Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game

Starfinder


Pathfinder Society


Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Why do people hate / dislike Occult adventure?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

151 to 200 of 379 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

Jurassic Pratt wrote:
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:


Fixed that for you.

Now quit being a jerk just because I don't understand (or care to understand) Psychic/Psionic classes because they're pointlessly complicated.

I think what vid was asserting is that most people who've actually read them seem to think that the majority are in fact not overly complex with the exception of kineticist and maybe one other.

There seems to be a lot of people simply assuming that they're crazy complex. Dudemeister laid them out extremely simply and yet you barely glanced at his post and reduced it to stuff. It genuinely seems like willful ignorance.

Just because you think they are overly complex doesn't make them that.

I already gave my explanation as to why I think they are.

For example, what are Emotional/Thought components? What's the big difference between them and regular components? Do I have to do those in addition, or are they replacing components? What components do they replace, if any? What is required to fulfill those new components? Do certain effects like Fear or Intelligence Drain mean I can't fulfill them?

Simply saying terms and expecting people to actually understand what those terms are and the ramifications behind them, when they are brand new mechanics that have no similarities to other mechanics in the game, is equally ignorant when they haven't read those abilities or mechanics, almost as if we're assumed to be telepaths that can read minds.


OA chapter 4, psychic magic:
components wrote:

When a spell calls for an expensive material component, a psychic spellcaster can instead use any item with both significant meaning and a value greater than or equal to the spell's component cost. For example, if a spiritualist wanted to cast raise dead to bring her dead husband back from the grave, she could use her 5,000 gp wedding ring as the spell's material component.

[...]
if a spell's components line lists a somatic component, that spell instead requires an emotion component when cast by psychic spellcasters, and if it has a verbal component, it instead requires a thought component when cast by psychic spellcasters.
[...]
Emotion Components: Emotion components represent a particular emotional state required to cast the spell. A psychic spellcaster marshals her desire in order to focus and release the spell's energy. It is impossible to cast a spell with an emotion component while the spellcaster is under the influence of a non-harmless effect with the emotion or fear descriptors. Even if the effect's emotion matches the necessary emotion to cast the psychic spell, the spellcaster is not in control of her own desires and animal impulses, which is a necessary part of providing an emotion component.

Thought Components: Thought components represent mental constructs necessary for the spell's function, such as picturing a wolf in vivid detail—down to the saliva dripping from its jaws—in order to cast beast shape to transform into a wolf. Thought components are so mentally demanding that they make interruptions and distractions extremely challenging. The DC for any concentration check for a spell with a thought component increases by 10. A psychic spellcaster casting a spell with a thought component can take a move action before beginning to cast the spell to center herself; she can then use the normal DC instead of the increased DC.

It's in there, just with the spells rather than repeated for each class.
Shadow Lodge

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
For example, what are Emotional/Thought components?

Did you know what somatic and material components to spells were when you sat down to play Pathfinder/D&D the first time?

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
For example, what are Emotional/Thought components? What's the big difference between them and regular components? Do I have to do those in addition, or are they replacing components? What components do they replace, if any? What is required to fulfill those new components?

All these questions and more are answered for you on The Internet.


Also, the kineticist ignores the new psychic magic rules, because they use spell-like abilities.


I love OA and I certainly don't have a problem with it thematically in a fantasy setting. Unfortunately I've yet to play an occult class myself as when my GM heard the words 'psychic casting' he immediately jumped to the conclusion that it was going to be like 3.5 psionics (which he hated) and shut down any notion of anyone using anything from that book. In the campaign I'm running I encouraged people to check out the occult rules and classes and 3 of the 4 players use something from it (one is a kineticist, two use occult archetypes for non-occult classes and the last player is the GM who took umbrage at OA).

Most of this thread seems to focus on just the classes but my favourite features of the book were things like the psychic skill unlocks, occult rituals and aura reading.


Milo v3 wrote:
Which aspects of their flavour don't fit a fantasy game anymore than any other caster in the game?

It's simply a matter of personal preference.


Scott Romanowski wrote:
Milo v3 wrote:
Which aspects of their flavour don't fit a fantasy game anymore than any other caster in the game?
It's simply a matter of personal preference.

I think it's more a question of why, though. What is it in particular? And does this preference extend to other classes like the alchemist and investigator who aren't represented in most fantasy stories?

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me, I dislike some of the flavor/theme mechanics. I felt far too much Occult Material was based on Know Arcane or just Arcane when to me Religion and Divine seemes more appropriate and related, particularly in areas like undead, spirits, various planes, and things like that, but Divine seemed almost completely absent from the book, which ultimately has odd implications on rules and setting consistency.

I also didn't like that they categorized psychic style magic as "Occult", which to me is more in line with both what Arcane and Divine represent.

Overall, it was a product I didn't really feel was needed, or particularly desired as much as one that they just really wanted to do, which is fine. Im not particularly for or against it, and only got it to keep up with it at least passingly, but am not terribly interested in it.


I feel that a lot of people see new words and assume that it's super complex.

WHOA, they get mental focus!? I have no idea what that is from other classes so it's obviously something crazy strange and new.

When it's really just like arcane pool for magus that you use to power "magus arcana" (focus powers) that you have to allocate into certain pools of school.

Burn is so crazy and strange and so are their blasts and powers so many strange names.

You take 1 non-lethal damage per level when you accept burn. Your blast can be modified by a shape changer and/or a status rider, this may cost burn to use, similar to meta-magic on the fly. You can gather power to reduce the burn cost on your blast. They also have non-blast powers that may also cost burn to use.

Spritualist, My gosh those emotional focus stuff is too complicated.
When really it's like the unchained summoner where your evo points are automatically allocated even more based on your choice.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
For example, what are Emotional/Thought components?

What psychic caster's use instead of somatic or verbal components. They map 1 to 1.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
What's the big difference between them and regular components?

Big difference? there is none for the majority of stuff. Minor tweak in the concentration rules.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Do I have to do those in addition, or are they replacing components? What components do they replace, if any?

They replace the somatic or verbal of spells.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
What is required to fulfill those new components? Do certain effects like Fear or Intelligence Drain mean I can't fulfill them?

Yes, there are new rules for when these get shut off, mostly it's that if you have a mind-affecting status on you you can't cast. Int Drain does nothing special to psychic that it doesn't already to do arcane.

Darksol the Painbringer wrote:
Simply saying terms and expecting people to actually understand what those terms are and the ramifications behind them, when they are brand new mechanics that have no similarities to other mechanics in the game, is equally ignorant when they haven't read those abilities or mechanics, almost as if we're assumed to be telepaths that can read minds.

They are very similar to verbal and somatic components. True, that if you haven't taken even the smallest amount of time to try and learn what something you're unfamiliar with is then you won't know what it is.

But classes have been out for a long time. And it's assumed that people read the rules. Like if you've never read the normal spellcasting rules do you automatically know all the rules around verbal and somatic spells and their ramifications? Did you automatically without reading the abilities know the rules for underwater combat? What an arcane pool and magus arcana were? What spellstrike and spell combat do and how they interact? What a Witch's patron was? What an order is for a cavalier? What an evolution for a summoner was? How bardic performance works? What and oracle curse or mystery was? How metamagic works differently between spontaneous and prepared casters? How divine focus are used for spells?

Like this is a game that frequently produces new terms that have ramifications behind them with just as much similarity to other mechanics in the game as the occult classes do.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Myself, personally, I love Occult Adventures, it's probably my favorite rule book Paizo has ever released, but then my dad has always been into occult stuff and paranormal investigations.

So I guess it reminds me of my childhood.

Liberty's Edge

I'm getting awfully tempted to provide a complete breakdown of the Kineticist by using your local Subway store as a metaphor. Form infusions are your bread, substance infusions are your filling, and the utility wild talents are all the cookies and bottled drinks they have by the counter. Every odd level, the store stocks a new type of bread or filling, every even level they stock more sundries.

Composite Blasta are when they start selling paninis.

I feel that Occult Rituals are a deceptively named mechanic that should have been in the rules from the very beginning. I mean really, major party rituals to cover plot-important events or critical condition removal without require specific spellcasters just sounds too valuable, especially in APs.


The problem I've found with OA is that in the end, it isn't that different. There's a fair share of new rules and mechanics. Many of those, particularly the kineticist, are presented in a particularly complex way. The payoff is classes that often don't fill a high-demand niche or do so in a way that makes for a substantively different gameplay experience. Medium tries to do the 3.5 Binder, but in a way that is determinedly unweird.

That means that a lot of people, like myself, who want something new and interesting don't find a whole lot to sink your teeth into. I wasn't a huge fan of 3.x until the later days and crazy subsystems that dared to do magic differently. I have little interest in taking the same old mechanics and reshuffling things. When the pitch for ACG was "we're making a book of classes that are just a mix of old classes," it was clear I was not the intended audience. Instead, I'm the player/GM who gets their fix in 3pp. Some good, some bad, but consistently fun if what you want is magic that doesn't just consist of "casting spells."

Elsewhere in the player base are those who enjoy an experience with a limited set of "classic" options. Your Core-only folks, for instance. Overlapping that is a set that has never liked psionics in any form and probably never will.


In my opinion, burn and psychic magic aren't interesting enough to be worth the extra complications they give. But that doesn't mean I want to throw the baby out with the bathwater. Those classes that use them are still really fun, even if they rely on a few rules that seemed to be different just for the sake of being different.


Occult Adventures is probably my favorite book since the Advanced Players Guide. It's also well-liked by the friends I play with.
However, I don't think it's a good book for new players. You really have to know the basics before taking on these classes and other new rules in the book.

The mesmerist turned out being one of my favorite classes in Pathfinder. They are the best there is at what they do, but focused enough where they have to learn to be team players for the situations where what they do isn't very effective. Also, it's just fun to kick @ss by giving someone a dirty look.

If people want to play mostly traditional fantasy, it's a book you can skip. But if you like a darker, lush, moody atmosphere- I can't recommend it highly enough.

Liberty's Edge

I generally run games very open to options including 3pp ones. However when someone asks to play the kineticist, I usually roll my eyes due to its complexity.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Late to the game but will offer my opinion.

Occult Adventures turned me off due to the name, both of the book and the class names. Occult, Mesmerist, Spiritualist, Medium, Psychic, and mind powers in general, aren't fantasy to me. These terms in particular, evoke Victorian London, seances, and eventually Houdini debunking them. I, personally, never found psionics or powers like this satisfying in fantasy.

The question was asked why it doesn't fit fantasy and, again only for me, it evokes a later time than the fantasy I prefer or think about. Again, I think more of a Victorian/Edwardian times than fantasy when I hear these terms. I also see combat having changed from melee to ranged, with revolvers and rifles, with little or no armor, which again isn't fantasy to me.

(As much as I loved Dark Sun, the 2E psionic system was rough. I think I like it better now that I think of Dark Sun as magical post apocalyptic world.)

Having said that, the discussion here has made me want to relook and reevaluate, and try and get past those terms. The Kineticist sounds like the 3.5 Warlock, which I liked.

So, thanks for the discussion and want to look again at this and see what I think about it with, hopefully, fresh eyes and insights into it!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jon Goranson wrote:
The question was asked why it doesn't fit fantasy and, again only for me, it evokes a later time than the fantasy I prefer or think about.

So, how do you feel about the alchemist and investigator? They are also very Victorian/Edwardian character types.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Am I the only one who can't see druids in a fantasy world? I mean sure, life on our single source non-magical planet doesn't have life with metallic structures, but I would think that means very little.


Scott Romanowski wrote:
It's simply a matter of personal preference.

Not really. Saying their flavour doesn't fit fantasy isn't just a preference, preferences are subjective. Someone could say "I don't like the occult classes" and that'd be a preference, and it's subjective.

But it's blatantly false that they don't fit into fantasy when you're already fine with the stuff those classes are about since the CRB and Bestiary. When it's something objective which can be easily proven or disproven it's not really a preference.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber; Pathfinder Comics Subscriber
Jon Goranson wrote:

Late to the game but will offer my opinion.

Occult Adventures turned me off due to the name, both of the book and the class names. Occult, Mesmerist, Spiritualist, Medium, Psychic, and mind powers in general, aren't fantasy to me. These terms in particular, evoke Victorian London, seances, and eventually Houdini debunking them. I, personally, never found psionics or powers like this satisfying in fantasy.

The question was asked why it doesn't fit fantasy and, again only for me, it evokes a later time than the fantasy I prefer or think about. Again, I think more of a Victorian/Edwardian times than fantasy when I hear these terms. I also see combat having changed from melee to ranged, with revolvers and rifles, with little or no armor, which again isn't fantasy to me.

(As much as I loved Dark Sun, the 2E psionic system was rough. I think I like it better now that I think of Dark Sun as magical post apocalyptic world.)

Having said that, the discussion here has made me want to relook and reevaluate, and try and get past those terms. The Kineticist sounds like the 3.5 Warlock, which I liked.

So, thanks for the discussion and want to look again at this and see what I think about it with, hopefully, fresh eyes and insights into it!

This is a great outcome for a thread like this, I'm glad people are taking a closer look at the classes to see what they like about them.

There's a lot a different coat of paint can do.

Calling a Kineticist an "Elementalist" is perfectly fine.
You could call a Spiritualist an Ectomancer.
A Medium could be called a Champion. Call Seances Rituals.
An Occultist could be renamed Totemist (or Fetishist depending on the maturity level of your group).
A Mesmerist could be renamed a Anti-Bard (if you can have an Anti-Paladin, why not?).
A Psychic could be called a sorcerer or Mind-Mage and most wouldn't tell the difference.
A Spiritualist could be renamed "Haunted Necromancer" and most folks would be none the wiser.

I like the original flavor, but flavors are easily the most adjustable part of the classes.


My kineticist got his powers by climbing a statue of Shelyn on a drunken bet and getting struck by lightning. He doesn't call himself a kineticist. He's just a guy who can shoot lightning from his hands.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Melkiador wrote:
In my opinion, burn and psychic magic aren't interesting enough to be worth the extra complications they give.

I don't know if they're really more complicated than any other class that has a metacurrency built in (Ki, Mental Focus, Grit, Panache, Arcane Pool) except that two of the classes have a metacurrency that counts up (and never goes down) and one of the classes has a metacurrency that needs to be allocated to different bins.

I don't know if they're really more complicated than any other pet class (Summoner, Druid, etc.) except that the Spiritualist's pet can have more than one form (but is much easier to run than an Eidolon otherwise.)

I don't know if they're really more complicated than how existing classes have situations when they can't cast certain kinds of spells (their hands are tied, they're silenced, they lack the appropriate component/focus) except that these are some different circumstances (you're freaked out or distracted).

I think legitimately the problem a lot of people have with the Occult Classes is that they sat down to read the book and didn't understand them on a first pass (and honestly the layout here does not help) and concluded that these were unreasonably complex. However, there are any number of people here who are happy to explain these things so they're easy to understand, assuming they're willing to abandon their initial position of "this is too complex" and want to learn.

Honestly, I would recommend just playing one. The Kineticist and the Occultist are much, much easier to understand if you just build a character starting at level 1 and going from there than if you try to comprehend all 20 levels all at once. The Kineticist in particular has very few choices to make at a given level, and the Occultist is pretty easy to play once all your choices are made.


Melkiador wrote:
My kineticist got his powers by climbing a statue of Shelyn on a drunken bet and getting struck by lightning. He doesn't call himself a kineticist. He's just a guy who can shoot lightning from his hands.

I mean, that sounds like something Cayden would appreciate. I'm less sure about Shelyn.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
The Sideromancer wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
My kineticist got his powers by climbing a statue of Shelyn on a drunken bet and getting struck by lightning. He doesn't call himself a kineticist. He's just a guy who can shoot lightning from his hands.
I mean, that sounds like something Cayden would appreciate. I'm less sure about Shelyn.

Well, he worships Cayden. But it's not like air is one of Caydan's domains...


PossibleCabbage wrote:
I feel like "this class from a later published book is too powerful" is disingenuous when the Wizard was in the core rulebook. "Some classes are better, easier to play, etc." was baked into the game from the onset.

And I find the argument that the Wizard exists therefore nothing can be overpowered to be designed to shut down dissent and tell people they're wrong. Also let's face it, if the wizard had been in the APG it would likely be banned from most tables.

Occult Adventures changes how fundamental aspects of the game works.

Kineticist is complicated as all hell. I don't want it at the table simply because I don't like how complicated it is.

Mesmerist seems to be a save or suck fashioned after the Witch, although without saving throws for at least some of it's abilities. I quickly grew tired of the witch and no longer enjoying gaming when it is at the table. For that reason it looks like mesmerist is in the same basket of "not fun".

Spiritualist is a reflavoured summoner, one of the most commonly banned classes in the game.

The rest are psychic spellcasters which are shutdown by a simple intimidate check. While this makes them weaker, it does mean that if you're enemies frequently use intimidate (and why the hell wouldn't they in a world with psychic magic, especially when you consider all the ways to get free intimidates from the various books) that character is effectively shutdown. That's not very fun for a psychic caster to routinely be told "you don't get to participate in this combat". Also, magic instantly goes from "moving your hands and saying a few words and then a small bead of fire shoots from you to the enemy" to "bursts of flame erupt in the air as the spell is cast before finally a small bead of fire shooting from you to the enemy". It's a flavour change that not everyone is going to enjoy, and it's become part of the rules simply to justify the thought and emotion components.

Klorox wrote:
basically, it behooves a player to know the rules for his character, so he can manage it and save time and effort for the DM... of course, that depends on the DM's style, but if he wants to manage everything himself, he deserves what he gets.

Kineticists are so complicated I trust maybe one or two of my players to play them correctly 100% of the time. One of them would have no interest in doing so.

When someone says "I use my greatsword and power attack" I understand what that means. When someone says "I use a phrenic point to use undercast surge mind thrust I to mind thrust IV" I have no idea what they're actually doing. I need to learn the entire class, the undercasting rules and the psychic magic rules to learn what the hell the psychic just did. Or I can say "you know what, 30 classes should be enough for everyone, play a different character".

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:
I don't think my players would intentionally stretch the rules, they may accidentally

And therein lies the problem. I know the rules for the CRB, most of the APG classes (I'll admit, I don't know the Inquisitor but then again hardly anyone ever plays it) and all of Ultimate Combat. I can help players if they struggle with the rules for any of those classes. If someone wanted to play an Inquisitor or Magus I could take the time to learn that single class. If I open up Occult Adventures whole hog then I'm going to possibly get 3 or 4 classes I now need to understand. Or I can just say no to OA and move on. I appreciate why many GMs are choosing the latter option.

Quentin Coldwater wrote:
- You get a pool of points, like most classes get (Grit, Panache, Inspiration, and so on).

After the ACG I'm getting tired of "here's a pool of points to spend" classes. It seems to be all Paizo produces these days and I've grown tired of it (ACG was a big offender). It's lazy design to have every single class have their own phrenic point pool. If the classes are going to be that homogenised I might as well play 4th ed.

I think a whole lot of good will was burned with ACG and people are just burned out on books that offer a whole suite of new classes.

Milo v3 wrote:
Except you just said it's an uninformed position.... You basically just admitted that your opinion is formed from nothing but random whim in this case. Seems rather arbitary

Or it's a classic case of option fatigue. After 8 years of solid product releases, with the number of classes increasing by 4 times what they started with, people have just grown tired and are saying "I'm freezing my Pathfinder games at this point. Given the slew of material my players should be able to make enjoyable characters". That is a perfectly valid response to a game that's been around for so long. I did it with 4th ed and PHB3/Martial Power 2. I can see why people are choosing to do it with Pathfinder.

Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

Bloat the pejorative synonym for options.

You don't need to know them all, you don't need to understand them all, you probably need to know 3-6 to run a game and 1 to play one.

Problem is you don't just forget how the core classes work in order to make room for the new classes. So everyone already knows 11 classes. If you've been playing since 2009 you also probably know an additional 4-6 extra classes. You may also know a smattering of 2 or 3 others. Anyone who bought the ACG and read and understood the whole thing also knows an extra 10 classes. When a player turns up at my table they can make my life easier and play 17 to 30 classes I already know. Or they can play something I don't know and require me to learn a whole new class and the associated rules. If I allow OA, given it's the latest book and no-one has played them before, I could be required to learn 4-6 new classes. Or I can just say no to OA.

So claiming 'you only need to learn 4 to 6 classes to run a game' is a bit disingenuous for anyone who isn't a brand new GM. I'm playing Strange Aeons and I got cajoled into learning a Shaman as a player. I was highly resistant to playing the damn thing because I just had zero interest in learning a new class, especially when I was playing.

With all that said, besides the mesmerist (which seems to be psychic hex user) and kineticist (which is so complicated I would instantly rebuild any NPC that uses the class), I don't mind Occult Adventures and am looking to incorporate it into my games. But I do understand why other players dislike them.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:


Bloat the pejorative synonym for options.

Truth!


How, exactly is the kineticist so complicated? Yes, the class could have been laid out in an easier-to understand format, but I'm currently playing a geokineticist and he's likely the simplest character I'm running. What seems to be the biggest sticking point is how Burn works, but it's just like any other class ability pool, except you also take nonlethal damage with every point.

Also, with the mesmerist, what? Its abilities have nothing in common with hexes other than the fact they're largely debuff-focused. Stare is essentially just a swift action -2 Will save debuff to a single enemy, and your Tricks are essentially Delayed Spells. How is that anything like Hexes?


Dαedαlus wrote:
How, exactly is the kineticist so complicated?

Dunno. Started reading the class once and stopped because I couldn't be bothered learning it when I don't intend to play one. When a player went to the bathroom we looked at his character sheet to try to work out what to do, and could not work out what options to use and how many burn they would cost to do so.

Dαedαlus wrote:
Its abilities have nothing in common with hexes other than the fact they're largely debuff-focused.

So exactly like the witch then?

Dαedαlus wrote:
Stare is essentially just a swift action -2 Will save debuff to a single enemy

+2 to every caster's DC's? Hell yeah. Who wouldn't do that all the time, when a properly built caster already has difficult to reach DCs, making it virtually guaranteed.

I don't like the witch because while it's hexes are effective, it's also boring because you just keep doing the same thing round after round. Mesmerist looks like he has a few good options that are just always good in most circumstances and so would just keep doing those round after round. No thanks.

Now that is entirely a subjective viewpoint. But that's okay. I'm not trying to convince anyone here why the mesmerist is bad. I'm answering the OP's question which is: why do people dislike OA?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I dislike the "respond portion by portion" method of replies, so I'll do it this way instead (and the reason I'm doing this even is because, ironically, kineticist and mesmerist are my two favorite OA classes, and want to help clear up miscommunication):

1: Might that have been more to do with how the sheet was written? For my kineticist, I have listed next to each ability how much burn it costs. And my round-by-round tactics have very little variation (Gather Power and Blast) unless I'm in a boss fight (when I might throw in more costly infusions).

2: Yeah.... sure. Just like how Clerics and Bards are the exact same, because their primary function is support.

3: And a Bard provides a scaling bonus to-hit and for damage, making Martials hit a lot more than usual and be even more effective. And the fact that Stare is a free action to maintain means the Mesmerist is able to vary their tactics more than a lot of classes, because their big class ability doesn't use any of their action economy, just like for a Bard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Nothing from the OA is overpowered. Even ignoring the wizard, the kineticist's damage lags behind other good archery classes like the inquisitor. And the spiritualist may have borrowed bits of the summoner, but it's severely powered down. The only thing it's kind of powerful at is scouting.


On the kineticist: Maybe? They also get to lower burn by spending a move action although they can then increase burn by adding other options to it. Having read this thread I'm also starting to suspect the kineticist has been incorrectly lowering burn, but then again maybe he hasn't? I don't know. I'd have to read through the class and solidly learn it (many people have demonstrated in this thread they don't completely understand it by being corrected) in order to know. Or I can just say no to the whole class. I've chosen to say no to the kineticist until such time comes where I really, really want the flavour of the kineticist.

Mesmerist: Great, so something that works really well becomes a free action to maintain? That just increases the chance of the mesmerist doing it at every opportunity.

My dislike for the mesmerist is completely subjective. You can't argue me into liking the class. This thread was "why do people dislike OA" and that is one of the reasons I dislike parts of OA. There are sufficient classes I do allow that I feel no compunction against disallowing a class for completely arbitrary and subjective reasons.

And that just highlights what I said earlier. After CRB+APG+UM+UC+ACG many GMs are simply saying "THere's enough options in my game, I'm going to stop here and not allow the Vigilante or OA". Throw in the stigma against psychic/psionics, the change to the flavour of spellcasting and the new rules for psychic casting and it's a pretty easy decision to just say no to OA.


Melkiador wrote:
Nothing from the OA is overpowered. Even ignoring the wizard, the kineticist's damage lags behind other good archery classes like the inquisitor. And the spiritualist may have borrowed bits of the summoner, but it's severely powered down. The only thing it's kind of powerful at is scouting.

Due to the lack of quote I don't know who you're responding to. If it is me, at no point have I said OA is overpowered. How do kineticists compare with Rangers or Fighters out of interest? The fact you had to compare the kineticist to an Inquisitor archer build makes me suspect that the kineticist is more powerful than fighters and rangers.

But regardless, power level is not why most people who dislike the OA classes are arguing against them.

Finally I'm actually allowing the spiritualist, medium, psychic and occultist into my next campaign. But I understand why many people are saying no.


John Lynch 106 wrote:

]Due to the lack of quote I don't know who you're responding to. If it is me, at no point have I said OA is overpowered. How do kineticists compare with Rangers or Fighters out of interest? The fact you had to compare the kineticist to an Inquisitor archer build makes me suspect that the kineticist is more powerful than fighters and rangers.

But regardless, power level is not why most people who dislike the OA classes are arguing against them.

Finally I'm actually allowing the spiritualist, medium, psychic and occultist into my next campaign. But I understand why many people are saying no.

I've already done a comparison in this thread fore fighter vs Kineticist at a favorable level for the Kineticist. (7)

It comes out ahead only if it has spends two burn a round and already had its Elemental overflow pool topped off. Which is can do twice a day.

That wasn't factoring in the fact the fighter could be much more easily buffed by spells like haste and abilities like inspire courage and the greatly increased chance to crit.

Also I know you're not going to like the Mesmerist and I'm not trying to make you but I thought it was worth pointing out that the witch comparison you make is really misguided.

Its about as much like the witch as a Wizard or Cleric is like a bard.
They buff different things in a different way. Just like the Witch debuffs different things in a different way.

Its a Charisma based (different) Spontaneous caster (different) with 6 levels of casting (different) and a swift action debuff to will saves with a number of riders tacked on. Completely different.

The closest thing the witch does is Evil eye which can but does not have to debuff saves(different), has a save attached(different), takes a standard(different) and is one of many hexes they may have. By contrast the Mesmerist stare can only target one save and is the classes defining ability.

Also you said that you found the Witch boring at your table, I'm willing to be that this was not because of Evil eye but rather slumber or slumber in combination with Evil eye. You said that because you think the Mesmerist is like the Witch it must therefore also be anti fun/boring; however the Mesmerist has no way of replicating the slumber ability or anything close to as powerful as it at will.

I may be wrong and you may have found Evil eye to be anti fun but I honestly can't understand how that would be, its a modest to moderate debuff to saves or AC or the to hit of your enemy. Effectively a buff to the Witch's allies AC, To hit or DCs. How thats anti fun I don't know.


Comparing the kineticist to the inquisitor makes more sense because they can both nova. The fighter and ranger do fairly consistent all day damage.


Melkiador wrote:
I do feel like the kineticist fits generic fantasy better than the vancian magic spell caster of dungeons and dragons.

So... fantasy games other than the one Paizo produces, which is built around vancian magic. Yeah, that might be a reason people don't want to allow it into their PRPG games. Feels like this thread is too full of people not trying to answer the question, but rather give their own justifications for why they like it and allow it in their games. Which just isn't the topic, it's fine that you have a differing view on your own games but that isn't pertinent to the reasons others differ.


@Chromantic Dragon: Understood. But their debuff has the side-effect of buffing some of the most powerful classes in the game (9th level casters). Their ability (stare) is also flavoured stupidly given that there is no need for the target to be looking at the mesmerist. Finally, I'm really not interested in adding in a class that buffs 9th level casters. I'd rather someone play a bard and buff classes that struggle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

A lot of the discussion is focused on mechanics and power level. Personally I think flavor and theme has a lot to do with the appeal of the book. There might, or might not be close similarities between the OC classes and other classes- I'm not as versed in analyzing it as others are. I can say, people I know are playing Pathfinder because they like the different genre options offered in books like OC, rather than playing another Forgotten Realms type setting. If you want only traditional fantasy PF has that too. Just pick. I have not posted here for a while, but the online vs offline debate on these things is very different from my experience.


Quandary wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
I do feel like the kineticist fits generic fantasy better than the vancian magic spell caster of dungeons and dragons.
So... fantasy games other than the one Paizo produces, which is built around vancian magic. Yeah, that might be a reason people don't want to allow it into their PRPG games. Feels like this thread is too full of people not trying to answer the question, but rather give their own justifications for why they like it and allow it in their games. Which just isn't the topic, it's fine that you have a differing view on your own games but that isn't pertinent to the reasons others differ.

Quandary, you need to understand that replies saying they disagree with the original posts Presumption that the prevailing opinion is that people hate/dislike Occult Adventure, are valid responses. Denying those responses validity threatens to skew the perceptions of the situation. If this makes it harder for you to get something you don't like changed, well, those that don't want it changed also have the right to weigh in. They ARE on topic, they just don't agree with you.


Melkiador wrote:
I think it's more a question of why, though. What is it in particular? And does this preference extend to other classes like the alchemist and investigator who aren't represented in most fantasy stories?

Well I personally do dislike the alchemist as well as gunslinger and don't prefer them existing in games. Although those at least already had some pre-established context in Pathfinder/Golarion vis-a-vis alchemy in general and Alkentar particularly, I preferred that existing as marginal and not broadly viable sort of thing. (honestly, IMHO the alchemist would have been better removing or reducing role of Bombs from other stuff) Re: Investigator, I don't see as different from spectrum of existing classes, many of whom have archetypes/focuses which lie in Investigator territory. (although I am generally uninterested in more mechanical bloat so aren't particularly enthused by the class) Obviously there is little flavor difference of Psychic vs Sorceror with Enchantment focus or Bard with Perform (Eye Gaze), it is just mechanical diversions from norm (balance of armor vs non-divine spellcasting etc), but that doesn't give much motivation to learn/tolerate ANY new rules ("hey! I rebuilt my Enchantment Sorceror character as a Psychic so now he wears Full Plate!")

I see core accepted Pathfinder classes as being those derived from original core classes. Magus = Fighter/Wizard. Inquisitor = (non-LG)Paladin/Ranger(ish). All these things are tropes that one could imagine using original classes to build, or via archetype. Stuff like entirely new types of magic or Kineticist don't really qualify IMHO. To those who like existing game and don't want to push it in fundamentally new areas, those aren't appealing. If that appealed to them, they probably would already been playing a different game system. I think attraction for much of this is "fixing" something not liked about original system... Except it doesn't really do that for anybody but those using new classes.

The topic of vancian casting was brought up (re: divergence from non-D&D fantasy) and that is emphasis of broader point for me. D&D and Pathfinder is really a specific thing. There is other systems for other niches, which can be really fun, but D&D doesn't need to be forced to cater to all of those when it does it's own thing and other systems do other things. There is this impotent nerd entitlement thing which attempts to latch onto most popular system and insist it cater to them. All the people missing the forest for the trees, and arguing why OA is good is just cringe worthy... Sorry to break it to you, but not everybody likes what you like, not everybody likes YOU, and they are under no obligation to do so.


John Lynch 106 wrote:
Or it's a classic case of option fatigue. After 8 years of solid product releases, with the number of classes increasing by 4 times what they started with, people have just grown tired and are saying "I'm freezing my Pathfinder games at this point. Given the slew of material my players should be able to make enjoyable characters". That is a perfectly valid response to a game that's been around for so long. I did it with 4th ed and PHB3/Martial Power 2. I can see why people are choosing to do it with Pathfinder.

I have no issue with that. My issue is with people disliking the class for being too complex when then haven't even read it or say that their flavour doesn't fit fantasy (which I assume they mean "Generic Medieval Fantasy" rather than Fantasy) when they don't seem to have a problem when the same flavour existed since the CRB and Bestiary.


Milo v3 wrote:
I have no issue with that. My issue is with people disliking the class for being too complex when then haven't even read it or say that their flavour doesn't fit fantasy (which I assume they mean "Generic Medieval Fantasy" rather than Fantasy) when they don't seem to have a problem when the same flavour existed since the CRB and Bestiary.

Seeing the kineticist in play should be sufficient to determine how complex the class is. Seeing how often people are consistently getting fundamental aspects of the class wrong on the forums should be sufficient to determine how complex the class is.

Also if you see no difference between summoning a ghost and have it as your pet and fighting a ghost then I can only conclude you are choosing to not see the difference. It's for the same reason most people don't allow necromancer PCs in their game walking around with a hoard of skeletons and zombies. It breaks the flavour of the game they want to play.

151 to 200 of 379 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Why do people hate / dislike Occult adventure? All Messageboards

©2002-2017 Paizo Inc.® | Privacy Policy | Contact Us
Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours, Monday through Friday, 10:00 AM to 5:00 PM Pacific time.

Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, Starfinder, the Starfinder logo, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc. The Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Legends, Pathfinder Online, Starfinder Adventure Path, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.