*** I guess I was hoping for more archetypes than mutagen this and divine that; did they fire the people who made the invulnerable rager or the quiggong monk? Where is the creativity with the rules and options we've been hearing about, it's all just mixing and matching what we already have. Don't get me wrong, these new classes seem fun and all, hell I've been waiting for a viable assassin for years; but where's the beef? I feel like they wasted a lot of page space on utter garbage and facile choices, and we are still left starving for some crunch.
***Yeah, the archetypes in this book continually leave me perplexed. Some of them are really cool options that have needed to exist for a while now, like the Bolt Ace. Others are weird (like the Blade Adept which is apparently specifically intended for Eldritch Knights?), and some are just bad (like the Feral Hunter), or were poorly edited and reconstructed during development (looking at you Ecclesitheurge).
Even the really good ones I have a hard time thinking of as original, like the Vanguard, who cuts out the skill bonuses of the Slayer and replaces them with an upgraded version of the Cavalier's Tactician.
Hmmm...
That may be my biggest hang-up. It feels like the best executed archetypes are the ones that really should have been slam-dunks anyway and didn't require a lot of ingenuity to bring together. These need to be in there and should and do form the backbone of the materials. But all of the really new or original archetypes fall flat, either due to editing, balance, or some other issue. Feral Hunter should have and could have been really good, but instead it gutted the best and most original features of the Hunter class replacing them with mediocre to poor options that look like they were edited by someone who hadn't actually read through the Hunter recently. What we were left with was a poor man's druid where we could have had something really cool.
Exactly my point, I'm all for options but make every option viable. Where is the quality control? I can see someone in the editors office taking a black pen to half of the options just because they aren't good enough to be printed in a book. The sheer amount of useless feats, bland bonuses, small bumps to things is just bad. Another thing: why does rogue lose trapfinding for almost every archetype? Some teams still pick rogues to have a "trap guy" and it seems counter-intuitive to just gut it for any substantial change.
@Rynjin I noticed a lot of editing mistakes in this as well, and I've only had the book a day; far more than in the other books to my knowledge, they just just out all over.I don't mean to be negative at all, but I was genuinely very excited for this book and my gut reaction was disappointment. It just seems a step down from the creativity and care I have come to expect from these guys. It seems like they're just treading water until next year or something; I'm hoping that it isn't a trend or maybe their best talents have moved on. I guess I will have to put my hopes in next years unchained and hedge my bets by purchasing 5E, something that didn't occur to me before this purchase.
Everything said, it's not a complete loss, I can totally agree that some options are good, just that it's too far in few within the pages. Like I said, make the options good and viable; don't be afraid to make good feats, archetypes, classes, etcetera; I just get so tired of seeing these ineffectual choices. I stated earlier I thought reckless rage was great, and it is kind of, but it is situational, useable only with rage, worse than power attack, doesn't scale with level and I don't even know if reckless abandon even works with it (although I assume it does).
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The editing is a definite problem.
I mean, I'm going through the archetypes chapter right now looking for issues, and I'm on p. 107 (so not even done yet), and I've only gone more than two pages without an error once, and have more than 20 problems. That's more than one every two pages on average, and getting perilously close to an average of one per page.
The Classes chapter had fewer, but still had around a dozen problems, so an average of more than one per Class.
Now, some of these problems are just typos, and others are somewhat subjective...but look at the number of them. There shouldn't be almost a problem every three pages in the first hundred pages of a rulebook. That's not okay.
Now, this is an aberration from Paizo's usual editing quality (which, while not perfect, is loads better than this), and everyone should be allowed a mistake now and then, so switching games is likely really premature...but this is a distinct problem.
And all that isn't counting things like archetypes that are maybe too weak, just legitimate issues with rules or wording being unclear, making no sense, or being inconsistent between one place and another.
I don't know how you could possibly think that's a valid comparison.
It's a 250 page text-heavy book. The fact that there are so few errors is remarkable. Check out the Shadowrun 5e core rule book, and you'll see what I mean :)Few?
Just because someone else did it worse, does not make this book better.
250 pages isn't even a lot of pages. I've seen 800 page novels with less blatant editing mistakes than this.
How is it not?
Both are published works. Both have an editor, or team of editors working to make sure mistakes don't make it to print.
Is it possible to head off all mistakes? No.
But missing THIS MANY? Somebody dropped the ball. Hard.
I'm just hedging my bets at the moment, this downtick is very bad timing with the quality and care going into 5E trying outright to win us back. I love Pathfinder, and I'm not into the edition wars thing, I just want a system to play that is right for me; I want to be able to have a system which is creative and until next year I feel "chained" down with tons of stuff that doesn't appeal to me. You are right though, this is forgivable but my first night with this book gave me buyers remorse. I'm not bailing just yet, but I literally cannot afford to make bad purchases, and my confidence is severely damaged. I'm sure I will find a more measured response later, but this is my knee-jerk reaction.
I almost have to wonder if maybe the wrong file got sent to the printers or something. There are just so many errors in this book that I really can't think of any other reason why it exists like this.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Er... no. As a general rule of thumb when it comes to archetype design, you are supposed to swap like for like. That's what every designer has said when asked for advice on building archetypes. Sometimes it's Ok to swap it for something else, but you should try not to increase it's overall power.
When doing an archetype, you actually increase its overall power, at least when focused on a single gaming style or build... and few characters focus in several fighting or adventuring styles anyways, since doing a single thing really well means you are more useful 80% of the time and you will have a much harder challenge the remaining 20% compared to the vanilla class which always tends toward more versatility and balance than archetypes. The Cognatogen/bombing alchemist is clearly superior to the vanilla alchemist damage-wise, but he is also much more reliant on a damage source that can be easily negated or resisted against : bombs.
You don't have to replace abilities like for like. You can grant offensive abilities instead of crafting feats, or talents instead of spell-like abilities as long as it grants you nice and fun powers fitting the archetype's theme. You just have to make sure your archetype doesn't invalidate its base class or any other class (something the Knight archetype sadly is doing in ACG), usually by adding a tactical component to your strongest boosts over the vanilla class for a nice risk-reward mechanic.The Lore Warden can deal damage just as well as the basic fighter can, and it's also better than the Fightr at all combat maneuvers. If he does it right, he'll have nearly the same AC as the Fighter, more skill points, and more combat potential.
The fighter still rules AC and damage over the Lore Warden, especially if put against target resistant to his maneuvers. While strong and much more interesting to play, I find the Lore Warden strikes a nice balance between a lot of meh archetypes for a class that already needs all the help it can get at mid-to-high levels.
The editing is a definite problem.
I mean, I'm going through the archetypes chapter right now looking for issues, and I'm on p. 107 (so not even done yet), and I've only gone more than two pages without an error once, and have more than 20 problems. That's more than one every two pages on average, and getting perilously close to an average of one per page.
The Classes chapter had fewer, but still had around a dozen problems, so an average of more than one per Class.
I think some of this shows the value of the playtesting before publishing. The classes received a fairly intensive playtest, with even being pfs legal before the book released. The archetypes went through with no external scrutiny, thus mistakes that seem obvious just didn't have enough eyes looking at them to be noticed.
I don't know how you could possibly think that's a valid comparison.
It's a 250 page text-heavy book. The fact that there are so few errors is remarkable. Check out the Shadowrun 5e core rule book, and you'll see what I mean :)Few?
Just because someone else did it worse, does not make this book better.
250 pages isn't even a lot of pages. I've seen 800 page novels with less blatant editing mistakes than this.
How is it not?
Both are published works. Both have an editor, or team of editors working to make sure mistakes don't make it to print.
Is it possible to head off all mistakes? No.
But missing THIS MANY? Somebody dropped the ball. Hard.
Well, the novel didn't have to be thrown out the door to make it in time for Gencon, even if it wasn't ready. :P
I think the point redward was trying to make is that there is a difference between editing/proofreading 800 pages of a novel and 800 pages of game rules.
It's like comparing bicycle maintenance with motorcycle maintenance. They have a lot in common, but can't be held to exactly the same standard.
|
|
Well, the novel didn't have to be thrown out the door to make it in time for Gencon, even if it wasn't ready. :P
Most novels have deadlines...
In fairness, most are also written by one person, who's got creative control, which makes the process a bit easier and the vision a bit more coherent. And few really long ones have as short a timeline from conception to publication as the ACG did.
EDIT: And, as noted, prose and rules are different things and need different varieties of editing.
Design Manager
|
I noticed a lot of editing mistakes in this as well, and I've only had the book a day; far more than in the other books to my knowledge, they just just out all over.
Actually, the editing in this one is pretty similar to what we saw in Ultimate Combat, whose first print run was practically infamous for typos, archetypes referencing feats and spells that got cut from the final product, etc.
Was that a GenCon release as well?
Both are published works. Both have an editor, or team of editors working to make sure mistakes don't make it to print.
That's pretty much all they have in common. Do you think F. Scott Fitzgerald could turn out a decent RPG (assume he were alive and had his drinking under control, but was subject to the demands of a convention schedule)?
But missing THIS MANY? Somebody dropped the ball.
No disagreement there.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Great! Now what am I supposed to do for a living? ;-)
Well it's good to see you guys can address flame wars but I am curious as to how you guys are addressing some of the problems with the book?
Well it's good to see you guys can address flame wars but I am curious as to how you guys are addressing some of the problems with the book?
That's not exactly Chris' department.
I'm sure that when all the devs get back in office Monday we may eventually get some sort of response.
I'm sure that when all the devs get back in office Monday we may eventually get some sort of response.
I hope they bring a wheelbarrow to pile them all in!
I just want to hear something from someone, I'm the last guy who wants to be that guy, but I am disappointed with a inferior release. It's 250 pages filled with... well filler. What happened in the editing process? Why were have such inferior options included in as far as the archetypes and feats and etc? Who is doing quality control?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've mentioned it before, but I'm really pleased the ACG doesn't break the game. An edition of a game that was popular from 2003-2008 had issues where material from new sourcebooks could be combined with material from other non-core sourcebooks to create 'broken' builds. ACG adds a lot of options, without creating any that that are game-breakingly powerful. It's been mentioned Paizo makes great APs (which looks to be their business model, make a profit by selling APs rather than by selling sourcebooks). I'm looking forward to Iron Gods, and really like WotR (and others, but those are the two new-product support APs recently).
For all the concerns over typos and not-necessarily-complete archetypes, there's nothing I will ban from my games. In other games (not just d20-based games) there are often sourcebooks with material that has to be excluded. PF has nothing I say 'that breaks the game,' which is an accomplishment.
I would rather not include 250 feats that are inferior to the previous feats before them than have ineffectual feats and options. I'm not asking for game-breakers, just to be around equally as powerful as other things of there names. A feat should be as powerful as a feat, one archetype should be balanced to the rest. Too much filler to sift through to even find viable options.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's been a lot of negativity in the thread and I've been a part of it, so I want to take a moment to acknowledge some of the really good things in the book, or at least the things I really like, of which there are actually several.
First, the Hunter. I liked the concept of the class to begin with and it was almost like they had it targeted directly at me. I absolutely love the final version of the class and I've already been experimenting with builds and quietly planning on ways to get one of my current characters offed so I can start playing. While most of the archetypes were pretty "meh", this class just ended up rocking hard. Powerful, cleverly executed, and with a lot of cool tricks, this is probably my favorite part of the book.
Second, the Vanguard. Written by one of my favorite freelancers, this archetype is probably the only reason I'll ever play the Slayer. I was already coming up with ideas to make army lieutenants, guild leaders, and bandit chieftains within seconds of my full read-through of this archetype.
Third, the Shaman. It's a flavorful 9 level caster with a fairly balanced spell-list. Could it have been better? Probably, I wouldn't have minded if they veered a little farther afield from the parent classes, but it's still awesome.
Fourth, the Investigator. This is basically the class I was always doing weird rogue/alchemist multiclass builds to try and build so I could get the right feel for my Eberron character. The Investigator clicks right in to our Eberron and steampunk campaigns in an absolutely wonderful way. I'm glad it exists now.
The last I'm going to talk about but not the last thing in the book I actually like, the Bolt Ace. People have basically been homebrewing or houseruling this archetype since the Gunslinger was released, and it being in the ACG shows that people were listening. This lets you bring the very cool Gunslinger mechanics into any game, regardless of whether or not firearms are a thing in your world. Plus, the archetype itself is just cool, and gives you a way to build a crossbow wielding badass. I'm certain that this will be appearing in one of our games in the not-too-distant future.
I'm okay with feats that are less slightly less powerful than the already published ones, as long as they are interesting. I think it's better to err on the side of caution, but every feat should have a use and the less it can apply to, the more it should do when it does apply.
Sure, a feat that makes you a better shot when lying prone with a crossbow is never going to be as powerful or useful as Power Attack, and it doesn't need to, but someone taking it should have actual use of it. (just using prone shooter as an example)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I saw the editing mistakes and am aware, but my Knee Jerk responce was AWESOME!.
I like the hybrid classes, but what really stood out to me were feats and archtypes - there were a lot more ways to "share the love" and let other classes get in on mechanics of the new ones. Driving the Hybrid theme even further. I'd love to see more of that. This book makes it so much easier to have a blended character, even if you don't use one of the hybrid classes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Editing and mistakes aside as some have said the book is not a total loss. He'll it even close to one. It does bother me that whenever we ask for better quality control the response seems to be " well that simply not possible. ". Which us even more frustrating. It just seems they are unwilling to improve on quality control IMO. I could be wrong yet when we mentioned the same issues with quality control with UMD we were given the same response. It could have been rushed for a Gencon release with the release if 5E. If that is the case it shows.
I will say this with the Investigator Paizo really IMO does not like Rogues IMO. Or very much.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For all the concerns over typos and not-necessarily-complete archetypes, there's nothing I will ban from my games.
Cape of Feinting + 7th level swashbuckler = one foe, even things like a Tarrasque, is dazed without save as long as you wish.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You haven't really given any reasons why it can't be done right, only a few reasons why it might not have been. It is in fact entirely possible, plausible and reasonable to release a finished and quality product. <...snip...> Or at the very least remove references to abilities you cut. It reduces profit, but so does losing customers from poor quality products.
And it's not like GenCon is a surprise. They've published enough books to properly account for the timelines needed barring catastrophe. Just excuses for shoddy work.
But I'm talking about doing it right, not fixing it after. Expecting anything less is counter productive to yourself as a consumer.
I am not disagreeing with any of these points.
You can even add pages prior to print and release. Possibly even work on the layout so these extra paragraphs fit the format.The page count of a book can change before publication, but there are several meaningful limitations, like needing to be added in powers of 2 (2, 4, 8, 16, 32) pages, and maintaining that spreads stay spreads, and not having 'orphans' overhanging a page. Or, since we're talking about 'crunch' problems, the amount of time involved in writing and developing multiple pages worth of material.
I am curious what you mean by 'work the layout', though. Altering the font size or margins on a few pages would look very strange. It is possible to wrangle art size, but only within certain limits. What are you suggesting?
Paizo could use excess material that couldn't fit in the book as an online excerpt, like WotC did many times.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder if it is asking too much for an admission of rushing the copy out as an excuse for the editing problems. I don't want to be a jerk but the book is selling like hot cakes and people are getting a book with major problems. I want to be assured that something happened and it is being addressed. I understand not everyone will agree with me when I say some of the options are just bad, but I want to know the design philosophy behind it so I can either adjust my expectations or find a new system.
OKay, so then I have a question for those of you that have the book. As for the "new classes" I have no interest whatsoever. I think we have enough classes already, what I want is more archetypes to work with and customize the classes we already have.
That said, I do see a lot of talk about archetypes in this thread, so how much of the book is the new classes and how much would still be viable if I were to completely ignore the new classes?
I am particularly interested in what I saw about the "Eldritch Scion" and wonder how it compares to the "Cabalist" from Super Genius Games?
About one page per class, making up 1-2 archetypes and some option for others (rage powers only for barbarian, with only one good power with a level 6 and rp prerequisite). There is a couple options people think are good, like the mutagen fighter or exploit wizard, but it was mostly ineffectual.
About one page per class, making up 1-2 archetypes and some option for others (rage powers only for barbarian, with only one good power with a level 6 and rp prerequisite). There is a couple options people think are good, like the mutagen fighter or exploit wizard, but it was mostly ineffectual.
So then the majority of the book is still the new classes? :( Sounds like I might just have to get the archetypes off of d20pfsrd or Nethys then... which is sad, I want to support Paizo when I can, but I just can't justify buying an entire book that I am going to more than likely completely ignore 90% of it.
About one page per class, making up 1-2 archetypes and some option for others (rage powers only for barbarian, with only one good power with a level 6 and rp prerequisite). There is a couple options people think are good, like the mutagen fighter or exploit wizard, but it was mostly ineffectual.So then the majority of the book is still the new classes? :( Sounds like I might just have to get the archetypes off of d20pfsrd or Nethys then... which is sad, I want to support Paizo when I can, but I just can't justify buying an entire book that I am going to more than likely completely ignore 90% of it.
I'm biased but I would not buy the book in hindsight, they made a lot of mistakes and didn't do much for the other classes. There is a few good thing but I would just let it come out on d20pfsrd. I'm like you, I just wanted new options for existing classes, although I was a little excited for new stuff; they just put in the minimal effort into this one.
I think the point redward was trying to make is that there is a difference between editing/proofreading 800 pages of a novel and 800 pages of game rules.
It's like comparing bicycle maintenance with motorcycle maintenance. They have a lot in common, but can't be held to exactly the same standard.
Not really, at least in this case.
Typos and clear mistakes in grammar and so forth are exactly the same. And there are plenty of those to go around in addition to the more uniue RPG errors.
Cape of Feinting + 7th level swashbuckler = one foe, even things like a Tarrasque, is dazed without save as long as you wish.
For all the concerns over typos and not-necessarily-complete archetypes, there's nothing I will ban from my games.
I thought it was three times per day?
Edit: Nevermind, I can't read.
I don't know how you could possibly think that's a valid comparison.
It's a 250 page text-heavy book. The fact that there are so few errors is remarkable. Check out the Shadowrun 5e core rule book, and you'll see what I mean :)Few?
Just because someone else did it worse, does not make this book better.
250 pages isn't even a lot of pages. I've seen 800 page novels with less blatant editing mistakes than this.
How is it not?
Both are published works. Both have an editor, or team of editors working to make sure mistakes don't make it to print.
Is it possible to head off all mistakes? No.
But missing THIS MANY? Somebody dropped the ball. Hard.
Devil's Advocate (I've not read the ACG) but you want to see a total editor was on vacation so we just published it novel, check out the First Edition of Laurell K. Hamilton's Incubus Dreams. It was re-edited for the paperback version, but the hardcover copy was nigh unreadable except for those people (like me) who are able to naturally correct mistakes in their head without consciously noticing them (it's why I could never be an editor! I don't even notice the mistakes, because my mind automatically corrects them). It wasn't until after I read the book and read about all the issues, then went back specifically looking for them that I saw just how horrendously bad the book's editing was.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
About one page per class, making up 1-2 archetypes and some option for others (rage powers only for barbarian, with only one good power with a level 6 and rp prerequisite). There is a couple options people think are good, like the mutagen fighter or exploit wizard, but it was mostly ineffectual.So then the majority of the book is still the new classes? :( Sounds like I might just have to get the archetypes off of d20pfsrd or Nethys then... which is sad, I want to support Paizo when I can, but I just can't justify buying an entire book that I am going to more than likely completely ignore 90% of it.
I'm with you on that... So far I bought pretty much every hardcover from Paizo, but the ACG simply isn't worth my money.
If I could, I'd just buy the parts that involve Bloodrager, Slayer, Investigator and that Cavalier archetype that makes him a functional Swashbuckler.
I saddens me that Paizo decided to release a subpar product just so they can sell it at GenCon. The ACG is so rushed that even its freaking cover got an editing mistake!
|
Design Manager
|
The big thing is, the things that are good in this book are really good. Sacred Huntmaster, Bolt Ace, and Daring Champion are all awesome archetypes that build on existing classes. There's some other archetypes that are technically for the new classes but build heavily on familiar mechanics, like the Vanguard, that I would also recommend.
Even if you're turned off by the editing and uninterested in the new core classes, it's probably worth picking up the .pdf.
The nice thing about that is that your copy will always be up to date with the latest edits and travels easily with you wherever you go :)
I'll eventually buy the HeroLab data pack, since I'm the GM and one of the two players in my group who have the program, so I use it to update and print the sheets of other players' characters.
I might buy the .pdf later on... If I'm feeling generous.