|
Class by class, which ones mechanics match flavor.
Alchemist: C -. Can't decide if it is a Mad Bomber or Dr. Jeckyl so they split the difference and threw in some jarring extracts that don't really fit...needs work.
Barbarian: A+ Dead on match of mechanics and flavor
Bard: A+ Again, flavor matches the concept.
Cavalier: A+ Say what you will, but they do match.
Cleric: A+ A cleric is exactly what it says it is, and is flexible enough to fit whatever deity comes.
Druid: A, is what is says it is.
Fighter: A+. I mean, it's a fighter, it fights. Done.
Gunslinger: D. Says "many treat the secrets of black powder with the same care and reverence that a wizard typically reserves for his spellbook", yet can use firearms nearly as well as they do and they also get full BaB with other weapons, and...don't even get me started...mechanically games outweighed flavor and it shows.
Inquisitor: B. I really like this class, but I almost feel like the class is better than the flavor. I don't really want to change the class, I just want them to be more the "Monster Hunter" than the executors of inquisition. But still mostly works, so B.
Magus: A. I know others wanted a full BaB gish. I didn't. I think they pretty much nailed the flavor to mechanics on this one.
Monk: C. Part of the issues is defining what a monk is, which seems to be a moving target. The new books helped, and a C isn't failing, it's just not exceptional.
Oracle: A-. I want to give it an A, but it just feels like something is slightly missing. But am A- is still a really good grade and it is really close.
Paladin: A+. Nailed it. Narrow, sure. But it is what it says it is.
Ranger: A+. Wanted a woodland hunter with skills. Got it. Well done.
Rogue: D. Why D? Rogue is, by definition, someone who lives on the edges of society looking out for themselves. Yet their primary attack is generally dependent on teaming up. Fail...
Sorcerer: A. Much improved from 3.5 in the sense of matching flavor to mechanics. Would have been a B- in 3.5. Well done pathfinder.
Summoner: A. This isn't about if the mechanics are good, just if they match flavor. They do match the flavor, so A.
Witch: B-. It's generally good, but it is a bit cheesy with how they learn spells by feeding them to familiars. Seriously? That was the best you could come up with? Really?
Wizard: A +. It is exactly what is says it is.
Feel free to agree or disagree.
Bard: A+ Again, flavor matches the concept.
Depends which flavour.
I like them best as "jacks of all trades and dabblers in magic", less so in "practitioners of a unique kind of magic".
'findel
Rogues are A++!!
No other class can rush a dungeon alone, avoid the traps and the monsters without trouble! or invade a house, take what is needed or kill one victim and leave without noise or leave tracks.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogues are A++!!
No other class can rush a dungeon alone, avoid the traps and the monsters without trouble! or invade a house, take what is needed or kill one victim and leave without noise or leave tracks.
Oh dear god.
I'm going to disagree on the Cleric. I find the limited skills make creating a follower of many gods surprisingly difficult. This is especially true for gods which don't mesh well with high intelligence humans. Most of the time, I end up making an Inquisitor, Witch, or Oracle and calling them a "Cleric." It doesn't help that gods don't grant "favored skills" to go with their "favored weapons," and that channel energy doesn't fit a lot of gods' themes. I'd probably give the class a B-, if that.
I agree on Inquisitors, though. The monster-hunting and heretic-hunting bits don't mesh terribly well. Why can my Van Helsing-style monster hunter detect alignment, and why does Torquemada II get Bane and Solo Tactics?
I'd disagree with the rogue assessment. Their primary attack isn't based on teaming up, it's based on catching their opponent unaware, which any good fringe liver should excel at. It just happens that flanking provides a similar opportunity.
|
|
I'd disagree with the rogue assessment. Their primary attack isn't based on teaming up, it's based on catching their opponent unaware, which any good fringe liver should excel at. It just happens that flanking provides a similar opportunity.
I wish this were true. However in real play a rogue needs to get ahead of his party to sneak up on anything, and a rogue out ahead without a flanking buddy is dead meat after the surprise round.
Bard: A+ Again, flavor matches the concept.Depends which flavour.
I like them best as "jacks of all trades and dabblers in magic", less so in "practitioners of a unique kind of magic".
'findel
I would say they are more intended to be the former than the later.
YMMV
I agree and their description supports that too; but their spellcasting mechanic makes them inherent and specialized casters that cast spells like no other casters (bards cast their magic through song, music or recitation according to the PRD).
I wish this were true. However in real play a rogue needs to get ahead of his party to sneak up on anything, and a rogue out ahead without a flanking buddy is dead meat after the surprise round.
Which is more of a habit of play issue than a mechanics vs. flavor issue.
And why do rogue have to be solitary? To me a roguish figure is at his or her best when she works with others. Are those bonds as iron clad as a Paladin's Oath? Not necessarily, but even Jack Sparrow doesn't really get anywhere without working with, or tricking other people.
|
|
I wish this were true. However in real play a rogue needs to get ahead of his party to sneak up on anything, and a rogue out ahead without a flanking buddy is dead meat after the surprise round.Which is more of a habit of play issue than a mechanics vs. flavor issue.
And why do rogue have to be solitary? To me a roguish figure is at his or her best when she works with others. Are those bonds as iron clad as a Paladin's Oath? Not necessarily, but even Jack Sparrow doesn't really get anywhere without working with, or tricking other people.
They don't "Need" to be solitary, but currently they may be the least effective class solitary, despite having flavor and mechanics that encourage them to go off on their own.
They are also one of the classes most encouraged to dump charisma, negating the second point.
Rogues are the red-headed stepchildren, seriously need optimization. I do not have Monks in my game and have never cared for them outside their legit settings. Sorcerers are Fluffed now, I'm happy with their direction under PF. Never noticed that about Witches, hmmm...
Clerics need to be better keyed to their deity. We had a 3.0 cleric of some FR goddess of Dance clomping about in full plate. Fluff/mech fail! And a similar rattling tank was a cleric of the Rogue god of Core 3.0, with not a Rogue ability, skill, etc to her name! My immersion was failing.
I played a plagiarized Cleric to a god of strength that used his Str modifier for spell DCs. Much better. Awkward and less mech. efficient, but it felt RIGHT!
Still like what they've done to help the classes emerge from chapter 3.5.
the alchemist to me makes good on what it is he/ahe is a normal person no massive strength or magic blood, just a good head on his/her shoulders and the motto "always be prepared" and "fake it till you make it"
but i am a alchemist fan boy if there is such a thing
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which wizards learn to cast true resurrection? None of them? Well then, it's not all magic, just all magic on the wizard spell list. They can't even learn Raise Thread without using wishes or similar methods!
You can, apparently, because you just cast true resurrection on this thread.
... wizards can also now cast cleric and druid spells without much difficultly ever since Spell Sage....