| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Witch, Alchemist, Summoner, Magus... Of the new ones Hunter...
All naked.
Well, it certainly fits the party witch in my Pathfinder game. I should probably start thinking about reactivating after returning home but it will be hard with lack of time by key players and having D&D sessions when those key players have time...
Witch is indeed pretty awesome. One of the few prepared casters I actually like. Would still love a spont version though.
Question for anybody who's familiar with PFS storylines. Which modules/scenarios would I need to buy to get the full Runelord Krune storyline?
Still hoping there's someone here familiar with this bit of PFS =)
Though I am honestly curious.
What is it about the Alchemist that you dislike? Or is it just a grognardian "they should have stuck with the basic 11 classes and everything else should have been alternates/archetypes thereof" stance?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Lecture on gaming convention in 27 and half hour. The convention starts in three hours.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No need for running. It is taking place in school some fifteen minutes from my house. Maybe 20 minutes.
No idea about PFS
No idea about PFS
+1 sorry
TOZ is the expert you should seek outQuestion for anybody who's familiar with PFS storylines. Which modules/scenarios would I need to buy to get the full Runelord Krune storyline?Still hoping there's someone here familiar with this bit of PFS =)
*waits for summoning to complete*
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
*waits for summoning to complete*TOZ is the expert you should seek outQuestion for anybody who's familiar with PFS storylines. Which modules/scenarios would I need to buy to get the full Runelord Krune storyline?Still hoping there's someone here familiar with this bit of PFS =)
Unfortunately I am not a summoner...so it's a full rd. action
Though I am honestly curious.
What is it about the Alchemist that you dislike? Or is it just a grognardian "they should have stuck with the basic 11 classes and everything else should have been alternates/archetypes thereof" stance?
not so much grognardian as it was a direction I really would have liked to see them go in that was more open and accessible to all. Going in this direction with new classes and new books brings back a lot of old, bad arms-race/bookspace/cash flow memories. Paizo and the attached community have been *considerably* more mature about it than wizards and company were, mind- stuff being available online for free has been a HUGE help- and I don't think the world would shatter into a million pieces if you appeared at a table I was at and said you wanted to play a witch. But I still prefer more options that don't require shiny new book and build upon what is already there. I just really really want more alternate class features and archetypes that help me to define a character as opposed to a class I can't leave very often. The SaGa series has also molded my mind that way.
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
*waits for summoning to complete*TOZ is the expert you should seek outQuestion for anybody who's familiar with PFS storylines. Which modules/scenarios would I need to buy to get the full Runelord Krune storyline?Still hoping there's someone here familiar with this bit of PFS =)
F~~*ing lag.
Anywho, it depends on what you mean by the full storyline. Season 4 in it's entirety involves the efforts against Krune's cult, but some of the lower level stuff is only tangentially related. (Severing Ties is hilarious however, if deadly.)
For direct involvement with Krune, you'll want the following:
#4-08 The Cultist's Kiss
#4-10 Feast of Sigils
#4-12 The Refuge of Time
#4-20 Words of the Ancients
#4-26 The Waking Rune
If you want more on the cult, there are some lead ins during Season 3 as well, most importantly #3-26 Portal of the Sacred Rune. Are you doing this for organized play or cribbing for a home game?
Home game. Or more accurately, something for my Neverwinter Nights server.
So it's pretty much all of Season 4 then. I'll put those six on the must-get list and give others a look-over. Thanks!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
not so much grognardian as it was a direction I really would have liked to see them go in that was more open and accessible to all. Going in this direction with new classes and new books brings back a lot of old, bad arms-race/bookspace/cash flow memories. Paizo and the attached community have been *considerably* more mature about it than wizards and company were, mind- stuff being available online for free has been a HUGE help- and I don't think the world would shatter into a million pieces if you appeared at a table I was at and said you wanted to play a witch. But I still prefer more options that don't require shiny new book and build upon what is already there. I just really really want more alternate class features and archetypes that help me to define a character as opposed to a class I can't leave very often. The SaGa series has also molded my mind that way.Though I am honestly curious.
What is it about the Alchemist that you dislike? Or is it just a grognardian "they should have stuck with the basic 11 classes and everything else should have been alternates/archetypes thereof" stance?
I can understand that. I like the new classes and use them often, but after getting burned so bad by the 3.5 splat book proliferation, I know I am way more sensitive about that too. I'm really picky about how many books I will buy now. I just think the ones featuring the new classes are worth it to me. A lot of these just couldn't be done properly with archetypes and it adds to the kinds of stories that can be told. But then, I get bored with 'standard' fantasy fare easily and I'm always wanting to add in elements from the old pulp novels I fell in love with when I was a teen. And I find the new classes make that easier :)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
That explains why it doesn't bother me, at least. I never felt burned or hurt by the 3.5 proliferation. My group and I collected a great deal of those books and in nearly every single one of them we found something worth using, be it classes, races, spells, feats, items, monsters, SOMETHING.
So I don't have the "here we go again" mindset towards PF doing similar with new classes.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love the alchemist. I have CH to thank for that. He opened my eyes to the variety of possibilities that are available for the alchemist. I'm playing a rage chemist in my Shattered Star campaign right now.CH, what have you done?!?!?!?
Sorry, Freehold. Alchemists are awesome. You are just too drunk on Spite to see it.
|
So it's pretty much all of Season 4 then. I'll put those six on the must-get list and give others a look-over. Thanks!
Eh, I may have overstated the influence. Low level characters wouldn't even know about the Runelord arc. Check the covers of the scenarios for the sihedron rune, that should tell you which are at all related.
That explains why it doesn't bother me, at least. I never felt burned or hurt by the 3.5 proliferation. My group and I collected a great deal of those books and in nearly every single one of them we found something worth using, be it classes, races, spells, feats, items, monsters, SOMETHING.
So I don't have the "here we go again" mindset towards PF doing similar with new classes.
Pretty much me too. I've grown used to adjusting to new rules on the fly and expecting my players to know how their characters work so I don't have to.
That explains why it doesn't bother me, at least. I never felt burned or hurt by the 3.5 proliferation. My group and I collected a great deal of those books and in nearly every single one of them we found something worth using, be it classes, races, spells, feats, items, monsters, SOMETHING.
So I don't have the "here we go again" mindset towards PF doing similar with new classes.
One of the things that my group failed to realize until after the fact is that our GM is just to busy to care about new content. All of the innovations in our game are player driven.so we had a lot of 3.5 splat books that never saw use. On the other hand, currently anything that gives us players new classes, spells, feats and so on is useful and gets used. The ones that don't get used are the couple of books that the GM bought in a fit of optimism before he remembered that all innovation in our game is player driven. *shrug* Sometimes we have to learn these things the hard way.
So it's pretty much all of Season 4 then. I'll put those six on the must-get list and give others a look-over. Thanks!Eh, I may have overstated the influence. Low level characters wouldn't even know about the Runelord arc. Check the covers of the scenarios for the sihedron rune, that should tell you which are at all related.
Noted. Thanks again =)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
oh cool, waking rune
I am not saying there is going to be death
but there is going to be death
Yeah so the reviews suggest.
Six walked in, two walked out.
What happened?
Did we win?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry. The two that walked out were NOT from your group. I think they had the big bad's outfit on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sorry, Freehold. Alchemists are awesome. You are just too drunk on Spite to see it.I love the alchemist. I have CH to thank for that. He opened my eyes to the variety of possibilities that are available for the alchemist. I'm playing a rage chemist in my Shattered Star campaign right now.CH, what have you done?!?!?!?
hey, I don't drink spite, I drink fresh, all natural, organic Haterade(TM)!!!
And I don't hate the new classes, I don't like the form they take. They really should be alternate classes where they are not archetypes.
The problem with "everything must be archetypes or alternate classes" is that locks you into a basic framework that restricts the ability to introduce new concepts. I guess - if you really, really stretch it - I can see an excuse for Alchemist as a Rogue archetype, especially since they have the Investigator and the Vivisectionist both going back and stealing Rogue's stuff. But what class should Inquisitor be an archetype of? Or Magus? Both are too different from any Core class to truly be pulled off with an archetype or alternate class.
PFO is starting to look awesome! :D
The problem with "everything must be archetypes or alternate classes" is that locks you into a basic framework that restricts the ability to introduce new concepts. I guess - if you really, really stretch it - I can see an excuse for Alchemist as a Rogue archetype, especially since they have the Investigator and the Vivisectionist both going back and stealing Rogue's stuff. But what class should Inquisitor be an archetype of? Or Magus? Both are too different from any Core class to truly be pulled off with an archetype or alternate class.
WHAT'S THIS...A RATIONAL DISCUSSION, NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!
The problem with "everything must be archetypes or alternate classes" is that locks you into a basic framework that restricts the ability to introduce new concepts. I guess - if you really, really stretch it - I can see an excuse for Alchemist as a Rogue archetype, especially since they have the Investigator and the Vivisectionist both going back and stealing Rogue's stuff. But what class should Inquisitor be an archetype of? Or Magus? Both are too different from any Core class to truly be pulled off with an archetype or alternate class.
it's not a stretch, it's pretty obvious what came from where. I believe there was a funky inquisitor kit for clerics going as far back as second ed(I'm confident there was one for evil forgotten realms clerics), and magus wouldn't be too hard to fit into sorcerer, I had a similar idea for my homebrew back in the early 3.0 days sans the pseudo point system-although of course it wouldn't be one-to-one perfection. They're not all that different. Perhaps as you might expect, I would argue that introducing them as new classes, not archetypes or alternate classes, is what restricts the ability to introduce new concepts.
If it was "pretty obvious", I'd see it =P Don't assume what's obvious for you is so for everyone else.
The big hangup about declaring Alchemist simply a Rogue archetype is their spells/Extracts. When dealing with archetypes and alternate classes, a few things are - at least thus far - locked in place: HD, BAB, saves progressions, and spellcasting ability. The only exchanges to that latter have been to remove it from classes that have it - such as the Warrior of the Holy Light Paladin archetype - never to add it to a class that didn't have it before. An Alchemist with no Extracts is basically just a variant Rogue, yes. But unless Paizo were willing to completely change the way they created and presented archetypes, you could never end up with an archetype that would be playable in the same manner the actual Alchemist class currently is.
I know nothing about 2e so I'll have to take your word for it. My introduction to the game was 3e by way of NWN and 3.5 for PnP. I suppose I can see an Inquisitor/Cleric connection, though 90% of what makes Inquisitor cool isn't present in the Cleric class. And as a result, between Inquisitor and Oracle, I have zero desire to ever play a Cleric again.
As for Magus = Sorcerer, I have to strongly disagree. Magus is too strongly built around being a competent melee combatant and Sorcerer lacks the HP, combat ability, or proficiencies to pull that off without multiclassing. Which is a poor idea to begin with, given how strongly PF is built to discourage or even punish multiclassing.
I would argue that introducing them as new classes, not archetypes or alternate classes, is what restricts the ability to introduce new concepts.
And I would ask you to explain how on earth you came to that conclusion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But what class should Inquisitor be an archetype of? Or Magus? Both are too different from any Core class to truly be pulled off with an archetype or alternate class.
Nah brah, Inquisitor is totally a Cleric archetype, same as the Warpriest. And the Magus easily cribs from Bard.
And Alchemist is just the flask Rogue codified.
And the Magus easily cribs from bard.
This I can maybe see, but the changes would be so sweeping and extensive that you might as well just make a different class. Completely different class abilities, different spell list, the only thing in common they have at all is HD/BAB and spell progression.
|
|
Completely different class abilities, different spell list, the only thing in common they have at all is HD/BAB and spell progression.
I'd count a focus on one-handed finesse weapons in there too. The bottom line is that I see them both as arcane warriors with a focus on using magic to enhance fighting capability, both their own and others.
The only reason you see a huge difference is the Magus has had decades of experience and a changed design view to benefit from while the Bard is from a previous era.
Of the few Magi I've had in my campaigns none of them were finesse users =P One used a longsword, one used a warhammer, and one used an Arcane Archer archetype I found. So that association doesn't fly true for me either, and the remaining connections are too tenuous to consider enough on their own.
Really though, I suppose it just comes down to a basic mindset. I've always been more of the mind of "More classes! More options! More different, new things!" ever since 3.5. I love new, different classes. Archetypes are pretty darn cool on their own, but they're naturally limited to a certain point - there's only so far you can stray from the basic idea of the original class before you become different enough to warrant severing that original tie. I have a ton of 3pp classes and content that I use frequently and am always eager to find more.
Honestly with the exception of the Barbarian, Bard, Paladin, and maybe one or two others, my go-to classes are never from Core anymore. There's always something from either the later releases or from 3pp that I feel does nearly any concept better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Back from convention. For now. Tomorrow round two. Including my lecture about creating monsters.
Of the few Magi I've had in my campaigns none of them were finesse users =PActually, neither is mine. Remedy that to one-handed weapons.
Fair enough. Though I have been strongly tempted to drop that limitation on Magus, as a houserule.
The only reason you see a huge difference is the Magus has had decades of experience and a changed design view to benefit from while the Bard is from a previous era.
You know, thinking about it, this sums it up. The vast majority of the core classes that are still very close to their basic 3.0/3.5 design are typically the ones I'm unenthusiastic about.
Cleric? Meh.
Druid? Meh.
Wizard? Bluh.
Fighter? Nope.
Rogue? Never.
Monk? Minus archetypes, yawn.
But Barbarians and Paladins and Sorcerers? The classes Paizo put the biggest new spins on? (Plus Ranger, but I'm not really all that big a Ranger fan, I dont typically play sneaky characters.) Love them.
And the APG classes plus Magus? Love every single one. Yes, even Cavalier and Summoner.
Most of the ACG is awesome, too.
I think I just plain prefer Paizo's design philosophy over those of previous eras, and with each new array of classes I get to see more of how they would prefer things be designed rather than the necessity of backwards-compatability.
It's one of the reasons I can't wait for Unchained - getting to see how Paizo would have done Rogue and Monk if they hadn't been shackled to making them recognize their 3.5 predecessors.
"So when do we get to push each other down the stairs?"
At least they seem to get the concept of a tragic hero.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
"So when do we get to push each other down the stairs?"
But what class should Inquisitor be an archetype of? Or Magus? Both are too different from any Core class to truly be pulled off with an archetype or alternate class.Nah brah, Inquisitor is totally a Cleric archetype, same as the Warpriest. And the Magus easily cribs from Bard.
And Alchemist is just the flask Rogue codified.
I think I was thinking about bard and just said sorcerer - interesting considering the only bard I played was in many ways a magus.
I would argue that introducing them as new classes, not archetypes or alternate classes, is what restricts the ability to introduce new concepts.And I would ask you to explain how on earth you came to that conclusion.
Because it's a return to what's killed- or at least adversely affected- earlier versions of the game, as mentioned above. It seems to be something you have not experienced, however. Once again, we are on opposite sides.
Well, I experienced it, I just didn't disapprove of it.
My complaint about 3.5 was never that there was too much of it, but that it stopped and I didn't much care for 4E.
Back for night.
Good: I have made my lecture and the witnesses claimed it was good. Not that I believe them, those who claimed that were my coplayers and GMs... You can't trust those folks, y'know?
Bad: I managed to cut my thumb-tip on the zipper of my bag.
Good: I have seen some attractive... Costumes.
Bad: No photos. My Sony Ericsson cybershot isn't fit to give them justice.
Bad: feet hurt. I should stand less and sit more...