Hello all, I don't post often and I have no idea if this is the beginning of many posts on these here fine forums.
Now, let me make this clear, I LOVE what Paizo has done and I am a fence-sitter in terms of 3.5 and 4.0 and was really hoping that Paizo would blow me away with some new classes in this new release. However, I appear to be sadly mistaken.
This thread is for everyone and anyone to convey their personal opinions on the classes released so far, love 'em or hate 'em, and why.
Barbarian: In comparison to the 3.P Fighter, I found the Barbarian to be underpowered in comparison to the other classes, and, after burning out their points they seem like a useless hack and slasher. The added book-keeping that comes attached definitely didn't make my views any better regarding barbarians.
Druid: I was expecting a more drastic change. Other than a few minor alterations, it is still a very powerful casting class. It didn't exactly fix the whole 'CoDzilla' thing for me, since it can still pull off almost everything the original druid could.
Paladin: Eh...none of the main problems were fixed with them. Arcane and divine casters will still mop the floor with them, and their smite is definitely restrictive. Although it is quite easy to make it evil alignment, its more than a little annoying that it is still officially restricted to good aligned people.
Sorcerer: I tried to like it, I REALLY did. But, sadly, I came to the realization that the Wizard gets their 'special abilities' from specialization and the sorcerers from lineage. They get special abilities at x levels and they ARE different than the wizard abilities, but the difference is still not distinct enough.
Aw smurf, maybe I'll just stick to 3.5 :/.
Regardless, I'm interested in seeing everyone else's opinions on the new classes, and I'm sure the nice people here at Paizo are open to honest opinion...
*runs away to hide from potential assault*
Agree regarding the sorcerer class. Adding anything is an improvement over nothing but pales in comparison to a Universalist Wizard with Limited Wish and Wish.
Agree regarding the sorcerer class. Adding anything is an improvement over nothing but pales in comparison to a Universalist Wizard with Limited Wish and Wish.
It was pretty surprising when I saw they hadn't done a thing to the Universalist. A wish every day sort of takes away the mystic wonder of it's all-powerful potency.
It was pretty surprising when I saw they hadn't done a thing to the Universalist. A wish every day sort of takes away the mystic wonder of it's all-powerful potency.
I agree. Another thing that is really irritating is any Specialist can choose to become a Universalist for the day it is no longer limiting to be a Specialist. Missed where the Sorcerer gets to change out his known spells on a daily basis.
As i posted in the AR1 Forums...I would personally be happy to see Wish spells of any form vanish from spell list and be relegated to being such as Djinn, Demon and Devil Lords, Deities, etc.
Overall, I am happy with most of the changes to classes...both the mechanics and the color they add.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Do remember that Wish and Limited Wish are slightly changed now- you can't just boost everyone's stats by +1 given a few weeks.
Overall, I found a lot of the classes more fun to look at (I haven't run them past my group yet, we'll see what they say).
The Barbarian was slightly more interesting- I liked the rage powers, and that you keep your bonus to Strength and Constitution even when you're not using a rage power. The bookwork will be slightly slow, but I'm sure barbarians will come to enjoy keeping track of their rage points. Having just bought and read Iron Heroes, they had a similar mechanic involving a 'rage pool' which you built up by doing stuff. Notably, you got points for getting hit by an opponent. If barbarians could 'recharge' their rage points by taking damage (perhaps 1 point per 10 damage or so on an attack), that would be a fun mechanic (or maybe allow it as a feat- similar to the ones in Savage Species?).
Druids seemed good on a first read, I liked that they could choose to take a domain instead of an animal companion- but that the power for having the Animal Domain is 'get a summoned animal for 24 hours' doesn't quite click- there shouldn't be two different ways to get a bonded companion- I'm even (don't smite me here) considering banning the Druid base class, and just going back to making it a specialist of the Cleric- take Animal and Plant domains, and you're set. But that's just me.
Paladins... where do I start? I loooved the new aura powers, that you could share them with your friends, the choice of having a bonded favoured weapon instead of a Pokemon Pony, the capstone power, and so on- but Smite Evil still let me down. A bonus on damage for one hit just doesn't work. It's very swingy- either you hit and do lots of damage or you miss, it's wasted, and everyone asks "why are you playing a paladin, instead of a fighter? At least then you'd be doing +x damage on every hit, rather than having a chance to do so." I'd prefer a constant ability (Smite Evil +xd6, where x= your normal /day limit, as a constant ability like Sneak Attack. That would be more fun and less swingy. Rogues can Sneak Attack on every hit on every round if they're positioned right (two-weapon fighting + flanking), so giving a melee class bonus dice against evil opponent really wouldn't hurt things.
Sorcerers looked quite nice, I liked the idea of them having special bloodlines (and the variety of them was good- I'm considering throwing in some nasty Aberrant sorcerers as some sort of Alienist cult). However, the "sorcerer spellcasting problem" has always bugged me about them- they're meant to be born to use magical power... but they're slower at it than the wizard? They should be (if anything) faster... they can naturally just 'feel magic' and understand how it works, but they don't have the versatility or ability to prepare. I'd also be in favour of switching metamagics- allow sorcerers to metamagic for free, without preparation, without extra time, because it feels right to them, rather than struggling to be as effective with metamagic effects.
Overall though Jason, a very nice job. The new abilities are evocative (but as Frank Trollman would say, they don't do enough damage) and flavourful, and I'm really looking forward to having a hardcover copy of the Pathfinder Book when it comes out, rather than blowing (so far) about 500 pages (2x AR1, 1x AR2 so far) of paper on my laser printer (which I just had refilled, thanks). Kudos to your insight and ability.
If barbarians could 'recharge' their rage points by taking damage (perhaps 1 point per 10 damage or so on an attack), that would be a fun mechanic
NO This is not WoW. We do not need the "rage bar". I'm also going to say anything that works off getting hit in D&D is a bad idea.
Fizz
|
If barbarians could 'recharge' their rage points by taking damage (perhaps 1 point per 10 damage or so on an attack), that would be a fun mechanicNO This is not WoW. We do not need the "rage bar". I'm also going to say anything that works off getting hit in D&D is a bad idea.
Fizz
One could argue that it would be like the Incredible Hulk. I like the idea of something along the damage to rage recharge idea.
I am against the idea of recharging rage points by taking damage. The current rage point system is still roughly the same mechanic as 3.5 rage simply given a point value. I like that the duration of rage is more controllable now. And I love the rage powers.
I would not even begin to compare an animal summoned by spell and augmented by the Animal Domain with a druid's animal companion. The former is inferior to the ability and options of the latter usually.
Makes sense to me that sorcerers are slower to acquire spells than wizards. A wizard has spent and is spending a great deal of time researching and studying usually. A sorcerer is figuring it out for themself. Many did not and do not even have a mentor to show them. They are learning through trial and error as well as observation instead of dedicated book learning.
With each release i like the core classes more and more and see them as able to compete with the draw of the Prestige CLasses.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
Director of Games
|
just for the sake of of it, not only the paladins are still under powered but, they have d8??? I had thought to give them the great d12 but a d8???? than that is just mean...
The d8 is an unfortunate error. Paladins have d10 hit points.
This mistake will be corrected.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Makes sense to me that sorcerers are slower to acquire spells than wizards. A wizard has spent and is spending a great deal of time researching and studying usually. A sorcerer is figuring it out for themself. Many did not and do not even have a mentor to show them. They are learning through trial and error as well as observation instead of dedicated book learning.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
This is the main point why they are slower and has always been how I looked at it.
|
|
Agree regarding the sorcerer class. Adding anything is an improvement over nothing but pales in comparison to a Universalist Wizard with Limited Wish and Wish.
Yes, but did you read the updates to Limited Wish and Wish? They're just not what they were in 3.5. Most of it is there, but Wish can't create items of value anymore, nor can it grant inherent ability score bonuses without an equal (and just as permanent) penalty being applied to another ability score.
Now maybe if the Sorcerer got some or even most of the Arcane bloodline abilities on top of their chosen Bloodline we could talk about caster parity.
If barbarians could 'recharge' their rage points by taking damage (perhaps 1 point per 10 damage or so on an attack), that would be a fun mechanicNO This is not WoW. We do not need the "rage bar". I'm also going to say anything that works off getting hit in D&D is a bad idea.
Fizz
So a good and mechanical effect gets shot down because its related to WoW?
Agree regarding the sorcerer class. Adding anything is an improvement over nothing but pales in comparison to a Universalist Wizard with Limited Wish and Wish.Yes, but did you read the updates to Limited Wish and Wish? They're just not what they were in 3.5. Most of it is there, but Wish can't create items of value anymore, nor can it grant inherent ability score bonuses without an equal (and just as permanent) penalty being applied to another ability score.
Now maybe if the Sorcerer got some or even most of the Arcane bloodline abilities on top of their chosen Bloodline we could talk about caster parity.
I dont have a problem with Limited Wish and Wish getting "demoted". Always thought they were overpowered myself (when i did not think they should be removed altogether).
And again, I think people underestimate the advantage provided by not being schackled to a spell book for your power. Lack of reliance on such a thing is part of why as a caster the cleric outstrips the wizard. Spontaneous casting is a rather large advantage. It means your magic is your own...not tied to a book or a deity. Take away a wizard's spell book and you put a serious crimp in his abilities long term. Spells he would have cast without a second thought before become treasured resources when he knows he wont be getting them back any time soon.
-Weylin Stormcrowe
|
|
So a good and mechanical effect gets shot down because its related to WoW?If barbarians could 'recharge' their rage points by taking damage (perhaps 1 point per 10 damage or so on an attack), that would be a fun mechanicNO This is not WoW. We do not need the "rage bar". I'm also going to say anything that works off getting hit in D&D is a bad idea.
Fizz
That's basically what I'm wondering. It sounds like a fun mechanic. It's a fun mechanic in WoW too (I got a warrior myself *rawr*)
So a good and mechanical effect gets shot down because its related to WoW?If barbarians could 'recharge' their rage points by taking damage (perhaps 1 point per 10 damage or so on an attack), that would be a fun mechanicNO This is not WoW. We do not need the "rage bar". I'm also going to say anything that works off getting hit in D&D is a bad idea.
Fizz
First it hasn't been established as a good mechanic. I'm against the idea of taking damage to get stronger. One the abuse that could be had with that is extremely high. Also the barbarian would start out fairly weak at full health does this not seem odd?
Yes I'm willing to say lets shoot down idea that come from WoW. I play WoW, and it's not D&D and, nor does it follow reverse compatibility. Paizo's trying to keep PF RPG close to 3.5 not drastically change it.
There is a WoW RPG for those of you who would like to play it.
Fizz
Paladin still needs to not be screwed by mount death. I second the Smite+Xd6 suggestion.
Barbarian Rage powers seem a bit... haphazard, with both level of effect and cost varying wildly, and indepenednently. Compare Guarded Stance to Improved Damage Reduction. Still nothing that makes barbarians viable at high levels, though Frenzied Berserkers are obviously a little better now.
Sorcerers get a big boost, but are still clearly worse than wizards.
Druids? The broken wild shape is gone, so they're playable now. Still good, but reaosnable.
And again, I think people underestimate the advantage provided by not being schackled to a spell book for your power. Lack of reliance on such a thing is part of why as a caster the cleric outstrips the wizard. Spontaneous casting is a rather large advantage. It means your magic is your own...not tied to a book or a deity. Take away a wizard's spell book and you put a serious crimp in his abilities long term. Spells he would have cast without a second thought before become treasured resources when he knows he wont be getting them back any time soon.-Weylin Stormcrowe
Interesting points but I disagree.
The game is based on suggested wealth by level which opens up lots of spellcasting options via purchasing scrolls (which class receives the free Scribe Scroll feat again?) and a Blessed Book or taking a feat like Collegiate Wizard.
IMO the Scribe Scroll feat option is weak for the PF Arcane Sorcerer because he really shouldn't be able to scribe any scrolls of spells he doesn't have as known spells from my understanding of the rules.
Here's the interesting thing IMO. If the Arcane Sorcerer can scribe scrolls from a spell book or another scroll so should any other spontaneous caster in game who takes the Scribe Scroll feat which opens up the game for a lot of abuse.
There is no comparable Collegiate Sorcerer feat in game. Sorcerers do not get to take Spell Mastery to learn a few more spells known which is a MAD feat based on Intelligence.
Lots of ways in game to be unshackled from a spellbook for a PC who finds it troublesome. Things like a Cloistered Cleric or Archivist/Wizard Mystic Theurge or Psion/Wizard Cerebremancer.
I get tired of the Wizard spell book arguement as that is not the normal standard in most games targeting the wizard's spellbook.
The same for Clerics most DMs do not routinely pick the spells for divine casters like Clerics and Druids or withhold their spellcasting.
Spontaneous casting is nice. Lot of utility for a generalist. Less so at low levels with such limited known spells say L7 with 10 known spells that are not cantrips. Less so at lower levels. Sure one can occassionally shine over a Beguiler without a few scrolls or who doesn't take an Arcane Discipline feat.
Of course in PF all the classes get unlimited cantrips except the Sorcerer the spontaneous caster who now gets 6 instead of 4 like normal at first level.
Wait why does the Wizard cast more cantrips spontaneously better than the sorcerer?
Much better to play a Beguiler than a PF Sorcerer at low to mid levels in most games. A Beguiler - 7 will known 53 useful 1st to 3rd level spells in comparison to the Sorcerer - 7 with 10 known spells not limited to cantrips. Of course the Sorcerers cantrips are slightly better than the Beguiler but cantrips don't usually have a major impact on most games unless the PCs are getting really creative when they are out of other spells.
A Variant Spellcaster can be a better choice depending on the level advancement chosen due to having all spells to choose from and great feats along with picking skills to faciliate a PRC entry or general utility or choosing Intelligence over Charisma in a skill heavy game.
|
I too second the paladin's smite revision. Instead of the 1/day poopy one-shot, a constant "+1d6 against evils" similar to sneak attack would be adequate. Of course, the progression should be slow; possible as slow as the original 3.5 paladin's smite ability (1st, 5th, 10th and so on).
Sorcerer is much more interesting, yes. To cope the negative effects of it, it really should have a regular progression of spell levels. It wouldn't make it all that much better than a wizzie.
And giving a sorcerer some natural attacks feels ... weird, yet I accept it as 'cool'. However, I'm disappointed how the designers didn't look up the "Sorcerer: A proposal" thread throughoutly. It held ideas for sorcerers who were born on some special day or under a shooting star or such. And how in the sake of some divine deity can one have an undead grandpa?!
Druid was a dissapointment. In WotC's PHB2 they made a nifty alternative for the animal companion and wild shape, even though some might say it's a "wowism". Simply make the wild shape not so limited to x/day, x/hour. Egh, maybe someone owning the book might take a look at it. I don't know about them copyright stuffs, so I better be silent.
A druid's power doesn't come from the wild shape, I've noticed. The animal companion can in present day D&D 3.5 become a superior killing machine, no longer needing the druid for more than a few buffs and occasional Empowered Arc Lightning.
I like barbarian, a lot. Despite the added book-keeping, it retains a fresh feel to it. However I'd look more closely to some of the rage powers. Guarded Stance seems awfully overpowered. +10 dodge bonus to AC at 20th level? At that level it actually holds a meaning!
Even though this isn't relevant to Alpha release 2 classes, fighter's Armor Mastery DR should be 10/-. At those late levels monsters tend to hit 4d6+20 damage, and thus a 10/- isn't that superior. It's adequate to make a difference, and not overwhelmingly powerful.
However, I'm disappointed how the designers didn't look up the "Sorcerer: A proposal" thread throughoutly. It held ideas for sorcerers who were born on some special day or under a shooting star or such. And how in the sake of some divine deity can one have an undead grandpa?!
There was the Destined one... that might be OK for your 'born under a lucky star' idea.
Druid: I was expecting a more drastic change. Other than a few minor alterations, it is still a very powerful casting class. It didn't exactly fix the whole 'CoDzilla' thing for me, since it can still pull off almost everything the original druid could.
The druid's Wild Shape has been changed quite a bit; a druid wild shaped into a brown bear is not a whole lot better than a druid with Bull's Strength and Barkskin now.
Try playtesting it; I bet you'll notice a difference.
What is a "Collegiate Wizard?", is this a splat book enhancement I have not heard of?
We are only running core rule books (with the addition of any Pathfinder extras) in the current campaign that doubles as a play test.
We have only seen an increase in power of the weaker classes and so far the first 4 are very balanced. As the group is 7 players, we get to test the sorcerer and the Barbarian as well next. So far I like the changes, although I was slightly surprised that the majority of their first level powers were touch effects, I honestly did not see that coming.
Q. Do Sorcerers get to cast 0 level spells at will as well, in the same way as wizards? I guess so, but it does not say that anywhere.
What is a "Collegiate Wizard?", is this a splat book enhancement I have not heard of?
Q. Do Sorcerers get to cast 0 level spells at will as well, in the same way as wizards? I guess so, but it does not say that anywhere.
Collegiate Wizard is a feat from Complete Arcane which basically doubles the spells a wizard gets for free leveling.
The cantrips were a mistake they are going to fix. Not sure if it will all or just six at first level instead of 4 at first level.
|
|
However, I'm disappointed how the designers didn't look up the "Sorcerer: A proposal" thread throughoutly. It held ideas for sorcerers who were born on some special day or under a shooting star or such. And how in the sake of some divine deity can one have an undead grandpa?!There was the Destined one... that might be OK for your 'born under a lucky star' idea.
Ah, yes, missed that one.
I liked all the new changes to the classes.
Barbarian: It was always a solid class for me and my players. The added new Rage Point abilities are a welcome new variety of abilities to have access to.
Druid: I like the new adjustments to Wild Shape and also the animal companion. The Druid was also a very solid and powerful class. And the changes didn't have to adjust much as it has always been a well executed class.
Paladin: Lots of improvements, I was thoroughly impressed with the ability to choose between a mount and celestial spirit. And also the many different auras are very welcome!
Sorcerors: This is the key enhancement. It's given the Sorcerors a defining difference between Wizard and itself. Giving them access to varying traits and abilities that can keep them from being the same. It also keeps in line that while the Wizard is the arcane master, the Sorceror is as competent and gifted with other different abilities. It's not unlike the Barbarian and Fighter. Both are adept melee combatants. The fighter is more civilized and trained. The Barbarian is raw power.
My only beef with the new classes is the bloodline abilies of the sorceror being based off CON. Compared to the wizard specialist abilities, the sorcerer is much better off since a boost to CON not only improves their abilities, it also gives them better HP and Fort saves. If the wizard increases his CHR to improve his specilist abilities, he doesn't get anything else out of the deal.
I don't know, it just doesn't seem quite balanced IMO.
I couldnt find what weapon and armor proficiencies the barbarian has in the class description.,