Belzakan's page

I was looking over the rules for monster cohorts and the general idea is that a cohort can't be an animal or have animal intelligence. If you take a look, all other cohorts follow this basic idea, except the Giant Vulture (Bestiary 3). Even worse, the Giant Vulture is available as an Animal Companion too.

I agree with AvalonXQ, even though I understand all the previews insights on my question. The thing is, if they want to keep it balanced, they can just change some names here and there. You're saying that Paizo is balancing ahead of time, I'm saying that you're wrong in that point. Taking again the same example, the roar ability of a dragonne is much better than the shriek ability of the hiearacosphinx. Both creatures are very similar, they're in the same book, they have the same natural attacks, they have pounce, they have a "screaming ability", the difference is the flight of the sphinx being a little bit better, and scent for the dragonne. In the end turning to one or another should be mainly cosmetic or situational, but once the hieracosphinx doesn't get its "scream", it's pointless to consider it as an option. I know a GM can rule that, but I don't see how unbalancing it could be as RAW... And about the summons, come on! If you put, let's say, 2 new monsters per bestiary per spell level, how it would be to strong? I think it could be a reason for one to buy the books! But maybe that's just me...

As an example if something is a sonic based affect something like the silence spell will block it. Shriek however since it works different mechanically, even though the fluff is similar would not be blocked by RAW.

Hmm, now you got something interesting. I've read the sphinxes and got the idea that shriek stated it was sonic based, but in fact it doesn't say it! You're right!

I'd say it's reasonable to ask for a Knowledge test to see how deep the caster knows the creature in question, but I'm concearned with abilities that are basically the same in game mechanics, but with different names. The roar of a dragonne is ubber powerful in a way it fatigates and deafens every creature in a 30 feet radius, and fatigates the rest in 120 feet radius, in the other hand the shriek of a hieracosphinx just deafens the creatures, and both are sonic attacks. In essence they're almost the same thing, probably they named shriek because the creature has a beak instead of a mouth. All I wish to know is if there's any place stating that similar abilities like that can be treated in the same way, even for spell effects. Oh, and it's worth to notice that some abilities (like roar) aren't even described in the glossaries of the Bestiaries, so they're not a real category of ability like breath weapon or even pounce...

I was reading it again and again, and it makes no sense in some points... The spell states that I can use some of the abilities of the magical beast whose form I assume and there's a list of those abilities. But there are several other abilities that in fact are the same (or almost the same) but named in different ways. For example, I can turn into a dragonne and use its roar, that is very powerful compared to the shriek of the hieracosphinx that I can turn into, but can't use the ability by RAW. Is there any kind of clarification somewhere? Seriously, it makes no sense to me!

The kit is just a concept, I think it can be worked in different and interesting ways, but answering you, I'm worried because the classes released to playtest were very disapointing to me... I don't see a reason to have more of the same, and saying that means I don't think adding classes with restricted roles while we have a bunch of classical ideas not already PFed is something good... But I do believe in the Paizo team, I was a Dungeon and Dragon reader, and a PF enthusiastic, let's see if they'll release more playtest stuff in a near future and if this time they go in a different way.

Ok, I really disagree with the stats thing... I don't need full stats just to guess some possible skill tests or even combat situations. But Getting back to what is really important here, I hope Paizo do a good job, because I just can see them following the same steps of WotC: some possibly unnecessary base classes, a lot of feats, prestige classes, few skill uses, and repeating that till the ideas begin to rot... Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but to satisfy us both is really easy, and I think they could at least try it!

I like the idea of my Scoundrel in SW being completely different from Han Solo, or playing a Jedi that isn't a mockery of any other, but that's me... And I think the NPC #5 is nice when it’s just for background sake or even the one supposed to die. Take classic great stories, like LotR. How manny NPCs with statistics you think is needed? Maybe 7: Sauron, Saruman, Wormtongue, King Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn and Gollum. And just because those characters would get involved in combat situations. I don't need to know every single spell in Galadriel's sheet, she's there just to compose the background story. I think that 7 character sheets in a complete saga isn’t a herculean job, but, again, that's me.
So let's talk about kits and Prestige Classes. I agree with you about Prestige Classes, they're there for higher levels. The kits would be the opposite of them. The kits of AD&D used to add things and take other things out, but sticking to the basic concept. Let's say that Paizo makes 4 new unique base classes, we'll have 15 base classes. Let's say that for each one they make 3 kits. In the end we'll have 45 options for beginning characters! Isn’t that enough? I think that a book with 45 options would be a great must have book, sure I'd buy that, but a book with 6 not so good caster friendly new base classes I don't know, maybe it's not worthy the money/effort...

Objectively, I wonder whether this point that has been directly driven at is really relevant or productive to the playtest. I was expecting some clear, analytical assessments of the Playtest classes, but this is just a list of other classes which Paizo can't legally support or really even take into account, as their the intellectual property of a different company. Being objective in this case, is using reason and actual playtest experiences to make the six new classes as good as possible. Paizo has committed to making these six classes as base classes. They are not going to make them as substitution levels or prestige classes. Let's accept that and provide useful feedback.

Actually they can, just take a look on the Cavalier... No one can sue you because you're using a Necromancer based class, because that's common sense, and everybody that knows something about high fantasy knows that necromancers are out there, just like the Warmage types, Beguiler types, Scout types, Knight types, and so on. They can't, for example, use a five headed dragon named Tiamat, but they can have the same five headed dragon with a diferent name or even the same name (since the name comes from mythology) with a different concept. And what I'm trying to say here is that Paizo is following the same path of WotC, while they could use some of their great creative brains to work in different, more flexible and, possibly, more entertaining way. Finally, I really don't know if they're commited to do that. I think if they get a huge rejection with those concepts they'll think about ways to fix than, or even replace than with better options. In the end it's all about making a sellable product.

Ok, so you cannot even come close to what the summoner is able to do with either a sorceror or a wizard without, you know, re-writing the class. If a 'kit' replaces all of the class abilities, that isnt a kit, its a new class. The eidolon isnt a familiar, its closer to an animal companion that you can customize and shape as you see fit. That coupled with a different spell casting progression, and a summon monster SLA, and you have a new class. Like it or hate it, this is a new class, and cannot be achieved with an existing one. Saying a summoner can be achieved with a sorceror or wizard because they can summon monsters is like saying a paladin can be achieved with a warrior because they both have martial weapon profficiency.

Now you're stretching things beyond reach... A Paladin and a Warrior have one or two things in common, unlike the Summoner and the other arcane casters. I know an eidolon isn't a familiar, but it's a pet, just like the familiar. The kits were like that, you change a lot of things, but staying with the concept. The Summoner would be a kit for Sorcerers, because they're spontaneous arcane casters, and that would be the concept.

Personally, I do not like kits or replacement levels. I believe that a base class should give you some direction with the character. The reason I feel this way is because of my experience with star wars saga edition. There they have never introduced new base classes, they instead introduce new talents a base class can take on odd levels. Essentially this makes each base class have a set of loosely themed class features that can be customized. This is great in theory, but as the game expands, it's overwhelming. Trying to figure out what works well and what doesnt is a nightmare.

I'm DMing SW Saga and I know exactly what you're talking about. I think SW Saga is awesome with few base classes and a lot of versatility, but the mistake is having 1000+ talents, but in the end you'll pick just 10, and I don't think having 100+ classes would solve the problem...

So that said, since we are talking about practical, could you explain to me the practical reasons for the Dread Necromancer/Beguiler being unnecesary? Or the factotum being pointless? The beguiler for instance allows you to at least partially cover both the arcane caster and skill monkey niche. This is important for groups that are either small, or with inconsistent player bases (not always the same people at every game session). There is no practical way to do what the beguiler class does without it. The dread necromancer allows an exterme focus in necromancy, but spontaneous casting and also has what is effectively channel negative energy. This cannot be achieved with either a sorceror or a wizard. You can get the flavor, but certainly not the result. Being practical is about results right?

Don't get me wrong, I love the concepts of Dread Necromancers and everything else, but since you have a Sorcerer with undead bloodline, why not give an option to focus even more in necromancy and getting channel negative energy, while giving up some spell flexibility? Takes less space, less time, less books, to do that than "designing" a "new" base class.

Ok so lets recap. My understanding is that you would like to see more replacement levels/kits and prestige classes instead of new base classes. Above are the reasons I do not like that idea. I like new base classes because they are easier to use then kits, and are easier to balance with existing classes then prestige classes. And ofcourse you get to do whatever it is you want to do from day one as opposed to waiting till levels 6-8 to get started with that.

I know you're going the easy way, but come on, it's an Advanced PG, not a Novice PG. Prestige Classes are there, I don't need to defend their concept, and I think they work pretty well. And about the complexity of building an NPC, you need to waste some time on that just with really important NPCs, and that can be solved with some character building tables.

Ok, the objective I mean is being practical, going right to the point, the idea is not discussing etymology... And the Summoner is a restricted role because any Sorcerer or Wizard can summon creatures, the difference is the ubber familiar, hit dice, BAB and less spells. Why not put that as a kit? Like the WotC substitution levels? I'm not a huge fan of substitution levels, but the kits were great. I think some possibilities of customizing characters can be really interesting, and you don't need a prestige class or a whole new base class for doing that. And come on, I'm not talking about your beliefs, or your family, I'm just giving some opinions about what I think could work better than adding more classes, and in the end having a bunch of not so useful classes like WotC did.

Why is a thread titled "Being objective" just a list of your subjective, unjustified evaluations of a bunch of non-core base classes?

Because I'm going right to the point instead of talking about the good/bad things about the new non-core classes... I've seen a bunch of people doing the same thing in different threads all over the boards, so I put my personal impressions here about all the non-core classes. And I justified everything with "I like that, I don't like that". Really, that's not a discussion about laws, but about a game based on subjectivity.

WotC released a lot of base classes. Some asian flavored classes are off topic for PF (I think), so lets forget them (but I still like them!). Putting just some of the classes that are not based in optional systems (like Tome of Battle) lets see what we have.

Archivist- Nice idea, a divine caster that studies like a Wizard. I think that can be done for PF.
Beguiler- I get the concept, but it’s a bit unnecessary.
Dragon Shaman- Different mechanics, so lets forget by now.
Dread Necromancer- Same of the Beguiler (but here we have bigger differences like channel energy and arcane spells together).
Duskblade- I love the concept, that’s really interesting.
Factotum- Pointless.
Favored Soul- Spontaneous divine caster, a must!
Hexblade- Interesting, but needs a lot of work to be fine.
Knight- Cavalier, perfectly PFed.
Scout- See the Beguiler.
Spellthief- It works better as a Prestige Class IMO.
Spirit Shaman- I think it can be mixed with the Favored Soul in one new class.
Swashbuckler- I don’t want a Fighter/Rogue, I want a swift swordsman!
Warlock- I love, but I know that a different spell system at this point it’s not interesting.
Warmage- See the Beguiler.

Now let’s put together that info and the new classes. Oracles are great, I think they work nicely. Cavaliers too. The Summoner is more like a restricted role, just like the Witch. I think the Summoner works better as a Prestige Class… The Alchemist is interesting, but maybe something like an Inventor (like the Artificer) would be nicer. Why make just potions and bombs instead of an item building oriented class? I don’t know about the Inquisitor…

Finally, I’d really like to see a mechanic like the old AD&D kits for restricted roles (Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Scout, Witch, etc) and conceptual classes like the Cavalier, the Oracle, the Swashbuckler, the Spiritual Mystic (Favored Soul+Spirit Shaman) and the Occult Blade (Duskblade+Hexblade).

In the end, I know it was a little bit off topic, but I hope it helps in some way for future developments.