Desha's page

I really wonder how much "this is an entry level class" affected the design process. Since, while all of my favorite PF classes get to make a lot of choices as they go, I can see how "Choice Paralysis" is a real thing for some people (it's kind of why I dislike playing prepared casters) and particularly newer players who may be drawn to the concept.

English is my second language and it is hard to make classes like the druid for me because I need to read through bestiaries and find all the different animals just to play the class. I like the changes to shifter giving it more ability to use wildshape often, but I would not play it if it had druid wildshape.

Thank you for the review. I will use what I can of it to push forward and continue to improve on my work.

As a fan of the book and someone whose GM has taken the time to write up a quick clarification document so we can continue to use it despite the flaws, I want to say that I think this response to a review that had some very harsh things to say shows class and aplomb, and I remain very much a fan of you and your work.

I have watched friends work on monster design for Pathfinder before and can easily imagine how much work went into the massive monster section of this book, so I just want to say that while I can not call out anything in Endzeitgeist's review as incorrect, I would still be tempted to give this 4 or more stars for its quality as a bestiary of whimsical and interesting monsters alone.

Create Mr. Pitt wrote:

Does pathfinder need inquisitors? It's about options people like, not the sufficient conditions to complete an AP?

Well part of this was actually to discuss AP design. Personally, I think it's pretty nice that there's not a "You must have this many full casters to advance" sign on things. I've ready through consul of thieves, serpent's skull, skull and shackles, carrion crown, and a few others, and they thankfully don't seem to need this level of power.

I'm not saying the concept of the wizard or other full casters needs to be taken out of the game, just that the level of narrative power they have is excessive for anything that's published. Trust me, I've had fun with a few of them, I just feel like design could be better suited steering away from making more (ACG was pretty decent about this), or focusing on their support.

Inquisitors and bards have always been two of my favorite classes, and recently I've been playing more third party classes that seem to fit in that power range. I have played in Wrath of the Righteous, Jade Regent, and Iron Gods, and I don't think we had any 9 level spellcasters in any of those games and things still went just fine.

I do not think you really need 9 level spellcasters to play through any AP, and sometimes I think they make the game less fun, but I also think it is usually more a combination of certain spells and the fact that there are really no restrictions on specializing that are the problem. If wizards and clerics were more tightly focused on having the spells they can pick line up with their specialty schools or domains and you removed some problem spells from the spell lists, I don't think they would be as problematic as they sometimes can be.

Desha wrote:

What Tier would this class be considered? 3, 4? I use Ssalarn's Akashic Mysteries classes, would the Battle Lord feel like it had enough utility alongside those classes? Is there anyone with experience playing this class in Paizo APs, and is it any good?

I feel that the Battlelord fits into tier 3. Not only does the base class provide a lot of customization, but the archetypes bring it to the next level. My favorites are the charisma based archetype (Warchief) that shares Rage Powers instead of teamwork feats, and a wisdom based archetype (Zealot) that trades aura/drill radius and a few drills known for channeling energy and gaining channel smite.

I am just wondering, what else is it you want from the Battle Lord? It definitely brings utility, but it can bring more than that.

I guess the two big things I am worried about are the fact that teamwork feats seem to be largely regarded as being fairly terrible, and the class itself getting boring to play after a while. I like the Akashic classes because I rarely take the same action twice in the same combat, and if I get bored playing a class one way, I can switch up my veils and play a very different style.

What makes the Battle Lord better than a Cavalier or another class that gets Tactician? How do Specialties compare to the Cavalier's Orders? How flexible is the class itself, both during an adventure and between one adventure and the next?

@Ssalarn

Thank you for the input and response! I'd like to know what a couple people who didn't write the class think before picking it up though. No offense.

What Tier would this class be considered? 3, 4? I use Ssalarn's Akashic Mysteries classes, would the Battle Lord feel like it had enough utility alongside those classes? Is there anyone with experience playing this class in Paizo APs, and is it any good?

The other thing I'd like to see is a healing monster who's better at condition removal. My cleribelle was great for fixing up team mates who'd had holes poked in them, but I couldn't find any monsters who gave more than maybe one condition removal spell. It would be nice if there was one monster who gave remove blindness/deafness, neutralize poison, cure disease, and the restoration spells.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Soon.. the mysteries will be revealed soon.

I'm going on lunch in 20. I really, really hope it's here when I get back...

Or I'm going to continue waiting.

That'll teach em.

Desha wrote:

Rysky wrote:

For me it was simply all the math that would be involved. Never played a psionic class (save for Soulknife) because of it but I don't hate psionics or ban them from my games, just not all that interested in them.

I actually thought power points made a lot more sense than the weird slot based tiers the wizard uses. I never played a wizard for that reason, but psionics made a lot more sense and finally got me to take that step into playing casters.

It sounds like there will be some classes in this release that use the new materials but aren't stuck with slot-casting, is that right?

I actually do like the point system, but only when I don't have to do the counting aka Video games :3

Lol! I think that the point based system works more like mana bars and stuff I'm familiar with from video games, so that's probably part of why I got it.

Okay, I wanted to give the head's up, as it wouldn't be fair to spring this on anybody. I'm not going to be able to get everything done in time with Haunted Eve that I wanted. Family issues and surgery were involved in the delay.

With that in mind, I am still going to finish the monsters section and have it out as a "Halloween Monsters" expansion for now and include with it a discount (in some form) for the completed book when I can finish it. For the moment, you'll still be able to enjoy all of the awesome creatures that Haunted Eve brings with it, and once there's a chance for me to finish the rest of the guide to the Scribe's Marsh, I will make sure it's totally worth the wait.

Sorry for the inconvenience on my end, but I hope you still enjoy the Halloween Monsters pack when it's finished. I think I'll do the same thing with Christmas so as not to promise too much with too little time going forward.

Thank you. - Malcolm

Christmas monsters? So, you're saying I get a flying reindeer who gives me druid spells? :D

For me it was simply all the math that would be involved. Never played a psionic class (save for Soulknife) because of it but I don't hate psionics or ban them from my games, just not all that interested in them.

I actually thought power points made a lot more sense than the weird slot based tiers the wizard uses. I never played a wizard for that reason, but psionics made a lot more sense and finally got me to take that step into playing casters.

It sounds like there will be some classes in this release that use the new materials but aren't stuck with slot-casting, is that right?