Playtest Thoughts: Week 1

Tuesday, November 26, 2013

Greetings from the playtest laboratory! We are one week in to the Advanced Class Guide Playtest, and we are already getting a lot of great feedback and playtest data. Every week from now until the playtest's end on December 17th, we are going to be giving you our thoughts on the state of the playtest and give you some hints of the direction we are taking some of these classes.

This being the first week, we are only just starting to adjust some class mechanics and look at making some shifts in how things work. Most of these will take a bit longer to make it to your table, but sometime in the next few weeks we are hoping to rerelease the playtest PDFs with all of our revisions incorporated into the classes. It is our hope to get some feedback on these revisions before the playtest window comes to a close.

So, without further delay, here are some of the changes we are considering or are in the process of implementing. Feel free to comment on these changes in the thread attached to this post, but any serious discussion should occur in the class thread for each individual class (located in the Class forum).

Arcanist

As mentioned on the boards, the arcanist is going through a serious round of redesign. While the core casting mechanic of this class is going to remain pretty much as it currently stands, the blood focus ability is being replaced by an arcane reservoir that the arcanist to call upon to create magical effects and tinker with the spells and effects of others. They can refuel this pool by consuming spell slots or even other magic items and spell effects. In essence, the arcanist is becoming the "hacker" of magic, capable of pulling it apart and putting it back together to accomplish their goals. We are hoping to rerelease the arcanist in the next few days.

Bloodrager

We are generally happy with the direction of this class, but it needs some tweaks. We are seriously contemplating giving the class its own spell list to help it better fulfill its role in the game. In addition, we are looking at pulling some of the more direct barbarian abilities to replace them with something a bit more in tune with the class. Refinement of the various bloodlines will be much of our focus, making sure they are in tune with the overall balance of the class.

Brawler

The brawler is getting a few revisions and tweaks in the coming weeks. The capstone ability of the class is going to be replaced with something far more interesting than the current ability (although we are not quite ready to show that off just yet). The knockout ability will gain a number of uses per day, scaling with level. We are also going to change up the brawlers weapon list, giving it all simple weapons, plus any weapon on the "close" weapon group from the fighter. Of course, you will be able to use all those weapons with the brawler's flurry ability.

Hunter

We are looking at a lot of different options for the hunter, the biggest of which is giving a boost to the hunter's animal companion. We really want to see the class working in tandem with its companion in a way that we just have not done with any other class. We are looking at buffing up the hunter's ranged capabilities as well. Expect to see a number of teamwork feats in the final book that work specifically with an animal companion as well. Of course we are looking at a few other issues as well, such as the restrictions on armor and shields and increasing the duration and use of the animal focus ability.

Investigator

The design team is looking to move this class a little bit away from the rogue, possibly by replacing sneak attack with an ability that is more in line with the theme of the class. We are also looking into changing the poison use ability to make it something that allows the investigator to identify poisons, their effects, and neutralize them. Finally, there are going to be more talents allowing them to use more of their skills as well as some new effects we are not quite ready to talk about just yet.

Shaman

Overall, we are pretty happy with the direction the shaman is taking, but there are some adjustments we are investigating. The first of which is changing the class to work off the druid spell list, as this fits the theme better than the witch or cleric list. In addition, we are looking into adding a bit more the hexes for each spirit and possibly adjusting how those hexes are used.

Skald

The biggest change on the horizon with the skald involves how the raging song is used in play, allowing characters to drop out of participating if they want. We are also looking at making the raging song work in tandem with other rage abilities in a limited way. In addition, we are thinking about adding a number of weapon proficiencies to the class to bring it a bit closer to its theme.

Slayer

We are looking at ways to make favored target a bit easier to use and a bit more versatile. We are also looking at bringing the class up to 6 skill ranks per level (it currently has 4 per level). Other than that, most of our upcoming revisions involve greatly expanding the number of talents that you can choose from, allowing you to build the slayer you want to play.

Swashbuckler

We are investigating ways for the class to get Weapon Finesse at an appropriate level and to work with Combat Expertise. In addition, we are looking at adding some deeds and increase the swashbucklers mobility during battle, allowing them to stand up without provoking an attack and charge without having to move in a straight line. We are still working on how those play with existing deeds and what changes would need to happen to get them to fit into the advancement scheme.

Warpriest

Finally we get to the warpriest. We are looking at strengthening the role of this class by taking it a bit away from the cleric's position. While we want the class to be among the best at healing and casting spells on itself and we are investigating a mechanic to let it do just that (probably in place of channel energy). We are also looking into a new class feature that allows the warpriest to be an effective combatant with the favored weapon of its deity, regardless of what weapon is favored by their deity. Look for increased damage and additional effects depending on the type of weapon and its role in the game.

Well, that about wraps up the playtest review for this week. We want to thank everyone who has taken the time to give us their thoughts and playtest reports. You are helping us make these classes great and we appreciate all the time you are spending giving us your feedback. Look for the revised arcanist in a blog post later this week and expect to see a revised version of the playtest document soon.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

More Paizo Blog.
Tags: Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Playtest
101 to 150 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Chris Kenney wrote:
I think they're hoping to avoid making the Swashbuckler an obvious 'dip class.'

Plenty of classes get bonus feats at first level. Besides, Weapon Finesse is one of those feats that you could give everyone for free and it still wouldn't unbalance the game because it doesn't really do anything, it's just a tax on dex-based martials to give them permission to actually play the game.


Tels wrote:
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

Very happy to see most of these changes.

I'm currently running a Slayer in a PbP - I definitely agree they need 6 skill points a level to make them able to use the broad range of abilities Favored Target gives them...

And just a small call to replace the name of Shaman's Hexes with something else...

To me, Shamans Curse, Witches Hex, and Tricksters Jinx.

I think I'd swap Witches and Shaman, but that's just me. ;)

Roberta Yang wrote:
Quote:

Swashbuckler

We are investigating ways for the class to get Weapon Finesse at an appropriate level

After much consideration I think I may finally have obtained a solution. Watch this:

Quote:
At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat.
It took a lot of effort to solve this extremely difficult problem but I hope that helped clear things up.

I'll never understand why people want the Swashbuckler ability to get nerfed so hard. Right now? You can finesse a morning star or a shortspear - the feat doesn't let you do that!

Just let it count as the feat for prereqs and be done with it. :P


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Neo2151 wrote:


Roberta Yang wrote:
Quote:

Swashbuckler

We are investigating ways for the class to get Weapon Finesse at an appropriate level

After much consideration I think I may finally have obtained a solution. Watch this:

Quote:
At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat.
It took a lot of effort to solve this extremely difficult problem but I hope that helped clear things up.

I'll never understand why people want the Swashbuckler ability to get nerfed so hard. Right now? You can finesse a morning star or a shortspear - the feat doesn't let you do that!

Just let it count as the feat for prereqs and be done with it. :P

Gonna be so sad if they destroy my pickaxe gnome swashbuckler squad I plan to unleash on my players.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Warpriests need full BAB at least with their dieties favored weapon. WAY too many feats and attack powers that need a full BAB to get the most of of them. Especially if I was picking up a tree of fightery-feats for specific weapon builds.


I agree the warpriest should have a fighter's attack bonus but I also think the hunter should as well.


Arae Garven wrote:
Ryuko wrote:
Prince of Knives wrote:
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
Once they include a class builder, it's munchkin season in PFS. Not going to happen. They are instead giving insight into how they design classes and tips to build your own.
This word, I see it used a lot around here. Are folks quite aware of how insulting, derogatory, and generally inaccurate it is? Because I have to say that I'm getting rather vexed.
Were aware. We just like to insult and deride munchkins. As to inaccuracy, a term cannot be inaccurate, only its usage, which differs with context.
You're inaccurate even with regards to context.

Not sure if backing me up or agreeing with Ryuko >.>


Nah, I'm just too petty today. Sorry. Imma delete my post, and I shouldn't have made it. Have a nice one, Prince of Knives!


Cheapy wrote:
Nah, I'm just too petty today. Sorry. Imma delete my post, and I shouldn't have made it. Have a nice one, Prince of Knives!

'Sokay, we all wake up on the wrong side of the iron maiden.

...Other people do sleep in those, right? It's not just me?

In any event my post-with-quote's been shredded, though I'm sad to lose the joke therein.


So, having seen Prince of Knives get a little upset about it, and I can see why, now seems the least inappropriate time to explain the term Munchkin in regards to gaming. Yes this is a little off topic, but I haven't found a thread of "Common messageboard terms", maybe we should make one. Anyway, Munchkin is the name of a rather popular card game that started as a spoof of DnD, offering the fun of a dungeon crawl without "all that stupid roleplaying stuff" and has since gone on to lampoon jus about every genre of fiction there is. The whole point of the game is to make your character as powerful as possible, hence the term Munchkin being used to describe someone who is optimizing their character to somewhat ridiculous levels, usually with little to no regard for a backstory etc. I this case, the Class Points/ Build your own class idea combined with the race builder would lead to no end of people creating a class and a race insanely well suited to that class, as an example, say one were to build a class that like the swashbuckler seemed to require high dex, cha, and the weapon finesse feat, one could easily build a race with bonuses to those two scores, and have it get weapon finesse as a bonus racial feat, along with other racial abilities that are all tailored to one class, becoming extremely broken with that class, if maybe a bit on the useless side for most other classes.


Prince of Knives wrote:
Arae Garven wrote:
Ryuko wrote:
Prince of Knives wrote:
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
Once they include a class builder, it's munchkin season in PFS. Not going to happen. They are instead giving insight into how they design classes and tips to build your own.
This word, I see it used a lot around here. Are folks quite aware of how insulting, derogatory, and generally inaccurate it is? Because I have to say that I'm getting rather vexed.
Were aware. We just like to insult and deride munchkins. As to inaccuracy, a term cannot be inaccurate, only its usage, which differs with context.
You're inaccurate even with regards to context.
Not sure if backing me up or agreeing with Ryuko >.>

I'm merely remarking upon a peculiarity I noticed.

Personally, I'd be inclined to agree more with you than Ryuko, although I don't lean far either way. Also, I don't really see how your statements oppose each other.

As one of those who'd be labeled 'munchkin' the only post of the above I really found reprehensible is Kairos'

Liberty's Edge

14 sided die wrote:
So, having seen Prince of Knives get a little upset about it, and I can see why, now seems the least inappropriate time to explain the term Munchkin in regards to gaming. Yes this is a little off topic, but I haven't found a thread of "Common messageboard terms", maybe we should make one. Anyway, Munchkin is the name of a rather popular card game that started as a spoof of DnD, offering the fun of a dungeon crawl without "all that stupid roleplaying stuff" and has since gone on to lampoon jus about every genre of fiction there is. The whole point of the game is to make your character as powerful as possible, hence the term Munchkin being used to describe someone who is optimizing their character to somewhat ridiculous levels, usually with little to no regard for a backstory etc. I this case, the Class Points/ Build your own class idea combined with the race builder would lead to no end of people creating a class and a race insanely well suited to that class, as an example, say one were to build a class that like the swashbuckler seemed to require high dex, cha, and the weapon finesse feat, one could easily build a race with bonuses to those two scores, and have it get weapon finesse as a bonus racial feat, along with other racial abilities that are all tailored to one class, becoming extremely broken with that class, if maybe a bit on the useless side for most other classes.

The term Munchkin as used to describe those kind of players predates the game by years. The game is also lampooning the term.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
14 sided die wrote:
So, having seen Prince of Knives get a little upset about it, and I can see why, now seems the least inappropriate time to explain the term Munchkin in regards to gaming. Yes this is a little off topic, but I haven't found a thread of "Common messageboard terms", maybe we should make one. Anyway, Munchkin is the name of a rather popular card game that started as a spoof of DnD, offering the fun of a dungeon crawl without "all that stupid roleplaying stuff" and has since gone on to lampoon jus about every genre of fiction there is. The whole point of the game is to make your character as powerful as possible, hence the term Munchkin being used to describe someone who is optimizing their character to somewhat ridiculous levels, usually with little to no regard for a backstory etc. I this case, the Class Points/ Build your own class idea combined with the race builder would lead to no end of people creating a class and a race insanely well suited to that class, as an example, say one were to build a class that like the swashbuckler seemed to require high dex, cha, and the weapon finesse feat, one could easily build a race with bonuses to those two scores, and have it get weapon finesse as a bonus racial feat, along with other racial abilities that are all tailored to one class, becoming extremely broken with that class, if maybe a bit on the useless side for most other classes.

I'm pretty sure the game 'Muchkin' were named after the term 'a munchkin', not the other way around.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Imma gonna say it again. Be careful what you wish for. A lot of people (people who should know better, at that) are asking the developers to "nerf" the swashbuckler without even realizing what they are asking for. Enough, apparently, that the developers are now "investigating ways" to possibly give them their wish.

Everything else appears to be moving in the right directions with the playtest though. IMHO. The developers, as usual, are demonstrating an enormous amount of patience and an extremely discerning eye towards playtest suggestions.

I pretty much missed out on the first week of playtest due to hectic holiday preparations. I will be contributing my thoughts next week on the class discussion threads though.

Have a Happy Thanksgiving everyone! (And for those of you in other countries have a Happy Thursday, except, of course, for those of you whom our Thursday is actually your Friday, and to you I say, Have a Happy Friday!?!)

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Additionally (and this is also represented in the card game), the term "munchkin" typically refers not only to building a powerful character, but also strongly implies rule-bending, loophole exploitation, creative interpretation, or even outright cheating (there's even a card called "cheat") in the pursuit of that power.


14 sided die wrote:
So, having seen Prince of Knives get a little upset about it, and I can see why, now seems the least inappropriate time to explain the term Munchkin in regards to gaming. Yes this is a little off topic, but I haven't found a thread of "Common messageboard terms", maybe we should make one. Anyway, Munchkin is the name of a rather popular card game that started as a spoof of DnD, offering the fun of a dungeon crawl without "all that stupid roleplaying stuff" and has since gone on to lampoon jus about every genre of fiction there is. The whole point of the game is to make your character as powerful as possible, hence the term Munchkin being used to describe someone who is optimizing their character to somewhat ridiculous levels, usually with little to no regard for a backstory etc.

I'm afraid the term 'munchkin' has a longer and more storied history than this, though the card game is fun as all get-out.

I won't claim it was the first use ever, but the term 'munchkin' got popularized on the WotC boards, originally indicating a player who deliberately cheated or tried to get illegal combinations past the DM by taking advantage of their inexperience or inattention. It didn't take long for 'munchkin' to get conflated with the terms 'power gamer' and 'rollplayer' as well (and as a side note, 'rollplayer' is pretty offensive too).

There was a long period of bullying and elitism. I'm ashamed to admit that I participated.

Though the phrase 'munchkin' has since gone back to its original form in other parts of the internet, indicating a player who cheats or is unacceptably disruptive at the gaming table, the connotations it picked up during the dark days are alive and well here, and I really don't like it. I don't like it because it's insulting and dismissive, used to write off opinions people don't agree with. I don't like it because it's essentially being used to accuse people of Playing the Game Wrong, which is something I hear people complain about in this community and then turn around and go do to someone else. I don't like it because it implies that mechanics aren't important or necessary to the game, which - y'know, this is a playtest. If mechanics weren't important the devs could just kick the book out the door right now. It seems rather ironic to deride people for valuing system mastery here, in the one arena where it's utterly valuable.

Having a difference of playstyle is okay. 'Munchkin' is not.


Knives is correct here. Munchkin the card game got its name from the pejorative, not the other way around.

EDIT: And thrice ninja'd, apparently....

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Prince of Knives wrote:
14 sided die wrote:
So, having seen Prince of Knives get a little upset about it, and I can see why, now seems the least inappropriate time to explain the term Munchkin in regards to gaming. Yes this is a little off topic, but I haven't found a thread of "Common messageboard terms", maybe we should make one. Anyway, Munchkin is the name of a rather popular card game that started as a spoof of DnD, offering the fun of a dungeon crawl without "all that stupid roleplaying stuff" and has since gone on to lampoon jus about every genre of fiction there is. The whole point of the game is to make your character as powerful as possible, hence the term Munchkin being used to describe someone who is optimizing their character to somewhat ridiculous levels, usually with little to no regard for a backstory etc.

I'm afraid the term 'munchkin' has a longer and more storied history than this, though the card game is fun as all get-out.

I won't claim it was the first use ever, but the term 'munchkin' got popularized on the WotC boards, originally indicating a player who deliberately cheated or tried to get illegal combinations past the DM by taking advantage of their inexperience or inattention. It didn't take long for 'munchkin' to get conflated with the terms 'power gamer' and 'rollplayer' as well (and as a side note, 'rollplayer' is pretty offensive too).

There was a long period of bullying and elitism. I'm ashamed to admit that I participated.

Though the phrase 'munchkin' has since gone back to its original form in other parts of the internet, indicating a player who cheats or is unacceptably disruptive at the gaming table, the connotations it picked up during the dark days are alive and well here, and I really don't like it. I don't like it because it's insulting and dismissive, used to write off opinions people don't agree with. I don't like it because it's essentially being used to accuse people of Playing the Game Wrong, which is something I hear people complain about in this community and then...

Sure, calling people who care about the rules a lot "Munchkins" is bad.

Just as is telling people who don't care about rules so passionately that they should go away to play Cops and Robbers and stop polluting the air around.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

Okay. I'm invoking my GRONARD CARD.

Munchkin - a. Imature Power Gamer b. (typically) Younger inexperienced player uninterested in mutual fun over their own character power. c. see Rule Abuser.

The term is from the late 70's early 80's.

I have been playing RPG since at least 1984 and knew the term then. It got popularized in the early 90's thank the VERY early internet meme Real Men, Real Roleplayer, Loonies, and Muchkins.

And yes, To Date I still use the term to describe problematic players.

tl:dr - It's older than WOTC. It's as old as the Gazebo meme.

Gronard Edit: Gods, it's like every 5 years the internet 'rediscovers' the term. Yes people, gamers are mean. We like to call each other names.

*shakes cane*

Now get off my yard and back to talking about classes!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Sure, calling people who care about the rules a lot "Munchkins" is bad.

Just as is telling people who don't care about rules so passionately that they should go away to play Cops and Robbers and stop polluting the air around.

And where, precisely, do you see this? I don't see it on GitP, where I hail from. I don't see it on MinMax boards, despite it having 'min-max' in the name. I don't see it on rpg.stackexchange, or on Plothook, or even here.

Being told that your build is weak or that your opinion about a mechanic is mathematically wrong isn't the same as being told not to play. Yeah, I warn my players up front that there's a minimum competency that they're going to want to play in my campaigns, but I freely acknowledge that it's only one way to play, not the way to play. When I make comments in this playtest the only questions in my mind are, "Can this class fight heroic enemies?" (demons, dragons, undead, necromancers, etc) and "Can this participate in the story?"

To use an existing example, Fighter fails on both counts. He can't fight classic, unusual, or magical enemies and has little-to-no recourse to participate in changing the game world except insofar as MurderDeathKill - not even a half-decent Diplomacy check. Swashbuckler is likewise currently failing on that first count. Brawler is currently failing on that first count. Arcanist is blowing it away (which in my mind is kinda bad - you need weaknesses!), etc, so forth.

Grand Lodge

TheLoneCleric wrote:

Okay. I'm invoking my GRONARD CARD.

Munchkin - a. Imature Power Gamer b. (typically) Younger inexperienced player uninterested in mutual fun over their own character power. c. see Rule Abuser.

The term is from the late 70's early 80's.

I have been playing RPG since at least 1984 and knew the term then. It got popularized in the early 90's thank the VERY early internet meme Real Men, Real Roleplayer, Loonies, and Muchkins.

And yes, To Date I still use the term to describe problematic players.

tl:dr - It's older than WOTC. It's as old as the Gazebo meme.

Gronard Edit: Gods, it's like every 5 years the internet 'rediscovers' the term. Yes people, gamers are mean. We like to call each other names.

*shakes cane*

Now get off my yard and back to talking about classes!

Ironically I was called one about 1984 or thereabouts.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

*eats LoneCleric's yard*


TheLoneCleric wrote:

The term is from the late 70's early 80's.

I have been playing RPG since at least 1984 and knew the term then. It got popularized in the early 90's thank the VERY early internet meme Real Men, Real Roleplayer, Loonies, and Muchkins.

Yes. It was lampooned in several Dragon magazine articles (generally the April Fool's issues) as I recall as well. It certainly was used quite a bit in letters to the editor of that magazine for a long time, which is where I first saw it, and was thus attributable to the community for a long time prior to both the card game and the WotC boards (or the internet, for that matter). Hard as that is to visualize for many.

In any event, think we're all veering a wee bit off-topic now, eh?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Nah, the 11th class, the one that hasn't been released yet, is the Munchkin class, and it's a hybrid of Rite Publishing's Taskshaper and Kobold Press' Savant.

We're perfectly on topic.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Prince of Knives wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

Sure, calling people who care about the rules a lot "Munchkins" is bad.

Just as is telling people who don't care about rules so passionately that they should go away to play Cops and Robbers and stop polluting the air around.

And where, precisely, do you see this? I don't see it on GitP, where I hail from. I don't see it on MinMax boards, despite it having 'min-max' in the name. I don't see it on rpg.stackexchange, or on Plothook, or even here.

Being told that your build is weak or that your opinion about a mechanic is mathematically wrong isn't the same as being told not to play. Yeah, I warn my players up front that there's a minimum competency that they're going to want to play in my campaigns, but I freely acknowledge that it's only one way to play, not the way to play. When I make comments in this playtest the only questions in my mind are, "Can this class fight heroic enemies?" (demons, dragons, undead, necromancers, etc) and "Can this participate in the story?"

To use an existing example, Fighter fails on both counts. He can't fight classic, unusual, or magical enemies and has little-to-no recourse to participate in changing the game world except insofar as MurderDeathKill - not even a half-decent Diplomacy check. Swashbuckler is likewise currently failing on that first count. Brawler is currently failing on that first count. Arcanist is blowing it away (which in my mind is kinda bad - you need weaknesses!), etc, so forth.

Thanks for making my point :)


We already have a race that fits the swashbuckler, they are catfolk:)

If your the DM then give the fighter more skill points and maybe let him choose a few extra class skills. Also the right magic items for the fighter character would help like winged boots, circlet of persuasion, ring of telekinesis, helm of comprehend languages and read magic, helm of telepathy, ring of jumping, ring of featherfall, etc..


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Hmmm, so there is to be an update...

In which case, I won't read anything further just yet, including current forum posts or the copy I just downloaded. I will bring a fresh eye to the revised version instead, make my notes and then joining the fun.

This should be an intriguing design learning task I've now set myself.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

:D

This is why I love Paizo; They give us an open playtest, listen to our feedback, and respond in kind.

Congratulations, Jason Bulmahn and other designers. You have helped secure my moneies for Paizo's business.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:


Thanks for making my point :)

Condescending much? That -5 to diplomacy isn't working too well for you, is it? If you can't understand the difference between "my games are hard, and you're going to need to play mechanically well to survive, which you're not doing" and "you're a terrible person stop playing the game, you filthy casual" then I really don't know what to say.

Playstyles. They differ. The important part is mutual respect, something you've demonstrated yourself as being bad at.


Curious to see what the new Investigator addition will be instead of Sneak Attack. I'm sort of bummed it's getting removed (because I actually was pretty pleased with the class when it came out), it will be interesting to see what kind of mechanic gets added. I just hope it's something to help aid with the class' combat prowess.


Chris Kenney wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
Quote:

Swashbuckler

We are investigating ways for the class to get Weapon Finesse at an appropriate level

After much consideration I think I may finally have obtained a solution. Watch this:

Quote:
At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat.
It took a lot of effort to solve this extremely difficult problem but I hope that helped clear things up.

I think they're hoping to avoid making the Swashbuckler an obvious 'dip class.'

Didn't stop them with the Warpriest, mind, but I don't claim to know what the thinking is with that one at all.

A Swashbuckler getting Weapon Finesse at level one is not a dip, its a horrible reason to deny the class anything. You can already do that exact same thing with taking one level of Fighter, same BAB bonus, same +2 to one save. But with a dip in fighter you get more weapon proficiencies, armor proficienices and greater choice on how to spend your bonus feat. A dip to Swashbuckler does grant you Panache though. probably just one point as almost all other classes will have dumped CHA. Even with a dip, one level of Swashbuckler wont help you much since you still need Combat Reflexes and Extra Grit to use those deeds you picked up, the same as anyone trying to play a full Swashbuckler.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
KramlmarK wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


Thanks for making my point :)

Condescending much? That -5 to diplomacy isn't working too well for you, is it? If you can't understand the difference between "my games are hard, and you're going to need to play mechanically well to survive, which you're not doing" and "you're a terrible person stop playing the game, you filthy casual" then I really don't know what to say.

Playstyles. They differ. The important part is mutual respect, something you've demonstrated yourself as being bad at.

I'm not sure what are you after. PoK pretty much explained that he isn't of the "if you don't play my way, you're verboten from speaking in my presence" camp, which was my point.


I apologize for taking the thread off track and offending with the munchkin comment. I've literally never heard of anyone getting offended by that term. I use it for my little sisters. And people I no longer RP with.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
KramlmarK wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


Thanks for making my point :)

Condescending much? That -5 to diplomacy isn't working too well for you, is it? If you can't understand the difference between "my games are hard, and you're going to need to play mechanically well to survive, which you're not doing" and "you're a terrible person stop playing the game, you filthy casual" then I really don't know what to say.

Playstyles. They differ. The important part is mutual respect, something you've demonstrated yourself as being bad at.

I'm not sure what are you after. PoK pretty much explained that he isn't of the "if you don't play my way, you're verboten from speaking in my presence" camp, which was my point.

Usually, when someone says "Thanks for proving my point," (at least around here) it's a sarcastic way of implying that the person they're talking to is an example of whatever flaw/failing the speaker originally described. Thus, KramlmarK thought you were saying that PoK is of the camp that you're now saying he clearly isn't part of. (That's how I originally took your comment, as well.)

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jiggy wrote:
Additionally (and this is also represented in the card game), the term "munchkin" typically refers not only to building a powerful character, but also strongly implies rule-bending, loophole exploitation, creative interpretation, or even outright cheating (there's even a card called "cheat") in the pursuit of that power.

This is an example of a munckin reading of a rule.


ciretose wrote:
Jiggy wrote:
Additionally (and this is also represented in the card game), the term "munchkin" typically refers not only to building a powerful character, but also strongly implies rule-bending, loophole exploitation, creative interpretation, or even outright cheating (there's even a card called "cheat") in the pursuit of that power.
This is an example of a munckin reading of a rule.

Hey now - technically correct is the best kind of correct :p

(All future reference: if I'd pulled that as a kid I'd be a dead man).

Digital Products Assistant

6 people marked this as a favorite.

A reminder: Let's keep the rude terms for other gamers and debating those out of this thread and keep it on the topic of the Playtest.


I'm also hoping that the Swashbuckler version of Finesse stays. Dwarves have a long history of pick-wielding derring-do. (Okay, they didn't before this playtest, but now they are retroactively lauded in story and song for tumbling slowly around the battlefield with their light armor and buckler. Other dwarves have no idea what do make of them. They're basically the dwarf version of the Addams family, which is awesome.) It even lets us build the classic starknife-wielding Swashbucklers of Desna, Varisian heroes of old... In fact, if Swashbuckler Finesse let them apply Dex to damage, the starknife would be a viable weapon in a Swashbuckler's hands.


Jiggy wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
KramlmarK wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


Thanks for making my point :)

Condescending much? That -5 to diplomacy isn't working too well for you, is it? If you can't understand the difference between "my games are hard, and you're going to need to play mechanically well to survive, which you're not doing" and "you're a terrible person stop playing the game, you filthy casual" then I really don't know what to say.

Playstyles. They differ. The important part is mutual respect, something you've demonstrated yourself as being bad at.

I'm not sure what are you after. PoK pretty much explained that he isn't of the "if you don't play my way, you're verboten from speaking in my presence" camp, which was my point.
Usually, when someone says "Thanks for proving my point," (at least around here) it's a sarcastic way of implying that the person they're talking to is an example of whatever flaw/failing the speaker originally described. Thus, KramlmarK thought you were saying that PoK is of the camp that you're now saying he clearly isn't part of. (That's how I originally took your comment, as well.)

Yup, that was the case. Apologies for the misunderstanding.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

How about:

A swashbuckler gets Weapon finesse as a bonus feat at 1st level.

At 2nd level, he gets the improved weapon finesse class feature allowing him to use weapon finesse with every light or one handed piercing or slashing weapon. (and of course all his other class features work with these weapons)

1) a 1 level dip in swashbuckler nets you about the same as fighter, seems ok.

2) the expanded weapon selection allows for more varied swashbucklers (archetypes could further expand on this with TWF or improvised weapons), but only with an investment of 2 class lvls (so less likely to get dipped).

Of course this is just me spitballing an idea. Would need to be tested and checked for overpowered issues.

3) both people who want weapon finesse at 1 st level and people who want to keep the 'improved' swashbuckler finesse get what they want.


harlequinn wrote:
Dwarves ...lauded in story and song for tumbling slowly around the battlefield with their light armor and buckler.

Whyever wouldn't they tumble around in their heavy armor? :)


Majuba wrote:
harlequinn wrote:
Dwarves ...lauded in story and song for tumbling slowly around the battlefield with their light armor and buckler.
Whyever wouldn't they tumble around in their heavy armor? :)

You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Pirate Rob wrote:
Majuba wrote:
harlequinn wrote:
Dwarves ...lauded in story and song for tumbling slowly around the battlefield with their light armor and buckler.
Whyever wouldn't they tumble around in their heavy armor? :)
You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor.

Dwarves have a base speed of 20 feet, but their speed is never modified by armor or encumbrance.


Pirate Rob wrote:
Majuba wrote:
harlequinn wrote:
Dwarves ...lauded in story and song for tumbling slowly around the battlefield with their light armor and buckler.
Whyever wouldn't they tumble around in their heavy armor? :)
You cannot use Acrobatics to move past foes if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load or wearing medium or heavy armor.

And dwarves aren't reduced due to a racial ability.


Hmmm, I had read that as:

if your speed is reduced due to carrying a medium or heavy load OR wearing medium or heavy armor.

But reading it again I think you guys are right and I had just parsed it wrong.

The Exchange

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber
The Gazebo wrote:
*eats LoneCleric's yard*

DANG IT! Once an infestation of these start's it takes months to root them out.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Scorpioni wrote:

How about:

A swashbuckler gets Weapon finesse as a bonus feat at 1st level.

At 2nd level, he gets the improved weapon finesse class feature allowing him to use weapon finesse with every light or one handed piercing or slashing weapon. (and of course all his other class features work with these weapons)

I really like this idea, for what it's worth.


I really hope swashbucklers get to keep the ability to finesse one-handed weapons. I was very much looking forward to (finally) being able to make a high-dexterity effective spearwielder.


I've said this is the Slayer thread but I'll say it here as well.

I'm surprised Paizo is willing to look at giving the Investigator's an ability to replace Sneak Attack so as to better fit that class' theme and yet not the Slayer as well. SA is in many ways counter to what the archetypes the Slayer represents. Warrior assassins, bounty hunters, monster slayers all are very much the niche the slayer is trying to hit, but all those character types are lone wolves in nature. SA however is very counter to that theme. It is very dependent either your party or very specific feat heavy builds to get the proper use out of SA.

Perhaps the developers would consider doing something to the Slayer similar to what they are doing with the Investigator and sub out Sneak Attack into a more thematic ability?

101 to 150 of 211 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / General Discussion / Paizo Blog: Playtest Thoughts: Week 1 All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.