Save the Date – Pathfinder Playtest Stream Aug 31!

And if you remove all the flavor of Rage from Barbarian you have a Fighter with a stopwatch.

Divine Martial with self buffs (Champion) and Divine Martial with self buffs (Exampler) are drastically different in feel, execution, and play, to the point that trying to reduce them down to simply "divine martial with self buffs" is utterly meaningless and inaccurate.

In case you missed it, I didn't say "remove all the flavor". I said different, more accessible flavor.

And as others (including myself, though in a different thread) have pointed out, you can reflavor the mechanics to your liking.

I should realize I'm on a bandwagon of one at this point with my "I wish it had been another common class" viewpoint.

So I'll shut up now and wait for the playtest docs to drop like everyone else.

I got exactly what I wanted with kineticist so I'm not as invested in these classes as I usually am now that I have what I want.

That being said, I like everything about the animist. Another wisdom caster finally, get the preparedness of cleric with a side of specialized spontaneity, and some strong sustained one action focus spells? All very cool.

Exemplar I'm a little more conflicted about, as are a lot people it seems like. On the one hand, it's cool to be able to fill that fantasy of being Thor in Avengers or wonder woman in justice league. On the other the narrative isn't going to fit in some cases, which is why the rare tag exists; because of that I would feel weird about it being my favorite class if you have to be that person that begs their gm to allow it. Not a huge concern for me since I don't see it being a class I enjoy, my only worry is that it is well received and I don't allow it in my games and it makes players unhappy.

I wonder if the spirit lists (one spell per rank) for the animist are all signature spells

I got exactly what I wanted with kineticist so I'm not as invested in these classes as I usually am now that I have what I want.

That being said, I like everything about the animist. Another wisdom caster finally, get the preparedness of cleric with a side of specialized spontaneity, and some strong sustained one action focus spells? All very cool.

Exemplar I'm a little more conflicted about, as are a lot people it seems like. On the one hand, it's cool to be able to fill that fantasy of being Thor in Avengers or wonder woman in justice league. On the other the narrative isn't going to fit in some cases, which is why the rare tag exists; because of that I would feel weird about it being my favorite class if you have to be that person that begs their gm to allow it. Not a huge concern for me since I don't see it being a class I enjoy, my only worry is that it is well received and I don't allow it in my games and it makes players unhappy.

If it is well received and makes your players happy, why would you disallow it in your games ?

Rysky wrote:

And if you remove all the flavor of Rage from Barbarian you have a Fighter with a stopwatch.

Divine Martial with self buffs (Champion) and Divine Martial with self buffs (Exampler) are drastically different in feel, execution, and play, to the point that trying to reduce them down to simply "divine martial with self buffs" is utterly meaningless and inaccurate.

In case you missed it, I didn't say "remove all the flavor". I said different, more accessible flavor.

And as others (including myself, though in a different thread) have pointed out, you can reflavor the mechanics to your liking.

I should realize I'm on a bandwagon of one at this point with my "I wish it had been another common class" viewpoint.

So I'll shut up now and wait for the playtest docs to drop like everyone else.

you are not along in wanting that. I think that class sounds too much like what other classes should have had by default.

Gaulin wrote:

I got exactly what I wanted with kineticist so I'm not as invested in these classes as I usually am now that I have what I want.

That being said, I like everything about the animist. Another wisdom caster finally, get the preparedness of cleric with a side of specialized spontaneity, and some strong sustained one action focus spells? All very cool.

Exemplar I'm a little more conflicted about, as are a lot people it seems like. On the one hand, it's cool to be able to fill that fantasy of being Thor in Avengers or wonder woman in justice league. On the other the narrative isn't going to fit in some cases, which is why the rare tag exists; because of that I would feel weird about it being my favorite class if you have to be that person that begs their gm to allow it. Not a huge concern for me since I don't see it being a class I enjoy, my only worry is that it is well received and I don't allow it in my games and it makes players unhappy.

If it is well received and makes your players happy, why would you disallow it in your games ?

Same reason why people banned any number of classes, ancestries, or abilities in campaigns. You as the GM don't like the idea and do not want it in your setting.

Just like you have people banning gunslinger because they don't like guns in their fantasy.

The Raven Black wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

I got exactly what I wanted with kineticist so I'm not as invested in these classes as I usually am now that I have what I want.

That being said, I like everything about the animist. Another wisdom caster finally, get the preparedness of cleric with a side of specialized spontaneity, and some strong sustained one action focus spells? All very cool.

Exemplar I'm a little more conflicted about, as are a lot people it seems like. On the one hand, it's cool to be able to fill that fantasy of being Thor in Avengers or wonder woman in justice league. On the other the narrative isn't going to fit in some cases, which is why the rare tag exists; because of that I would feel weird about it being my favorite class if you have to be that person that begs their gm to allow it. Not a huge concern for me since I don't see it being a class I enjoy, my only worry is that it is well received and I don't allow it in my games and it makes players unhappy.

If it is well received and makes your players happy, why would you disallow it in your games ?

Same reason why people banned any number of classes, ancestries, or abilities in campaigns. You as the GM don't like the idea and do not want it in your setting.

Just like you have people banning gunslinger because they don't like guns in their fantasy.

Then that is nothing new, nor specific to the class IMO.

Oh it's for sure just a matter of taste. In this case I am actually glad for the rare tag because I can at least point to that when I want to disallow he class. But I could still see a player or two I play with really liking the class but me not be cool gming for it. It's a taste/personal table thing. Not limited to this class (same issue with some archetypes for example) but it is a bit amplified since it's a whole class.

Oh it's for sure just a matter of taste. In this case I am actually glad for the rare tag because I can at least point to that when I want to disallow he class. But I could still see a player or two I play with really liking the class but me not be cool gming for it. It's a taste/personal table thing. Not limited to this class (same issue with some archetypes for example) but it is a bit amplified since it's a whole class.

Its greatly amplified because its a whole class with any number of thing other clases could have potentially gotten but now can't without archetyping.

Not a huge concern for me since I don't see it being a class I enjoy, my only worry is that it is well received and I don't allow it in my games and it makes players unhappy.

If you're worried about that you could always just let your players play the class. Literally makes your entire problem go away.

Its greatly amplified because its a whole class with any number of thing other clases could have potentially gotten but now can't without archetyping.

I feel like trying to cram everything the class does into an archetype would be pretty underwhelming (mostly because we've seen them try that before, archetypes just aren't big enough). So I'm not sure this is a bad thing.

Gaulin wrote:

Oh it's for sure just a matter of taste. In this case I am actually glad for the rare tag because I can at least point to that when I want to disallow he class. But I could still see a player or two I play with really liking the class but me not be cool gming for it. It's a taste/personal table thing. Not limited to this class (same issue with some archetypes for example) but it is a bit amplified since it's a whole class.

Its greatly amplified because its a whole class with any number of thing other clases could have potentially gotten but now can't without archetyping.

Like what ?

Gaulin wrote:

Not a huge concern for me since I don't see it being a class I enjoy, my only worry is that it is well received and I don't allow it in my games and it makes players unhappy.

If you're worried about that you could always just let your players play the class. Literally makes your entire problem go away.

Hang on, are you telling me when two people disagree on something all one has to do is give in to the other person's view and then the conflict is over?! That can't be right. Huh, maybe if I do get into a disagreement with my players (I don't want the vibe of a demigod in the games I run) I'll just tell them when we argue that all they have to do is give into my viewpoint and the problem will go away. Mind blown, thank u

Squiggit wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

Not a huge concern for me since I don't see it being a class I enjoy, my only worry is that it is well received and I don't allow it in my games and it makes players unhappy.

If you're worried about that you could always just let your players play the class. Literally makes your entire problem go away.

Hang on, are you telling me when two people disagree on something all one has to do is give in to the other person's view and then the conflict is over?! That can't be right. Huh, maybe if I do get into a disagreement with my players (I don't want the vibe of a demigod in the games I run) I'll just tell them when we argue that all they have to do is give into my viewpoint and the problem will go away. Mind blown, thank u

No, I'm just saying that if you're worried about a problem entirely of your own creation you can simply not create the circumstances that lead to the problem in the first place. Obviously you can ban as many classes as you want, more power to you... but if you're worried that your players might not enjoy you shutting them down on a whim that might be something to reconsider.

Right, but it's that sort of thinking that is why the rare tag is in place, to give GM's an easy out. I don't think it's fair to say I'm the problem immediately. You're pretty much proving my point.

Right, but it's that sort of thinking that is why the rare tag is in place, to give GM's an easy out. I don't think it's fair to say I'm the problem immediately. You're pretty much proving my point.

Telling the players that this class (or any other) does not fit the story is completely the GM's right (and duty).

It might be better to check what the class actually does beforehand though.

Like banning Gunslingers without realizing their abilities work with crossbows too.

Right, but it's that sort of thinking that is why the rare tag is in place, to give GM's an easy out. I don't think it's fair to say I'm the problem immediately. You're pretty much proving my point.

I think what Squiggit is trying to say is that if your players will be "upset" about you banning Exemplar, then you and those players obviously don't want to play the same type of game, and you have no business playing together to begin with.

Gaulin wrote:

Right, but it's that sort of thinking that is why the rare tag is in place, to give GM's an easy out. I don't think it's fair to say I'm the problem immediately. You're pretty much proving my point.

I think what Squiggit is trying to say is that if your players will be "upset" about you banning Exemplar, then you and those players obviously don't want to play the same type of game, and you have no business playing together to begin with.

Or, to put it another way: You mock him, but Squiggit has a point. Allowing a rare game element is a binary choice: There's just no way to "kind of" allow Exemplar. If one party wants it, and the other doesn't, then one of you "giving in" to the other is LITERALLY the only way to play this game together.

I wonder if the spirit lists (one spell per rank) for the animist are all signature spells

I really didn't think about that lol. I was really hoping for Paizo to remove signature spells as a whole because I feel they are a hassle honestly. Spontaneous casters are already limited by the fact of not being able to re-learn their spells everyday, signature spells seems like an unnecesary restriction that's neither needed for balance nor fun for players.

WWHsmackdown wrote:

I wonder if the spirit lists (one spell per rank) for the animist are all signature spells

I really didn't think about that lol. I was really hoping for Paizo to remove signature spells as a whole because I feel they are a hassle honestly. Spontaneous casters are already limited by the fact of not being able to re-learn their spells everyday, signature spells seems like an unnecesary restriction that's neither needed for balance nor fun for players.

Scrolls are a very real replacement for not re-learning spells every day, especially when taking into account that most prepared casters do not actually change their usual prepared spells that often.

And making all of a spontaneous caster's spells signature spells would increase their versatility tremendously.

The restriction on signature spells is a real balance need.