Problems with the Advanced Class Guide.


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

I feel like the only reason this wasn't a waste of money was so I'll be prepared to tell my players "NO" to half o this book.
First I was disappointed with how the book was formatted. Several feats and abilities seem overly wordy. I came across many spelling and grammatical errors, but the only one coming to me now is in the 7th level ability for one of the archetypes that cuts off before it tells you what it replaces.

NEXT, on the subject of archetypes, we only get 1 or 2 for each pre-existing classes. Most are useless. Same problem with feats.

NOW FOR THE REAL PROBLEM. THE NEW CLASSES!

1. The Arcanist- I was very PRO-arcanist when talking to my friends before it came out. The problem is NOT the prep/spontaneous combo. Arcane exploits are amazingly powerful. The ability to add metamagic to spells w/o adjusting level, damaging abilities better then ANY others and many spells, and recharge by spending unneeded spells.They are now #1 on my "never see play in my games" list. (Originally #1 was gunslinger mostly because i just didn't like it.)

2. The Bloodrager- Let's just build a stronger barbarian. The ONLY thing this monstrosity does NOT get from barbarian is trap sense and rage powers. What would you say if i presented an archetype that gave a barbarian spells instead of trap sense and bloodline feats and powers instead of rage powers. You'd laugh me out of the room, but that is what Paizo printed. This is on my ban list.

3. The Brawler- Let me start by saying, I love brawler's flurry. No problem with that, moving on. Martial versatility= I HAVE ANY FEAT I NEED ANY TIME. Martial Training= FIGHTER LEVELS WITH ABSURD SCALING DICE!? Unarmed strike...I HATE SCALING DICE. Close weapon mastery...I HATE SCALING DICE. Ac bonus is mostly pointless because the right answer is shield and fist. NOW i'm flurrying with 2 weapons that deal 2d8 WITH weapon spec, AND with shield master, no penalty for 2 wep fighting. This is on my ban list for the moment, pending some real play experience.

4. The Hunter- OP animal companion by animal companion standards, but other then that mostly okay. I love the teamwork abilities.

5. The investigator- Again mostly fine. I don't LIKE the ability to NOT spend inspiration to add bonuses from certain talents but it's not to bad.

6. The Shaman- In my mind the best class in the book. Not absurdly over powered, but not to weak it can;t stand out. I loved hexes from the beginning but hated the witch. This is what i hoped all the classes would be i this book, blending ideas from 2 classes to make a unique feeling class that neither overshadows or is overshadowed by it's possessors.

7. The Skald- I don't even know...They tried? This thing fails as a barbarian, as a bard and worst of all, it fails as it's own idea. It feels like the cut out the charts for bard and barbarian and just threw them on a page with now rhyme or reason for their blend. Spell kening is an awesome idea for a bard...not this.

8. The Slayer- "Into every generation a slayer is born: one girl in all the world, a chosen one. She alone will wield the strength and skill to fight the vampires, demons, and the forces of darkness; to stop the spread of their evil and the swell of their number. She is the Slayer." Okay, enough joking. This class is pretty good, no major complaints.

9. The Swashbuckler- I can't help but love it. My first character was a dexy, rapier-wielding charming jerk... Now on to legit concerns. Adding level (or 2xLevel) to damage ON TOP OF wep spec and wep training seems like a lot...but that may be because the can't 2-weapon fight and power attack like a fighter could...Parry repose is an amazing and flavorful ability that NORMALY couldn't be obtained until 10th level and requires you to give up one of your attacks for the round but now it's a first level ability...? I can't fairly judge this one...

10. The Warpreist- ...NO! Banned.


18 people marked this as a favorite.

Then someone joins your game and craps color spray, sleep and glitter dust with their fairy blooded, 20 charisma sorcerer all over your NPCs and you forget all about the power creep you thought you saw.


Cranefist wrote:
Then someone joins your game and craps color spray, sleep and glitter dust with their fairy blooded, 20 charisma sorcerer all over your NPCs and you forget all about the power creep you thought you saw.

I've both seen and done that. The problem is, at the level that said strategy is effective, you can only do that once or twice to a very small area AND you just opened your 8 hit point ass up to the slings and arrows of EVERYONE outside of your little 15ft cone.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I submit to you that there's little difference between 8hp and 16hp if there's a lot of dudes with slings and bows taking aim at you. At least you took out a decent chunk of them with Color Spray, or EVERYONE would even more foes.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I haven't seen any if the new classes in action but I was really disappointed with page-filler for the sake of page-filler. "New stuff for every class" is a task, not design. You shouldn't design a book around a list of checkboxes. This book suffered from trying to tick all the check boxes.

"Book about classes, better include a section on class design..." I wish you hadn't, I want my 20 pages back.

"Must include filler material for every class in the game..." Don't, just don't. If you aren't enthusiastic about the mechanics we can tell.

"Must include a bunch of obligatory filler feats that do what 87 other feats do, but just say the new ability name in it."

"Must include a bunch of tax feats to make the new classes work right."

"Must include new spells that you will never see in play unless your DM runs modules as written."

"Must include 2 spells we thought would fit in previous category but upon scrutiny will turn out to be so hideously broken that 15% of new PFS characters will be built around exploiting it until it gets nerfed."

"Must reference things that got edited out of the book."

"Must include hideous copy/paste errors."

"Must remove spell check and particularly auto-underline-squiggly-red-line spell check from all machines this book has the potential to be edited on."

"Must not include prestige classes in a book called 'advanced class guide.'"

"Must write a feat-tax feat on such a way that it doesn't work with the iconic version of the class and we can force people to purchase an additional supplement to make it work right rather than issue errata."

"Must have amazing artwork."

In the end, I expect to use less than 20% of this book's content during the entire rest of the time I play pathfinder, and significantly less if I change systems in less than 5 years.


13 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sure these opinions are based on detailed analysis and observation in play, rather than simply looking at numbers and flipping out.

Seriously, if you allow wizards, clerics, and druids, you don't got much to complain about in this book.


Zhayne wrote:

I'm sure these opinions are based on detailed analysis and observation in play, rather than simply looking at numbers and flipping out.

Seriously, if you allow wizards, clerics, and druids, you don't got much to complain about in this book.

Arcanist seems to be power creep, as I said, I've not seen one in play yet so I won't comment. But the other issues I listed are completely seperate from power concerns.


BigDTBone wrote:

"Book about classes, better include a section on class design..." I wish you hadn't, I want my 20 pages back.

"Must reference things that got edited out of the book."

I think if they'd have dumped the class design section, they wouldn't have had to hatchet out parts to fit the word count.

Doing that and another round or three of editing (and maybe some more playtesting) and this would have been an quality book. Myself, I'm in the situation of not wanting to use the majority of the book because it needs errata/FAQ's and not because of balance/power.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
I feel like the only reason this wasn't a waste of money was so I'll be prepared to tell my players "NO" to half o this book.

Really? That's a rather silly attitude.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
First I was disappointed with how the book was formatted. Several feats and abilities seem overly wordy. I came across many spelling and grammatical errors, but the only one coming to me now is in the 7th level ability for one of the archetypes that cuts off before it tells you what it replaces.

It's 9th level actually. And on this point I agree whole-heartedly. There are some very serious editing issues with this book.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
NEXT, on the subject of archetypes, we only get 1 or 2 for each pre-existing classes. Most are useless. Same problem with feats.

I dunno about that, many of the archetypes and Feats are quite good indeed (the Fighter archetypes for example, are very nice).

Divine Protection is exceedingly overpowered of course, but it's the exception, not the rule.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
NOW FOR THE REAL PROBLEM. THE NEW CLASSES!

Okay. Noted.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
1. The Arcanist- I was very PRO-arcanist when talking to my friends before it came out. The problem is NOT the prep/spontaneous combo. Arcane exploits are amazingly powerful. The ability to add metamagic to spells w/o adjusting level, damaging abilities better then ANY others and many spells, and recharge by spending unneeded spells.They are now #1 on my "never see play in my games" list. (Originally #1 was gunslinger mostly because i just didn't like it.)

They also have fewer spells than, oh, any other 9-level caster. And worse spell progression than the Wizard. They've got some definite upsides, but there are downsides as well.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
2. The Bloodrager- Let's just build a stronger barbarian. The ONLY thing this monstrosity does NOT get from barbarian is trap sense and rage powers. What would you say if i presented an archetype that gave a barbarian spells instead of trap sense and bloodline feats and powers instead of rage powers. You'd laugh me out of the room, but that is what Paizo printed. This is on my ban list.

Eh. Bloodragers only have d10 HD, also Rage Powers are awesome, and even let you steal some of the Bloodline stuff. Plus Barbarians have the Extra Rage Power Feat, plus the Invulnerable Rager Archetype, plus the Human FCB to Superstition...Barbarians aren't getting overshadowed any time soon.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
3. The Brawler- Let me start by saying, I love brawler's flurry. No problem with that, moving on. Martial versatility= I HAVE ANY FEAT I NEED ANY TIME. Martial Training= FIGHTER LEVELS WITH ABSURD SCALING DICE!? Unarmed strike...I HATE SCALING DICE. Close weapon mastery...I HATE SCALING DICE. Ac bonus is mostly pointless because the right answer is shield and fist. NOW i'm flurrying with 2 weapons that deal 2d8 WITH weapon spec, AND with shield master, no penalty for 2 wep fighting. This is on my ban list for the moment, pending some real play experience.

TWF is mediocre even with those advantages, and the Class lacks anything resembling the Fighter's weapon training or the other bonuses to hit beyond BAB every other full-BAB class gets. And the ability to get any Feat is indeed cool, but not the end of the world or anything.

Also...chill out about the scaling dice, man.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
4. The Hunter- OP animal companion by animal companion standards, but other then that mostly okay. I love the teamwork abilities.

Uh...the Animal Companion being more powerful is sorta the point. That's what the class is for.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
5. The investigator- Again mostly fine. I don't LIKE the ability to NOT spend inspiration to add bonuses from certain talents but it's not to bad.

You mean like Expanded Inspiration? What's wrong with those? The ability to add bonuses to bunches of skills is part of the class's appeal.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
6. The Shaman- In my mind the best class in the book. Not absurdly over powered, but not to weak it can;t stand out. I loved hexes from the beginning but hated the witch. This is what i hoped all the classes would be i this book, blending ideas from 2 classes to make a unique feeling class that neither overshadows or is overshadowed by it's possessors.

Agreed. Shaman is cool.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
7. The Skald- I don't even know...They tried? This thing fails as a barbarian, as a bard and worst of all, it fails as it's own idea. It feels like the cut out the charts for bard and barbarian and just threw them on a page with now rhyme or reason for their blend. Spell kening is an awesome idea for a bard...not this.

Skald is awesome, and pretty coherently put together. It's a buffing Class and not a straight combat match for a Barbarian, but it's a good one.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
8. The Slayer- "Into every generation a slayer is born: one girl in all the world, a chosen one. She alone will wield the strength and skill to fight the vampires, demons, and the forces of darkness; to stop the spread of their evil and the swell of their number. She is the Slayer." Okay, enough joking. This class is pretty good, no major complaints.

Agreed once more.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
9. The Swashbuckler- I can't help but love it. My first character was a dexy, rapier-wielding charming jerk... Now on to legit concerns. Adding level (or 2xLevel) to damage ON TOP OF wep spec and wep training seems like a lot...but that may be because the can't 2-weapon fight and power attack like a fighter could...Parry repose is an amazing and flavorful ability that NORMALY couldn't be obtained until 10th level and requires you to give up one of your attacks for the round but now it's a first level ability...? I can't fairly judge this one...

It's kinda weak, actually. It does solid damage, and Parry is cool (though costing Panache is a factor), but the Saves are terrible, which is a huge weakness in a melee class.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
10. The Warpreist- ...NO! Banned.

Uh...why? They're underpowered if anything.


Zhayne wrote:

I'm sure these opinions are based on detailed analysis and observation in play, rather than simply looking at numbers and flipping out.

Seriously, if you allow wizards, clerics, and druids, you don't got much to complain about in this book.

All but the Arcanist and Bloodrager do deserve a fair bet more scrutiny. For the previously listed, it is exactly what i said.

The acranist's class abilities FAR outstrip any of the wizard/sorcerer's in damage, utility and number of usages. NOT ONLY THAT but they cast at the same rate and list as the sorcerer. What reason does anyone have to play a sorcerer or wizard now other then flavor?

The Bloodrager is also one I refuse to see at a table again. I went and compared it to the normal barbarian SIDE BY SIDE. They lose trap sense and rage powers to gain spell casting off of a very good list of melee support spells and bloodline powers and feats. This IS NOT an even trade.

Warpreist is a gut reaction.


The warpriest is a good alternative to a paladin. This is especially true if you want to play paladin of another alignment. The Champion of the Faith archetype is perfect for this. Not as good in combat as paladin but the extra magic ability helps.

Liberty's Edge

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
All but the Arcanist and Bloodrager do deserve a fair bet more scrutiny. For the previously listed, it is exactly what i said.

Generally a good policy.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
The acranist's class abilities FAR outstrip any of the wizard/sorcerer's in damage, utility and number of usages. NOT ONLY THAT but they cast at the same rate and list as the sorcerer. What reason does anyone have to play a sorcerer or wizard now other then flavor?

Wizards? Lots. Getting every new level of spells a level sooner and School Powers plus Arcane Discoveries and extra spell slots from Arcane School all provide significant advantages. Arcane Exploits are probably on par with all that, mind you, but not flat out better or anything like that.

Sorcerers? Casting more spells a day...but that's about it, and probably not sufficient reason. On the other hand, there were few reasons to play one rather than a Wizard anyway.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
The Bloodrager is also one I refuse to see at a table again. I went and compared it to the normal barbarian SIDE BY SIDE. They lose trap sense and rage powers to gain spell casting off of a very good list of melee support spells and bloodline powers and feats. This IS NOT an even trade.

As I noted previously, they also lose a lot of other stuff that makes Barbarians really good (most obviously but least significantly d12 hit dice).

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
Warpreist is a gut reaction.

Based on what?


I have a problem with two feats and random editing weirdness that I find (I assume that inspiration functions on any d20 roll but it doesn't exactly say that. What it does say is grammatically incorrect as well.)

I don't like that Shaman gets its own spell list because its harder to add pre-existing third party spells and splatbook spells to it's list.

The book is kind of short.

That's the extent of my problems with the book and honestly I've been seeing reactions like this since five minutes after the first playtest packet so my general reaction is to roll my eyes. Like so many problems parroted I don't see them at any table. Now I've only seen half these classes in actions and not past lvl 8 but so far IRL there is nowhere near as much complaining as I see on these forums.

Shadow Lodge

I do like the summaries you guys are throwing out about each class (except the Warpriest?), so thanks.


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Really? That's a rather silly attitude.

.

Yeah...that was mostly for effect. My post and your response took up the entire space so i have start a fresh message.

1. Archetypes and feats- There are some that are fine but I dislike those fighter ones. First gives up wep. training for the "I have whatever feat i want" ability i dislike, the second give up my favorite fighter ability for mutagen.

2. The Arcanist- They don't get less spells, they get the same number as the wizard but a level later. Metamixing cost 1 point (pool 3+lv) to add any 1 metamagic feat to any spell wihtout adjusting it's level. I belive the wizard can do this once a day at 8th lv. Now look at any of the damaging abilities for wizard, cleric and sorcerer, it's fairly constantly 1d6+1/2 lv. The arcanist is 1d6 per 2 lvs + cha mod WITH a secondary effect. I do not see that as being even.

3. The Bloodrager- ...oops...How did i miss the HD...Now on the subject of rage powers, I'd agree...IF they didn't have an archetype that could replace CERTAIN bloodline powers with rage powers. Its worded so you can choose when you get bloodline ability and when you get rage powers. It lets you pick and choose, unlike nearly every other archetype.

4. Brawler- Like i said, pending play time. On the subject of scaling dice...i just hate it, i hated it in 3.0, i hate it now, and I'll probably hate it until i quit the game. It jut bugs me to no end, ooh..."2d10 +4 way better that 1d8 +14"

5 Investigator- No the one you listed is not only fine, I really like it. I mean the ones that let you, as long as you have a point, NOT spend it to use inspiration on a skill. Minor nitpick.

6. Shaman- This make me happy.

7. Skald- It's buffing seems alright...but i'd rather have a regular bard any day better bonus to hit and damage AND no penalty to ac. (Id get more into it but i'm getting tired)

8. Slayer-.

9. Bucked Swash- It's all over the place. SOME ABSOLUTE GARBAGE and other things that seem to good, but you have to agree that they are getting a formerly 10th lv ability at lv 1. That's the other, thing why are the just getting a crudy version of the paladin's divine grace?

10 Warpriest- first...let me get this out of the way...MORE SCALING DICE!...Okay...I'm good. Sacred weapon is alright, minus...that. Fervor, at first glace, it's a watered down lay on hands, BUT it's actually a swift action buff like bullstr, haste, heroism, ect. Sacred armor, mostly fine to. Blessings, i could go through and cherry pick the ones that i don't like but that would defecate the purpose. This is one of the things that really bug me.

-EVERYBODY'S a fighter. Brawler, swashbuckler, warpreist. All three of them are getting fighter feats. Either the fighter is unique and almost nobody should be getting these...or...they're not, so paladin, caviler, and gunslinger should have a similar option. When the figher levels were tied into an archetype, it wasn't so bad. But now figher only feats are limied to figters, magus at 1/2 level, samurai, swashbucklers, warpriests, a lot of monks, and brawlers. I know it was originally just a hold over from 3.5 but...i kinda miss it. *eyes tear*


Deadmanwalking wrote:

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
Warpreist is a gut reaction.
Based on what?

Initial reading and the terror on brought to my table. The ability to buff yourself and attack in the same turn is scary. That along with the blessing of strength was destroying me.

*edit* I didn't realize you were the same person...oops...


Avatar-1 wrote:
I do like the summaries you guys are throwing out about each class (except the Warpriest?), so thanks.

Thank you. I'm just throwing my ideas and getting feed back. A warpreist showed up at my table the other day at 7th lv and curbstomped 2 players in pvp (fault on both sides), one 8th lv dragon disciple and one 9th lv magus.

I posted a summery in a reply to Deadmanwalking, not to long ago.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:


Initial reading and the terror on brought to my table. The ability to buff yourself and attack in the same turn is scary. That along with the blessing of strength was destroying me.

Maguses, clerics, paladins, and clerics must give you the cold sweats.

Liberty's Edge

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
Yeah...that was mostly for effect. My post and your response took up the entire space so i have start a fresh message.

Cool, sounds reasonable. :)

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
1. Archetypes and feats- There are some that are fine but I dislike those fighter ones. First gives up wep. training for the "I have whatever feat i want" ability i dislike, the second give up my favorite fighter ability for mutagen.

Sure...but that's a personal dislike, not a balance issue.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
2. The Arcanist- They don't get less spells, they get the same number as the wizard but a level later. Metamixing cost 1 point (pool 3+lv) to add any 1 metamagic feat to any spell wihtout adjusting it's level. I belive the wizard can do this once a day at 8th lv. Now look at any of the damaging abilities for wizard, cleric and sorcerer, it's fairly constantly 1d6+1/2 lv. The arcanist is 1d6 per 2 lvs + cha mod WITH a secondary effect. I do not see that as being even.

Actually...with School Bonus spells, they do get less spells. Ditto domain for Clerics.

And as for the damaging abilities...those used by the Cleric or Wizard take nothing away from their other capabilities, while the Arcanist's very much does. They're effectively burning what costs a 1st level spell slot to replace on it...and it's really worse than most 1st level spells most of the time.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
3. The Bloodrager- ...oops...How did i miss the HD...Now on the subject of rage powers, I'd agree...IF they didn't have an archetype that could replace CERTAIN bloodline powers with rage powers. Its worded so you can choose when you get bloodline ability and when you get rage powers. It lets you pick and choose, unlike nearly every other archetype.

Sure, but it's also worded so you can't get the Extra Rage Power Feat, and that's a pretty big disadvantage. Plus all the others I listed. There was a thread where I went into this in more detail.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
4. Brawler- Like i said, pending play time. On the subject of scaling dice...i just hate it, i hated it in 3.0, i hate it now, and I'll probably hate it until i quit the game. It jut bugs me to no end, ooh..."2d10 +4 way better that 1d8 +14"

That's fair. Again, though, it's a personal dislike, not a good reason to ban a Class.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
5 Investigator- No the one you listed is not only fine, I really like it. I mean the ones that let you, as long as you have a point, NOT spend it to use inspiration on a skill. Minor nitpick.

Uh...Expanded Inspiration does precisely that.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
6. Shaman- This make me happy.

Me, too. :)

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
7. Skald- It's buffing seems alright...but i'd rather have a regular bard any day better bonus to hit and damage AND no penalty to ac. (Id get more into it but i'm getting tired)

Eh, -1 AC isn't bad, and giving Rage Powers to everyone is fabulous.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
8. Slayer-.

?

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
9. Bucked Swash- It's all over the place. SOME ABSOLUTE GARBAGE and other things that seem to good, but you have to agree that they are getting a formerly 10th lv ability at lv 1. That's the other, thing why are the just getting a crudy version of the paladin's divine grace?

Yeah...it's a bit odd. The Parry thing is admittedly cool, though.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
10 Warpriest- first...let me get this out of the way...MORE SCALING DICE!...Okay...I'm good. Sacred weapon is alright, minus...that. Fervor, at first glace, it's a watered down lay on hands, BUT it's actually a swift action buff like bullstr, haste, heroism, ect. Sacred armor, mostly fine to. Blessings, i could go through and cherry pick the ones that i don't like but that would defecate the purpose. This is one of the things that really bug me.

That doesn't sound like sufficient reason to ban it. Especially given how limited Fervor is.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
-EVERYBODY'S a fighter. Brawler, swashbuckler, warpreist. All three of them are getting fighter feats. Either the fighter is unique and almost nobody should be getting these...or...they're not, so paladin, caviler, and gunslinger should have a similar option. When the figher levels were tied into an archetype, it wasn't so bad. But now figher only feats are limied to figters, magus at 1/2 level, samurai, swashbucklers, warpriests, a lot of monks, and brawlers. I know it was originally just a hold over from 3.5 but...i kinda miss it. *eyes tear*

Eh...again, this seems a vague reason to dislike a particular Class, never mind ban it.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
Initial reading and the terror on brought to my table. The ability to buff yourself and attack in the same turn is scary. That along with the blessing of strength was destroying me.

Lots of people can buff and attack in one way or another. And the Strength Blessing doesn't stack with weapon enhancement bonuses, limiting it's awesomeness somewhat. Also, it takes a Swift action, too, limiting how many bonuses you can get er round.

Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
*edit* I didn't realize you were the same person...oops...

No worries. :)


TarkXT wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:


Initial reading and the terror on brought to my table. The ability to buff yourself and attack in the same turn is scary. That along with the blessing of strength was destroying me.
Maguses, clerics, paladins, and clerics must give you the cold sweats.

Maguses...Magus...Magi...Do!

Clerics and Paladins...and cleric, less so because they need to set up most buffs not named litany, and the litany only last 1 round.


BigDTBone wrote:


"Must include filler material for every class in the game..." Don't, just don't. If you aren't enthusiastic about the mechanics we can tell.

What would had they printed for rogues in all this years then?


Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:


Initial reading and the terror on brought to my table. The ability to buff yourself and attack in the same turn is scary. That along with the blessing of strength was destroying me.
Maguses, clerics, paladins, and clerics must give you the cold sweats.

Maguses...Magus...Magi...Do!

Clerics and Paladins...and cleric, less so because they need to set up most buffs not named litany, and the litany only last 1 round.

Sssh! Nobody tell him about the Inquisitor!


Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
The Bloodrager is also one I refuse to see at a table again. I went and compared it to the normal barbarian SIDE BY SIDE. They lose trap sense and rage powers to gain spell casting off of a very good list of melee support spells and bloodline powers and feats. This IS NOT an even trade.

You do realize that the Bloodrager is basically the Arcane answer to both the Paladin and Ranger, right? It's actually no less or more powerful than the Barbarian.

This isn't a class with full BAB and 6th level spells; it's a pseudo-caster that doesn't get spells until lv4, and has max 4th level spells.

Try it out - I think you'll find it's not even as powerful as the Paladin.

Also, I'm not sure I understand your rage against scaling power?

So, what happens if a player uses a Large Bastard Sword? Or a Great Sword with Impact? Or plays a Monk?

If you think scaling damage is a game-breaking problem, I suggest you never allow your players to play casters... like, ever.


Addem Up wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:


Initial reading and the terror on brought to my table. The ability to buff yourself and attack in the same turn is scary. That along with the blessing of strength was destroying me.
Maguses, clerics, paladins, and clerics must give you the cold sweats.

Maguses...Magus...Magi...Do!

Clerics and Paladins...and cleric, less so because they need to set up most buffs not named litany, and the litany only last 1 round.

Sssh! Nobody tell him about the Inquisitor!

All I want to do right now is ride CoDzilla through his downtown Tokyo. >=D


chbgraphicarts wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
The Bloodrager is also one I refuse to see at a table again. I went and compared it to the normal barbarian SIDE BY SIDE. They lose trap sense and rage powers to gain spell casting off of a very good list of melee support spells and bloodline powers and feats. This IS NOT an even trade.

You do realize that the Bloodrager is basically the Arcane answer to both the Paladin and Ranger, right?

It's actually no less or more powerful than the Barbarian.

This isn't a class with full BAB and 6th level spells; it's a pseudo-caster that doesn't get spells until lv4, and has max 4th level spells.

Try it out - I think you'll find it's not even as powerful as the Paladin.

It has more versatility from what I heard, but from skimming over it I dont see it putting out the same damage, which is why I play a barbarian. The other stuff I can do outside of combat is to make me not feel useless if I am not stabbing someone.


The fact that the chassis for a sorcerer + barbarian is a bloodrager, and the chassis for a bard + barbarian is a skald irks me to no end. Why the base attack/casting of these two "hybrids" aren't reversed is beyond me.


wraithstrike wrote:
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
The Bloodrager is also one I refuse to see at a table again. I went and compared it to the normal barbarian SIDE BY SIDE. They lose trap sense and rage powers to gain spell casting off of a very good list of melee support spells and bloodline powers and feats. This IS NOT an even trade.

You do realize that the Bloodrager is basically the Arcane answer to both the Paladin and Ranger, right?

It's actually no less or more powerful than the Barbarian.

This isn't a class with full BAB and 6th level spells; it's a pseudo-caster that doesn't get spells until lv4, and has max 4th level spells.

Try it out - I think you'll find it's not even as powerful as the Paladin.

It has more versatility from what I heard, but from skimming over it I dont see it putting out the same damage, which is why I play a barbarian. The other stuff I can do outside of combat is to make me not feel useless if I am not stabbing someone.

It's similar versatility. You get spells, which can or can't be as good as Rage Powers; it all comes down to what you take in either.

Pound-for-pound, they'll do about the same amount of damage. Pound-for-pound, however, the Barbarian will have more HP, probably better armor (don't need to worry about Arcane spell failure) and serve as a much-better tank.

The Bloodrager is really the Arcane counterpart to the Paladin more than it is to the Ranger.

What makes the Bloodrager fantastic is that it's a single-class-buy-in to the Dragon Disciple. No more do you HAVE to lose a BAB advancement and get a puny-little-girly-man HD (via Dragon Bloodline Sorcerer) just to enter into DD. NOW, you can take 5 levels of a full BAB class and go right into DD. AND you'll still have access to a Dragon bloodline.

BUT, in doing THAT, you lose out on the Bloodrager's Bloodrage progression. And unless you are going to lv20, a lv4 Barbarian/lv1 Sorcerer/lvX Dragon Disciple will actually have equal or better spells (because the Sorc gains new levels of spells faster than the Bloodrager).

All in all, it's actually insanely balanced. Strong, but balanced, and really no more powerful, no matter how you slice it (full Bloodrager or Bloodrager/Dragon Disciple), than either the Barbarian or the Paladin.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Glutton wrote:
The fact that the chassis for a sorcerer + barbarian is a bloodrager, and the chassis for a bard + barbarian is a skald irks me to no end. Why the base attack/casting of these two "hybrids" aren't reversed is beyond me.

It all comes down to thematic design:

A Bloodrager is mechanically the Arcane answer to the Paladin. Thematically, a Bloodrager is also about nothing but primal power - primal physical power (the Barbarian's BAB progression and d10 HD, plus a direct port of Rage), plus primal magical power (the weakened Sorcerer spells & progression, but arguably more powerful Bloodlines).

The Skald, however, is a rage-poet. Skalds were Viking poets, and are responsible for the Sagas. Skalds were revered by Vikings, and in many cultures, including Slavic, Germanic, and Norse cultures, bards/poets/musicians were considered to be innately magical; a Skald, then, being a Viking-themed poet, would need to be much more magical than it would be martial. You would find Barbarians, Fighters, or (if there was magic) Bloodragers among the Jomsvikings; you'd never, really, find a Skald.

Barbarians are how you make Herakles.

Sorcerers are how you make Merlin (he was a half-fae/half-devil)

Bloodragers are how you make Cuchulainn.

Bards are how you make Vainamoinen

Skalds are how you make a Death Metal band in Pathfinder. (DEATHKLOK-DEATHKLOK!!!)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Why does everyone hate on the arcanist? Slower spell progression is such a big drawback. They have less spells per day than the wizard, and much less than a sorcerer. You essentially give up consistency for flexibility. Sin magic conjuration wizards are the most powerful characters in the game.


Some Other Guy wrote:
They have less spells per day than the wizard

Why does everyone keep saying that?

I've got the Arcanist class right up against the Wizard, and except for 1st level spells (of which the Arcanist has more until it maxes out), they're identical.

Seriously, just take away the 1 every time a Wizard gains a new level of spells, and that's the Arcanist spell list.

Is it because a Wizard can fill up all his Prepared slots with as many spells as he can cast, while the Arcanist fills up fewer "Spells Remembered" slots, but can spam those slots throughout the day?

I'm not terribly sure I'd call that "less", frankly. I don't know about most players, but I don't think people choose only one copy of each spell to load up - often the most useful spells get loaded at least 2 times, at which point there's little difference with how the Arcanist functions.

Anyway, I like the Arcanist just fine. It's different than a Sage-blooded Sorcerer, and for a character I've been trying to build, it fits the mold pretty perfectly, even if I'm not getting 6 spells of each level a day at max.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
chbgraphicarts wrote:
Some Other Guy wrote:
They have less spells per day than the wizard

Why does everyone keep saying that?

I've got the Arcanist class right up against the Wizard, and except for 1st level spells (of which the Arcanist has more until it maxes out), they're identical.

Because they do...all non-universalist wizards get an extra spell slot per level. Otherwise they would be the same. Sin magic wizards get 3 extra spell slots per level.


On one thing, the OP and I agree: Spell-Kenning seems more bard-like than Skaldish... It should go hand in hand with "BARDic Knowledge". My Bards should have that, not (possibly)illiterate warrior poets.

Bloodrager is my favorite class in this book. Now I can actually get excited about playing a barbarian-type character. Blasting Charge, while a little underpowered and costly with limited number of spells/day, is really, really thematically inspiring, IMO.
Slayer is dynamite, Hunter is cool and Investigator intriguing.


Addem Up wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Rapthorn2ndform wrote:


Initial reading and the terror on brought to my table. The ability to buff yourself and attack in the same turn is scary. That along with the blessing of strength was destroying me.
Maguses, clerics, paladins, and clerics must give you the cold sweats.

Maguses...Magus...Magi...Do!

Clerics and Paladins...and cleric, less so because they need to set up most buffs not named litany, and the litany only last 1 round.

Sssh! Nobody tell him about the Inquisitor!

Lets not forget the Summoner... that eidolon can get scary fast...


While there was a lot of good point, a lot of them were also really stupid in this thread.

The only class from the acg that could, perhaps, be banable for power creep is the arcanist, time and experience will be required to evaluate it more.

All the other class could only be justifiably banned for thematic reason, they are far from overpowered.

The brawler seems fine, it could however slow down gameplay because of the rule searching involved in martial flexibility. Not a class for the neophyte that's for sure.

I don't understand what is your hangup with dice scaling. It's the same as a monk and no one complain for the monk. The scaling for the warpriest is mostly useless. Only one handed user could really benefit and it takes forever to be really worth it.

The bloodrager seems fine, definitely not too powerful. They are an interesting take on the bloodlines and are full of flavor.

The book truly did waste a lot of space for fairly pointless stuff and could have used the community more before printing (it wasn't even fully released and there was scores of editing errors found)


zapbib wrote:
I don't understand what is your hangup with dice scaling. It's the same as a monk and no one complain for the monk. The scaling for the warpriest is mostly useless. Only one handed user could really benefit and it takes forever to be really worth it.

I did. I don't hate it because it's powerful, I hate it because it's annoying. From the time i started playing, i realized that dice don't really matter. The people I gamed with thought dice were king and i was a newb for not using a bastard sword or playing a monk because big dice man. I still saw this well into 4th edition where players would choose a d10 over a d8 when the 1d8 wep had a better chance to hit over all. It's a minor thing that...FOR SOME REASON, bothers me to no end.


Rapthorn2ndform wrote:
zapbib wrote:
I don't understand what is your hangup with dice scaling. It's the same as a monk and no one complain for the monk. The scaling for the warpriest is mostly useless. Only one handed user could really benefit and it takes forever to be really worth it.
I did. I don't hate it because it's powerful, I hate it because it's annoying. From the time i started playing, i realized that dice don't really matter. The people I gamed with thought dice were king and i was a newb for not using a bastard sword or playing a monk because big dice man. I still saw this well into 4th edition where players would choose a d10 over a d8 when the 1d8 wep had a better chance to hit over all. It's a minor thing that...FOR SOME REASON, bothers me to no end.

He says that... until you look at Galeena the Conqueror Ooze and them damages... xD

Ok I'll give that this is a weird corner case but still xD...


Quote:
I did. I don't hate it because it's powerful, I hate it because it's annoying. From the time i started playing, i realized that dice don't really matter. The people I gamed with thought dice were king and i was a newb for not using a bastard sword or playing a monk because big dice man. I still saw this well into 4th edition where players would choose a d10 over a d8 when the 1d8 wep had a better chance to hit over all. It's a minor thing that...FOR SOME REASON, bothers me to no end.

It's perfectly acceptable to have these little illogical gripes. It is not acceptable to use very subjective and illogical gripes to make broad judgment about newly released class.

I mean, you planned to ban these classes simply because they are not as powerful as people would think they are? (because they like dice?).

The goal of a forum is to discuss, there is nothing to discuss if all you have to say is: I dislike them because of "trauma in the past". If you want to say that you can get yourself a blog.


zapbib wrote:


The brawler seems fine, it could however slow down gameplay because of the rule searching involved in martial flexibility. Not a class for the neophyte that's for sure.

Even though I'm not new to the game I'd like to imagine that most players handle Martial Flexibility like I'm going to. Make a list of go-to feats based on a theme. Forget about slowing down the game I don't want to look at a book each time I use an ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
zapbib wrote:
The brawler seems fine, it could however slow down gameplay because of the rule searching involved in martial flexibility. Not a class for the neophyte that's for sure.

Yeah, you want to do your feat-trawling out of game time, and have all the useful ones on cards or a list that you bring with you. With references. :-)


Lucy_Valentine wrote:
zapbib wrote:
The brawler seems fine, it could however slow down gameplay because of the rule searching involved in martial flexibility. Not a class for the neophyte that's for sure.
Yeah, you want to do your feat-trawling out of game time, and have all the useful ones on cards or a list that you bring with you. With references. :-)

Exactly.

It's no worse than summons, spellcasting, and whatnot. HAve your stuff easy to reference and have a list of preferred ones.


In defense of the Warpriest. Mine is level 3 in PFS and isn't really better than if I'd taken a Paladin. So far, actually weaker. I imagine the self-buffs will be nice later on if the party has no bard or other buffer. But right now, they allow me to buff up to being a Fighter for a very limited number of rounds.


Malwing wrote:
zapbib wrote:


The brawler seems fine, it could however slow down gameplay because of the rule searching involved in martial flexibility. Not a class for the neophyte that's for sure.

Even though I'm not new to the game I'd like to imagine that most players handle Martial Flexibility like I'm going to. Make a list of go-to feats based on a theme. Forget about slowing down the game I don't want to look at a book each time I use an ability.

This. I'm building a Brawler with a specific focus on Style feats for a game coming up and I've made a huge list of feats with descriptions and page numbers for him.

Also, specific strategic feat chains for certain situations that are likely to come up.
:)


Oath wrote:
In defense of the Warpriest. Mine is level 3 in PFS and isn't really better than if I'd taken a Paladin. So far, actually weaker. I imagine the self-buffs will be nice later on if the party has no bard or other buffer. But right now, they allow me to buff up to being a Fighter for a very limited number of rounds.

Honestly I feel liek the Sacred Fist Archetype is probably the best Warpriest around, in mechanics and in flavour. It trades away some meh things for the best parts of the monk, while leaving out the worst parts.


Slightly off topic question but its related to hybrid classes.......can they use items specific to one of their parent classes?

Certain abilities like the warpriest's bonus feats specifically call out that warpriest levels count as fighter levels. Makes sense because fighter is one of the parent classes.

BUT can a warpriest of Pharasma get the same benefits a cleric would if wielding Ravens Head


You know what gets me more than anything else in this book?

The Killing Flourish feat chain being Slayer only.

Why? Just why? I literally cannot fathom a single reason as to why this class requires Slayer levels.

Ok. Kill someone in a frightening way to demoralize their allies. Cool. Very fitting for a slayer. But it's also something I've seen the Evil Bad Guy Monk in kung-fu movies do when he kills the protagonist's master. And it's something I've seen the evil monstrous overlord do to someone the hero knows in books and video games and a movie or two. And so on and so on.

So why can't a Barbarian or Inquisitor or Rogue or Fighter or Monk or a friggin' Antipaladin do that?

Why?

I seriously want to fly down to Paizo HQ and angrily ask why you need Slayer levels to do that.

It's worse than Divine Protection. Worse than the Swashbuckler.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

chbgraphicarts wrote:

Why does everyone keep saying that?

I've got the Arcanist class right up against the Wizard, and except for 1st level spells (of which the Arcanist has more until it maxes out), they're identical.

Except for levels 3,5,7,9,11,13,15,17.....

For nearly 1/2 the game the Wizard has an entire level of spells on the Arcanist. If he has a specialty (no reason not to) he also has more same level spells. This has a huge array of power implications outside of just the Wizard having more spells available as well; look at some of the Arcanist's best class abilities, like Counterspelling. A 5th level Arcanist can use the Counterspell exploit to counter a Wizard's spell as an immediate action, holy crap! Assuming of course, that said spell being cast is one two levels below the highest level the Wizard is actually capable of casting. So he can shut off the Wizard's most common tricks, which is good, but not his trump cards. Arcanist isn't broken, and for the better part of the game, he really does have noticeably fewer spells than his counterparts. It gets even worse when you realize that since his resevoir feeds on his spells and some of his best abilities (like Counterspell and its improved version) also require him to expend a spell, he literally hemorrages resources, having the smallest potential of maintaining effectiveness over an entire adventuring day of any class.


Quote:


1. The Arcanist-
2. The Bloodrager-
3. The Brawler-
4. The Hunter-
5. The investigator-
6. The Shaman-
7. The Skald-
8. The Slayer-
9. The Swashbuckler
10. The Warpreist

1) This is just worse than a wizard half the time, no trade off just worse at all odd levels. At even levels it's a trade off. I assume you ban wizards too.

2) I ran some numbers on this. With the exception of a whopping two bloodlines (arcane and the impossible to model aberrant) it's just worse than barbarian outside of archetypes. The primalist archetype looked broken to me before I realize how much you give up for spells. By level 12 when you get CoaGM for both it's 12 HP, 5 DR and 4 fire/cold resist along with either 2-5 rage powers (which are statistically stronger than all bloodline powers but either the 4th aberrant or the 8th level arcane power if you have no hasters) It's incredibly flavorful and fun but anywhere from the top of the pile. I should know I really like this class.

3) Brawlers are just full BAB unarmed characters. They're not that strong HOWEVER a new feat makes them and monks MUCH better. Pummeling style/Charge which lets unarmed characters finally compete.

4) Me and my friends literally laughed at this. It's like a strictly worse druid. Only's it's ACTUALLY a strickly worse druid not just pretending to be one.

5) This class is cool. It finally lets you play a sneaky rogue without sucking.

6) This class was once good. Then the spell list happened. I don't know how to feel about it's abysmal spell list.

7) This class is boarderline broken at some levels in terms of abilities it gives you. Cast haste then do your rage song and give superstition and Come and get me away. Proceed to STOMP the world.

8) Very good replacement for the base fighter and rogue. Well written and good damage.

9) On the weak end until signature deed comes along at which point they become cool again.

10) The base WP is just worse than the base cleric in every way after level 7. The Sacred fist appears to actually be fairly playable and usable because it gives them back what they took away which is effective full BAB via flurry.

If I'd say anything about the ACG classes they all come out on the balanced or weak side with only the arcanist/shaman even registering on the "Wow that's strong" scale but it's more like "Wow it's got 9th level casting, it's clearly strong" than "It's stronger than wizard/cleric/druid/summoner/witch."


Shaman is very good provided that you allow the Human Favored Class ability to work, since it allows Shaman's to cherry pick the best spells from the Cleric list (seriously the spells known FAQ just looks silly given this). Furthermore, provided that Lore is not your main spirit (it should never be), you can use Wandering Hex or Spirit Talker to grab some useful spells, but better yet, you effectively have all the best Arcane downtime spells. I don't recommend really pumping or dumping INT or CHA for this ability. A +6 Headband will get you at least 3 Arcane spells per day tailored to your needs, which really should be plenty. And remember while you only get them as Spirit Magic (unless you have Waves Fluid Magic Hex maybe off say... Spirit Talker)the spells you get from your Spirit and more importantly your wandering spirit give you some excellent options. Really, I feel the Shaman is being massively underrated.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Hunter is one of the best things to come out of the ACG. They're a very competent martial with one of the best pets in the game and a very respectable spell list. A well built Hunter takes off in combat even faster than a Ranger, with much more meaningful spellcasting. They're really only similar to the Druid in that they share some spells and have a pet.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Hunter was something i was looking foward to.

Quite like having pets , summoner being my fav class of all exactly because of this. So many ways to play with my eidolon.

And so comes the hunter the new pet class ...

My reaction when reading this class was:

1)Awesome a pet class

2)(finishes reading) Ok so ...

3)(ten minutes later) Nah ... i wont play a faulty druid.

While i admit that apparently the hunter isnt bad on low lvls and can even be something to consider on mid lvls. The fact that ultimately it will just be a crappy druid on later lvls makes me annoyed.

Now im more interested in the investigator and the shaman.

1 to 50 of 66 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Problems with the Advanced Class Guide. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.