|
From what I know now from the blurbs on the blog:
Alchemist - D
Cavalier - C
Oracle - A
Summoner - D
Unnamed classes - ?
I won't give any class a failing grade until I see the final product but where the Alchemist and Summoner may have a neat mechanical niche, they don't exactly strike me as base classes.
In fact, the Alchemist seems like a very weak Artificer that will get a lot of power by simply jimmying a lot power into the class unrealistically. Where are all of these self-using self-buffing potions effects coming from - a cleric list, a wizard list or all new effects? If they can be used by others it seems like it will be adding a whole new array of effects that really have never really existed in D&D. One day lifetime and timed to disenchant themselves potions? If the class is basically a wizard with craft potion feat, it does not work on its own. I think some form of "Artificer" would be better. Give them the ability to specialize in potion making or wand making or weapon and armor making or construct making, much more versatile conceptually.
The summoner is kind of a neat mechanical niche but couldn't this class be a PrC, it just really feels like one to me. Wizard with a powerful pet, why can't this simply be a wizard who specializes in this bent of magic (PrC)?
The Cavalier seems to be stealing some of the niche of the bard. The bard should/could have filled these mechanical shoes very easily and very well. The Cavalier could focus more on being a "knight" but then it would be stealing from the fighter. Given the choice I suppose it is better to steal from the bard. But even still, this also could have been a PrC very easily that either a bard or a fighter could get into. Either way I am sure it will be an interesting enough class, though it will steal thunder from the bard or fighter or both.
The Oracle is an excellent option and I really like this one conceptually as well as the suggested mechanics. I think this could simply replace the cleric all together if done right. If done wrong it will be a little used class next to the ultimately useful and powerful cleric.
The two unnamed classes I really hope will be the psion and some iteration or merging of the psychic warrior/soulknife.
One final thought, I think that Jason and the rest of the developers should really consider what they want from classes they create post core. As I see it there are two possible directions to go (and a small amount of gray area between), develop classes that have a really small niche and application (like summoner and alchemist) or ones with very broad niches and application (like that of the oracle). I believe one will create glut and the other will create game versatility.
Alchemist - when I think of myself playing an adventuring hero, a potion-popping alchemist doesn't really come to mind. I really don't think this class is necessary -- but perhaps Paizo might wow me?
Cavalier - this sounds like 4E's Marshall. It could fill its own unique niche but the fear of stepping on the bard's toes is valid. On the plus side, I doubt many people will be playing bards after their nerf'ing, so this might be a good alternative :) I am hoping that it will be a combination of 3.5e's Cavalier and Knight classes.
Oracle - I concur, this sounds great.
Summoner - I'm not really sure this class was needed either, other than as a PrC. It sounds like to me that someone liked playing their World of Warcraft Warlock so much, that they wanted to make one for Pathfinder. Will they be able to summon Void Demons? :)
|
In one of my homebrew campaigns, the Ardenian Empire (a bad guy place for the most part, at war with everyone) was supported by Alchemists. I made them spellcasters with evocation/conjuration spells only, and a need to use alchemical equipment (10 gp per level per day) when they prepared their spells. The idea wasn't a perfect one, but it seemed to work for the campaign. Usually Alchemists ran out of money before they ran out of spells. :P
I'm definitely interested in seeing the Alchemist base class. I think it would fit in the slot there in the Ardenian Empire.
|
Alchemist - I have been tinkering with alchemists classes for ages, trying to perfect concept so I am very happy to see Paizo doing just that. The Alchemist is the Batman of fantasy adventuring, the tinkerer, or the Dr. Jekyll that has been so seriously lacking . This class more than any other I am most excited about.
Cavalier - I am very interested to see what they do. But honestly this is the least needed class that I see so far. So, they are taking and smashing together the Bard, Paladin and Ranger? Seems to me between proper class choices and feat selections you should already be able to fill this niche.
Oracle - A spontaneous divine caster. About darn time.
Summoner - This is fantastic. Maybe a reason to play an arcane caster for once. I find the Sorcerer/Wizard classes to be rather boring so maybe the Summoner will bring some excitement back to the lame arcane classes.
As for the other classes... I am HOPING for an Elementalist, a standard of fantasy literature that is nearly impossible to recreate using the core classes.
|
|
As for the other classes... I am HOPING for an Elementalist, a standard of fantasy literature that is nearly impossible to recreate using the core classes.
Already exists, Elemental Sorcerer.
Cavalier - I am very interested to see what they do. But honestly this is the least needed class that I see so far. So, they are taking and smashing together the Bard, Paladin and Ranger? Seems to me between proper class choices and feat selections you should already be able to fill this niche.
Could the same be said though of the Bard being a mash=up of other core classes though?
I dunno, to me, the Cavalier seems pretty cool. A warrior type who focuses on battlefield control and direct support of allies. If his abilities focus on negating opponents bonuses (like say negating DR, natural armor bonuses, maybe immunities to certain things) and aiding direct combat of an ally (abilities making flanking easier for rogues, or maybe shielding the squishy members from damage, and so on) while still being able to output damage, I don't see them stepping on any classes toes.
As for the Alchemist, I dunno...the descriptions sufficiently vague I want to keep an open mind.
The Summoner...well, his first words say it...the name doesn't fit what they are looking for. It sounds like they are going for a class focused around combat with a pet...not just soemthing you summon and discard, but like an animial companion on steroids that you have more flexibility in customizing. I know this is going to sound lame....but almost like a pokemon trainer...
And the oracle...just sounds full of win lol. A character who gets divine spells based on embodying a concept just sounds....fun.
And for the other two classes...in a post he made (to lazy to link it...look it up) he hinted at one being a 20 level version of blackguard...
Alchemist: seems good for low magic settings, but when put in play with Wizards and Clerics, they seem lacking. Artificer is much closer to their level the Alchemist.
Oracle: If it's better then Favored Soul, I'll be happy.
Cavalier: I suppose it'll be alright if it's similar to the PHB 2 (3.5). From what I remember most of their powers revolved around getting up in somethings face and causing them problems and causing them penalties that way.
Summoner: Gotta agree that it seems like a poor choice. Guess we'll see...
I hope that the Oracle is more focused on spellcasting, and not as melee capable as clerics and favored souls. It doesn't make sense to me that every divine caster is proficient with weapons and armor, why wouldn't some be "squishy" like wizards and sorcerors.
|
|
I hope that the Oracle is more focused on spellcasting, and not as melee capable as clerics and favored souls. It doesn't make sense to me that every divine caster is proficient with weapons and armor, why wouldn't some be "squishy" like wizards and sorcerors.
Makes sense to me. I would be into a more class feature driven concept. One that gets more powers based on their domain. Wow, that is so flavorful I can almost taste it!
|
The Alchemist sounds almost like it could be a Transmuter/Gish concept, a weedy guy who uses alchemy to transform himself into a combat brute (similar to the 'Sorcerer/Dragon Disciple permanantly polymorphed into a War Troll' cheese that wafts from the CharOp forums from time to time).
If so, it's a niche that tends to get played often anyway (sub-optimal wannabe fighter using polymorph/wild shape/transmutation to 'catch up'), and is a damn sight more original in Jekyll and Hyde flavor than 'Wizard turns himself into a war troll every morning.'
With Golarion having a demon lord of alchemy and change in Haagenti, it's also possibly tied into the flavor of the setting (with the possible evil genius side-effects of 'bad mixes' perhaps stemming from the inherently chaotic and evil nature of Haagenti's gifts). With this in mind, the mad cackling alchemist sounds perfect for the sort of person one might find in an isolated tower in Ustalav.
I already posted initial impressions in the other thread on this book, but had a few new thoughts.
1) Oracle remains a great concept but poor title for this class. My suggestion, YMMV: "Channeler".
2) As 1 of the 2 unnamed classes has been intimated to be the new Blackguard (or Anti-Paladin if they go old school w/ it), I'm really hoping they use this opportunity to blow open the whole concept of Paladins in general.
To me, the Paladin is just one example of what a "Holy Warrior" could be, and why should only LG gods get to have such a champion (or CE gods get the obvious counterpart)? I put this thought aside until some years ago when, in Dragon #310 & #312, articles were written to explore all 6 good & evil alignments. Essentially, Paladin & Blackguard were given equivalent classes for the other 4 alignments.
I put that thought aside for a future homebrew adjustment until just this past year. I then took the idea one step further. Really what D&D needs is a base martial/divine class that can encompass not only all alignments, but even basic domain-like concepts (e.g., war; strength; balance; etc.)
New idea and suggestion for this 5th class: (Divine) Champion (I know Paizo likes the 1-word titles...). Why limit yourself to the Blackguard as a base class when you can expand out the idea behind Paladins & Blackguards to include everything I mentioned above? The versatility would be fantastic, and no longer would the default divine champions of yore be limited to the Arthurian hero/anti-hero. Why can't other gods have their own divine champions w/ completely different paradigms? Try imagining a divine champion for a god of magic, for example? To the horror of many on these boards who complained about clerics losing Heavy Armor proficiency, such a divine champion might look very different from a heavily armored paladin, even if the alignment was still LG.
You get the idea.
|
I'd just like to toss out there that "alchemist" can mean more than potion-popper.
Originally the term "alchemy" was applied to the on-going quest for artifacts of knowledge (e.g. the philosopher's stone, the universal solvent, the panacea ). Certain works of fiction turned the concept of the alchemist into the scholarly adventurer (e.g. Nicolas Flamel, Roger Bacon). And modernized concepts of alchemy finds its way into many other similar fictions (Lara Croft, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, even Star Wars) and these alchemists share many of the same traits/goals/devices as scientists of the pulp genre.
Given the above and the hints from the blog, transmutation will be a big part of the alchemist - both the literal "turn this thing into something else" power and the more conceptual "+X to whatever" power. I suspect that actual physical creation of things (potions, alchemical items) will have a (mostly) temporary duration (probably measured in hours or days).
But for me it's not whether or not the alchemist is a artificer knock-off or a juice bar of abilities, it's about the fiction and flavor they associate with the alchemist. Dr. Jekyll (good choice!), Frankenstein, the works of Poe, Lovecraft, and Miéville. If that is their source material, I'm all about this new base class.
|
|
I'd just like to toss out there that "alchemist" can mean more than potion-popper.
Originally the term "alchemy" was applied to the on-going quest for artifacts of knowledge (e.g. the philosopher's stone, the universal solvent, the panacea ). Certain works of fiction turned the concept of the alchemist into the scholarly adventurer (e.g. Nicolas Flamel, Roger Bacon). And modernized concepts of alchemy finds its way into many other similar fictions (Lara Croft, Indiana Jones, Harry Potter, even Star Wars) and these alchemists share many of the same traits/goals/devices as scientists of the pulp genre.
Given the above and the hints from the blog, transmutation will be a big part of the alchemist - both the literal "turn this thing into something else" power and the more conceptual "+X to whatever" power. I suspect that actual physical creation of things (potions, alchemical items) will have a (mostly) temporary duration (probably measured in hours or days).
But for me it's not whether or not the alchemist is a artificer knock-off or a juice bar of abilities, it's about the fiction and flavor they associate with the alchemist. Dr. Jekyll (good choice!), Frankenstein, the works of Poe, Lovecraft, and Miéville. If that is their source material, I'm all about this new base class.
+1 Tom B. Well stated.
There is something very spiritual about alchemy. And, on many levels the idea of purification of lead into gold and alchemical work in general is often a metaphor for the "hero's quest" which is, the very Golem's heart of our game. Yes?
EDIT: I like the base class concepts put forth.
Jung wrote extensively on alchemy, and is a great source of ideas.
I suspect the Alchemist will be mechanically similar to the Binder from "Tome of Magic." He'll drink elixirs instead of binding vestiges, but he will still get a suite of powers that he can change every day, making him highly versatile.
I also think the alchemist might be a good candidate for a skill monkey (6 or 8 skill ranks/level) that doesn't step on the rogue's toes.
Even in today's popular culture there's more to alchemy than potion popping. Fullmetal Alchemist, for example.
I'm also interested to see how Paizo implements the Summoner (it's an archetype that I've always wanted to play but has never had real rules support).
Oracle is, indeed, badly named. That word has way too much baggage and is being used in an entirely new fashion. The class itself sounds interesting, but it seriously needs to be re-named.
Even in today's popular culture there's more to alchemy than potion popping. Fullmetal Alchemist, for example.
I'm also interested to see how Paizo implements the Summoner (it's an archetype that I've always wanted to play but has never had real rules support).
Oracle is, indeed, badly named. That word has way too much baggage and is being used in an entirely new fashion. The class itself sounds interesting, but it seriously needs to be re-named.
I think the Oracle should be called the Aspect, since they're essentially the aspects of the different domains: Aspect of Strength, Aspect of Fire, Aspect of Healing, Aspect of Death, etc. etc.
Also, I'm gettin' the feelin' the "Summoner" ain't gonna be summonin'. Sounds like she gets herself a permanent pet, be it a guardian angel, bound demon, Cthuluesque familiar, magical beast friend, cobbled-together clock-work companion, or stitched-together animated corpse.
|
|
Also, I'm gettin' the feelin' the "Summoner" ain't gonna be summonin'. Sounds like she gets herself a permanent pet, be it a guardian angel, bound demon, Cthuluesque familiar, magical beast friend, cobbled-together clock-work companion, or stitched-together animated corpse.
I'm not so sure it'll be truly permanent. Not at first, anyway. If it's significantly more powerful than a Druid's animal companion, it can't be a permanent pet without some other significant tradeoff -- and we already know they're full arcane casters, just "a bit more limited than the sorcerer", so probably spontaneous with very few spells known or lower spells per day. I suspect it'll be a time-limited thing. So many minutes per day. Possibly like Druid shapeshifting, with scaling uses/day and time/use so that it eventually becomes permanent.
I think, based of the description, the Oracle might be better termed a Paragon, as they are supposed to explemplify a certain trait, kinda like Hercules as mentioned.
As for the summoner...I gathered that their spellcasting would be mainly focused on their pet, aither augmenting it, aiding it in combat, or keeping it up and running. And the pet itself...meh, he did describe it as an arcane animal companion, so they might do the same thing they did with animal companions, with class features gained as you level augmenting its abilities (which is what the description seemed to imply.)
Why is everyone so down on Oracle?
I am 100% fine with that as the name of this class. It's certainly better than most of the latter-day 3.5 classes.
I think it will be safe to say that the "oracle" name will probably be changed in the playtesting.
By the sounds, Summoner seems to be like the character in the PS2 game of the same name. You got a number of Monsters you could summon with different powers that basically became party members. While it was a fun game, I don't think its good for a class.
These seem like reasonably good classes to me, especially the Oracle and Summoner.
Summoner and alchemist could potentially be villain GOLD.
These seem like reasonably good classes to me, especially the Oracle and Summoner.
Summoner and alchemist could potentially be villain GOLD.
Especially if the alchemist starts dosing the water to make alchemical freaks against their will....
|
|
These seem like reasonably good classes to me, especially the Oracle and Summoner.
Summoner and alchemist could potentially be villain GOLD.
Especially if the alchemist starts dosing the water to make alchemical freaks against their will....
Their pitiful lives will prove useful to that alchemist and his ongoing studies on how such concoctions effect humanoid forms. It is terribly unlikely that anything they would have done would have been more significant than what I- I mean, than what the alchemist would learn.
|
Say, did I just hear someone say Cavalier? :)
At long last my fave class is back!
However it turns out, i'm gonna just be glad to see them as a class again. Always thought Taldor should be Cavalier central. LOL
Now excuse me while I go act like a total estatic spaz for the next hour or so over the return of a fave class.
|
I'm most excited about the Oracle, and agree with the need to rename it. Aspect and Paragon are both excellent options. Since Aspect is already used for appearances of a deity on the material plane, I'm voting for Paragon.
I thought Aspects were introduced by WotC in thier Miniatures Handbook, and thus are closed content? Therefore, if we're not likely to see "Aspects" as a creature-type physical manifestation of a deity on the material plane, then I can't think of a better use of the term "Aspect" to describe the physical embodiment of the virtues of a god on the material plane in the form of a PC class.
Summoner and alchemist could potentially be villain GOLD.
Thats exactly what I said. The Summoner in particular
Alchemist has a lot of potential as a creepy villain, like a Jekyll-&-Hyde mentioned above, a stereotypical mad transmuter, or a Lovecraftian fleshwarper.
Oracle could potentially be a great friendly NPC.
Cavalier looks like it is the one with mostly PC applications.
Oracle could potentially be a great friendly NPC.
Cavalier looks like it is the one with mostly PC applications.
I disagree with that. I think the Oracle has great PC potential. An oracle of say weather or fire would be almost super-heroish in style
IMHO I don’t like PrCs because a lot of times the character doesn’t get to level high enough to do anything cool either cause the DM does very slow progression and doesn’t like to get high level play or the game doesn’t last long enough.
Alchemist – (A) if it play out more like a polymorph/wild shape/transmutation guy it sounds great and I cat wait to see it. On the other had it he is going to be more of a special crafter I would like to see an artificer created.
Cavalier – (C) I’m hoping this is going to work out something like the dnd 4e warlord.
Oracle – (C) sounds interesting but I kind of want to see how its going to come out and be different than the divine classes that are available now.
Summoner – (A) can’t wait for this one, from my interpretation of the description its going to be more like a creature handler/beast lord type of class that focuses on the player controlling a monster of somekind.
Always wanted to make a Halfling with a troll pet
Who run Bartertown? Who... run... Bartertown?
...You know who.
Say.
Master Blaster.
Say loud!
Master Blaster.
Louder!
Master Blaster runs Bartertown!
Already exists, Elemental Sorcerer.
As for the other classes... I am HOPING for an Elementalist, a standard of fantasy literature that is nearly impossible to recreate using the core classes.
That's the "weird energy-people from another dimension" sorcerer. The elemental theme is a little weak, at least by genre standards.
In literature, even the concept of "an elemental" tends to refer to an intelligent force of nature (sentient fires or vengeful thunderstorms) rather than a faceless humanoid who's immune to critical hits.
When someone says they want an elementalist, I assume they want a water-mage who can actually do stuff to water, rather than having a few ice powers and then summoning faceless humanoids who are immune to critical hits. =p
no need to repeat myself...This is basically what Monte Cook did for the "Champion" class in his Arcana Unearthed book. You could be a Champion of Magic, Light, Dark, Strength, etc. It was really customizable - people created all sorts of champion ideas. I really do like that concept, but I kind of feel like it waters down the core Paladin a lot. The Paladin, as it exists now, is such an iconic lawful good hero... you really can't get much closer to the "shining knight" examples from Arthurian fantasy.
I guess it all depends on what kind of campaign you want to run.
Monte's "Champion" is exactly what I'm talking about (I have AE). I just think that it could be rebuilt so that the Paladin is ONE way to build the concept, but not the only way. For those who love Paladins, they lose nothing; for those who like the overall concept of a Divine Champion but want it more customizable, we win too! So win-win ;0
If you're looking for more inspiration, you should also check out The Book of Righteous Might by Green Ronin, which has a customizable "Holy Warrior" class that, like the champion, takes on different aspects of its god's domains - so, you can be a Holy Warrior who follows follows the Dwarven God of Creation and choose two domains from Earth, Guardian, and/or Creation. The domains grant level-based powers that replace the standard paladin powers (if you wanted to create a standard paladin using this book, you would have your holy warrior pick the guardian and champion domains). The only thing is that it's the older 3.0 rules, so it would take a little more tinkering to convert it to Pathfinder.
There is also a "Paladin" class in the Spirosblaak Campaign Setting (also from Green Ronin) that divides paladins into Good, Neutral, and Evil classes, and gives them different powers and spell lists based on their ethical alignment (but there are no mechanical differences between a Lawful Evil paladin and a Chaotic Evil paladin). This one was based on 3.5, so it'd be a lot easier to update it to Pathfinder.
I have both of these products, but haven't devoted time to looking through them. If I end up doing my own homebrew class, I will certainly incorporate them. Thanks!
As for the classes in the upcoming Pathfinder book, I think I'd rather that Paizo focus on creating entirely new classes versus just "here's a whole bunch of non-LG paladins." I can pretty much do that myself. I'd really prefer totally new concepts and mechanics for classes. That's why I'm really excited about the Alchemist class.
Well, I'm not good at crunch, so the "do it myself" is not my preferred option. But if I have to, I certainly will. Thanks for all your comments.
|
|
Monte's "Champion" is exactly what I'm talking about (I have AE).
The Holy Warrior from the Book of Righteous Might (and Unholy Warrior from the Unholy Warrior Handbook, also by Green Ronin) is *perfect* for this sort of thing, as it can be used to make a 3.5 Paladin right out of the box. Convert the 'paladin' version of the Holy Warrior up to Pathfinder standards, and you should be able to reverse-engineer the other options as necessary to make *dozens* of customizable Holy (or Unholy) Warriors.
I love Monte's stuff dearly, but his Champion is, IMO, weak, even by 3.5 standards. He seems to have a much better feel for innovative spellcasting classes, such as his Magister and Witch, while his warrior-classes, the Champion and Totem-Warrior felt sub-par ('though fascinating!).
The champion and the totem warrior were balanced against the 3.0 fighter. Which is to say, weak-sauce. I don't know if I would use the term "sub-par", though; I guess that depends on what "par" is.
The warmain and unfettered were theoretically balanced against the fighter, but in actuality both were slightly better (and remarkably balanced against eachother, I might add).
Monte's "Champion" is exactly what I'm talking about (I have AE).The Holy Warrior from the Book of Righteous Might (and Unholy Warrior from the Unholy Warrior Handbook, also by Green Ronin) is *perfect* for this sort of thing, as it can be used to make a 3.5 Paladin right out of the box. Convert the 'paladin' version of the Holy Warrior up to Pathfinder standards, and you should be able to reverse-engineer the other options as necessary to make *dozens* of customizable Holy (or Unholy) Warriors.
I love Monte's stuff dearly, but his Champion is, IMO, weak, even by 3.5 standards. He seems to have a much better feel for innovative spellcasting classes, such as his Magister and Witch, while his warrior-classes, the Champion and Totem-Warrior felt sub-par ('though fascinating!).
Excellent. I'm horrible at comparing and balancing classes, so you and Hydro are very helpful here w/ points of reference. I'll be all over the GR Holy Warrior if I need to do this for PF; though I'm still hoping Paizo does it for me (cue Carly Simon's "Noooooooobody does...it better...") ;-)
What was your cause? Was it light or freedom?
The causes weren't very well balanced against eachother; for instance, the champ of life gets +2 vs anyone trying to take a life (happens all the time) as a low-level ability, while freedom gets +1 verses anyone trying to enslave another (happens much less often) as a high-level ability.
That said, every party is different, and you could well have been significantly weaker than the rest of the group no matter what kind of champion you were. Most champions suffer from a lack of synergy; few of their powers do anything to make them better warriors.
I don't know...personally I'm the MOST excited for a Summoner.
Now granted I'm a Final Fantasy geek, but I've never felt that summoning magic was handled correctly in ANY iteration of D and D. I started playing wayyyyyy back and it always just seems to muck up the game hideously. The choices are kind of lame, and even with augment summoning you're not doing that great as a specialist summoner unless your sending HORDES at the enemy... and who wants to keep track of 3-12 summoned monsters every battle? I think that time management is really key to a succesful campaign, and sometimes that means moving combat along faster, something a summoner can't do.
I think that the summoner, which is one of Fantasy's most enduring archetypes, really deserves a little face time in D and D. I'm thinking something like Elric of Melniborne?
Also, I'd much rather see more base classes then a million prestige classes. I like seeing the lvl 20 rewards for NOT multiclassing. I think it adds more flavor when you have to go with a character concept and discourages min/maxing a bit.