Yep. Let's do this. It's gonna be really brief and informal though, since I'm "borrowing" my housemate's copy :B. I won't go too in depth either.
Might expand the thread (or make others) at a later date for other parts of the book.
Alchemist: Most of the new discoveries look p. sweet. I also like a few of the archtypes as someone who almost primarily plays BOMBERMAN Alchies - it gives some good depth.
Bard: Masterpieces really, really annoy me. They're incredibly difficult to get and just generally not worth it. Perhaps two are worth a feat, maybe a spell slot. You give up a lot to not only get them but to then also use them. If they were drastically easier to get - maybe the feat gives you a number based on your charisma modifier? - they'd be way better. As it is, they just rankle as something potentially good that dies in execution. As for the archtypes, none of them really shine to me. Geisha seems kinda weird - you burn potentially a lot of bard song rounds, but when it takes ten minutes and only lasts for ten minutes, there's an incredibly small window of when it would be really used. Songhealer is pretty boss though, so that gets a thumbs up.
Cleric: I rarely if ever play clerics. That said, increased good options are always good. A good number seem a bit on the weak side. I'll be honest, I just sorta glanced through here. Clerics aren't really my thing. The archtypes almost all seem on the weaker, not so great side; CC has been discussed to death, Seperatist I'm kinda eh on -most DMs I know would just let you grab another domain if you can give a good IC reason for it - but that's sorta cheating since you can't balance by houserules, whoops guess I'm a bad reviewer, Theologian feels like it should get a bit more bang for it's buck. Undead Lord is pretty sweet though, I'll grant it that.
Druid: New domains that are for ~*~druids~*~ only is actually a good thing, I think! Helps domain druids stand out a bit more. New companions are also always good (Haha no I'm not going to number crunch how efficient or "optimized" they are). Archtypes though...let's take a seat. Now, most of them are actually sorta good! Some are a bit specialized, but overall what you lose and what you gain are vaguely equal. But the dragon shaman, what happened there? It has nothing to do with dragons! It's a lizard shaman!
Inquisitor: Never played one. More good choices are always a good thing. not much else to say here as I don't have the experience :B
Monk: Vows are awful. Qinggong monk is a cool idea but the actual abilities it gets tend to be weak and cost far too much. I have come to the realization that Paizo literally hates you if you want to be a monk. They are not allowed nice things.
Oracle: A phrase you are no doubt tired of: more good choices, always a good thing, etc. Vaguely disappointed there aren't other curses, and that the METAL mystery doesn't give a headbanging bonus. Not much to say here, overall good.
Paladins: Ouch. Some of the oaths are kinda nice, but overall suffer from a common theme - you have to both take the oath on top of your normal paladin code and lose class abilities. I eagerly await a flood of more paladin falling threads.
Rangers: This part fills me with anger. Why is Trapper a thing? Would it've been so awful to just make a single feat that gives rangers all the traps? Maybe add a second feat that gives them the Launch Trap ability? This does not need to be it's own archtype, and the traps aren't anywhere near being worth a feat apiece.
Sorcerer: Good options, blah blah. Some of the boodline powers are distinctly better then others, but w/e.
Summoner: I like the new evolutions and the new base form, but I'm admittingly vaguely iffy on the models since they don't...well...add stuff. As far as archtypes go, I'm glad there's the warning about how multiple eidolons can take up a lot of time (because they can you see), oh and SYNTHESIST OWNS DON'T CARE IF IT IS OR AIN'T OPTIMIZED IT OWNS.
Witch: Here I'm seeing something that was niggling at me earlier become a full on :|. There's a lot of vaguely cool [abilities] (hexes in this case) but some are so very clearly not all too useful. As for the archtypes, the only one that stares at me is the Hedge Witch, which I ma as well rename "We don't need no stinkin' clerics." The hexes thing is pretty annoying, though, and overall wait I can make a male witch that punches people with his moustache oh my god.
Wizard: Wizard made out like bankrobers, yo. I'd go so far as to say that a good number of Arcane Discoveries are unabashed power creep. Scrollmaster is also pretty bizarre.
whoops guess I'm a bad reviewer
Here, I saved you the time and effort.
Thanks for this... some good stuff that I haven't seen elsewhere on the forum. What I have seen expressed on other parts of the forums is 'better underpowered instead of power creep' as the underlying reason why some of the options seem... sucky.
It's a bit maddening. The one class that I'd say overwhelmingly does have power creep is the wizard, of all classes. I mean, a little power creep is good for some of the other classes if they aren't quite holding up, but the wizard is probs the last class that needs it.
I kinda agree (I hope I don't shock you) with 90% of what you said.
Few notes:
1) paladins oath are not bad in the RPG side, but even if initially i said "cooooool", I soon realized that you give up too much for most if the advantages. Remove smite evil? Seriously? Why don't delay it like in the good APG?
2) Wizard: immortality is worth a feat? This thing can be rarely game breaking and is 20 level only, but why wizard can do this? I supposed should be something you obtain after an epic quest, with the favor of deities. Flavour wise is dumb, and awful.
3) Vow of poverty apart, IMHO the Qinjong is not bad. If you add in a good archetype (or the base one), special moves in the APG, and this, you take few ki more by few votes, and in the end is kinda neat. IME monk problem is low point buy. I fear you need an edition to fix that - perhaps I'm wrong, we will see in UC if thre is some wis-related feat.
Alchemist- nice options here
Bard- love the animal speaker and song healer but agree on the masterpieces
Cleric-the alternate channeling abilities were interesting
Druid- love the new domains, most of the archtypes were good except the dragon shaman.
Inquisiter-some stuff was okay.
Magus-great class but most of the archtypes lacked and mad they didn't have any racial class traits.
Monk-yeah I think Paizo is not a fan
Oracle-some good stuff here but no new curses and no new revelations for the mysteries from APG made me disapointed
Paladin-has good options but was hoping for a more spellcaster type
Ranger-same as paladin
Sorcerer-great stuff but would have liked option to switch bloodline bonus spells
Summoner-liked most of the archtypes
Witch-liked everything here
Wizard-Arcane discoveries, i wouldn't mind if the sorcerers got something like this for there bloodlines
Monk's play perfectly fine and are one of the more potent martial classes to play. Not easy, mind you, but they are good. The qinggong monk seals the deal that allows monks to be effective combatants. I agree that vow of poverty is weak - but the other ones are full of goodness and flavor.
A lot of people seem to expect to get stuff that they want to use because it'll obviously make them more awesome. I think it is wrong to expect an option to be something that you take 90% of the time - that is a tax. The vows (other than poverty) are all viable and any one of them could see play in 10% of monk characters. That is what I call an option.
Qinggong - the archetype - on the other hand I can see happening in 90% of monk characters (or at least all monk characters that qualify, i.e. not ki mystics, zen archers, drunken monks and empty hands).
...The hexes thing is pretty annoying, though, and overall wait I can make a male witch that punches people with his moustache oh my god.
I have to say, I haven't read the book. But when I saw this ability in one of the UM threads, I said to myself... Paizo has let the flood gates open in RP and character building silliness.
I have to say, I haven't read the book. But when I saw this ability in one of the UM threads, I said to myself... Paizo has let the flood gates open in RP and character building silliness.
Looks like someone has never watched The Bride With White Hair.
|
I have to say, I haven't read the book. But when I saw this ability in one of the UM threads, I said to myself... Paizo has let the flood gates open in RP and character building silliness.Looks like someone has never watched The Bride With White Hair.
Silly SKR, poisoning the pristine Western fantasy landscape with Weaboo Asian Super Power Rangers Stuff! Somebody call the SCA! /sarcasm mode off.
Ok the animate hair hex means that someone was watching Forbidden Kingdom again.Which is fine by me because it's one I asked for waaaaaay back.
Ok the animate hair hex means that someone was watching Forbidden Kingdom again.Which is fine by me because it's one I asked for waaaaaay back.
That character in Forbidden Kingdom is unofficially the same character as the one in The Bride With White Hair, BTW.
2) Wizard: immortality is worth a feat? This thing can be rarely game breaking and is 20 level only, but why wizard can do this?Because Wizards knowing/seeking secrets of immortality/life-extension is a standard trope in the fantasy genre, and they wanted it to be possible.
-Kle.
I'm perfectly fine with high level characters reaching this. But .. man, is a big damn thing. Needs an epic quest, divine approval, something like that.
A feat is cheap, in a sense. In another, should not be used for something like this.
I'm perfectly fine with high level characters reaching this. But .. man, is a big damn thing. Needs an epic quest, divine approval, something like that.
A feat is cheap, in a sense. In another, should not be used for something like this.
Cheap, say, compared to the two 9th-level spells a wizard gets to automatically add to his spellbook for free at level 20?
Cheap, say, compared to the two 9th-level spells a wizard gets to automatically add to his spellbook for free at level 20?I'm perfectly fine with high level characters reaching this. But .. man, is a big damn thing. Needs an epic quest, divine approval, something like that.
A feat is cheap, in a sense. In another, should not be used for something like this.
This is why I said "In another, should not be used for something like this.".
It's my personal taste, Sean - something like this should not be part of a feat or a spell. Should follow special rules.
Furthermore I don't get why should be wizard only. Couldn't a witch bargain with her patron for further power and ethernal beauty? Couldn't a fighter being exalted as a champion of a god? there should be suggestions for epic quests, not feats for stuff like this IMHO.
And if perhaps Wish or Miracle could cover some of the above, why create the mechanic?
Why does everyone get this book before me, since I preordered it I should get it roughly the same time?
Why does everyone get this book before me, since I preordered it I should get it roughly the same time?
Does this change somewhat the content?
Why does everyone get this book before me, since I preordered it I should get it roughly the same time?Because they are subscribers, and got the PDF the moment their book was shipped.
some people are saying they have it in hand already??
|
|
some people are saying they have it in hand already??Why does everyone get this book before me, since I preordered it I should get it roughly the same time?Because they are subscribers, and got the PDF the moment their book was shipped.
Postal speed varies wildly. I suspect that "Dark Mountains of Idaho" might be a somewhat remote location and take a while longer than, say, Seattle.
Postal speed varies wildly. I suspect that "Dark Mountains of Idaho" might be a somewhat remote location and take a while longer than, say, Seattle.some people are saying they have it in hand already??Why does everyone get this book before me, since I preordered it I should get it roughly the same time?Because they are subscribers, and got the PDF the moment their book was shipped.
Respectively Seattle is down the street to where we live (Idaho on the Washington State line) People from WA take day trips here to go skiing and boating.
I got my ship email at about 5:30PM EST on Monday 5/9, and got my physical copy on Friday 5/13 (stupid postman was so late that the package hadn't arrived by the time I left for my Friday game at 5:15PM).
Which means as a subscriber I had my copy of the PDF on Monday evening.
Your mileage may vary. I know mine does - I was way early this time.
It's my personal taste, Sean - something like this should not be part of a feat or a spell. Should follow special rules.
It's YOUR personal taste, so that is how the rules should be? My, but that sure is a high horse you're riding there sir.
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
It's my personal taste, Sean - something like this should not be part of a feat or a spell. Should follow special rules.
It's YOUR personal taste, so that is how the rules should be? My, but that sure is a high horse you're riding there sir.
VM, I don't understand the animosity. I would be more agrieved by someone who doesn't make that caveat, who just presumes that his opinions are as sound as fact.
Taking a look around these boards, I find that "I prefer this game-system / adventure / movie / political statement to that other one" is a pretty common level of analysis. If you're going to pounce on it, you'll be pretty busy over these entire boards.
I got my book last friday, so I was happy about that.
It's my personal taste, Sean - something like this should not be part of a feat or a spell. Should follow special rules.It's YOUR personal taste, so that is how the rules should be? My, but that sure is a high horse you're riding there sir.
It's always a matter of personal taste or opinion. Next time I guess I should say "IT SUXX YOU SUXX UM SUXX WORLD SUXX BECAUSE OF THISS!!!11!".
I've seen other people liking the discover. I explained WHY, for my PERSONAL TASTES, immortality should be more fare away than 1 feat. I was talking about what displeased ME. or should I talk in behalf of everybody? That would sound more reasonable? I guess not.
@Chris: thank you.
|
|
Postal speed varies wildly. I suspect that "Dark Mountains of Idaho" might be a somewhat remote location and take a while longer than, say, Seattle.some people are saying they have it in hand already??Why does everyone get this book before me, since I preordered it I should get it roughly the same time?Because they are subscribers, and got the PDF the moment their book was shipped.Respectively Seattle is down the street to where we live (Idaho on the Washington State line) People from WA take day trips here to go skiing and boating.
I always chuckle when Americans say that few hundred kilometres is "down the street".
You can pass through six different countries over such distance down here. :)
|
It's my personal taste, Sean - something like this should not be part of a feat or a spell. Should follow special rules.It's YOUR personal taste, so that is how the rules should be? My, but that sure is a high horse you're riding there sir.It's always a matter of personal taste or opinion. Next time I guess I should say "IT SUXX YOU SUXX UM SUXX WORLD SUXX BECAUSE OF THISS!!!11!".
I've seen other people liking the discover. I explained WHY, for my PERSONAL TASTES, immortality should be more fare away than 1 feat. I was talking about what displeased ME. or should I talk in behalf of everybody? That would sound more reasonable? I guess not.
@Chris: thank you.
I actually completely agree. Both in that I see no reason for this to be Wizard only (I can easily dee tis as a Cleric/Druid thing, as well as non-casters), and in that it shouldn't be a Feat for that effect. I very much like the idea of a quest spell, or an achievement.
But, as I don't acual have the book, to see what it does, I can't really form an opinion based on anyhing except what I have read here.
That being said, I see two big issues (potentual) here.
1.) Isn't there a country out there that is based around this (in the form of a rare elixer), already? It both kind of cheapens that, and I onder what ramifications there may be.
2.) So, if an "immortal" Wizard starts getting followers, how are they not then a deity? I mean even (in 3.5 terms) Divine Rank 0, it seemes like a quick way to become a god, and I don't mean in the god-wizard sense?
We have LOTS of room in the US, between the coasts. I commute over 160km roundtrip daily, and pass through a lot of empty space on the way.
Empty if you don't count the cows, goats, alpacas, sheep, wild turkeys, deer, armadilloes, opossums, squirrels, etc etc etc
That being said, I see two big issues (potentual) here.
1.) Isn't there a country out there that is based around this (in the form of a rare elixer), already? It both kind of cheapens that, and I onder what ramifications there may be.
I can count on the fingers of one foot how many named level 20 wizards we have running around in the session. Their presence doesn't affect the campaign role of Thuvia at all.
2.) So, if an "immortal" Wizard starts getting followers, how are they not then a deity? I mean even (in 3.5 terms) Divine Rank 0, it seemes like a quick way to become a god, and I don't mean in the god-wizard sense?
If you're not granting spells, you're not a deity, you're just immortal and popular.
|
|
2.) So, if an "immortal" Wizard starts getting followers, how are they not then a deity? I mean even (in 3.5 terms) Divine Rank 0, it seemes like a quick way to become a god, and I don't mean in the god-wizard sense?If you're not granting spells, you're not a deity, you're just immortal and popular.
But what makes this different? I'm asking because I honeslty want to know the difference between a Starstone deity, an immortal of immense power, and other things. Wouldn't having enough devout followers lead to the immortal then gaining the ability to grant spells? At least potentually.
And in regards to the Lich, doesn't that remove a great deal of the (rp) desire for characters and npc's to go down that route? Especiially for the monitary costs?
]If you're not granting spells, you're not a deity, you're just immortal and popular.
Lol.
@ Beckett, even in 3.0 Deities and Demigods (Divine Rules SRD) it took abit more the just being immortal and having true followers to become more the a Quasi(hero) or Rank 0 deity. Deities and Demigods outlined several ways for a DM to run that... and often you also needed about 60 levels/HD (40 classed, 20 outsider) to be considered a fully deity (alough some mortal upstarts bypassed that). Having a deity make you a demi-god of one of their portfolios (another important step) investing you with one of their ranks was the most common.
2.) So, if an "immortal" Wizard starts getting followers, how are they not then a deity? I mean even (in 3.5 terms) Divine Rank 0, it seemes like a quick way to become a god, and I don't mean in the god-wizard sense?If you're not granting spells, you're not a deity, you're just immortal and popular.But what makes this different? I'm asking because I honeslty want to know the difference between a Starstone deity, an immortal of immense power, and other things. Wouldn't having enough devout followers lead to the immortal then gaining the ability to grant spells? At least potentually.
And in regards to the Lich, doesn't that remove a great deal of the (rp) desire for characters and npc's to go down that route? Especiially for the monitary costs?
Given the nation of Razmiran and it's wizard-like leader who pretends to be a divinity, I don't believe that having a large number of worshipers is enough to turn someone into a divinity (or at the very least, one needs more worshipers than exist in a single country).
As for Lich, I would say that the idea of one becoming a 20th level wizard within a person's life span is far beyond the abilities of almost all who are striving for immortality. While the 11th level requirement for Lich is still high, it is a lot more within the realm of possibility for those looking to cheat death.
I sorta agree the immortality option for wizards is out of place here. It should have been saved for the 'post-level 20 play' book and there should be away for all classes to acheive it. Than again letting wizards get it at level 20...might not make that big of a difference.
As for the book in general I don't have it yet(I nees a spell to speed up time)...but from everything I read on the boards and from what I skimmed from my friends Pdf version it has some great subsystems in place( the ranger traps and the bard's Masterpiece leep out to me) but they really need more official support to come into it's own.
Also what I learned I seem to be the only gamer in the world who perfers to see how things function in actualy play before I judge them.
|
|
Ok the animate hair hex means that someone was watching Forbidden Kingdom again.Which is fine by me because it's one I asked for waaaaaay back.That character in Forbidden Kingdom is unofficially the same character as the one in The Bride With White Hair, BTW.
Is it also the same character as Chang Mei from Zu: Warriors of Magic Mountain?
For those unfamiliar, Chang Mei is able to imprison a demon by surrounding it with rocks and holding them in place with his eyebrows.
|
|
But what makes this different? I'm asking because I honeslty want to know the difference between a Starstone deity...
Starstone Gods are not merely immortal. Gods DO NOT DIE. They don't have bodies, or hit points, or stat blocks. They don't walk around town, or build castles, or eat crumpets. They are BETTER THAN YOU, and I say that as much to the 20th level wizard as to the farmer.
The last time a god (maybe) died, it shook the world, and a century later most folks are still reeling from the results.
Or, to put it another way: Aroden was immortal for a few thousand years before he became a "god" who still wore flesh and ate crumpets. Thousands of years after *that* he raised the Starstone and became a proper god.
So, no. Taking the "I'm immortal" feat does not a god make.
EDIT: After perusing the wiki, I may have misspoken. I could have sworn Aroden spent some time being a demigod before raising the Starstone, but maybe he was just a regular immortal-type for 5300+ years.
It seems to me that letting wizards have immortality at high level is almost as bad as letting people play elves.
I always chuckle when Americans say that few hundred kilometres is "down the street".You can pass through six different countries over such distance down here. :)
Me too.
Just out of curiosity where is your "down here"?
What's so wrong about the monk's new options ?
You pay a Ki point to use it... where's the hitch ?
Ok the animate hair hex means that someone was watching Forbidden Kingdom again.Which is fine by me because it's one I asked for waaaaaay back.That character in Forbidden Kingdom is unofficially the same character as the one in The Bride With White Hair, BTW.
A hair attack was/is also used by Sindel (LINK) from the Mortal Kombat videogame franchise. Also a very witch-like character IMO... and a bride with white hair! ;D
I don't mind wizards being immortal at level 20, but I do think a means of doing this should be available to all classes. Hitting 20 is a big deal, after all. Maybe crib something off the epic classes of 4e where each epic class has a section on how you become "immortal" - not neccisarily in body at times, mind you, with some of them being immortal in deed or spirit rather then physically immortal.
As for trapper ranger, it's hilariously weak, and mind boggling that the book that gives so much free utility to spellcasters in spells cripples that same utility in rangers and bards. Make a single feat that gives you access to all traps, boom bang done.
Make a single feat that gives you access to all traps, boom bang done.
The problem with that design...is the same problem with wizards getting all cantrip and coming out with new cantrips. (Though I just limt wizards to all cantrips in the core book...if he wants one outside he can swap them out in character gen...or after a new book is released...or could pay to learn them if he wants to)
That is a horrible game design decision. I could see getting two or three traps per feat but all traps ever published for the system would break the game.
|
My, but that sure is a high horse you're riding there sir.
I think that should be a Cavalier only feat in some upcoming book. If so, I want in the credits - oh and Merc should be also.
FEAT
Riding on a High Horse
Prerequisite: Sense of ultimate rightness, Cavalier, Peasants present.
All peasants nod and agree with any old opinionated rubbish you may spout.
AWESOME!!!
S.