Director of Games
|
I know this is probably just me, but I'm actually a bit disappointed with the previews so far. They haven't really revealed anything meaty. Not much as the Core rulebook previews did anyway. Perhaps Jason just spoiled us back then.
As for the new bard I'm not sure if I like it or not.
Big surprise for those of you who know my stand on the bard ;-)
Well, I have been a bit more limited with these previews, to tell the truth, primarily for space concerns. I have only 5 weeks (3 left now) to preview this entire book, where I had three months with the Core Rulebook. As a result, I have had to be a bit more brief to cover more ground. That said, I try to throw in a tasty rules bit here and there, I just can't show off full stat blocks like last time.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
This is the part of the book I'm most interested in (the alternate class feature stuff). Looking forward to buying it. I'm not seeing a spell-less ranger variant yet based on the three previews. Is there one?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 4, Legendary Games
|
Court bard and a normal bard seem like they'd have a very interesting dynamic when working together. One inspiring, the other satiring; one buffing, the other focusing on SoS spells. Throw in a Conjurer or a Summoner and you could have quite a huge shift.At the very least it opens up the possibility of having multiple bards in a party. Currently it's a bit of a waste to have more than one bard in the party because a good percentage of their abilities are redundant.
It's very true. The idea is to keep the base class chassis, but allow you to go some very different directions flavor-wise. A Street Performer bard and an Arcane Duelist bard, for instance, are going to have quite different abilities and specializations, yet both will be easy to work with and understand without having to write up a lot of special-case unique rules for each. Same with a Phalanx Fighter fighter vs. a Free Hand fighter and on down the line.
At 8th level, the court bard replaces dirge of doom with glorious epic, which causes enemies to become flat-footed while the bard is performing.
This gives me the opportunity to trot out one of my long-standing pet peeves:
"Flat-footed" is not the same as "denied Dex bonus to AC", so please be careful when you use the term "flat-footed".
(For example, in Paizo products the "flat-footed AC" listed for rogues and barbarians is often wrong.)
At 8th level, the court bard replaces dirge of doom with glorious epic, which causes enemies to become flat-footed while the bard is performing.This gives me the opportunity to trot out one of my long-standing pet peeves:
"Flat-footed" is not the same as "denied Dex bonus to AC", so please be careful when you use the term "flat-footed".
(For example, in Paizo products the "flat-footed AC" listed for rogues and barbarians is often wrong.)
Hmm, your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Could you elaborate please? Do you just mean that flat-footed is a subset of being denied Dex? Or is it the attack of opportunities thing?
Zo
I'm not seeing a spell-less ranger variant yet based on the three previews. Is there one?According to the preview banquet, one of the ranger options is a spell-less ranger.
Well, in that case I put my bet on the Shapeshifter Ranger. Having a 'limited' (I guess, at least if compared to a Druid) Wild Shape is a great boon for a Full BaB, d10 class. And giving on top of that some spells (like Bear's Endurance, Cat's Grace, Barkskin AND Greater Magic Fang) would be really overkill IMHO.
Or maybe not - IF the Ranger had to renounce to his Favored Enemies and/or his Combat Style feats for that ability.But at the moment, it is one of the few archetypes which could sound 'spell-less' for me.
Well, I have been a bit more limited with these previews, to tell the truth, primarily for space concerns. I have only 5 weeks (3 left now) to preview this entire book, where I had three months with the Core Rulebook. As a result, I have had to be a bit more brief to cover more ground.I know this is probably just me, but I'm actually a bit disappointed with the previews so far. They haven't really revealed anything meaty. Not much as the Core rulebook previews did anyway. Perhaps Jason just spoiled us back then.
As for the new bard I'm not sure if I like it or not.
Big surprise for those of you who know my stand on the bard ;-)
I understand. I didn't expect them to be as extensive as the Core Rulebook previews I just expected some more.
That said, I try to throw in a tasty rules bit here and there, I just can't show off full stat blocks like last time.Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thanks.
Well, in that case I put my bet on the Shapeshifter Ranger.I'm not seeing a spell-less ranger variant yet based on the three previews. Is there one?According to the preview banquet, one of the ranger options is a spell-less ranger.
My guess would be the Skirmisher
Hey there Everybody,
Honestly, I see this being used on the player's side of the screen far more often.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Thanks for the clarification. However, my question may return. :)
The mechanic says, "... before the result of the roll is revealed....".
Could someone describe an example where the player would benefit from re-rolling before he knows the result of the original try?
Actually, now that I think about it, I had the same question on another part of PF. Isn't there a character class perk or a trait with this same feature? Re-roll b4 you know the result.
|
Thanks for the clarification. However, my question may return. :)
The mechanic says, "... before the result of the roll is revealed....".
Could someone describe an example where the player would benefit from re-rolling before he knows the result of the original try?
Actually, now that I think about it, I had the same question on another part of PF. Isn't there a character class perk or a trait with this same feature? Re-roll b4 you know the result.
The key is the definition of 'result'. To me, the result is either a success or a failure, and thus, the re-roll must be requested before the GM declares it to be either.
So if you're fighting an enemy and you know from past rolls that a natural 8 isn't enough to hit, if you roll a 3, you can ask for a reroll before the GM declares the result of the roll.
Thanks for the clarification. However, my question may return. :)
The mechanic says, "... before the result of the roll is revealed....".
Could someone describe an example where the player would benefit from re-rolling before he knows the result of the original try?
Actually, now that I think about it, I had the same question on another part of PF. Isn't there a character class perk or a trait with this same feature? Re-roll b4 you know the result.
Imagine you've been in combat for a few rounds and you go to attack the orc you've been fighting. Make your attack roll. Lets say you roll a 7, and last round you rolled an 8 and missed, so a 7 is gonna miss. So being able to reroll you might still be able to hit this round.
I think you are being a little too spacific with the word "result" by result they mean before the GM tells you if you hit or not, not before you know what the numbers add up to.
Edit: there is actually quite a bit of this machanic in Star Wars SAGA and 4e.
Edit: ninja'd^
"Flat-footed" is not the same as "denied Dex bonus to AC", so please be careful when you use the term "flat-footed".
(For example, in Paizo products the "flat-footed AC" listed for rogues and barbarians is often wrong.)
Hmm, your ideas intrigue me and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Could you elaborate please? Do you just mean that flat-footed is a subset of being denied Dex? Or is it the attack of opportunities thing?
Zo
Attacks of opportunity and uncanny dodge are the main places where "flat-footed" and "denied Dex to AC" differ.
According to the preview banquet, one of the ranger options is a spell-less ranger.
and
This is the part of the book I'm most interested in (the alternate class feature stuff). Looking forward to buying it. I'm not seeing a spell-less ranger variant yet based on the three previews. Is there one?Maybe
>:)
Jason
Hmm…
This is the part of the book I'm most interested in (the alternate class feature stuff). Looking forward to buying it. I'm not seeing a spell-less ranger variant yet based on the three previews. Is there one?Maybe
>:)
Jason
My guess would be at least the skirmisher
My guess would be at least the skirmisherThis is the part of the book I'm most interested in (the alternate class feature stuff). Looking forward to buying it. I'm not seeing a spell-less ranger variant yet based on the three previews. Is there one?Maybe
>:)
Jason
I could be totally off, but it might be one of the new combat styles and not tied to one of the listed archetypes.
|
Umm Celestial, abyssal, fiendish... maybe not specific races but proteans aren't really a single race either.I find this interesting, as proteans are snaky, anyway. And they seem to be the only other outsider race that get one, while the order-loving creeps or daemons don't. I guess it makes sense for the lawfuls, they're all so right and proper about anything, they want to keep the races segregated.Protean Bloodline, Serpentine Bloodline
I think what KaeYoss meant was that Protean is the only new race based one.
On spell-less ranger, I suspect that several of these will replace the spells, to give more options for people who want to drop the spells
|
I think what KaeYoss meant was that Protean is the only new race based one.Umm Celestial, abyssal, fiendish... maybe not specific races but proteans aren't really a single race either.I find this interesting, as proteans are snaky, anyway. And they seem to be the only other outsider race that get one, while the order-loving creeps or daemons don't. I guess it makes sense for the lawfuls, they're all so right and proper about anything, they want to keep the races segregated.Protean Bloodline, Serpentine Bloodline
Ah, that makes sense. IMO the lawful alignments got left out because they are boring but maybe it's because they figure the lawful magic people will all be wizards.
Hmm, interesting. I guess I'll know more when I get this book.
One question, however.
I was hoping for some SOLO alternate class features. As in you switch one feature for another. What I see here are "packages", meaning if you take the package, you must take everything with it. You can't cherry pick. Which is not what I hoped to see originally.
Are there SOLO alternate features to choose from? For example, the Monk of the Four Winds sounds as if it's a solo feature replacement.
If not, would it be bad to simply pick one or two features from one "package", and some from another, etc., without needing to take everything a "package" offers?
It looks like you can use more than one archetype at a time. As long as they don't replace or alter the same abilities you could have as many as you want. That's unexpected and pretty cool.
this is looking great i really wasnt expecting so many variants on the core classes. i was really expecting the advanced player classes to be the main talk of the table, these may actually turn out to be more popular.
It looks like you can use more than one archetype at a time. As long as they don't replace or alter the same abilities you could have as many as you want. That's unexpected and pretty cool.
As a GM, I would probably allow 'substituting substitutions' on a case by case basis. For example, BlahKit 1 replaces Rogue Sneak Attack with a Skirmish like ability, and replaces the rogue tricks with enhanced movement. BlahKit 2 replaces Sneak Attack with the ability to cast limited spells. I'd allow BlahKit 1 to be applied, and then BlahKit 2 applied to replace the Skirmish with casting limited spells. That would get you a sneaky, stealthy, high skill rogue with rapid movement and some spell ability (kind of a hyperactive beguiler). ;)
Court Bard does seem to be a rather close translation of the Jester from Dragon Compendium as an archetype for the Bard. It also seems well overpowered. For Satire... there's a good reason why Bane has a save and Bless does not - reducing masses of enemies attacks against the PCs results in even more indestructible parties when challenged by anything except very strong opponents. And mass flat-footedness? Any court bard should have a Lunge-ing, Whirlwind Attack-ing rogue around.
Thank you for the arctic druid . . . just thank you.
I was hoping for some SOLO alternate class features. As in you switch one feature for another. What I see here are "packages", meaning if you take the package, you must take everything with it. You can't cherry pick.
... because being able to cherry-pick your class features is ripe for abuse. Not gonna happen at this time, sorry.
I'm really eager to see the new Monk archetypes, specifically the Ki Mystic and the Weapon Adept, hopefully something that makes Monk weapons more appealing to use.
I was hoping for some SOLO alternate class features. As in you switch one feature for another. What I see here are "packages", meaning if you take the package, you must take everything with it. You can't cherry pick.... because being able to cherry-pick your class features is ripe for abuse. Not gonna happen at this time, sorry.
Thank you. No offense to those who like that style, but that is what I loathe about other versions of alternate class abilities.
Court Bard does seem to be a rather close translation of the Jester from Dragon Compendium as an archetype for the Bard. It also seems well overpowered. For Satire... there's a good reason why Bane has a save and Bless does not - reducing masses of enemies attacks against the PCs results in even more indestructible parties when challenged by anything except very strong opponents.
Clerics have lots of things to do, even at first level. Bards have bardic performance, and that's basically it. Satire certainly seems to be better than bane... but then, inspire courage is better than bless too. I'm not saying it's not overpowered, because I haven't actually thought through the numbers here, but it's not obviously too much either.
I'm a bit disappointed that the APG classes aren't represented in the archetypes.
EDIT: To be clear, it's a mild disappointment. I would have liked to see archetypes for them, but I still really like most of the classes (I could take or leave the alchemist) and intend to buy the book. Just an "I wish" instead of a "OMG how could you".
This preview is just for the 11 classes from the Core book. That doesn't mean there isn't similar materiel for the new base classes in the APG. If there's not, it probably has to do with their being more focused, but you never know (at least until it comes out).
I was hoping for some SOLO alternate class features. As in you switch one feature for another. What I see here are "packages", meaning if you take the package, you must take everything with it. You can't cherry pick.... because being able to cherry-pick your class features is ripe for abuse. Not gonna happen at this time, sorry.
It didn't seem abusive at all in 3.5e in the WotC books at all.
In fact, it was necessary for those that multiclassed and received similar abilities in other classes, or was stuck with a class feature that was only useful if it improved at higher level. Which wasn't going to be useful at all at higher levels since, well, you're multiclassing.
Prime example, a Monk/Rogue has evasion in both classes. It was necessary to take an alternate class feature (from either class) to swap for Evasion, since there's that one class level you just grabbed that didn't really give you anything at all.
I guess, yet, another APG house rule of mine. I am going to allow cherry picking. You are sacrificing the original class feature, I don't see the abuse. It's no different than combing through spells and feats for some sort of "abusive play".
This looks great. I'm glad that paizo has deemphasized prestige classes in favor of alternate class features.
And I'm glad that the rules assume that dms make attack rolls in the open. They should be doing so anyway!
:-)
Ken
Some DMs do need to fudge (I'm one of them) so that's no good for me. I have problems finding the right balance for a challenging encounter, so I tend to either end up with a real easy encounter or a real hard one for my players. No matter what I tweak, it always jumps to one extreme or the other. So there have been times where I had to fudge to keep things balanced.
Hmm, has the templar disappeared? It was going to be the non-LG, non-CE paladin - which is to say, a NG, CG, LN, N, CN, LE, or NE paladin. If it's gone, I won't much miss it - it rather waters down the paladin class.
I think they named them... or they varied more than one variety could contain... cribbed froma post on page 1 of this thread. vagrant-poet definitely has better eyes than me:
Paladin: Divine Defender, Hospitaler, Sacred Servant, Shining Knight, Undead Scourge, Warrior of the Holy Light OR Antipaladin
And I'm glad that the rules assume that dms make attack rolls in the open. They should be doing so anyway!:-)
Ken
Depends on whether your players trust you. I don't like giving away information that players shouldn't necessarily have. Say if I roll a "18" and miss, then they are all over the NPCs level etc. It's not that big a deal, but I don't see any desperate need to change. They might realize that the NPC is not as good as them, I prefer they not "quantify it". Imo, it takes away from the game.
Hmm, has the templar disappeared? It was going to be the non-LG, non-CE paladin - which is to say, a NG, CG, LN, N, CN, LE, or NE paladin. If it's gone, I won't much miss it - it rather waters down the paladin class.
It's been said elsewhere that Jason couldn't find a way to build it that made it something other than just another fighter. Frankly, the cavalier seems well suited to that role anyway - an order of the star or order of the dragon cavalier would be pretty much perfect for "sworn warrior in the service of this god/ethical ideal" concepts as written...
I take it this would be a situation where one would need to "Abandon Ones Tears" while they attempt to wait patiently for its release?
The use of Archetypes in this way makes me really wonder why the Cavalier couldn't have just been a bundle of Fighter option archetypes. Yes, there's a bit more to the Cavalier as a class, but the core concept of it could easily have been converted into alternate class features. *shrug*
I kind of wish there'd been a wizard archetype for item craftsman types. Of all the spellcasters, that class seems like it'd be the most appropriate to have that archetype included.
Just had a thought about subdomains: will the deities' domain portfolios be getting expanded at all from this change? For instance, "Fate" is a subdomain of "Luck" - but Pharasma, the goddess of fate, doesn't have the Luck domain, and so her clerics cannot currently gain access to the Fate domain. Is this gonna change in the APG, or elsewhere?
I was hoping for some SOLO alternate class features. As in you switch one feature for another. What I see here are "packages", meaning if you take the package, you must take everything with it. You can't cherry pick.... because being able to cherry-pick your class features is ripe for abuse. Not gonna happen at this time, sorry.
And you can always house rule that if you wanna power game
Just had a thought about subdomains: will the deities' domain portfolios be getting expanded at all from this change? For instance, "Fate" is a subdomain of "Luck" - but Pharasma, the goddess of fate, doesn't have the Luck domain, and so her clerics cannot currently gain access to the Fate domain. is this gonna change in the PHB, or elsewhere?
Good question.
Also, why is Fate a subdomain of Luck? They're opposites. Fate implies that whatever is going to happen is going to happen, period. It's fated. Nothing you can do will change that. Luck implies just the opposite, that events are not set and can randomly change.
Thank you. No offense to those who like that style, but that is what I loathe about other versions of alternate class abilities.I was hoping for some SOLO alternate class features. As in you switch one feature for another. What I see here are "packages", meaning if you take the package, you must take everything with it. You can't cherry pick.... because being able to cherry-pick your class features is ripe for abuse. Not gonna happen at this time, sorry.
Dito... very much in agreement.
Dito... very much in agreement.Thank you. No offense to those who like that style, but that is what I loathe about other versions of alternate class abilities.I was hoping for some SOLO alternate class features. As in you switch one feature for another. What I see here are "packages", meaning if you take the package, you must take everything with it. You can't cherry pick.... because being able to cherry-pick your class features is ripe for abuse. Not gonna happen at this time, sorry.
Why is it that you people assume that any option that allows customization is "ripe for abuse?" Some of us just want the ability to create our character concept without taking 5 classes and three prestige classes. Cherry picking would help with that.
Don't get me wrong, I like the packages, but at the same time, I don't see how individual class features would be "ripe for abuse" as long as said features themselves weren't broken. It really irks me that designers always assume someone is trying to break the game. >.<
Personally I really, really hope the alternate alignment paladin's are in the book. They're a bit of a selling point for me (I'd get it anyway, but I'd be a bit sore about it... LG locked Paladin's are my #1 pet peeve and first and longest lasting pet peeve... Why a Paladin shouldn't follow the alignment of their god is beyond me, and why there isn't a code specific to each god (wouldn't that be a PRIME use of a gods and magic book?) will NEVER make any sense to me.
I just hope to avoid EVER reading anything like the LG paladin of Asmodeus crazy from the Council of Thieves books. I mean it was a good try and all, but it was just too much for me to swallow.
It really irks me that designers always assume someone is trying to break the game. >.<One bad apple spoils the bunch!
Apparently so. Because obviously, choices like that would wreck all games everywhere. Seeing as the majority of players are munchkins...