|
I’m not the GM, and yes, the grippli is using a great sword. He has the fiend keeper archetype.
Ah, Fiend Keeper, that one can prebuff a bit (lasts a minute each). If he used the Dark Communion class ability twice before combat, he could have a +1 Profane Bonus to attack and damage, and raise his Spirit Bonus with +1. I also forgot that damage output junkies have a +1 weapon at that point, so I added that possibility.
So this would mean a Griplli with a Greatsword can have the following maximum damage output: 11 (small +1 Greatsword) + 3 (14 strength twohanded) + 3 (Power Attack) + 2 (Champion Seance) + 2 (Champion Spirit Bonus amped with Dark Communion) + 1 profane (Dark Communion) = 22 damage max.
However, Dark Communion can only be used as a full-round action a number of times per day equal to his class level, so he can only do this kind of buffing once per day. He has to do without both bonuses in the other combats (still between 11 and 20 damage per hit though).
I’m not the GM, and yes, the grippli is using a great sword. He has the fiend keeper archetype.Ah, Fiend Keeper, that one can prebuff a bit (lasts a minute each). If he used the Dark Communion class ability twice before combat, he could have a +1 Profane Bonus to attack and damage, and raise his Spirit Bonus with +1. I also forgot that damage output junkies have a +1 weapon at that point, so I added that possibility.
So this would mean a Griplli with a Greatsword can have the following maximum damage output: 11 (small +1 Greatsword) + 3 (14 strength twohanded) + 3 (Power Attack) + 2 (Champion Seance) + 2 (Champion Spirit Bonus amped with Dark Communion) + 1 profane (Dark Communion) = 22 damage max.
However, Dark Communion can only be used as a full-round action a number of times per day equal to his class level, so he can only do this kind of buffing once per day. He has to do without both bonuses in the other combats (still between 11 and 20 damage per hit though).
Well, unless you crit.
|
|
Well, unless you crit.I’m not the GM, and yes, the grippli is using a great sword. He has the fiend keeper archetype.Ah, Fiend Keeper, that one can prebuff a bit (lasts a minute each). If he used the Dark Communion class ability twice before combat, he could have a +1 Profane Bonus to attack and damage, and raise his Spirit Bonus with +1. I also forgot that damage output junkies have a +1 weapon at that point, so I added that possibility.
So this would mean a Griplli with a Greatsword can have the following maximum damage output: 11 (small +1 Greatsword) + 3 (14 strength twohanded) + 3 (Power Attack) + 2 (Champion Seance) + 2 (Champion Spirit Bonus amped with Dark Communion) + 1 profane (Dark Communion) = 22 damage max.
However, Dark Communion can only be used as a full-round action a number of times per day equal to his class level, so he can only do this kind of buffing once per day. He has to do without both bonuses in the other combats (still between 11 and 20 damage per hit though).
True, but I kept critting out of the simplified calculation, because the damage was surprisingly high for a 14 strength lvl 3 Grippli without any mention of critting. So I tried to reproduce that result with just a regular hit.
anyone who says "I don't have time to learn new rules" are really meaning to say "I don't want to bother"
Instead I'd say "I don't want to bother because the setup is a trainwreck that's counterintuitive, overcomplicated and makes it harder to learn than it should" or "I don't want to bother because it looks like I can make 95% of this character using existing rules so why go through the trouble to figure it out if that extra 5% is worth it." or even "I tried to read them but my brain refused to comprehend it and I found myself reading the same line over again..." ;)
Paizo didn't do the classes any favors with how they presented them. Before this, I've understood the classes that have come out even if I didn't like them. These though... My head refuses to comprehend the medium no matter how many times I try.
My head refuses to comprehend the medium no matter how many times I try.The medium choose one of 6 spirits to channel each day and get a different set of class features depending on what they choose. It's not presented in the best way for sure, but its pretty simple
I'm PRETTY sure it was more complicated than that... If ALL I did was pick what to be that day, it might have been workable. I recall something about a seance with participants in specific locations, allowing varying amounts of influence with various spirits with various taboos... All this before I START the day so I get the option of 1/6th my character sheets... :P
Then there are legendary spirits, outsider spirits... So 29 options of that ever so simple "different set of class features depending on what they choose"... ;P
I don't understand what's so "Occult" about the Kineticist.
I'd say 'mystical' or 'supernatural'. Myself, I'd have slid it into an elemental/planes book.
Chakras are terrible (Mechanically)
I think I threw up a little in my mouth... Burn sound like the best thing since sliced bread compared to those. :(
For me the "big difference" is that they don't fit in thematically. They would fit great in a game world based on 19th century Imperial Europe. My game group's take on Avistan is instead based on a late medevial/early Renaissance fantasy Europe. We don't have androids, comboys or samurai walking around either - because for us it breaks verisimilitude something awful. We don't dislike occult archetypes as such, but there are better games where to play those kind of characters. Ice cream is great, and so are hot dogs, but that does not mean I'll put them together in a blender.To me this is really weird considering the psychic classes flavour makes sense from stone age to medeival to modern times....
Kineticist: What part of the kineticist is at all linked to any time period? It's a guy who is a conduit to the elemental planes. If your against that flavour, would you also ban Elemental bloodline sorcerers?
Medium: Guy who taps into legends and stories via a bond with the astral plane. To be honest it's just a more thematic bard but with a focus on tales rather than playing an instrument. The only concept which is actually "Victorian" for the class is the concept of the Astral Plane, but that's been in the game since CRB and no ones seemed to have an issue with it.
Mesmerist: Mind controlling guy.... Seriously? How does the flavour of "I am skilled and messing with peoples minds" not work in medieval times?
Occultist: This class is "Use Magic Device the class", if you're already fine with UMD then obviously the flavour isn't a problem with having it in medieval times.
Psychic: Literally the same flavour as a wizard except they don't need to carry a book around...
Spiritualist: Ghosts have existed since the bestiary, how does having a character who is bonded to a ghost make it suddenly anachronistic? Stories and folk tales about dead spirits throughout all the ages have a tendency to bond with an object or person to anchor themselves. It's just the name spiritualist...
This is my feelings on the matter summed up pretty well.
I linked Mickey upthread, too, but here he is again. I understand how one might think they appear different, but...
How did you deal with the hallucinogenic aura which you can't turn off? It'd be OK for the party maybe with the antidote, but the instant you go into a settlement, crazy folks everywhere.
I linked Mickey upthread, too, but here he is again. I understand how one might think they appear different, but...How did you deal with the hallucinogenic aura which you can't turn off? It'd be OK for the party maybe with the antidote, but the instant you go into a settlement, crazy folks everywhere.
This was, in fact, never resolved. As it happens, though, there's relatively little content for PFS that involves human beings and I had several GMs just say "that ability doesn't work at my table."
Believe me, Magnimar would have burned to the ground otherwise...before I got to throw Sheila Heidmarch's disintegrate and sirocco party.
|
My head refuses to comprehend the medium no matter how many times I try.The medium choose one of 6 spirits to channel each day and get a different set of class features depending on what they choose. It's not presented in the best way for sure, but its pretty simpleI'm PRETTY sure it was more complicated than that... If ALL I did was pick what to be that day, it might have been workable. I recall something about a seance with participants in specific locations, allowing varying amounts of influence with various spirits with various taboos... All this before I START the day so I get the option of 1/6th my character sheets... :P
Then there are legendary spirits, outsider spirits... So 29 options of that ever so simple "different set of class features depending on what they choose"... ;P
The taboos are something you can do but aren't necessary, especially when you're just starting the class. The location thing is only a problem if your GM is trying to be a dick to you honestly, as the general guidelines make it possible to find them just about anywhere (there's also an archetype that just negates this part).
The seance is just you choosing your spirit and if you're over level 2 giving one of your abilities you get from it to your allies as well and tracking influence is super easy.
And I really don't think including the legendary spirits, outsider spirits, etc. is fair to calling the class complex. That's adding things in from splat books that make it complex. Which can be said for many classes.
Like I said, it's not laid out in the best way but it is rather simple overall. I'd honestly consider giving it another shot as it really does cover a thematic niche not filled quite by any other class :)
Jurassic Pratt: All that may be true but I have to read over it and understand it BEFORE I can skip over things like location, taboo other participants.
Locations: I can see a DM saying there isn't a "City walls, forts, gates, keeps" on a deserted island or there being a general lack of "Council rooms, stages, theaters, throne rooms" in a cavern dungeon. If the locations where meant to be meaningless, why list them?
"tracking influence is super easy": you say that but I'm still not sure how/why you gain/lose it. I get points for the spirit but I can, for some reason summon a lesser spirit, again for some reason, and some class features/spirit abilities add/subtract points, again for some reason. The those options change between spirits.
So it super easy if you can ever understand it?-cool I guess...
Archetype: This further illustrates why you SHOULDN'T be able to do your thing anywhere or what's the point of the archetype? Also if the archetype is an example of things making the class less complex, why isn't it fair for "legendary spirits, outsider spirits, etc." to make the class more complex?
"consider giving it another shot": I've never given it the 1st shot. I literally have never been able to get my head around it. I just now looked over it to post this and I wouldn't even attempt to play a 1st level one because I'm not digesting the 1st ability while looking at the spirits, let alone what comes after. The gears aren't meshing...
The taboos are something you can do but aren't necessary, especially when you're just starting the class. The location thing is only a problem if your GM is trying to be a dick to you honestly, as the general guidelines make it possible to find them just about anywhere (there's also an archetype that just negates this part).My head refuses to comprehend the medium no matter how many times I try.The medium choose one of 6 spirits to channel each day and get a different set of class features depending on what they choose. It's not presented in the best way for sure, but its pretty simpleI'm PRETTY sure it was more complicated than that... If ALL I did was pick what to be that day, it might have been workable. I recall something about a seance with participants in specific locations, allowing varying amounts of influence with various spirits with various taboos... All this before I START the day so I get the option of 1/6th my character sheets... :P
Then there are legendary spirits, outsider spirits... So 29 options of that ever so simple "different set of class features depending on what they choose"... ;P
I'm not sure how finding a spirit location is particularly easy... Many of the spirits need some civilization to be channeled. With the exception of the Champion (you can create battlefields wherever you go) most of the other spirits need some pretty specific locations. Worse, I could easily imagine that PCs in the wilderness may not have any of the listed locations.
I gotta say though; this thread has made me take another look at the Occultist and the Mesmerist and I am actually kind of excited about them :)
|
|
Locations: I can see a DM saying there isn't a "City walls, forts, gates, keeps" on a deserted island or there being a general lack of "Council rooms, stages, theaters, throne rooms" in a cavern dungeon. If the locations where meant to be meaningless, why list them?
I'm not sure how finding a spirit location is particularly easy... Many of the spirits need some civilization to be channeled. With the exception of the Champion (you can create battlefields wherever you go) most of the other spirits need some pretty specific locations. Worse, I could easily imagine that PCs in the wilderness may not have any of the listed locations.
You're not stuck with those specific locations.
Each spirit has a favored location it usually inhabits, though spirits may also be present at other locations appropriate to their legends.
It's fairly flexible unless your GM is actively working against you to make only the specifically listed locations work.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's fairly flexible unless your GM is actively working against you to make only the specifically listed locations work.
That's not "flexible" though. It means that it's POSSIBLE that there are other locations but I see NO indication that means that it's meant to be reliable no matter where you are in the world. It means you have as much or little access as the DM wants and/or the local environs support.
From the wording, I not only wouldn't expect to find the locations at the drop of a hat but I'd think the DM was 'up to something' if I just trip over the equivalent of a "City wall, fort, gate or keep" in that deserted island. I don't think a DM would be a jerk for following the guidelines on locations just because the PC wants a spirit that isn't appropriate for the area.
I'm thinking of designing a spirit who looks for an empty body to inhabit. Possibly someone astral projecting, who drew the void card, or even some construct. Would the name "Squatter Spirit" be wrong for the medeval period?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow, must be nice to have so much free time to learn every single rule in the game.Geez, this thread is still going on?
Anyway, haven't seen anyone blanket banning occult classes so hard to comment. But I want to say that anyone who says "I don't have time to learn new rules" are really meaning to say "I don't want to bother"
It is and I even work a full time job! Also you can just read broad sections sometimes and look up minutia (huh did i really spell minutia right the first time?)
|
|
Wow, must be nice to have so much free time to learn every single rule in the game.Geez, this thread is still going on?
Anyway, haven't seen anyone blanket banning occult classes so hard to comment. But I want to say that anyone who says "I don't have time to learn new rules" are really meaning to say "I don't want to bother"
I could reply with sarcasm as well, but seriously, don't say you "don't have time". I did whole post of ranting here before I edited it short, so to put it shortly and to the point, I have pet peevee with people saying they don't have time when they mean they don't have energy :P Most people don't lack extra half a hour at minimum per day to do whatever they want.
Also, that post implies you think I'm boasting about rule knowledge. Nope, thats wrong. I don't know how occult rules work, but I admit I don't want to bother unless I need to instead of claiming I'm unable to, I don't bother banning them either.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh, thats actually one reason why I decided to edit that post to be shorter, because I was originally editing it to counter "well you are just student what you would know" before I realized I was really getting sidetracked from topic xD
Anyhoo, sorry about being grumpy in the first post, I didn't mean to be judgmental.
So is it really free time versus no time that determines whether or not someone likes occult adventures? cause if not the whole convo is technically off topic.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So is it really free time versus no time that determines whether or not someone likes occult adventures? cause if not the whole convo is technically off topic.
It's definitely going to be a big part of it. This is an old hobby, and a lot of the fans are not going to have the same personal freedom that they used to when they started.
Personally? I love the complexity of the Occultist's resource allocation. But I will never begrudge the argument of 'I have children to mind' when it comes to not being able to pick up the new rules, especially given the verbose manner OA's classes were explained with.
So if you guys had more time to read occult adventures you might like it?
My group and I are really enjoying occult. I got one Mesmerist in Council of Thieves who played very-well with an Investigator, the duo could basically do almost anything.
I played myself an Occultist in Reign of Winter, it was a blast. What I really like in that class is that there are a lots of very decent options. You can go anywhere and be good in it. Maybe not as good as some other classes but still very efficient. And the customization and the background of the class is just awesome. One of my favorite class in the game
Psychic is the usual caster, nothing very particular or complicated. Nice class all around but far behind my favorite (and for me the strongest class in the game) Arcanist.
Spiritualist is perfect. My friend who always got pet class loves them, and another of my player really enjoyed the one without pet but spectral tentacles (Elfen Lied being is favorite anime). In par with Unchained Summoner.
However Kinetecist and Medium are two of the three classes that I banned from my games. The third being the Shaman. For the Shaman and Medium the why is obvious: my players did mistakes rewriting their characters and You got already a tons of archetypes to play a spirit-talking-guy.
Kenetecist if my biggest dispointment in Pathfinder so far. It's clunky, poorly worded (and I'm not English, rarely that can be a problem for us with Pathfinder rules). moreover we do not use non-lethal damages so we can't really use it. But the one thing that I really hate in this class is the fact that I had high expectations. I wanted to play a character from Avatar. A Monk or a ninja who blast fire and use it as a jet pack. Instead I got an asthmatic Young Cyclops from the X-Men. The class can do very little, and has no versatility. Or at least not the versatility I expected. They are not masters of an element, they are people who blast not that well. We can feel that the game designers were scared by what the class could do and put a lot of obstacles to prevent players from having fun with it.
So yeah, for me it is 4 wonderful classes, that I enjoyed them or not. One class that doesn't fit anywhere mechanically. One class that is broken (not in a good way!)
What I like:
- the Kineticist, Occultist and Psychic
- the new psychic spellcasting mecanic... because verbal and somatic components can really ruin your day
- the feel of the book
What I dislike:
- The Mesmerist... I get the idea, but it lacks an ability that targets multiple targets with stares; I dunno, 1 target per 3 levels.
- The Medium... because you need to be in specific locations to summon your spirits. Yep, if you're in the middle of nowhere, you won't be able to commune.
- The Spiritualist... because the phantom is rather weak... like it needs 3 more abilities per emotion or in general. The level gap between abilities is a little huge.
- No actual psychic divine spellcasting class, all classes mimic an arcane class.
The book has its highs and lows, but I don't see something to hate the entire book.
The Kineticist is the closest thing to D&D's Warlock. However, there seems to be a stigma in Pathfinder about having at-will abilities. I'm so sorry, but imposing a limit will, well, limit your character's option. I know that Paizo went for something similar to Firestarter, but come on, you can't deny that cool anime look :D
What I dislike: . . .
- The Medium... because you need to be in specific locations to summon your spirits. Yep, if you're in the middle of nowhere, you won't be able to commune.
This part of the medium didn't come up yesterday in the game I was part of. It seems that we saw all of the medium's good stuff but not it's limitations. I'm curious as to how this is handled in PFS play, so I'm going to post on this in that forum.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To me this is really weird considering the psychic classes flavour makes sense from stone age to medeival to modern times....
Occultism, seances, hypnotism, tarot, orientalism, astrology...
The ideas and trappings of the nineteenth century and fin de siècle occultism craze were hardly the invention of the occultists themselves. People like Blavatsky, Crowley, the Hermetic Order of the Golden Dawn founders, and various sideshow hypnotists and magnitizers stole vigorously from old sources. Ancient Sumeria, Egypt, Persia, China, India and various other sources were crammed into the stews they were pandering. Sure.
Nonetheless, the nineteenth century has heavily put its stamp on all these notions, terms and flavours - at least in my mind. When I hear the word "mesmerist", I do not think of knights in full plate armour and mighty wizards. I think of a London lit by gas-light, rich Victorian town houses where bourgeoisie ladies in crinolines faint, while a man in a pince-nez and a top hat waves a pendant. I think of Parisian midnight seances, of Doyle and Verne, of Castle Falkenstein, Victorian Age: Vampire, and Call of Cthulhu by Gaslight. Not of Imoedean paladins. There's a clash of themes and epochs.
For many in this thread I'm sure this sounds like either gibberish or something totally irrelevant, since many play Pathfinder a bit like World of Warcraft. It's very much about the game mechanics. The math. And this thread is full of game mechanical reasons for excluding the Occult Adventures book. I presented another one; our flavour reason for excluding it.
I love this epoch and its themes, and have nothing against the book itself. And I'm aware that these themes are approached in other Paizo products, like Strange Aeons and Carrion Crown (to some extent). But we won't play those for the same reason - having NPCs in suit and tie/lab coats/modern eye glasses breaks our "D&D" immersion. Just like having a Shadowrun computer hacker-type NPC in our Victorian Call of Cthulhu campaign would break that immersion.
Kineticist: What part of the kineticist is at all linked to any time period? It's a guy who is a conduit to the elemental planes. If your against that flavour, would you also ban Elemental bloodline sorcerers?
Medium: Guy who taps into legends and stories via a bond with the astral plane. To be honest it's just a more thematic bard but with a focus on tales rather than playing an instrument. The only concept which is actually "Victorian" for the class is the concept of the Astral Plane, but that's been in the game since CRB and no ones seemed to have an issue with it.
Mesmerist: Mind controlling guy.... Seriously? How does the flavour of "I am skilled and messing with peoples minds" not work in medieval times?
Occultist: This class is "Use Magic Device the class", if you're already fine with UMD then obviously the flavour isn't a problem with having it in medieval times.
Psychic: Literally the same flavour as a wizard except they don't need to carry a book around...
Spiritualist: Ghosts have existed since the bestiary, how does having a character who is bonded to a ghost make it suddenly anachronistic? Stories and folk tales about dead spirits throughout all the ages have a tendency to bond with an object or person to anchor themselves. It's just the name spiritualist...
The Kineticist I might have been able to squeeze in without it all becoming a Hotdogs & Ice cream smoothie. But I'm sure I could find some bits and bobs in the Technology Guide I could try to shoe-horn into our campaign as well. It makes much more sense to ignore the whole book, than try to fit something that's ill-fitting. It's not like Pathfinder is lacking for content, is it?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Occultism, seances, hypnotism, tarot, orientalism, astrology...
All of which was already in the Golarion setting and no one had an issue with it previously.
Occultism, seances, hypnotism, tarot, orientalism, astrology...All of which was already in the Golarion setting and no one had an issue with it previously.
Seeing as you have taken that quote very much out of context, you apparently didn't read my post beyond the starting sentence. Or if you did read it, I presume you took it out of context because I was unclear in explaining my viewpoint.
So give it a try. If you did read it, but I was imprecise, I would be happy to try to explain my point in another way.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
For many in this thread I'm sure this sounds like either gibberish or something totally irrelevant, since many play Pathfinder a bit like World of Warcraft. It's very much about the game mechanics. The math. And this thread is full of game mechanical reasons for excluding the Occult Adventures book. I presented another one; our flavour reason for excluding it.
I presume this isn't the intention but this statement is incredibly patronising.
I must say I care deeply about the lore or pejoratively referred to as fluff on my games but I don't think that what these classes do has been copy write stamped property of 19th century London fiction. I have a degree in English literature with a special interest in the 18th and 19th century, it's not like I don't know the subject area.
My opinion is the class names, psychic, medium, mesmerist, occultist and spiritualist evoke themes familiar to that time period however what the classes actually do, not just mechanically but the lore of what they're doing(as outlined by Milo), could easily fit into mediaeval fantasy. It is my feeling that people allow themselves to shut off to the idea of these classes in medieval fantasy as soon as they read the name.
Hell, here's a TL;DR anyway, since something tells me you won't ask for it.
"Occultism, seances, hypnotism, tarot, orientalism, astrology" are not concepts particular to the 19th /early 20th century. They do however have thematic connections to that epoch, through various works. A recent example; Penny Dreadful. At least, those connections are very strong for us, maybe because we appreciate and consume media set in that epoch in other formats than Pathfinder. That makes the Occult Adventure book, where classes such as Mesmerist and Medium appear, along with rules for things like psychic duels, fit badly with our blend of Pathfinder.
I'm sorry who are you replying to? To me it looks like you're repeating yourself. I think of these themes in terms of those periods therefore I cannot use them in any other period even though they're not exclusive to the forma periods because I think of these themes in terms of these periods.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For many in this thread I'm sure this sounds like either gibberish or something totally irrelevant, since many play Pathfinder a bit like World of Warcraft. It's very much about the game mechanics. The math. And this thread is full of game mechanical reasons for excluding the Occult Adventures book. I presented another one; our flavour reason for excluding it.
I presume this isn't the intention but this statement is incredibly patronising.
I must say I care deeply about the lore or pejoratively referred to as fluff on my games but I don't think that what these classes do has been copy write stamped property of 19th century London fiction. I have a degree in English literature with a special interest in the 18th and 19th century, it's not like I don't know the subject area.
My opinion is the class names, psychic, medium, mesmerist, occultist and spiritualist evoke themes familiar to that time period however what the classes actually do, not just mechanically but the lore of what they're doing(as outlined by Milo), could easily fit into mediaeval fantasy. It is my feeling that people allow themselves to shut off to the idea of these classes in medieval fantasy as soon as they read the name.
I wasn't patronizing. As long as people have fun I don't care the least how they play their games. That's the point, right? If you are having fun, you're doing it right. If that means playing Pathfinder like Magic the Gathering, or like improv theater, or like both - it's all good. However, this thread was lacking flavour reasons for ditching OA. There was a near total focus on mechanics. So I presented our reason.
I think you have a valid point though, if I understood it correctly. It might be a shame that some (including us) omit OA because of perceived thematic reasons, even if they might be superficial, as you seem to suggest. But Paizo has both decided to present Golarion as a kitchen-sink setting, and to release a plethora of products in an endless stream. Unless we spend all your time playing PF (maybe not even then), and unless you don't mind mixing vikings with spaceships, that means we have to pick and chose. And the luxury of that is that we get to be particular. We have not picked OA, for reasons which I think are valid. And there's more than enough material to keep our game focused on the style we prefer. It was a decision I think makes the game better for us.
I'm sorry who are you replying to? To me it looks like you're repeating yourself. I think of these themes in terms of those periods therefore I cannot use them in any other period even though they're not exclusive to the forma periods because I think of these themes in terms of these periods.
Sorry, Milo v3 took one sentence out of context from a rather lengthy post of mine, so I wanted to clarify my point since I might have been unclear. So I was responding to them.
|
Occultism, seances, hypnotism, tarot, orientalism, astrology...All of which was already in the Golarion setting and no one had an issue with it previously.
Could you back up/expand on this? Im not sure I agree, but not sure exactly what you mean.
Saying, for instance that hypnotism has been in because Enchantment magic has always been there, is very different than saying classic Victorian style hypnotists have always been there.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure what I think about the book, because I have not read it in enough detail yet. I do have to say that the title is a HUGE turnoff. I grew up in churches where there probably were many people who were convinced D&D were from Satan, although no one actually said such things in church. What was said was to warn people against 'the occult.' Somehow, occult became the word for everything magiccy that was forbidden. To give an example, I know that I was forbidden to play with weegee boards (not the proper spelling, I know, but I can't remember anything close enough to look up the right one), because they were either nonsense, or contacting actual demons. Thus, when I see the word 'occult' as part of the title of a book, on an emotional level it represents everything that is evil and forbidden. And it takes a lot of logical evidence to overcome that kind of gut reaction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the complexity of the Occultist's resource allocation.
For me, it's a BIG turn off. It seems complex JUST for complexity's sake, so it'd look shiney and new instead of working well and easy to understand...
Kenetecist if my biggest dispointment in Pathfinder so far.
Yep, I SO wanted to love the class and tried my hardest in playtesting to help it along but it wasn't to be.
I wanted to play a character from Avatar. A Monk or a ninja who blast fire and use it as a jet pack. Instead I got an asthmatic Young Cyclops from the X-Men.
More like Andy McGee from firestarter, where he'd get nosebleeds from "pinprick" hemorrhages if he used his abilities. When I thought about the class I wasn't thinking about a failed experiment from the Department of Scientific Intelligence but your Avatar or Stigma of the Wind. It makes me sad that the end product is something I don't want to play.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I wasn't patronizing. As long as people have fun I don't care the least how they play their games. That's the point, right? If you are having fun, you're doing it right. If that means playing Pathfinder like Magic the Gathering, or like improv theater, or like both - it's all good. However, this thread was lacking flavour reasons for ditching OA. There was a near total focus on mechanics. So I presented our reason.
I think you have a valid point though, if I understood it correctly. It might be a shame that some (including us) omit OA because of perceived thematic reasons, even if they might be superficial, as you seem to suggest. But Paizo has both decided to present Golarion as a kitchen-sink setting, and to release a plethora of products in an endless stream. Unless we spend all your time playing PF (maybe not even then), and unless you don't mind mixing vikings with spaceships, that means we have to pick and chose. And the luxury of that is that we get to be particular. We have not picked OA, for reasons which I think are valid. And there's more than enough material to keep our game focused on the style we prefer. It was a decision I think makes the game better for us.
Fair enough, thanks for the civil reply paizo is certainly a hodgepodge.