidly stick to the idea of hybridizing.
Not a hybrid, but look at the gunslinger--the idea of it started as a fighter alternate class. Then the dev team realized that was holding them back from designing the gunslinger properly. The gunslinger became much better when it was un-locked from the fighter class.
ETA: Or you want hybrids? The ranger was an answer to a desire to combine fighter and druid. The bard was a hybrid wizard/rogue (and originally a far more complex hybrid than that). Paladin = fighter/cleric. I think we can all safely say over time they definitely became their own thing, that now even they are being hybridized. But forcing class development to stop at, "this has to be a cross between x and y and can't evolve beyond being an alternate class of sorts" is a poor idea.
I think a lot of the proposed classes, just as they are neat from starting as hybrids, they still will not shine or be worth playing until they get wriggled away from their formative classes and become their own thing.
The thing is, if we're going to playtest with this restriction in place, we need to know WHY it's there. What specific balance doom or rules interaction morass are we trying to avoid? Because then I, as a playtester, can playtest characters that ignore the restriction, and see if these problems actually happen in game. The best case scenario is that the Devs tell us what to look for. The current alternative is to try to figure out what problems it might cause.
Indeed. Especially as far as I can tell, the restriction is NOT playtest only, as some here have suggested. The way the restriction is worded is that they just want to flat out restrict multiclassing, that is part of their design intention (and I think their intentions are misplaced).
Again, I'm not saying that these are actual problems that need addressing. I'm pointing them out as potential problems that need playtesting to see if they really exist.
Exactly. I think it would be better to see what could be done than blanket restrict things that may not be necessary and just put a pall of inflexibility on the game that d20, with Pathfinder being its current reigning champion, has so largely and wonderfully moved away from.
I think a successful Hybrid is when it takes flavor and then gives a unique mechanical spin on it.
Heck, a Bloodrager could be an alternate Magus built around Rage and self-buffing via Spontaneous Casting from the Bard Spell List and still feel like a good hybrid.
In some cases the hybrids would stack with the original class and that would cause issues. These classes are kind of like watered down gestalt classes. The only way open multiclassing should be allowed is if it is explicitly stated that they don't stack with the original class. As an example the if a class gives you druid casting up to. 6th level spells and then you take levels in the actual druod class then have to track spell as if you were running two different casters.
I that is the case already. You can multiclass a sorcerer with a wizard, the spell casting levels don't add together. They are two separate progression even though the use the same spell list. A level 12 character who is Wizard 6/Sorcerer 6 has 3rd level spells in both class. The Level 12 wizard or sorcerer has level 6 spells.
Just aesthetically, I don't like the idea of a class being self-aware that it is a hybrid of two classes.
the magus says hi again--its specifically a person who is simultaneously following the path of arms and the path of arcana
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I guess I'm in the minority that hopes that the restriction stays. I immediately saw the new classes as franken-alternate classes where if the concept were in the air before Ninja would not multi class with Monk.
It seems like a simple way to clear up identity confusion andpre emotively quell unwieldly multi class monstrosities that generate annoying amounts of questions towards the GM.
