| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I hate, loath and despise them all (Don't mod me bro, it's just my opinion).
The APG classes weren't so much power creep as they were a power leap imo. Not only that, but they are completely gratuitous. We really didn't need a summoner when there are already conjurers and sorcerers. They are all like that too. The witch is the worst offender here. Whenever I hear about parties of magi, summoners and alchemists I get a little more bitter.
To me, those classes just seem like a cynical ploy, like pay to win in F2P MMOs. Buy our book! Drive your party's Monk to drink and despair!
I hate modern game design in general.
Just wanted to get that off my chest.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan either. Any of those concepts can be made using the classes from the core rulebook and a couple are really overpowered.
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
I love all of the APG classes, summoner is perhaps my favorite class of all time. Actually back in 3.5 I loved and used all of the splat books as well. Personally I hate it when people say build this out of this class cause you don't need options (not trying to argue just saying that's all), but then again I just prefer a larger number of specific classes verses a create your class concept.
To each his own, if you don't like them so be it, but as long as their still an option I will use them. The points to have fun, so just have fun.
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except for Cavalier (which isn't poor design, but just a bit ... meh) all the APG classes are neat and fill much needed niches (divine skill monkey? arcane-divine caster that doesn't require the pains of Mystic Theurge? Alchemist trope? Spontaneous divine caster? Pokemon trainer?).
|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
Alchemist, Magus, Oracle and Cavalier - I like. Fantasy traditions since a very long time.
Inquisitor, Witch and Summoner - not my cup of tea, but I can't really find anything completely wrong in them (Summoners are really advanced classes though, with a lot of pitfalls). Sometimes they overshine other classes, sometimes they don't.
Samurai, Ninja and Gunslinger - not at my table. Unless I've developed a campaign that makes them fitting.
Right now, too many racial options, archetypes, feats, traits (I've come to despise them with the strenght of a thousand fiery suns), silly races and spells, the option bloat already seen in the 3.X era. And the inevitable race to combos and bonus stacking.
But I'm still the DM and my veto is strong as ever, so the hassle is listing what's good and what's not. .
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like them. Then again, I like options and choices.
Also, just wanted to point out that there's no "pay to win" going on, since all of the base classes are available, along with most PF content, for free on the SRD.
I also disagree that the base classes are "power leap" or even power creep. Then again, I'm a total heretic that doesn't believe that is a bad thing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except for Cavalier (which isn't poor design, but just a bit ... meh) all the APG classes are neat and fill much needed niches (divine skill monkey? arcane-divine caster that doesn't require the pains of Mystic Theurge? Alchemist trope? Spontaneous divine caster? Pokemon trainer?).
I don't agree that they fill needed niches. As far as I'm concerned they are just new crunch for the sake of new crunch. The fluff is thoroughly covered by other classes.
Then again I think the Barbarian shouldn't exist either (I you want to play an angry uncivilized Fighter then do so). So my opinions are probably unpopular.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love the oracle. Clerics all look the same to me; 90% the same spell list for every cleric. Boring. Oracles are so much more varied.
Witches are a good start on a wizard alternative, although the class hasn't got the benefit of 10+ years of playtesting behind it yet, so there are still some kinks to work out.
Gunslingers are nice, but very much a "does my campaign have gunpowder" choice whether they'll fit in individual campaigns.
I really like the new base classes, everyone of them has a nice flavour and is designed around it.
Only Problem I have is with the Ninja (but just because of the Vanish as swift action & sneak attack trick)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I hate, loath and despise them all (Don't mod me bro, it's just my opinion).
The APG classes weren't so much power creep as they were a power leap imo. Not only that, but they are completely gratuitous. We really didn't need a summoner when there are already conjurers and sorcerers. They are all like that too. The witch is the worst offender here. Whenever I hear about parties of magi, summoners and alchemists I get a little more bitter.
To me, those classes just seem like a cynical ploy, like pay to win in F2P MMOs. Buy our book! Drive your party's Monk to drink and despair!
I hate modern game design in general.
Just wanted to get that off my chest.
I fully agree. The new classes, feats, spells, etc. that they keep adding more and more make what is in the core rulebook pointless.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I believe that 1E with it's 4 classes and lack of modern game design might be right up your alley.
It is. Seriously. however 2nd ed AD&D is my first choice. Unfortunately I'm basically stuck with a choice of PF or 4th edition in my area. while I'm not all that happy with what Paizo has done, 4th ed is just...*shudders*
I thank Paizo weekly for finally making a true "gish" class (Magus). WotC never made anything like it, and it is very close to the kind of class I longed to play for years. The 4e swordmage is similar, but lacked the option of being non-defendery.
I do wish Paizo would fixed the main problem with the magus: it has very limited variation potential (and still be viable). I would have liked to see a class that specializes in a single school of magic, and not just offensive/elemental magic, or that could use two-handed weapons and use magic (but still balanced somehow).
I'd love to see a supplement book that expands the magus to blend illusion/aburation/necromantic/et al into their martial attacks (as magical effects, not spells). If I could get an arcana that allows me to spend my arcane pool to defend my allies or mitigate damage (like the 4e swordmage), that would damn cool.
Nobody has mentioned the roleplaying opportunities presented by the new character classes! I have always been wary of playing magic users in 'crunchy' games like Pathfinder and have stuck with melee classes for the sake of simplicity, but when I played an alchemist in Carrion Crown (who dies during Trial of the Beast), I had a blast. Not because of his skills/abilities (I didn't fully understand the whole mutagen thing and completely ignored it), but becasue I was able to roleplay this mad alchemist, knocking up potions and selling them on unwittingly to the thieves guild, resulting in a massive increase in crime. :D I also drove my GM to distraction by scouring orphanages for assistants, who would invariably end up scarred/blown up in laboratory accidents. Good times. :D
So yeah, sometimes you might want to play a character that's a bit different. If you don't like the new content, don't use it. If other people in your group do still want to use it, learn to put up with it or move on. (I wanted to play a gunslinger in Shattered Star and my GM said no). :(
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Personally, I would have liked most of those base classes to have been Archtypes or Feat options for the core classes. In most cases, there is a pretty distinct difference in power, options, and ability between the two, but also having them as full classes, in my opinion, robs the others of the potential to explore too far into those concepts.
Alchemist: should be an option for any caster that wants to focus on potions. That being said, off all the newer classes, I see this one as unique enough to really maybe be it's own class.
Cavalier: would probably be better as a Fighter and/or Paladin Archtype. It's a class I really, really want to like, and every single time I try, I just walk away from the character sheet annoyed at how much it doesn't do what I expect. I liked the 3.5 Knight class a lot. This one just seems like a weak Fighter with subpar and less interesting class options chosen for you.
Inquisitor: I'm unsure. The Inquisitor basically takes all the issues with the Cleric/Paladin (like the risk of falling) and sweeps them under the rug. It also takes a lot of the rational for nerfing the Cleric and give it the finger. One huge complaint is, (and this goes for the Cavalier as well), is that the Cleric and Fighter really need 4+ Skills, at least, and if Paizo would have just fixed that, a lot of the main draw for the Inquisitor and the Cavalier, just wouldn't be. Concept wise, the Inq just steps all over the Cleric and Paladin's toes, and because they don't have the nerfs or the alignment/religious issues I mentioned, I see no point other than just to spite those two classes.
Oracle: mechanically this is close to what the Cleric should have looked like all along. The Oracle is almost outright better at whatever focus you seek, and well basically the Oracle is just better all around. Remove the very tiny amount of fluff "justification", and there really is no need to have two very similar classes with so much disparity.
Summoner: would make an amazing Cleric/Wizard/Sorcerer Feat Chain. My real beef with the Summoner is that Summoning is one of the biggest issues people have had with casters since 3E, hands down. Paizo nerfed it slightly by making it so that you can't control/communicate with a lot of what you summon, and not really offer much in the way of boosting it. However, the Summoner class gets a single class feature, for free, that any other character interested in Summoning would kill for, the ability to Summon Monster as a Standard Action. That alone would be worth it, but then the Summoner also gets near full spell casting with a great spell list, the best buddy in the game, and Light Armor and better HP than other arcane casters. There is a reason so many people have issues with this class.
Witch: personally, just not a fan, but I know a lot of people are. To me it just seems like wankery, and would have been a lot cooler as, (again) a Cleric or Wizard/Sorcerer archtype or some other type of option.
Gunslinger: don't really have an opinion on the class itself, but I do not have much use for it. I like a few of the concepts and mechanics, just not as part of this class. I haven't really seen any huge power gaps, though it seems that way on paper.
Ninja: I kind of like it. Not a fan of the Tian-push, and with most things it had the seemingly mandatory "it's Eastern, so it must be better" thing, but it wasn't as huge as some other things.
Samurai: in many ways, see Ninja. But I'm not really sure this one even needed to be, except because it was Eastern.
Magus: probably the largest leaps and bunds difference in power level. I'm ok with the principle. Okay, people have been shedding tears for a Gish forever, even if there have always been balanced and reasonable options. Paizo went out of their way to nerf casters so they couldn't make the martials second class citizens, and then made the Magus which can do it from level 1 onwards. It's got some amazing mechanics, but it breaks action economy pretty ridiculously and is pure cheese with a can of optimizated power-gaming on the side, batteries included. The base Magus is nearly on the same level as an optimized Summoner, and in my opinion, both really need to run the nerf gauntlet to rebalance with the core material. The Magus, (along with the Alchemist and Summoner), are Paizo's baby's, so it's doubtful.
And in the end, that is the largest issue I have with the newer classes. The level of power between the core and them is evident. The options they have open that others don't, regardless of how it makes perfect sense in the fluff. It gets worse as more books come out, leaving really only two options. Leave it as is and let it get worse or stop, fix it, and negate a rather large portion of their past product material, but better now than later.
I've never seen a gunslinger played, since the two people who have DMed for our group both said they didn't fit the setting, but we're about to start skulls and shackles in a few months, so maybe I'll see one played soon. Truthfully though, I'm a bit worried about it - the whole targeting touch AC seems like it would be too powerful at higher levels, but maybe that's just theory crafting.
Witch drove me nuts for a few months, since the class feels very 4th edition with it's at-will powers that emulate spells, increase in potency with every two levels. and are more effective in some cases - no scaling HD cap on sleep, seriously? But I've basically gotten over it my group agreed to house rule an HD limit of the witch's level + 2 on sleep in exchange for the cauldron hex for the price of a trait - the witch does have great flavor.
The summoner, I will never get over - it's rules are too complex. Both of the players who have tried putting one together messed them up in their own favor by quite a bit. Keeping the class an option is not worth the complexity of the rules, not to mention it is probably still too powerful, but I can't be sure of that.
I personally like the Magus - It's a great class with some great flavor. Now, our group did ban the magical lineage and wayang spell hunter traits as a result of the magus, but doing so really solved the cheesiness of that combination with shocking grasp and a keen (or just enhanced) scimitar doinng 100 damage on a crit at level 8 and critting every 3rd attack with 8 first level pearls of power... ... ... Yeah, I'm a lot happier now.
Alchemist seems like it has the potential to be extremely interesting and it's very flavorful. Again, we house ruled the vivisectionist out as it makes a better rogue, and it stacks with beastmorph and you get your own greater invisibility... With that change made, I love the class!
Cavalier is one I've personally played, though only up to level 3. It fills a great niche and is very fun to play, but the mounted combat rules are a bit messy. If you have a DM who's willing to sit down with you and talk them out for an hour or two and make sure you both understand them the same way, then it can be a very fun class to play with good flavor. (I played a L-G gnome, but I didn't follow a religion and I was only lawful in that I followed my code and good in that I had a very optimistic view of the world and the influence a single little guy with a big heart could have on it.) If you and your DM aren't on the same page about mounted combat, or if the campaign is not friendly towards mounted combat too often, then it could get pretty ugly and that is the danger of being forced into a single niche. Great flavor though!
I've yet to see an inquisitor played beyond the first few levels, though the divine skill monkey sounds like a cool concept. I've always wanted to play a vampire hunter character though, so it seems like an inquisitor may be the best option for doing so (aside from maybe a Paladin, but that doesn't fit the persona of what I have in mind.)
The Oracle is an interesting class. I am a bit concerned that it's too versatile - the power gamer in our group keeps talking about oracles, lol, so I'm a bit wary.
I think my least favorite thing about the new classes is the Ninja. Very similar to the vivisectionist (but probably even more so), it just trounces all over the rogue, basically removing it as an option. Now, we house ruled the rogue to be more powerful and this seems to have helped solve the problem, but the ninja is still an example of nearly obsoleting a class by making a new one that does everything the previous one did plus some more things.
Anti-paladin makes a great arch nemesis (I'm looking at you vampire knight of the sepulcher antipaladin) .
Samurai has never been played in our group, but it seems like it's just a fighter/paladin reflavored for an eastern campaign. Maybe I'm wrong on that.
Overall, I like most of what Paizo has done with the new classes, but we did some fixes to get to that point. I have other friends, however, who are strongly considering running core rulebook only campaigns due to some of the new classes...
I dislike most of the class packages as they are some are truly horrible others there is one or two class features or the execution that leaves much to be desired.
Witch, I dislike the forced familiar, the hex system isn't that well balanced and the same goes for some individual hexes, most normal hexes are better than the major hexes and the hexes are often too powerful or barely useful, grand hexes aren't that great either in comparison, save or die/sleep makes encounters simply boring and repetitive unless you encounter many creatures that are immune.
Inquisitor, I do not like the spell list (it is a bit too arcane), the bane mechanics, the fact that it is a wisdom based spontaneous caster out off the box for no real reason, the domain you kind of but not quite get, the judgement mechanics, solo tactics, teamwork feats, the stalwart ability is poorly constructed, I guess not much is left.. I'd rather see it as an archetype for paladins or clerics, or just done differently.
Alchemist I loathe the 'spellcasting' mechanics for the class and I'd think it would have been much more interesting as an interesting wizard archetype or no spellcasting system at all, not so sure about bombs and mutagen as a default class feature either.
Summoner, just all wrong.. all of it, can not think of any redeeming words, should have been a wizard archetype done 100 times better.
Cavalier, not for every campaign but is actually quite decent, though an alternate fighter could have worked making it a base class makes sense, not wild about it but I do not hate it either.
Oracle, is probably the best class from the APG though having a default curse kinda rubs me the wrong way but it does in some ways improve on the sorcerers design for a spontaneous counterpart to the cleric and has a niche to fill.
Magus is pretty good though the spellcombat/spellstrike features could have been less of a flurry of attacks, I ended up changing shocking grasp to 2d6 +1d6 for every 2 levels after up to 5d6 at 7th and did not allow the arcane mark trick, but the class has potential.
Gunslinger, pretty cool, though I'd like it better when I think of firearms as tweeked crossbows, I just don't like firearms. The class has osme nice features but I'd rather see a grit mechanic for the fighter and the gunslinger as an archetype.
My game is "Core Rulebook +" , meaning that any individual rule from another source is subject to GM approval. I do allow the magus, cavalier, oracle, witch, and inquisitor.
The alchemist class is OK, but I've been using a custom NPC alchemist class I wrote for 3.0, which works better for my game. Now that I've seen some good alchemist NPCs in Paizo products, I'm starting to warm to it. I think that I may open that one up.
I very much dislike the summoner class, and it will remain disallowed in my games for the foreseeable future.
I haven't decided whether or not guns actually exist in my world, so the gunslinger is out. There's also no connection to an Asia analogue, so none of the Eastern-themed classes are appropriate.
|
I feel differently about different classes...so, taking them on in groups related to my feelings...I love the Inquisitor, Oracle, Alchemist, and Magus - though I feel Oracles should be very rare in the game, that just means I won't be making a lot of Oracle NPCs.
The Witch, I love enough that I've made them into one of the main enemies of the campaign...no, not one BBEG...covens of them...some of which stand out...but...not all of which are actual enemies.
Cavaliers make great NPCs. I have (small) units of them. I can run the kind of game that allows Cavaliers to be played and enjoyed, but I don't see that happening much.
Samurai and Ninja can be reskinned, should I include them. I haven't gone to the trouble yet, though I may some day. Then again, I might run oriental flavored scenarios.
Gunslinger. Hmmm. I don't tend to like guns in my fantasy worlds...my favorite fantasy stories simply don't involve them. Sometimes, they can be interesting, in small doses...I (sometimes) like the idea that dwarves or gnomes (or both) have them as 'secret weapons'...they have that sort of flavor.
This leaves us with the Summoner. This is a true love/hate relationship...it makes a summoning PC very viable...but it's a toolkit of campaign destruction, in the wrong hands. This thing has balance issues like nothing else. I like reasonably optimal characters...I can't stand utterly min/maxed.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thank Paizo weekly for finally making a true "gish" class (Magus). WotC never made anything like it, and it is very close to the kind of class I longed to play for years.
They made a couple that were similar; hexblade (full BAB, 4th-level casting) and duskblade (full BAB, 5th-level casting). I think their spell lists were slightly more limited than that of the magus, but they do have one thing the magus lacks; full BAB :)
I like all the classes.
I especially adore the witch, magus, alchemist, and ninja.
I'm still doing experiments with summoners, but the concept pleases me. However, I'd personally prefer them to, instead of forming a eidolon out of planar-sapience-mystic-energystuff, bond to an actual non-crafted outsider and enter into a growing symbiosis with it - the familiar concept on steroids, and with evolutions/growth kept from the eidolon point system. Yes, you can 'skin' your eidolon to look like a succubus or agathion or ashura, but I like the idea of actually having one as one's summon, instead of a engineered knock-off. Also, I'd like some variant of where spell levels are usable as a replacement/alternative measure of HD summonable type thing for those who would want to spam swarms of summons isntead of using a bonded partner, if one wanted to emulate the feel of the summoners from earlier Final Fantasy games where they were simply 'oversized damage/heal spells with cool effects'.
Gunslingers have met with approval with my groups, though that also ties into inevitable gunslinger/alchemist love-fest team-ups.
The cavalier is nifty and all, but I've not gotten around to running campaigns with lots of mounted combat...though when I get around to running that Sangoku Musou inspired bit of fun, they will get to shine, because then EVERYONE can roll up a Ma Chao.
I thank Paizo weekly for finally making a true "gish" class (Magus). WotC never made anything like it, and it is very close to the kind of class I longed to play for years.They made a couple that were similar; hexblade (full BAB, 4th-level casting) and duskblade (full BAB, 5th-level casting). I think their spell lists were slightly more limited than that of the magus, but they do have one thing the magus lacks; full BAB :)
Oh, I agree the hexblade and duskblade are similar, but neither had features like arcane pool or magus arcana. I do agree that power-gaming a magus can wreak havoc with a campaign. The kensai archetype has some serious balance issues, and it'd be nice to see a non-elemental focused magus archetype.
The Witch is my favorite class of all, though do like all of them.
Summoner I restrict to experienced players for obvious reasons, but I haven't had a power level issue with it. I sort of have a "soft restriction" to core rulebook for new players, not because they couldn't handle the additional classes/races necessarily, it's just a LOT of options.
|
|
Witch: personally, just not a fan, but I know a lot of people are. To me it just seems like wankery, and would have been a lot cooler as, (again) a Cleric or Wizard/Sorcerer archtype or some other type of option.The witch wouldn't be able to function as they intended it to if it was a wizard archetype. The hexes would need to be substantially weakened if they were going to give them the much better wizard spell list, because the wizard has so few class features to actually replace.
They could write out the spell list anyway and say that the witch draws on spells from that list instead...but at that point you might as well just have an all new class altogether, because you've replaced everything anyway.
I just don't see how they'd be able to retain the satisfying impact that hexes have without completely breaking balance if they had it as a wizard archetype.
There are a few Archtypes out there that work for more than one Class, and I think that having a Cleric (Witch) focused on curses and Debuffs and a specialist Wizard (Witch) would have been a lot better. Hexes could work along the same line (and be at about the same power level) as Domain Powers and School/Bloodline Abilities. Between that, At will 0 Level sells, and their normal (slightly modified) Spell Lists, would work out a lot better, in my opinion, only needing a tiny nudge at flavor ad fluff, and keep it in line with the other classes. Same with the Summoner, and Alchemist. So I'm not suggesting that the full Witch class should be redone as an Archtype(s), but rather that it would have been better, in my opinion, had it just been an Archtype that gets close to using the existing rules and concepts.
In addition to that, it would have offered more inclusive option rather than exclusive, unique ones. That is to say, if you want to play the concept (reasonably) you could do this, that, or the other vs only the Witch/Summoner/etc. . .
The other thing I dislike about these classes, and it's a trend that is becoming much more prevalent, is that it is really blurring the lines on what a proper spell list should be, and how to balance it. I don't think that a Witch should be anywhere close to as good a healer as a Druid, for example, and certainly not about equal to a Cleric. I don't like that the lines for what should be an Arcance or Divine spell have been crossed.
Again, just my opinion, and I know that there are a lot of fans of the Witch/Summoner/Alchemist specifically.
|
|
Or just someone wanting to se what other people think.
They didn't compare it to an MMO, they said that some of the newer classes feel like they where designed to play similar to a play style in MMO's, and the perceived/real disparity with the ever famous Monk in PF and 4E.
Are you sure it's them that the "troll"? It seems like everyone else is just discussing it civilly.
|
|
Its easy to see the new classes as overpowered as often they are built around a particular concept. I have normally found that over time this balances out with other optimised base classes.
For example, the Magus can spam out shacking grasps and recall them all day using the arcana pool. This means by 5th level they do a lot of reliable damage. This starts to level out as they progress and around 7th level the druid in our party was out damaging the magus when he was in wild shape as a large cat with a large cat companion.
The alchemist seems very powerful when they are throwing bombs that do a lot of damage and damage over time, but this can still pale when compared to regular melee damage from a maxed out fighter.
The new base classes have their place.
Want a fighter with a horse that doesn't just die? Play a cavalier. You are a weaker fighter, but you have a powerful animal companion and more skills.
Played the Witcher computer game and want to be like him? Play an alchemist. In an oriental setting use the samuri and ninja. (I always wondered why there was a monk in core rules..?)
Got a gunpowder setting? Play a gunslinger. Fire arms are pretty useless with out the class or a lot of feats.
Want to have a more powerful pet than a druid? Be a summoner. You can't wild shape and you can be vulnerable once your pet has gone.
Want a hybrid caster? Play a witch or a magus. The witch we play with has limited effect if something makes its first save versus sleep.
The oracle is to the cleric as the sorcerer is to the wizard.
Very simple analysis I know and they all have their loopholes, but so do the base classes.
Because they often use unfamiliar mechanics they often seem more powerful. If you use the core rules to optimise you can get some very powerful characters. An optimised barbarian at level 1 can do 1d12 (great axe)+7(20 str)+3(rage)+3(power attack) damage for a maximum of 25 damage, 3d12 + 39 on a crit. The to hit bonus would be +7.
The Wizard or Sorcerer at level 1 can have a DC 16 for the colour spray or other spells that can one shot a 4HD opponent.
The cleric can easily deal out mega healing, or damage if they have selective channeling and a good charisma. If they are neutral they might even manage both with versatile channeling...
|
Or just someone wanting to se what other people think.
They didn't compare it to an MMO, they said that some of the newer classes feel like they where designed to play similar to a play style in MMO's, and the perceived/real disparity with the ever famous Monk in PF and 4E.
Are you sure it's them that the "troll"? It seems like everyone else is just discussing it civilly.
I think you're splitting hairs on the MMO thing, but I agree with your larger point.
One thing I really love about the Paizo boards is that, even in threads that start off with "I really hate X", people still manage to bring it around to a reasoned discussion.
Personally, I hate, loath and despise them all (Don't mod me bro, it's just my opinion).
The APG classes weren't so much power creep as they were a power leap imo. Not only that, but they are completely gratuitous. We really didn't need a summoner when there are already conjurers and sorcerers. They are all like that too. The witch is the worst offender here. Whenever I hear about parties of magi, summoners and alchemists I get a little more bitter.
To me, those classes just seem like a cynical ploy, like pay to win in F2P MMOs. Buy our book! Drive your party's Monk to drink and despair!
I hate modern game design in general.
Just wanted to get that off my chest.
By the way, this has come up before. :)
Right now, too many racial options, archetypes, feats, traits (I've come to despise them with the strength of a thousand fiery suns), silly races and spells, the option bloat already seen in the 3.X era. And the inevitable race to combos and bonus stacking.
Yes, and to a degree inevitable. :( Paizo is a business, so they have to have some content to publish.
Unfortunately, one of the things that I would have hoped for in Ultimate Magic is more guidance on what makes a good Witch (or Summoner, or Inquisitor, etc.) spell. They excluded several spells for good reason, and I would have liked some insight into what those reasons are so that when new spells are introduced into the campaign (especially from 3rd party sources that may pre-date the APG) to evaluate if they would also be good for one of these alternate classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The only thing I dislike about the new base classes is that I feel the summoner class should really be two different classes; one class (summoner) focused on summoning creatures and improving your summoned creatures, and another class (eidoloncer?) focused on the eidolon companion. I think both concepts should have a stronger focus than the summoner class gives them.
Oh, and I also don't like that the eidolon has a number of abilities that are almost-but-not-quite like regular monster abilities. I'd prefer that they used the normal monster abilities in those cases.
I really like the new base classes. A number of the "classic" core classes (fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard) serve as very generic chassis for a lot of concepts. However, the mechanics don't do much to reinforce these concepts from a roleplay point of view.
For example, wizards all seemed a bit generic to me with little to differentiate them except for their favored schools. The witch class is a great way to build an arcane caster where your choice of patron and hexes helps to keep your character coherent and distinct.