Is anyone else disappointed in the APG?
I bought the APG a while back from my FLGS, and I just finished reading it. I have to stress that I don't think this is a bad book. It is worth the $40 price tag. The thing is, I expected a supplement that, with only minor house-rules, I could hand to my players and say "everything is in!" I really thought Paizo could pull that off. I'm a huge fan, and love everything else that I've bought. I especially like the new PF RPG rules.
I think the book went over-the-top and into the realm of goofiness in quite a few places. At issue for me are the following:
- magic abilities granted to martial classes
- over-the top physical acts in a single combat round
- abilities that exploit mechanics for mechanics' sake
- weird mechanics such as odd limitations, unecessary calculations, etc.
The worst part is that these annoyances are scattered throughout an otherwise wonderful book. If it were limited to a section or two, I could trim them easily with a house rule. Yes, I know I can (and will) Rule-0 the stuff in on a case by case basis. I had hoped that, for once, I wouldn't need to.
I am avoiding examples because I have a feeling we'll end up arguing over a specific example, and I would prefer a general discussion. What I really want to know is... Does anyone else feel this way?
|
The price for a book that size, is sadly the norm. I would love for them to be cheaper but that is pretty much where they start in price and go up. Add in the great high quality art and the price really isn't that bad.
As for the rest, nope I am pretty happy with APG. Is there a few things I didn't like and won't use? Sure but their always is. I will end up using the majority of the book as is or with only minor tweaks. So for me that makes it a good book.
I am sure some others will agree with you though.
The book is largely fantastic (hahaha yeah intended). The new base classes are awesome. Though I can't seem to force any sort of interest in the Cavalier. Oracles, Alchemists, Inquisitors, Witches.....so cool.
Summoners are overpowered (IMHO), and I'm playing in a game that just bans them because everyone at our table agrees.
The alternate class features are so much better than simply scads of poorly balanced PrCs. The alternate racial favored class stuff is mad cool, too.
I'm not even sure what you refer to as the things you dislike.
Nope, pretty much everything I've used from it has worked out great for me. I don't like the Summoner class, but that's just a personal preference and not because of anything about the class itself, and I love the archetypes. Now instead of trying to convert a number of 3.5e classes and worry about if I'm balancing them right I can just point my players at the closest archetype instead. I'm sure eventually something will pop up that I'm not 100% happy with in play but so far that hasn't happened.
I like pretty much the whole book, except the summoner. I hate the way they finally implemented it. It's got two thousand exceptions, nothing works the way it does for anything else, and the whole concept of a life-long companion got smashed into the dirt with the stupid 'goes away if you lose consciousness, or just go to sleep' rule.
Other than that, I really like it. I just rewrote the class for my own games is all.
Now, there are things I'm less than thrilled with (inquisitor and alchemist) but they aren't useless, just not my thing.
Yes and no.
For example, I really like archetypes, but I find that some of them are not fullfilling their role. For example, the Shielded Fighter is not as good as a Two-Weapon Fighter that fights wih a shield. Also, there's no archetypes for the cleric, the sorcerer and the 6 new classes.
The new classes are interesting, but I'm not fond of classes that use a new, limited spells list, because they are not "backward compatible" (you can't take spells from the Spells Compendium with those classes). Also, such spells lists are very restrictive.
I really like the Cavalier, but he misses one of the coolest aspect of the 3.5 Knight; the Knight's Code.
The Summoner is a blast for any players who likes to "craft" his eidolon, but, again, the Summoner's spells list is very limited and restrictive.
IMO, the Inquisitor should have been an archetype and the Scout (a character based on mobility) should have been a new core class, he deserves that.
The Witch do not distinguish herself enough from the Wizard for my taste. However, I really like the fact that she uses vancian magic (I just can't stand sorcerer).
magic abilities granted to martial classes
I'm guessing you're talking about the new barbarian's rage powers. While some of them may look a little odd for the typical human/dwarven/elven/half-orc barbarian, the're interesting options for a more "exotic" barbarian, like a tiefling barbarian, for example. In my game, I would ban such rage powers unless they're "compatible" with the barbarian's race.
Overall I think this is a fine product featuring a few missteps.
|
I'm generally positive about the entire book. Still hankering to play a Summoner, and the archetypes are something I really, really like.
I really only have one grief with the book: the capstone ability for Monks of the Healing Hand. Houseruled that into something more appropriate(and far less of a "@#$% YOU!" to the monk in question) working off of suggestions from other forum members here(thx guys, gg).
I'm generally positive about the entire book. Still hankering to play a Summoner, and the archetypes are something I really, really like.
I really only have one grief with the book: the capstone ability for Monks of the Healing Hand. Houseruled that into something more appropriate(and far less of a "@#$% YOU!" to the monk in question) working off of suggestions from other forum members here(thx guys, gg).
Strange... that ability is exactly what made me want to play a Monk of the Healing Hand. I love how it is truly an 'ultimate sacrifice', plus it seems somewhat Zen to me. (or maybe I just don't get Zen)
As to the subject at hand, I love the book- it's what finally made me a Pathfinder convert. There are a few things I have issues with(mostly some archtypes I'm not sure are worth it), but all-in-all I think they did a great job.
I am a fan of the APG... especially the Mobile Fighter variant, new items, and the trait rules and new feats included in the book.
No more will my piddly fighter have to worry about enemies warping out of his grasp! Watch and be amazed as he gets an AoO on the creature teleporting away, and then the creature needs to make a fort save or be stunned as the fighter walks straightaway up to him and proceeds to full attack in the same round!
I'm good with the APG. I've got personal gripes with some of the (new base) classes; those are personal dislikes.
But there are also some people that look at the Sistine chapel and complain about the use of color.
I really like the APG and think that overall it is a great adition to the game. While I am not a fan of all the base classes and archetypes, my main gripe is that the book could have done with a bit more proofreading and spellchecking. But those are only very minor gripes.
I like 90% of the APG, your 4 reasons might each find a few examples in the book, but there are much, much more things that I like very much.
To not go into details, it gives lots of choices, and it has base-classes that I like more than all the additional ones WOTC ever made.
It's a book that is worth having, in my humble opinion.
The new classes are interesting, but I'm not fond of classes that use a new, limited spells list, because they are not "backward compatible" (you can't take spells from the Spells Compendium with those classes). Also, such spells lists are very restrictive.
You can't keep PF 100% backward compatible forever, or you can never do new stuff.
If you're always limited to "Uses the wizard spelllist" or "uses illusion and conjuration spells" etc, it's just not anything new.I guess one of the reasons it was done in the corebook was because there's not much material for PF yet at that time. Now there's more, so "PF material only" games work perfectly fine now.
Also you can still use spells from the SC, it's just not that automatic, but a GM can rule certain spells to be fine for the witch if they fit the theme. Yes, its a bit more work, and requires some thinking on the GMs part, but really it's two different games, converting stuff shouldn't be a blind, automatic process.
An answer to Quatar:
Like you said, it's more work, and this work could have been greatly and easily reduced if they would have just said : "The Summoner can learn any spell from the conjuration, the illusion and the transmutation schools. He can also cast X, Y and Z as if those spells were one level lower than their respective levels".
Short spells lists just feel weird. For example, the summoner can create a Stinking Cloud, but the subtle mysteries of the Acid Arrow are beyond his reach forever. Of course, it's more easy to balance a class with a restrictive spells list, and I can understand this decision, but good GMs know which 3.X spells to ban and which 3.X spells to keep.
Remember that a lot of people bought Pathfinder products because of their "backward compatibility". While I truly respect the creation of new mechanics (Words of Power from UM, Maneuvres from ToB:Bot9S, etc.), creating new stuff that could easily be "backward compatible" without being so just seems a little lazy.
This is all, of course, in my humble opinion.
I love it. I'm not even sure what parts the OP is referring to that could be considered 'bad'.
Nope - I like it; all good.
An answer to Quatar:Like you said, it's more work, and this work could have been greatly and easily reduced if they would have just said : "The Summoner can learn any spell from the conjuration, the illusion and the transmutation schools. He can also cast X, Y and Z as if those spells were one level lower than their respective levels".
Short spells lists just feel weird. For example, the summoner can create a Stinking Cloud, but the subtle mysteries of the Acid Arrow are beyond his reach forever. Of course, it's more easy to balance a class with a restrictive spells list, and I can understand this decision, but good GMs know which 3.X spells to ban and which 3.X spells to keep.
Remember that a lot of people bought Pathfinder products because of their "backward compatibility". While I truly respect the creation of new mechanics (Words of Power from UM, Maneuvres from ToB:Bot9S, etc.), creating new stuff that could easily be "backward compatible" without being so just seems a little lazy.
This is all, of course, in my humble opinion.
Well that leads to the same crap as there was in 3.5, that people build overpowered characters because they mesh together mechanics from 7 different books that weren't created to be used in conjunction (probably because one of the authors didn't think about anyone using it in just that combination).
If you just allow everything from 3.5, then you have that same crap again, and you can just as well play 3.5.Also backward compatible doesn't mean "Take a 3.5 splashbook and apply everything in there 1:1" it means "it can be worked into the PF system, but a) the DM has the last say and b) it may need adjusting to the new system".
And that's just it, you need to adjust it and do a little bit of work. That still works. But since there was no Oracle or Witch back then, of course they don't show up.
Giving them 1000 spells and then saying "A good DM knows which spells to ban and which not", is better than "a good DM knows which of the 1000 spells from 3.5 are worth porting in the first place" exactly how? A good DM probably knows, a new DM doesn't and suddenly has spells that weren't build for PF. It's simply easier for them to do it the way its done. You want 3.5 spells. go ahead and use them, noone is stopping you.
Just tell your summoner player or witch player to give you a list with spells they'd like from 3.5, you check them and see if they're ok, that way you don't have to read through everything (and if they give you a list with stuff that just doesn't fit, reject the entire thing and they get nothing, so they know to think a bit as well).
But it's a different game, do some work on your own.
Well that leads to the same crap as there was in 3.5, that people build overpowered characters because they mesh together mechanics from 7 different books that weren't created to be used in conjunction (probably because one of the authors didn't think about anyone using it in just that combination). If you just allow everything from 3.5, then you have that same crap again, and you can just as well play 3.5.
Remember that we are talking about spells here, not "mechanics". However, I understand your point. If you let your players take everything they want from any books, some of them may abuse your confidence in them to create aberrant PCs. But keep in mind that, even if you're playing 3.5 instead of PF, the DM has the right to say no to anything he don't like. Saying no is not reserved to PF's GM in regard to 3.5 products. It's a DM/GM universal right.
Also backward compatible doesn't mean "Take a 3.5 splashbook and apply everything in there 1:1" it means "it can be worked into the PF system, but a) the DM has the last say and b) it may need adjusting to the new system".
And that's just it, you need to adjust it and do a little bit of work. That still works. But since there was no Oracle or Witch back then, of course they don't show up.
I agree. In fact, I find that converting some of the 3.5 stuff that I like is really fun, like filling the "dead" levels of your favorite class. :)
Giving them 1000 spells and then saying "A good DM knows which spells to ban and which not", is better than "a good DM knows which of the 1000 spells from 3.5 are worth porting in the first place" exactly how? A good DM probably knows, a new DM doesn't and suddenly has spells that weren't build for PF. It's simply easier for them to do it the way its done. You want 3.5 spells. go ahead and use them, noone is stopping you.
A new GM should stick with core, otherwise he's asking for trouble, even if he's playing only with PF's books. You can see the results even here, on this very forum. Haven't you ever saw a "The Summoner's Eidolon his destroying my game" thread before? Well, most of the time, it's because both the GM and the Summoner's player don't know how the Eidolon truly works. You should never, NEVER, allow stuff that you don't understand.
I'm not like those people who think that everything from 3.5 is broken crap. Yes there's some overpowered crap. Yes there's some underpowered crap too. But there's also good stuff in 3.5. If 3.5 was truly a 100% broken, unplayable game, then PF is also broken and unplayable, because 90% of the spells in PF CRB work exactly the same way that their PHB's counterparts.
Anyway, as I said, I think that the APG is a good product overall and the new classes' restrictive spells lists is only one aspect of it that I don't like, because it makes those classes less customizable, even if your not using 3.5 books.
I love it. It's great RPG splat for the sheer amount of material inside.
- I love most of new arhcetypes. New stuff for Barbarian and Rogue was NEEDED.
- I love new classes, Cavalier and Inquisitor mainly.
- racial traits are nice, barring an exception
- Both combat feats and metamagic rock.
- I LOVE new maneuvers - dirty trick in particular is awesome.
- New campaign option like Antihero are great.
- Mundane stuff like alchemy and goggles and horns are nice things to have around, exspecially at low levels.
Few things here and there could have been done better (one hand fighter, cockatrice strike, human sorcerer), but I give to the book a good 9/10.
|
I am not disappointed at all with the APG. I'm good with everything in it so far. We've used the race variant rules, cavalier, inquistor, witch, drunken monk, barbarian variant, ranger variant, spells, magic items, new combat maneuvers, and traits for 4 levels so far and everything adds depth to the game and nothing seems broken or out of whack.
I haven't enjoyed D&D this much, or a book this much, since the PHB 3.0 came out in 2000. The APG is a great RPG book.
I'm a big fan. At first read through, I thought it was kind of "meh" compared to PHB2 or Unearthed Arcana in 3.x with their major system tweaks, but as it's been used by my group, it has really turned into a valuable resource. I LIKE how it just gently tweaks the system, and really does not over shadow the Players Guide with power creep. In my current party, we have a dwarven druid (me, alt racial features), a Human Ranger (standard Archer) a human fighter (mounted combat) and a summonner. The summonner has a quad pet, which serves as the primary melee combatant for the group, while the fighter fills the flanker/DPS role with mounted charging. Ranger protects druid, druid disarms enemies, lights them on fire, and melts faces. It works pretty well actually :)
I'm quite happy with everything in the APG. We're not using it in the current campaign other than a few magic items that have shown up, but it made me want to play a bard again (hello magician and arcane duelist), gave out interesting options for fighters and rangers, and overall I like the new classes even if I'll never be a fan of the cavalier and inquisitor. My one complaint is that I feel like clerics got the short end of the stick. They got subdomains, which are generally pretty interesting, but that's it. Few of the magic items do anything specifically for them. Few feats really say to me "this is for a cleric". Worst of all, no archetypes! I'd have liked to see a more warlike cleric archetype, a scholarly cleric type, maybe one that is more of a monk/philospher, etc. There weren't even options to replace channel energy, which I'd have really enjoyed. I hope Ultimate Magic has some interesting and fun ideas for clerics when it comes out, but until then, I will enjoy the APG but wait and hope.
IThe only thing I don't allow is hero points but that's a very minor thing.
Same here. I love the APG (LOVE IT!) but hero points are a no-go for me.
I think the book went over-the-top and into the realm of goofiness in quite a few places. At issue for me are the following:
- magic abilities granted to martial classes
- over-the top physical acts in a single combat round
- abilities that exploit mechanics for mechanics' sake
- weird mechanics such as odd limitations, unecessary calculations, etc.
There's a few things I'm not crazy about in the APG (e.g. I agree that some of the Inquisitor's abilities fall under "mechanics for mechanics' sake", for instance), but I can't think of anything that falls in the first two categories. I can understand that you don't want to get bogged down on specific examples, though.
I can't think of anything off the top of my head that I would put on the "banned/houseruled" list, except maybe Persistent Spell.
Stuff.
One could see some of the new Rage Powers as "magic abilities granted to martial classes", like the ability to do extra elemental damage with your weapon while raging.
Stuff.
Yeah, I want new archetypes for the Cleric, the Sorcerer and the new classes too!
Is anyone else disappointed in the APG?
Yes, I am. Too much of the book is "you have the ability to trade this minor benefit you'll never use for this other minor benefit you'll never use." It doesn't have the power creep of most post-core WotC books, but there's still plenty enough here that as I DM I have to be very careful (Growth subdomain, I'm looking at you!).
I enjoyed everything about APG. The art, the new classes...all brilliant. I love the introduction of archtypes! I like the idea that we won't be spammed with new base classes, but given options to modify existing ones.
This is by far the best bang-for-buck RPG supplement I've seen.
Owner - D20 Hobbies
|
Does anyone else feel this way?
I did, especially when I read a number of abilities incorrectly on first read (like Eagle Shaman getting Roc's on the 4th level summon list, which they don't.)
You often find out when building a character that your first read (the super powerful way) isn't the correct interpretation. I think it comes down to not spending sufficient time to parse the sentence.
In short, currently I allow all of APG in my high level game (13th level) and I no longer have any reservations doing so.
One could see some of the new Rage Powers as "magic abilities granted to martial classes", like the ability to do extra elemental damage with your weapon while raging.
I suppose so. I thought that barbarians already had access to (Su) special abilities in the Core Rulebook, but I guess not.
|
|
I have little cash to spend on myself and I waited a long time to purchase the APG. I was nervous that it was a poor purchase. After going through it in detail I must say I am very happy with my purchase. There are several things to like about this book and very few things to dislike about it. Everyone who gives their opinion on this book is doing just that, giving their opinion. Opinions are biased.
Things that I like about this book are the base classes, the archtypes and the alternative racial traits. Every base class is wonderful in my eyes, yes even the summoner. People say the summoner is OP but every class can be made into a OP powerhouse. The archtypes made classes appeal to me for once. The bard was a class I wouldn't even give a second glance at, but with the new archtypes I am hankering to try one. The racial traits and traits in general are wonferdul.
There are a few things that make me say "meh" but that is not bad. The Prestige classes is one of my major Mehs. I wouldn't really want to play any of these prestige classes (my opinion so don't let it influence you :P )but I could see these making wonderful NPC characters. There is some filler in the book (like all the druid archtypes) but I can see these be desired by other people.
People are saying the APG isn't compatable with 3.X well you can do what I do to remedy that problem, don't use 3.x! (i do use the DMG though for statistics and what not).
The book in my opinion, which only matters to me, was worth purchasing. I am very pleased with it. I wasn't a fan of the 3.x splat books but Paizo did good :P.
Stuff.One could see some of the new Rage Powers as "magic abilities granted to martial classes", like the ability to do extra elemental damage with your weapon while raging.
Unfortunately, that's simply what it took to make the barbarian stink less ;)
Overall, I've loved the APG. I love the new classes and can't help but use 1 or 2 archetypes in almost every character that I build now.
I admit there are a few annoyances in the book like the large number of typos and mistakes, and things like the summoner's eidolon not scaling up or down with the party's point buy. However, the good parts of the book have certainly outweighed the bad.
I really like the APG. I cannot think of anything in there that I would be worried about my players using. There are specific things that I like more than others, but the book is about options, and as such it delivers in spades.
|
Is anyone else disappointed in the APG?
I bought the APG a while back from my FLGS, and I just finished reading it. I have to stress that I don't think this is a bad book. It is worth the $40 price tag. The thing is, I expected a supplement that, with only minor house-rules, I could hand to my players and say "everything is in!" I really thought Paizo could pull that off. I'm a huge fan, and love everything else that I've bought. I especially like the new PF RPG rules.
I think the book went over-the-top and into the realm of goofiness in quite a few places. At issue for me are the following:
- magic abilities granted to martial classes
- over-the top physical acts in a single combat round
- abilities that exploit mechanics for mechanics' sake
- weird mechanics such as odd limitations, unecessary calculations, etc.
The worst part is that these annoyances are scattered throughout an otherwise wonderful book. If it were limited to a section or two, I could trim them easily with a house rule. Yes, I know I can (and will) Rule-0 the stuff in on a case by case basis. I had hoped that, for once, I wouldn't need to.
I am avoiding examples because I have a feeling we'll end up arguing over a specific example, and I would prefer a general discussion. What I really want to know is... Does anyone else feel this way?
Then generally speaking. No, you're wrong in every way. It's a great book, but not over the top. I just don't feel like talking about each point.
Is anyone else disappointed in the APG?
No. It gives a ton of options, logicaly done, with excellent balance throughout. As with any supplement for any game it cannot please everyone. Use what you like and leave the rest.
But overall it is an excellent product, well done with good balanced material. A lot of 'good' options with pretty much no 'OMG MUST HAVE THAT' options.
If a book is full of stuff you would like to use to the point where choosing between them is difficult, that is a sign to me that they did it right.
Same here. I love the APG (LOVE IT!) but hero points are a no-go for me.
As a player, I have yet to use any, but several in my group do, and as a player and a DM I LOVE them. Nothing worse than a bad ass plan gone awry due to poor dice rolls. My players do cool things, my monsters die, the world is saved, everyone goes home happy :)
Dark_Mistress: you misunderstood me. I said I did think the book was worth the money.
I really liked it! Not disappointed.
I'm sure there is something I'll find a bit rough eventually, but I haven't yet.
Neither disappointed nor impressed. It's just another splat for me to take ideas from.
I think this sums up my point concisely. I was hoping for better. In fact, the only reason I started this thread is because I think Paizo can do better than this, and I want to encourage that. As far as supplemental material goes, for me there is little difference between adapting the 3.5 Complete books to Pathfinder and adapting the APG so it suits my play style.
For those who have posted in support of this book, that's great. I understand many of the points made, and I want to re-iterate: I'm not upset over my purchase.
Oddly, this topic has stirred up some conversation about balance when that's the one thing I think is fine about this book! I think its balanced (and warranted) that a barbarian can do a little extra damage while raging. Its the fact that it comes from a magical source that I find silly. If the rule were he gets an extra d6 or 2 because he's full of adrenaline and really putting his back into it, fine. What is it about an normal human barbarian that says, "I'm raging so my sword is sheathed in flame"???
# over-the top physical acts in a single combat roundGuess you are talking about pounce/mobile fighter here?
I didn't have that one in mind, specifically, but that's the spirit of the things that bug me.
More than one of you picked up on the Supernatural abilities granted to barbarians (thank-you!). Also among my gripe about magical abilities being handed to martial classes is the fact that an unarmed attack can turn an opponent to stone. That one had my whole gaming group rolling with laughter! Balanced? Most likely. Its a helluva requirement tree to get there. Goofy? DEFINITELY.
It looks like some more examples might help. I'll add to this list over the weekend. Thanks for the posts, guys & gals. Keep 'em coming!
Also among my gripe about magical abilities being handed to martial classes is the fact that an unarmed attack can turn an opponent to stone. That one had my whole gaming group rolling with laughter! Balanced? Most likely. Its a helluva requirement tree to get there. Goofy? DEFINITELY.
Ohhhhh...
Do I think there's a fair amount of dumb stuff in the APG? Sure. I think there's a fair amount of dumb stuff in the Core Rulebook, too. :-)
But I don't find the idea of a supernatural barbarian to be any more offensive than a spell-casting ranger or a supernatural monk.
|
I'm quite happy with everything in the APG. We're not using it in the current campaign other than a few magic items that have shown up, but it made me want to play a bard again (hello magician and arcane duelist), gave out interesting options for fighters and rangers, and overall I like the new classes even if I'll never be a fan of the cavalier and inquisitor. My one complaint is that I feel like clerics got the short end of the stick. They got subdomains, which are generally pretty interesting, but that's it. Few of the magic items do anything specifically for them. Few feats really say to me "this is for a cleric". Worst of all, no archetypes! I'd have liked to see a more warlike cleric archetype, a scholarly cleric type, maybe one that is more of a monk/philospher, etc. There weren't even options to replace channel energy, which I'd have really enjoyed. I hope Ultimate Magic has some interesting and fun ideas for clerics when it comes out, but until then, I will enjoy the APG but wait and hope.
I agree. I tend to like the Subdomains better than the normal Domains, (but don't really care for PF Domains to begin with). Other than that, I haven't seen anything that really goes with Cleric besides Weapon Strap (mundane gear) and Greyflame Weapons (not really that great most of the time, but kind of cool). But then again, I usually felt this way with most 3E books, (including Complete Divine and Champion to some extent :) ).
I like the book, however, and think it was worth it. I was disappointed with the new Cleric Spells, with a few exceptions.
One thing I hope that they do not do is simply take away spells at certain levels in order to grant new "Archtype" abilities, should it ever happen.
If you do not like the supernatural rage powers, and you want your barbarian to be purely mundane, then don't use them. Problem solved.