| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So I downloaded and read the playtest material for Advanced Class Guide with a certain amount of glee. Several of my books disappeared in my PCS (permanent change of station) move and this had kind of dampened my spirits when it came to pathfinder lately (I'm just a hardcopy kind of guy).
So I will admit some initial dismay when I opened the document. "51 pages? Too long!" was my initial thought for something labelled 10 hybrid classes. I wanted something I could see and immediately start messing with, not a lot of new rules almost exactly like the old rules but with different names.
Which would currently be my initial complaint -- why are we reinventing the wheel so much? If it's flurry of blows just say it -- calling it a different name and rehashing the ability (in what is my opinion an awkward fashion) isn't helping anyone. If it is a hybrid let it be a hybrid and don't expect us to be surprised if the mechanics are stolen wholesale -- we are expecting it (in some cases looking forward to it)!
And this would bring me to my biggest complaint: Too many new mechanics. I think part of the success of the magus was that it introduced few new mechanics -- we had a resource pool with talent like options and spell combat. Everything else with it was pretty well standard fare.
It is my opinion that if a class is a hybrid then it doesn't really need the abilities of the old class slammed into a new format that doesn't match the old. The bloodrager is a prime example of this: Why reinvent the wheel of bloodlines? Yes they will need some adjusting (such as the bonus spells) but that doesn't mean all the abilities need readjusting. At most change the once per day abilities into a set cost in rage rounds and move on (this makes up for the severally limited spellcasting). Instead of inventing a whole host of new hexes and then railroading the class with specific spirit types add a lot of new hexes to the witch and limit selection of those by spirit type.
So on to the individual classes:
Arcanist -- This class seems a bit wordy to me but nothing too horrible. I think the mechanic for using bloodline abilities should be copied for the bloodrager. My only complaint is how many spells perpared per day the arcanist gets. I do NOT like the fact that it matches the sorcerer's spells known chart. The only other thing I didn't like is the 'fatigued if you spend all your blood focus' throw away -- really? We want people to NOT use a class ability? Instead I would suggest a slight bonus that goes away when the pool is empty. This works for the monk and the gunslinger, why not stick with it on the arcanist? As a suggestion they can only use the bloodline spells from their bloodline while they still have blood focus points.
Bloodrager -- so I love the initial concept, rage and magic. After all emotion and magic have a long and rich history together. So I'm expecting something maybe a bit like a Sith Lord or something. I was instantly disappointed in the general lack of spell casting. The ability to use bloodline powers as part of the rage made sense to me and was a great twist... but the fact that each bloodline had to suddenly be reinvented confused me. A charge mechanic or limited use per hour or something makes more sense to me than wasting the space and time trying to redo each bloodline.
Brawler -- Alright, why can't we just call a monk's spade a monk's spade and simply use the original ability names instead of all these awkward rewrites, in the words of the Tea Party, "Fix old, no New!"
Hunter -- After reading the brawler I was really too mentally tired to give a care about this class. However over all I kind of like it. Feels more like a mix between the ranger and the inquisitor, but whatever.
Investigator -- Alright, this was one I was looking forward too! I like almost everything about this -- it's smooth, a bit subtle and you can easily grasp it. My only two complaints would be I think it might get a bit too much sneak attach, and I would like to see some more of the alchemist discoveries available.
Shaman -- I WANT to like this class. However I feel that like the bloodrager it is too wordy by far. I like the spirits idea, but instead of reinventing the wheel why not list the bonus spells, the familiar bonus (I like), then a collection of revelations and hexes for each ability. It's simple, it keeps the flavor and it saves the word count.
Skald -- Meh, we have an archetype already. Don't get me wrong it's not bad (well spell kenning seems out of place... perhaps I would like it more on the bloodrager -- strike that I would LOVE something like that on the bloodrager), it just doesn't do anything for me.
Slayer -- Peculiar, but I like. Sneak attack is listed twice, I assume that's an editing error. I have to play with it some but it seems well done on first glance. The sneak attack progression might be something to visit for the investigator. This class might work well with the Nature's warden incidentally.
Swashbuckler -- Alright standard fare (I mean that in a good way) my only real disappointment was the utter lack of firearm support and any rogue talents. Sorry I know these are supposed to be two class hybrids but I'm really seeing three play into this one. Also -- come on... just a bit of firearm support... please?
|
I promise I don't mean this in a mean way, and I'm not just trying to be contrary, but I don't think I could disagree more. The magus was almost entirely brand new abilities (at least to Pathfinder) and one of the main reasons I like it so much is that it managed to capture the combined flavour of two other classes while rehashing very few of their abilities. My main gripe with most of the new classes is that many of them feel like two classes stapled together rather than blended into a coherent whole, the worst of which being the investigator. That class just doesn't make any conceptual sense to me yet.
I will say that I have mixed feelings about reusing things like bloodlines without keeping them in more or less their original form. On the one hand, I like that the changes open up design space, but on the other hand, they seem to inhibit backwards compatibility. I still have very mixed feelings on the entire alternate class nature of these classes, though, for similar reasons. Many mechanics did seem to get somewhat unnecessary renames, but the one thing I absolutely can't concede is that there are too many new mechanics. There seem to me to be precious few.
...
Well said Abe. I agree with most of your points.
I particularly dislike all the NAMES. Abilities, and spells, and feats, and talents....all with "flavorful" names. More intuitiveness is needed. And DO NOT rename an existing ability. Nor should you remake an ability with almost the exact same mechanics....but not quite.
(I am referring in general to the whole game here, not just the ACG)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the change of names of abilities. I think that this removes a big part of the bang for hybrid classes. There is a wealth of support materials for many many abilities as they exist. By changing the names and making slight alterations it removes the ability to utilize retroactive support for new classes.
Brawler's Flurry should be flurry of blows. If you need to make small changes then do it in the feature description. But leave it so that previous support content that references "flurry of blows" can be applied to this class as well.
Same with bloodrager's bloodlines. I see some big changes (like dragon bloodline lets you grow claws all the time, vs just a few rounds a day) But it would be far better to give rules to take existing bloodlines and use them with the bloodrager. It makes complete sense that someone might want to play a half-orc bloodrager and take the orc bloodline. People should be able to do this from day one rather than having to wait for a supplement (that may not come) that rehashes old options for new classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
...Well said Abe. I agree with most of your points.
I particularly dislike all the NAMES. Abilities, and spells, and feats, and talents....all with "flavorful" names. More intuitiveness is needed. And DO NOT rename an existing ability. Nor should you remake an ability with almost the exact same mechanics....but not quite.
(I am referring in general to the whole game here, not just the ACG)
AMEN TO THAT
But yeah, the slayer in particular, I noticed nearly all the 'slayer talents' were rogue talents. Why not just say, slayers get rogue talents, and may choose from A, B, or C as well? Several archetypes do just that!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say I'm really disappointed from what I see in the ACG Playtest.
I expected to see some class design depth like with the Magus or the new base classes in the APG, but instead I got 10 Class mash-ups.
Sure you always have one special ability but in all the new classes lack the depth (storywise and rule wise) compared to the already introduced new classes from older products.
So far it looks like the guys at Paizo simply added the classes for the sake of adding new classes, not because they fit, fill a whole or have intressting design or background.
I hope Paizo will get back to it's hights and overhaul these clases (the basic concept are fine with a little bit refinement).
*hope for the best*
Quick thoughts on the new classes:
The arcanist combines the arcane knowledge and f lexibility of the wizard with the eldritch might of the sorcerer.
I think of a mechanic which gives the player some ressources which allows them to create basic spells/effects (bloodline powers, dmg-ray, AC etc.) on the fly or sacrifice this ressources to cast spells from a wizards spellbook. So removing the standard spellcaster system complete and exchange it with a new, more abstract system.
The bloodrager fuses the bloody frenzy of the barbarian with the blood-based magic of the sorcerer.
So far not bad, but I think exchanging the “standard” barbarian abilities (uncanny dodge etc.) with some new, tailored abilities would give the class far more style.
The brawler merges the fighter and monk together into a vicious, no-holds-barred pugilist.
Skip this one, it can be created with fighter or monk archetypes, even flavourwise!
The hunter takes the martial danger that is the ranger and pairs it with a druid’s animal companion.
Nice concept, but also something which would fit more into a archetype.
The investigator mixes the focus of the alchemist and the resourcefulness of the rogue into a master of inquiry.
Same here, take the alchemist, exchange the bombs for sneak attack, add some rouge talents instead of discoveries, done.
The shaman intertwines the divine magic of the oracle with the arcane magic of the witch into a master of spirits.
Really nice concept (I liked the Spirit Shaman from 3.5), but badly executed. I think this class could really benefit from a tailored spell list (some mix of Druid & Cleric, with Focus on Spirits). Also creating unique “hexes” (and rename them) would add a lot of flavor.
The skald blends the ferocity of the barbarian with the utility of the bard into a leader who can make others rage.
Don’t we have a bard archetype who is this?
The slayer combines the ranger and rogue’s individual combat prowess into a being of devastating fury.
Don’t really see the need for making this one a new class, could be easily achieved via Archetyps or tailoring the rouges/rangers character concept in this direction.
The swashbuckler marges the gunslinger and the fighter to make a daring and dashing melee combatant.
This one deserves a own class and so far it looks good.
The warpriest turns the divine nature of the cleric into a raw weapon that fuses with the fighter’s battlefield mastery.
Ok, where is the point of this one? We already have the Holy Vindicator and the Crusader, so why do we need this one? That is special on this one?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I agree with the general statement; if you give me an apple, call it an apple, and not something else. I disagree with some of your specific comments (I think the bloodrager bloodlines are quite fun, and I prefer the melee focus over magic), I agree with the general sentiment.
I also agree with others that say some classes feel "tacked together" from other classes. Some are pretty unique (like the inverstigator) but they all need a serious amount of refinement. I honestly hope there are several rounds of playtesting, because these classes need a lot of polish.
The bloodlines have been reinvented because they are two things at once: Barbarian rage powers and sorcerer bloodlines. They are magical, heritage-themed abilities designed to complement a primary melee character in a rage. That's exactly what a class combining the themes of the sorcerer and the barbarian needs.
The Brawler doesn't get the standard flurry of blows because the standard flurry of blows increases BAB and has stunningly awkward wording. Everybody misunderstood the ability when the game came out, it's been errated significantly and the community's general reaction to it has been anger and distress. This ability doesn't adjust BAB and is described in a more practical way.
Brawlers Flurry have no need to adjust BAB as he's already at max BAB (BAB = lvl), otherwise it's exactly the monks Flurry (threat unarmed combat as you have TWF with full STR to DMG on both attacks).
For the Bloodrager Bloodlines: I didn't had the time yet to read them all, just flew over them