What? That someone else had trouble with the mechanics of Dreamscarred's work? That they prefer a different feel?
How is that possibly insulting? Tastes differ as do experiences with mechanics. It's possible that JJwolven's group wasn't correctly handling one of the limiting factors in Psionics, since that seems to be a common problem, but regardless, I don't see how this is any kind of slap in the face.
There are plenty of games and supplements and mechanics that I loathe that other people like and vice versa. So what?
If there was a limiting factor I was missing, I would like to know. I like the concept of Psionics.
Limiting factors: no more PP spent in an action than your psionic caster level, standard ability limit on spell level, concentrate on one at a time.
@jjwolven: You didn't mention how the psionic characters outshone the others (although this would not be the thread or subforum for that discussion).
Anyway, since I've finally read through the playtest document, I might as well post my impressions here.
Kineticist and Medium seem like fine classes for which I can come up with character concepts quite easily. I'm a fan of Radiance House's work for 3.5e, though, so I don't know if I will use Paizo's updated Binder.
The Mesmerist looks like an updated Beguiler, a class that - like the Warmage - should have been a Sorcerer PrC back in 3.5. I like the fluff and quite a few of the mechanics. I just don't see why it needs to be a base class.
The Occultist seems fine, even if I probably won't play one, as it doesn't interest me much. However, the weapon and armor proficiencies are weird and do not fit the class's fluff. If this was intended to be a psychic melee combatant, I'd understand, but the class seemingly wants to be something else.
The Psychic is not for me. I'm neither a fan of the fluff nor of the amplification mechanics. I'd rather play a Psion.
The Spiritualist looks good. It is basically a haunted Oracle to the extreme, although I find the fluff a bit too narrow. Maybe there will be archetypes for tethering elementals or other outsiders in the book.
So, 2 or 3 interesting classes out of 6 is not enough for me to consider buying the book.
Design Manager
|
@jjwolven: You didn't mention how the psionic characters outshone the others (although this would not be the thread or subforum for that discussion).
Anyway, since I've finally read through the playtest document, I might as well post my impressions here.
Kineticist and Medium seem like fine classes for which I can come up with character concepts quite easily. I'm a fan of Radiance House's work for 3.5e, though, so I don't know if I will use Paizo's updated Binder.
The Mesmerist looks like an updated Beguiler, a class that - like the Warmage - should have been a Sorcerer PrC back in 3.5. I like the fluff and quite a few of the mechanics. I just don't see why it needs to be a base class.
The Occultist seems fine, even if I probably won't play one, as it doesn't interest me much. However, the weapon and armor proficiencies are weird and do not fit the class's fluff. If this was intended to be a psychic melee combatant, I'd understand, but the class seemingly wants to be something else.
The Psychic is not for me. I'm neither a fan of the fluff nor of the amplification mechanics. I'd rather play a Psion.
The Spiritualist looks good. It is basically a haunted Oracle to the extreme, although I find the fluff a bit too narrow. Maybe there will be archetypes for tethering elementals or other outsiders in the book.
So, 2 or 3 interesting classes out of 6 is not enough for me to consider buying the book.
Amusingly, I had similar feelings but with a different result.
I kind of like the Medium, but I feel like there's some clutter in the class that needs to be cleaned up. Not the number of options (I'm fine with the projected 54), but in the actual mechanics themselves.
Occultist is pretty cool. I think this might end up being my favorite class out of the whole bunch. Aside from the fact that it lets you play Harry Dresden, it has some very interesting mechanics you can run together. I'm liking it for a "General" type character like the Necromancer back in Diablo 2, where you can pump critters and area effects out onto the field with unusual results (the ever multiplying undead of the necromancy implements make me smile).
Kineticist also is nice, though the chassis certainly needs some shoring up. Still, has a lot of potential to be an elemental version of 3.5's Warlock. If they could just pump the utility a bit and flesh out the damage-dealing capabilities of a few of the elements, it seems like it'll be great.
Psychic is a huge "meh" for me. It's about as great as a 9-level psychic caster can be I suppose, but I almost would have preferred it if they had forgone doing a 9 level caster altogether and explored some more dynamic design space. Undercasting is all right, basically just fleshing out your utility by opening up your lower level spells known when you learn the next spell in a series. Probably should have been part of how spellcasting worked to begin with, but in the current system it's more flavor than function.
Spiritualist is also a "meh". Not bad, but not something I really care about either. I feel like they tried to rein the class back a bit, and I suspect it matches the new Unchained Summoner in power, which is why many people are seeing it as a nerfed Summoner. I suspect there will be people who like it a lot, but it's just not for me.
Mesmerist... is cool. Very, very focused. It was compared to the Beguiler, but I don't consider that a bad thing. Unbounded 9 level casters are responsible for most of the issues in the system, and I've always wished Paizo had learned from late 3.5 and narrowed Wizard focus so that a given wizard's school choices made him a Warmage or Beguiler instead of "god wizard who can do anything, plus is really good at this particular thing". I probably won't play one, but I know at least one person in my group who definitely will.
So I like 2 or 3 of the classes, and for me, that's definitely enough justification to pick up the book.
One thing I'm kind of noticing about the classes though: This reminds me of 3.5 in a big way; basically Paizo is coming out with classes that are much better balanced and more focused thematically and mechanically than their predecessors, which makes the better designed classes actually seem like under-performers. The Spiritualist and Kineticist in a world that already has Summoners and Sorcerers is like when WotC was putting out the Warmage and Beguiler into a world that already included the Wizard. In the (hopefully out there a ways yet) inevitable Pathfinder 2.0, I hope they learn this lesson and create an environment of more bounded and flavorful classes, using that Tier 3 balancing point for all materials.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My impressions is that the Occult classes have a more Victorian/Steampunk feel to them. The names of the classes, occultist, mesmerist, medium, originated in that time period. If you're doing a campaign around gypsy fortune tellers or psychic detectives, then the Occult classes are perfect.
On the other hand, if you're looking for classes with a Jedi-like feel, then Dreamscarred's psionic classes are perfect.
They aren't incompatible. Not any more than either would be alongside the core classes. They're different flavors, that's all.
|
"Who CARES what evil lurks in the hearts of Men?"Actually wonder whether Occult Adventures would be better for a d20 (Semi) Modern successor, set on Earth with a shadow world (think of a crossover with White Wolf's Mage/Old World of Darkness) in a time range anywhere from the late Nineteenth Century up to the present. If you set it shortly after World War I, it is even contemporaneous with Golarion "present time", thus more easily enabling Earth-Golarion crossovers.
Better yet! I can run a campaign based off the Shadow using Occult Adventures! ("What evil lurks in the hearts of men? Only the Shadow knows!"
If I want Professor Xavier types in my campaign, I go Dreamscarred! If I want the Shadow, I go Occult Adventures! :)
"Unless evil's carrying the martini tray darling."
*Clink*
My impressions is that the Occult classes have a more Victorian/Steampunk feel to them. The names of the classes, occultist, mesmerist, medium, originated in that time period. If you're doing a campaign around gypsy fortune tellers or psychic detectives, then the Occult classes are perfect.
On the other hand, if you're looking for classes with a Jedi-like feel, then Dreamscarred's psionic classes are perfect.
They aren't incompatible. Not any more than either would be alongside the core classes. They're different flavors, that's all.
My impression exactly. I don't dislike the new classes from a mechanical point of view but they do have a more "modern" look and feel. I can easily see them integrated into a victorian or modern setting but I have a very hard time picturing them in my own Golarion campaign.