|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They're adding Alchemist to the eleven Core Classes. Is it viable in page-count to add a thirteenth or fourteenth?
CHA Divine caster ought to be there (a Priest or Oracle Class)
"Witch" is an obvious choice, however similar or different to the current Witch build
. . . .
I'm just hoping for more Classes in the Core -- really I'd prefer a Core for GMs and a separate Handbook for Players with a good 16--18 Classes.
But since that's not likely an option, why Alchemist over Witch (both traditionally longed-for Classes), why not a CHA Divine caster or Marshal/Cavalier-type?
Why not make a GMs' Guide AND a Handbook with16 or 18 Classes?
They probably didn't want to introduce yet another 9th level (sorry, 10th level) spellcaster into the core rulebook. Of the most obvious classes to include (witch, oracle and alchemist) alchemist is the only one that doesn't meet that definition.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would have loved kineticist as a core class.
I like 12, and I like that it was the alchemist. Although I do concour that Oracle or Witch would be good on the Core, we can see them later.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the podcast, it was stated that it nearly was the witch instead of the alchemist. They opted for the Alchemist as it was more unique, allowing them to showcase something different with all the alchemical goods, and also that you can apparently make something very close to the witch with the core rules anyway.
To be honest, when I saw that there will be 12 classes in the rulebook, I was expecting Magus to be the 12th ...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest, when I saw that there will be 12 classes in the rulebook, I was expecting Magus to be the 12th ...
Magus is a class based on PF1 action economy. If you tried to playtest it at the same time as you were trying out a new action economy system, you'd get bad results.
|
|
Yeah I just saw the podcast and Erik Mona's answer to why Alchemist just beat the Witch was a very strong argument.
And it still makes me want at least 13 or 14 Classes in the Core.
(Or really, I want a Gamemasters' Guide AND a Players' Handbook -- put 18 Classes in the PHB.)
But that's for GenCon 2019 as the Final. The playtest is fine with one book; squeeze in as many Classes as you can, please Paizo!
I'm honestly kinda curious whether the first hardback released after the core rules, the GM book, and the bestiary is going to be devoted to the 5-6 classes they need to bring back immediately (witch, oracle, inquisitor, magus, etc.) or the dozens of PF1 races that people will want to see as ancestries (aasimar, tieflings,tengu, changelings, kitsune, etc.)
Is there a unifying theme that would let them do both?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
On the podcast, it was stated that it nearly was the witch instead of the alchemist. They opted for the Alchemist as it was more unique, allowing them to showcase something different with all the alchemical goods, and also that you can apparently make something very close to the witch with the core rules anyway.
Yes. A wizard.
One of the big problems with the pf core/base/hybrid classes is they went over the same ground again and again. I'd like to see them combine the lessons of the base and hybrid classes into the core classes, and then diversify. I don't really want to see five flavors of holy warrior again.
If archetypes are what I'm interpreting them to be - VMC-like packages that can but don't need to reflect particular classes - then this could help fill things out (especially around the midcastery range, which is poorly served by the core 11) pretty quickly. Seiftan mentioned being able to emulate a magus with the playtest rules, I'm guessing through a wizard with fightery archetype or (more likely) fighter with wizardy archetype. On the same principle you could maybe emulate most of the most straightforward hybrid classes as well as wildshaping rogues and rage paladins and mystic theurges and so on.
12 is already a good page count hit. And spell chapter size will limit any oddbll caster classes that do not use spells alredy in the book.
I really felt that we would get another book a little later with more core classes and ancestries. Kinda of an expansion. Simply because they could not fit it all in one book.
I maybe wrong. (I just cannot believe Witch won't be a core class and Goblin will be the only addition to core ancestries.)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I would like the Kinestist be more like the 3.5 Warlock than the current version now.
I honestly prefer the Kineticist fluff of "pushing one's body past their limit" whereas the Warlock just got stuff pretty much for free. Probably need to tinker with the math for burn but I'd prefer to keep it.
CHA Divine caster ought to be there (a Priest or Oracle Class)
Isn't Cleric being moved over to CHA?
Anyhow, with the customization feats (which I think are like build-your-own-archetype) um, I suspect they might not even need many of the extra classes.
That would be ideal. Get rid of the class-bloat and replace it with a handful of highly customize-able classes.
|
Well there are a few that could be tossed out pretty easily with very little mess.
Monk can obviously be thrown out completely. No reason to have that at all. Maybe in some Tian Adventures book or something. I suppose you could replace it with some kind of brawler class but that'd make a good Fighter archetype too.
Ranger could be an Archetype of Fighter.
Paladin could be an Archetype of Cavalier.
I posted this in another thread but I think it would be a great solution to classes like the Witch:
A lot of the existing classes would work fine as archetypes of core classes, assuming the core classes are built right.
For instance: the Witch. I would build the Wizard such that specialists got ability picks every other level, and could choose from a pool of abilities for those picks (much like Rogue Talents) so that not every Diviner or Enchanter was the same. With the Wizard built in this way, the Witch is just an archetype. They are a Wizard whose familiar and spellbook are the same thing, and instead of picking specialist abilities they pick Witch Hexes.
If they are including goblins...why not witches. It will be a few more page counts I suppose, but if they are adding an additional race...why not an additional class.
Of course, it WOULD add to the complexity of the playtest (perhaps races are easier to playtest than a class).
Then, what about the Cavalier? Or other classes from various books?
To a degree it makes sense, Alchemist is very different in the way it does things, fills a core archetype, and as they are also including a new core race, can show how a goblin can also be an adventurer, even one that's based on having formulae and other aspects.
If they are including goblins...why not witches. It will be a few more page counts I suppose, but if they are adding an additional race...why not an additional class.
Of course, it WOULD add to the complexity of the playtest (perhaps races are easier to playtest than a class).
Then, what about the Cavalier? Or other classes from various books?
To a degree it makes sense, Alchemist is very different in the way it does things, fills a core archetype, and as they are also including a new core race, can show how a goblin can also be an adventurer, even one that's based on having formulae and other aspects.
I mean... they definitely did add an additional class to go with the additional race. It's the Alchemist. They made a new iconic for the pairing and everything