Aurora Windraven's page

My thoughts on the hybrid classes?

Well, I haven't had a chance to go through all of them just yet, because... I'm a huge, HUGE fan of mages. I love them. I love them to my core. I always prefer to play a caster of some kind if possible; failing that, rogue or some other kind of skill-based class, etc. I have yet to roll up and playtest the Bloodrager, Skald, etc, but I will say they seem like fun classes to play.

However, I've been too preoccupied with the Arcanist. Reason being, it angers me. Greatly.

It's not that it's overpowered - I've rolled up a lv1 Arcanist and Wizard using similar stats and was able to make them approximately equal in power level. And that's the problem. It can do about 85% of what a Wizard of the same level can do, only with Exploits to do some of those things better. In fact, many of the Exploits seem to exist solely to close any weaknesses or gaps that the Arcanist has in her abilities compared to the Core classes, which doesn't sit well with me or anyone in my group.

On top of that, you have the Archetypes that allow them to perform the basic functions of the Magus, the Witch, and even the Cleric to a point (the spontaneous healing and whatnot). It seems it's designed to step on the toes of almost half a dozen different classes. Some even borrow a couple abilities from the Paladin (enhance weapon), or even...

Okay, I'll be honest, this irritated me more than it should, but it bothers me, a lot, that the Magus archetype of the Arcanist can take... Weapon Specialization. I'm sorry, but... nobody can take that. Nobody. Doesn't matter how good your Barbarian is with her great-axe, she can't take Specialization. ONLY the Fighter can, designed to stack with Weapon Training to give him the most solid, dependable attack and damage bonus you can find in the Core.

...until the Arcanist comes along.

I'm sorry, but duplicating the effects of many other classes, including a couple fragments of martial classes?

Who the [expletive] does the Arcanist think she is??

I'll be going over the other classes soon, because I'm done with the Arcanist. She has earned the dubious honor of being the first Paizo published class to be banned in our gaming group, an agreement that was unanimous upon reading and discussing the class features (and simulating level-ups with similar stats between the Arcanist and other classes*) Not necessarily because she's too powerful, but because she can essentially replace the core features of too many of the base classes.

*By which I mean we used the same stat "pool" to generate the character; for the record, we rolled 16, 14, 14, 13, 12, 10. While the Wizard began with 18 INT, we gave the Arcanist 16 INT/CHA, assuming a Human +2 bonus. We didn't want to use races that affected a large number of stats to minimize alterations to the base rolls, which were good enough as it was.

I'll end this post with a brief paragraph from the ACG, pp. 240-41, where they helpfully give advice on designing your own classes:

In addition to having a strong concept, each class should also have a space in the rules that it can occupy. While the rules for a class can share some similarities with those of an existing class, each new class should have something that makes it unusual, giving it a means to interact with the game, and the game's world, in a new and interesting way.

Look for a way that the class can perform its role without coming into contact with the rules of another class. If the rules are too close, you might end up with a class that invalidates (or is invalidated by) an existing class's mechanics in a way that makes it unappealing to play.

For example, the rogue class focuses on moving unseen and striking foes in precisely the right spot to make it hurt. While there are certainly other classes that have rules that allow them to sneak or hit for a lot of damage, the way that the rogue goes about it - via sneak attack - is iconic to that class. You want to avoid creating mechanics to do the same thing in slightly different ways.