How do people feel about Paizo's "new" base classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 737 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Honestly I am more concerned with stuff that has yet to be released for instance this new bestiary 4 that i fear will rule my collection obsolete, I have several books out or being released soon that I want but can't afford and i feel like I will be woefully behind the times soon, with published APs incorporating new monsters I have to pay another 40-50 $ to access.

Shadow Lodge

thejeff wrote:
You mean the line that the bard spell list crossed?

The Bard has relatively minor healing, even taking things like the Song Healer Archtype. That's one thing, and also it is usually the Bard that is the standard on what is appropriate. However, the Witch gets all kinds of Cure and Remove Spells, as an Arcane source which then begs the question of why can't they make scrolls and the Wizards learn them for the class list, etc. . . etc. . . Not to mention Miracle, FlameStrike, Heal/Harm, Righteous Might/Divine Favor/Divine Might.

The Inquisitor has likewise gotten some spells that are clearly outside of the "this is what a Divine spell should look like at this level", which is sometimes beyond what even a primary Divine caster like the Cleric or Druid can pull off.


The more I think about it, the more I want to play AD&D 1.5. Take the BAB, Stats, and skills from 3.0 and the rest from 1E. This Rule Book


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I strongly dislike the Summoner and Gunslinger for fluff and rules reasons, but the other classes are all a good addition to the game.

What I do question is Paizos decision to exerbate the "15 minute adventuring day" problem with their class design. About every one of those classes has some of their strongest abilities on a very limited use basis, which encourages parties to rest constantly.

For Pathfinder 2.0, Paizo either should shorten rest periods ( in a way so that adventurers can rest a few times per day ) or give more uses to those limited use abilities, so that adventuring days can last longer.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

I like the variety of choices, good and bad, over the design your own systems.

(Except for supers):P

Scarab Sages

If you're concerned about power creep, under optimize your character in exchange for more roleplay-heavy features. It's an RPG, there's no rule that all characters need to be optimized to hell.

Shadow Lodge

EldonG wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I believe that 1E with it's 4 classes and lack of modern game design might be right up your alley.

Your counting skills leave much to be desired.

11 =/= 4

Huh?

You do understand that there were editions before D&D 3.0, right

Probably better than you do.

1st Edition classes:

Cleric
Druid
Monk
Thief
Assassin
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Magic-User
Illusionist
Bard (although really kind of a proto-prestige class)

Unearthed Arcana also later added three more classes; the barbarian, the cavalier, and the thief-acrobat.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like Paizo's new classes very much. A few are not for me personally (the gunslinger for examle) but overall, I have no problem whatsoever with thim.

I think more options is a GOOD thing and more classes for players to choose from is never a bad thing. I'll admit that I may be biased in this regard, as I have had a number a new classes released by various RPG companies (Kobold Press, Super Genius Games etc) but still ... I just don't see the problem with giving people more options.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
EldonG wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I believe that 1E with it's 4 classes and lack of modern game design might be right up your alley.

Your counting skills leave much to be desired.

11 =/= 4

Huh?

You do understand that there were editions before D&D 3.0, right

Probably better than you do.

1st Edition classes:

Cleric
Druid
Monk
Thief
Assassin
Fighter
Paladin
Ranger
Magic-User
Illusionist
Bard (although really kind of a proto-prestige class)

Unearthed Arcana also later added three more classes; the barbarian, the cavalier, and the thief-acrobat.

Uh, no.

The white box set did not include those. And...I played under those rules.

In the original Dungeons & Dragons boxed set, there were only three main classes: the Cleric, the Fighting man, and the Magic-User. The first supplement, Greyhawk, added the Thief as a fourth main class, as well as the Paladin as a fighter subclass. These four fantasy gaming archetypes represent four major tactical roles in play: the Fighter offers direct combat strength and durability; the Thief offers cunning and stealth; the Cleric provides support in both combat and magic; and the Magic-User has a variety of magical powers. In many ways, other classes are thought of as alternatives that refine or combine these functions. Dwarves and Halflings were restricted to the Fighting Man class, and Elves were restricted to the Fighting Man and Magic-User classes; all three races had limited level advancement.

Wiki

It was released in 1974...I first played in 1977. What you are referring to is Advanced Dungeons and Dragons.


I like most of the classes Paizo has released. I don't understand the complaint that "you don't need these classes, you can make them from existing classes." First off, that's not 100% true, and second, we've always gone on the side of more options. You could argue that a fighter/rogue with wilderness skills could replace the ranger, but you don't get the exact flavor of the ranger.

In 3.0 and 3.5 you would buy splatbooks and get a thousand prestige classes. You would want to play one, and build a character from level one with that prestige class in mind, hoping the campaign would last that long. In Pathfinder there are some prestige classes, but with the archetypes and new base classes you are much more likely to be able to play the character you want from the beginning. Instead of "first level fighter, next five wizard, eldritch knight, abjurant champion," you just play a magus.

Shadow Lodge

EldonG

When you say 1E, pretty much everyone except you thinks AD&D.

And even if we talk about 0E, your counting still leaves much to be desired.

3 =/= 4 (original boxed set)
5 =/= 4 (with Greyhawk supplement)

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:

EldonG

When you say 1E, pretty much everyone except you thinks AD&D.

And even if we talk about 0E, your counting still leaves much to be desired.

3 =/= 4 (original boxed set)
5 =/= 4 (with Greyhawk supplement)

The paladin was a SUBclass...not a class in its own right...and I was explaining what was originally posted. A lot of people actually refer to it as OD&D, nowadays...but trust me, it didn't have that name in the 70s.

It was the first edition of D&D.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Antipaladin: I already have morphed Paladins in to a catch-all 'Holy Warrior'. This does give ideas for my several kinds of HW.
Cavalier and the Orders: I like and had terrible substitutes for them in game, Still haven't had to deal with one in game.
Gunslinger: No
Inquisitor: meh...but I do like the Archetypes
Magus: Not what I really wanted, but the Archetypes hepl me with some campaign specific classes I'm working on.
Oracle: With both Curses and Mysteries, the clerical version of Sorcerer is enough it's own thing to stand on its own.
Summoner: I want to play one before I start running again. The Eidolon throws me.
Witch: Again, I like the archetypes.

Ninja/Samurai: I do not have monks either.


My main complaints are that most of the base classes do not appear to be as well designed as the core classes. A lot seem to have "cool, but rather useless in practice" abilities tacked on, or are only really useful when made as antagonists for the party to fight.

Inquisitor teamwork feats are pointless, considering that they are melee focused for a class built for a ranged playstyle. Witches being able to mess with crops is pointless when you are adventuring in dungeons and saving the world. Oracle curses are cool, but blatantly unbalanced...deaf (spell failure) vs haunted (no real drawback + free spells) is pretty much a no contest. Infact, no attempt seems to have been made to balance oracle curses. Summoner eidlons are clearly geared towards the "mass as many natural attacks as possible" route and it is incredibly sub optimal to try and make a eidlon that can use weapons/armor.

And of course, many of the arche types are cool ideas with bad mechanics.

The witch is probably my biggest gripe, really cool idea, just badly executed with the 30 ft range limitation, poor spell selection, patron powers being watered down sorcerer bloodlines, and a familiar cum spellbook that you pretty much can't take out of the backpack for fear of getting it killed. It's like a combination wizard/sorc, with the worst of both and some cool hexes tacked on.

Samurai vs fighter is another example of class full of gimmick abilities vs one that is well designed and made to work.


Kthulhu wrote:

EldonG

When you say 1E, pretty much everyone except you thinks AD&D.

And even if we talk about 0E, your counting still leaves much to be desired.

3 =/= 4 (original boxed set)
5 =/= 4 (with Greyhawk supplement)

You do realize that there are three different game sets out there.

There is Dungeons and Dragons, the original white books, you labeled 0E, which was followed by a second, third, fourth, and fifth version. This ended with the Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia. (I believe.)

Then there is Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, which had a 1st and 2nd Edition.

Those were both replaced by Dungeons and Dragons 3.0 and then 3.5 and then 4.0.

Shadow Lodge

Using that logic, when you refer to "D&D 3.0" above, am I to assume that you meant AD&D, since it came after the original boxed set and the Holmes Basic set, but before the Moldvay Basic Set ?

How are you enjoying the playtest for D&D 12E ?


let´s see

11 core classes (plus the antipal guy)
they are very neat classes, but gming this classes for 13+years come a point where you get all you can from those!!

the APG classes, the worst of all classes to me were the Cavalier (and his Samurai alternate class from UC)
the other five APG Classes fill some builds. i dont stands in front line for defend them but always is better to have more options

Magus in the other hand is the best PFRPG new class to me. thats the way a Sorcerer was announced in 3.0 description but in the mechanics was the same as the wizard with a couple of slots

i usualy use Ranger at any party because its my flavorful detective like batman or something!!
you can make almos evrything with that class!!


AD&D =/= D&D.

AD&D had two editions. AD&D and AD&D Second Edition.

D&D had 4 editions, 5 if you want count Next. Original white books; the Basic, Expert, etc., that culminated in the Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia; D&D 3.x; and D&D 4.0.

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:

Using that logic, when you refer to "D&D 3.0" above, am I to assume that you meant AD&D, since it came after the original boxed set and the Holmes Basic set, but before the Moldvay Basic Set ?

How are you enjoying the playtest for D&D 12E ?

You just like to argue, don't you?

Vod remembers it well. 2nd edition AD&D wasn't all that significant a difference from 1st edition AD&D (or for that matter, the basic of the time.) 3.0 was a dramatically new system, and that basic system is still in use in Pathfinder. In all fairness, 4th is dramatically different too. I can't stand it.

For those that long for that original feel, there are a couple of games out there that use essentially the same rules...OSRIC and Swords and Wizardry...Castles and Crusades has a similar feel.


Inquisitor and Alchemist, I feel, are very fun, interesting, and unique. Some people have mentioned that the APG classes can be built out of the core rulebook... maybe you could share some examples?

While I agree with the majority in that the Cavalier is... let's say lacking, I think that ALL classes have their own niche and can be fun. I mean come on, isn't that the whole point? To think of something cool you wanna play and just go for it?

Shadow Lodge

You're the one who made a big deal out of me assuming that 1E referred to AD&D...an assumption that 99.95% of gamers would make. I guess we won't really know until Gorbacz comes to clear up what he meant by "1E".

Liberty's Edge

Kthulhu wrote:
You're the one who made a big deal out of me assuming that 1E referred to AD&D...an assumption that 99.95% of gamers would make. I guess we won't really know until Gorbacz comes to clear up what he meant by "1E".

Excuse me?

I explained where the concept of the 4 original classes came from. You might want to look again. Your response made it appear that you'd never heard of it.


Man, you couldn't play anything close to the alchemist, witch, cavalier, or whatever before those classes came out.

Oh, you wanted to play a traditional mounted leader type? Tough luck.

Oh, you want to play a witch? Well, there is the wizard or the druid...

Oh, you want to play an alchemist? A what?

All of these classes filled a role that you had to bend over backwards just to approach. Oh, but god forbid we should be able to play certain characters in Pathfinder. All of this "New options are bad" doesn't make sense to me from any perspective.

And I have to disagree with you, Kthulhu. I've only ever seen AD&D referred to as AD&D. 1E generally refers to the first edition of a game, which the first edition is. Fancy that.

Shadow Lodge

Even here on this very site, 1E is used as the system identifier for AD&D. Don't believe me? Click this link. If you have honestly never encountered 1E as a shorthand for AD&D, then I have to wonder what rock you've been living under, to have been an active participant in this hobby for so long and yet managed to miss something that's so amazingly widespread.

Subclasses were full classes that were were capable of filling the same nominal role as another class. They weren't the same thing as Pathfinder's archetypes or 2E's (that's Advanced Dungeons & Dragon's second iteration, the one published in 1989, just so we're clear) kits.


I enjoy all of the added classes, with a couple exceptions here and there. I'm not a fan of the summoner. The fact that the eidolon is no better than a summoned monster in most cases (I've seen it used as a trap springer far too many times, and there's no mechanical repercussion for treating your eidolon like garbage) tends to annoy me.

The Ninja I don't mind, I just find I always have to houserule the vanishing trick into a standard action to make it work.

Alchemist, Cavalier, Inquisitor, Oracle, Witch, Gunslinger and Samurai are all okay in my book. I use Golarion for my setting with only early firearms, so they all fit and nothing is really overpowered. In terms of power creep, the Core book full casters are still more powerful than basically anything else, and can still often end encounters with a spell or two. I see the additional books as adding some nice options so things don't get so stale.


Kthulhu wrote:
Even here on this very site, 1E is used as the system identifier for AD&D. Don't believe me? Click this link. If you have honestly never encountered 1E as a shorthand for AD&D, then I have to wonder what rock you've been living under, to have been an active participant in this hobby for so long and yet managed to miss something that's so amazingly widespread.

You know, I don't know why I chimed in. This is a silly argument.

Silver Crusade

Can the edition argument start its own thread? Thanks.

Love the Cavalier, Samurai and Inquisitor.

Like the Oracle.

Meh on the Ninja, Magus, Summoner and Gunslinger

Dislike the Alchemist.

Hate the Witch.

My opinion is just that, an opinion. I love that people love the Witch and Alchemist, kudos to them. These options don't destroy the game, they enhance it.

If you don't like a class, house rule it into the cornfield. Problem solved.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Devil's Advocate wrote:

The Bard has relatively minor healing, even taking things like the Song Healer Archtype. That's one thing, and also it is usually the Bard that is the standard on what is appropriate. However, the Witch gets all kinds of Cure and Remove Spells, as an Arcane source which then begs the question of why can't they make scrolls and the Wizards learn them for the class list, etc. . . etc. . . Not to mention Miracle, FlameStrike, Heal/Harm, Righteous Might/Divine Favor/Divine Might.

The Inquisitor has likewise gotten some spells that are clearly outside of the "this is what a Divine spell should look like at this level", which is sometimes beyond what even a primary Divine caster like the Cleric or Druid can pull off.

Well, the witch is a hybrid between the arcane/divine caster, even with how they get access to spells. That explains why they can do some of the divine things wizards cannot. When the wizard is based on having vague and mysterious patrons they might be able to cast divine spells too.

The better access to the 'remove' line is due to the witch being able to cause most of those conditions in the first place. While it puts the witch on par with the druid under normal circumstances (a druid knows all his spells, while a witch must allocate precious 'spells known' for them) it does allow for a focused witch (with a healing patron and/or the hedge witch archetype) to do better. They still can't compete with a cleric, and especially not a healing domain cleric or life oracle in this regard.

I'm not seeing the 'things divine spells should not do' on the inquisitor list when I take a quick look at it. Most of the spells seem to be basic, or personal boosts, with some from the paladin list thrown in. Which all makes sense, considering that the inquisitor pretty much an inverse-bard when you consider it. Divine spells instead of arcane, boosts for personal use instead of the party, and focused on seeing through deceptions rather than causing them.

Liberty's Edge

Albatoonoe wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Even here on this very site, 1E is used as the system identifier for AD&D. Don't believe me? Click this link. If you have honestly never encountered 1E as a shorthand for AD&D, then I have to wonder what rock you've been living under, to have been an active participant in this hobby for so long and yet managed to miss something that's so amazingly widespread.
You know, I don't know why I chimed in. This is a silly argument.

It is at that. I think it's pretty clear what was originally meant...that was my only concern to begin with. I'm done with it, too.


I think the Alchemist, Gunslinger, Magus, Ninja and Oracle are pretty cool, and could see myself playing any one of them. The rest ... not really my bag. The Oracle gets props for being a divine class with spontaneous casting (my preference) and no reference to gods (again, my preference).


Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, Starfinder Accessories, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

The summoner is the only one I dislike - I believe it's based on a computer game concept (?) but to me it has no connection with any stories I know, so it has no attraction to me.

The others are unlikely to get used at our table, but I don't have any actual antipathy to them.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

Everything is overpowered.
Everything has been nerfed.
There are too many feats (options in general).
There aren't enough feats (options in general).
Paizo is succumbing to bloat.
Paizo needs to produce more sourcebooks.
Paizo is sneaking power creep into the game.
Paizo isn't doing enough to make characters viable.
Paizo is just another corporate bloodsucking monstrosity preying on gamers.
Paizo is a fine business turning out quality products for fans who really love them.

There. I think that covers most of it.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DungeonmasterCal wrote:

Everything is overpowered.

Everything has been nerfed.
There are too many feats (options in general).
There aren't enough feats (options in general).
Paizo is succumbing to bloat.
Paizo needs to produce more sourcebooks.
Paizo is sneaking power creep into the game.
Paizo isn't doing enough to make characters viable.
Paizo is just another corporate bloodsucking monstrosity preying on gamers.
Paizo is a fine business turning out quality products for fans who really love them.

There. I think that covers most of it.

You forgot one. Paizo employs Cosmo.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Not sure if "employs" is the right term. "Enables" is more fitting.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Not sure if "employs" is the right term. "Enables" is more fitting.

That could be the other view.

Paizo employs Cosmo.
Paizo enables Cosmo.


Assuming_Control wrote:


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.

So, no Sorcerers, either?

The Oracle is simple the divine Sorc. Needed. No doubt at all.

I'm with JJ on the Summoner- cool idea, very poor execution. The "build your own " allows horrendous mix/maxing and needs to be vigorously math & rules checked every level.

Alchemist & Witch are cool. Needed? Well, that's debatable, but they are fun.

Cavalier is fine for some campaigns. People have been asking for a Knight type that doesn't have to be LG from day 2. Now we have one.

The Exchange

DungeonmasterCal wrote:

Everything is overpowered.

Everything has been nerfed.
There are too many feats (options in general).
There aren't enough feats (options in general).
Paizo is succumbing to bloat.
Paizo needs to produce more sourcebooks.
Paizo is sneaking power creep into the game.
Paizo isn't doing enough to make characters viable.
Paizo is just another corporate bloodsucking monstrosity preying on gamers.
Paizo is a fine business turning out quality products for fans who really love them.

There. I think that covers most of it.

No, it doesn't. Not for this thread. Not by a long shot. I'm flagging this thread for TIPS!! I'm new to Pathfinder. This is, in part, an all class and what are they good for/not good for/not good at all discussion.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I find little of interest in the non-core classes. They seem narrow and predefined.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Saluzi wrote:
I'm flagging this thread for TIPS!! I'm new to Pathfinder. This is, in part, an all class and what are they good for/not good for/not good at all discussion.

This is not a good thread for that. Really. Find a thread where they rate the new classes by "tier".

Grand Lodge

The oracle, inquisitor and witch fill much needed roles actually as the divine skill monkey, spont divine caster and the arcane/divine caster was not something really covered under core rules (and no the MT is not a viable option). The cav and alchemist are kinda niche...but meh. The summoner kinda annoys me because it was obviously written by the same jackaninnie who broke conjuration in 3.x as that was his/her favorite school of magic. It actually annoys me even more now with the advent of snowball spell. The magus I am disappointed with because instead of having a fighter/arcane caster, it is basically a DPR class so you still have to suffer through low level EK builds for fighter/arcane. Samurai, ninja and gunslinger are jut fluff classes so..meh.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

When trying to see how the new classes run, try running the same adventure with a mix of some of the new classes in compared to the existing ones.

Certainly there is a direct root to success that some of the more 'direct' core classes can take, but watching a group using an Alchemist and a Summoner (with one of the other players running his slightly ornery Eidolon) and short of an arcane caster with full 0-9th Spell casting was great. There were some parts that they certainly breezed but others that original (pre-APG) group barely noticed that became phenomenal challenges!

More than anything though, the new classes are full of flavour and imply their own paradigm when being played that I have always felt is sometimes lacking with variants on the core classes (its too easy to slip from failure to utility perhaps?).

I think its the diversity of the new classes I like, with everything ready to go - well done guys at Paizo! I hope the future holds even more surprises!!


What do I think about the new classes?

Alchemist? I like it, love the scientist aspect about it, one of my players plays one... and he came up with some sick combos.

Cavalier? I got mixed feelings about it. I wasn't much of a fan of the Knight class in 3.5 2nd Player's Handbook. The abilities look good, but it's a bit hard to not see this as a fighter or as a paladin archetype.

Inquisitor? Hmmm... looks good, but I never took the time to really dig into it. It looks like a good class if you wish to play as a stealth-oriented cleric... or a vigilante :)

Oracle? Considering the absence of the spirit shaman, this class is neat. You also get a nice set of spells, but at a reasonable cost.

Summoner? I like it, because you can get really creative with your eidolon. While you do get a spell that summons your eidolon without barring your summon monsters spell-like abilities, I have yet to find something that would allow you to use those abilities while the eidolon is out normally.

Witch? Not really a fan... it's a wizard with fewer spells and new rather underwhelming hexes. I would have seen this as a sorcerer or wizard archetype instead.

Magus? Honesty? My favorite new class :) It's a good mix for the fighter/mage type of character. My only complaint is the spell list. Bards gets a few 7th, 8th and 9th-level spells as 6th-level spells... but the Magus doesn't get access to 7th, 8th and 9th-level spells in any way. You want Polar Ray for your spellstrike? Well, you can't...

Gunslinger? Looks pretty cool... although I fail to understand why the Pistol Whip deed costs 1 grit point. The grit point rate is also low; I would have preferred 1 grit point per 2 levels + Wisdom modifier.

Ninja? While it could have been a rogue archetype, I think it came out pretty good as a class of its own.

Samurai? Pointless... it should have been a cavalier archetype at best.

Those are just my personal opinion.


Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I generally like the new classes and would even add a class or two.


John Kretzer wrote:

I generally like the new classes and would even add a class or two.

I agree. I wouldn't mind spontaneous caster with the Druid list, but without all the baggage.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Alchemist: Like the easy blaster possibilities. The not-magic magic is also a nice flavor twist, I'm a big fan of psionics.

Cavalier: Mechanically, it's a paladin without the LG baggage but the mandatory mount is a bit of baggage. Flavor wise, it's mostly a blank slate like the Fighter.

Inquisitor: A way to play the combat cleric but forgiving on the 'servant of a deity' thing and easier to focus the build. Having another spontaneous divine caster options is also really nice.

Oracle: speaking of spontaneous divine casters... I think this a very nice analog to the cleric. Ostensibly similar in goal, but with different tools at its disposal beyond its spell list. I will agree with others that sorcerer bloodlines and bonus spells could stand a rewrite to be more along the lines of mysteries.

Summoner: I admit I'm not really sure what's going on here. I have seen how badly the math can be done with the eidolon, and the spell list gets powerful options so it barely feels like a truncated spell progression, and the summon monster standard action in addition is a complex and very powerful tool. That all being said, it's got tons of flavor prospectives because the eidolon is specifically not locked into anything.

Witch: I personally love hexes, they have a nice blend of at will and limited per day (because usually you can only use any given one once on any given target within 24 hours). I don't think they're boring or repetitive because your average wizard will also most likely have certain spells they will almost always prepare and try to use anyway. The mandatory familiar is a bit annoying though.

Magus: A fighter/mage from level 1, being not quite as good at either as a dedicated class but blending them together is a unique way beyond just A+B.

Gunslinger: I have no real experience with them because in all the campaigns I've been in, while they have not been banned noone ever seems to want to make one. Myself included.

Antipaladin, Ninja, Samurai: These are alternate classes. Meaning they are just glorified archetypes of Paladin, Rogue, and Cavalier. Martial Artist may well have been presented as an alternate class, but I suspect there wasn't enough room in the book. No further comment.

Liberty's Edge

Zhayne wrote:
John Kretzer wrote:

I generally like the new classes and would even add a class or two.

I agree. I wouldn't mind spontaneous caster with the Druid list, but without all the baggage.

Well, it's not a Paizo class, but ...

Slightly Off Topic:
There is The Expanded Shaman from Kobold Press


I thought AD&D was 2E with Basic being 1E. Then you had I think it was the chainmail box set that was 0E


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How I feel about the base classes vary between them, but power is actually the least of my complaints. More so its that I feel that they've stolen archetypes and fluff from other classes. I feel some of them have awful design in certain places, or require more archetypes for when something about the main class you just don't like.

Rant and a text wall:

Alchemist is somehow a caster that isn't a caster. He gets feat taxed for infusion, and his mutagen takes a standard action to use and takes a while to make a new one. I'm not a fan of the way they treat the mutagen, nor of the extracts. Reading on them makes them confusing. I do however like the discoveries, but I feel like he could have more and that he won't get the support for that.

Cavalier I feel weird about. He gets an order, which I feel should be an ingame mechanic unrelated to your class, and he focuses on mounted combat(no archetype to replace it!) and well, mounts don't always do so well. He also gets 4+ skill points per level for some reason, and I have no idea why fighter or paladin doesn't if he does. His cousin the samurai feels torn between a dozen styles rather than given a choice to specialize, and the sword saint's iajutsu is pretty meh.

Gunslingers are weird. Their archetypes give them deeds by taking them away, instead of just giving them new deeds to choice from to shape your own character. Guns against touch AC and the use of ranged feats makes them blow big targets away more often than I'd like, and the reload mechanics aren't always nice to them. Again, they get 4+ skill points per level.

Inquisitor has a ton of class features. Awkwardly I feel like the cleric doesn't have enough, and the paladin is shorted skills. They look like they're all over the place to me. A bunch of skill monkey mechanics and they can get wisdom to nearly everything it feels, but they seem to be frontliners. Their iconic uses a bow, but I don't see them using a bow very well with their 3/4 bab and lack of good bonus feats. Again, I kind of wish they had more archetypes. I wish they had more direction though. I'm also incredibly against the way people tell me to play an inquisitor if I don't like the alignment restrictions of the paladin. Teamwork feats were an okay idea, but any focus on it seems lame, and I don't see that getting any more support.

Magus I actually like. It fills the a sword and magic role. I do wish they were explained in an easier to understand way however. When I first read them I had no idea what they were doing. The concentration checks seem arbitrary, because of the way they scale. They also have scaling armor proficiency, which requires constant changing of armor, which I'm not a fan of.

Oracle I feel is just badly designed if only for the curse mechanic. Their mysteries only have a few good revelations, and they are forced to have their legs broken or such. The curse is unspeakably awful when its forced on a character. I have a hard time creating an oracle character because the fluff is forced. At best I have to work for a way around it, homebrew, and hope they create an archetype that gets around it. Spontaneous divine is cool, but forcing the curse and the mostly awful revelations isn't to me. The 4+ skill points when clerics and fighters don't is weird.

Summoner I like the idea of the build a monster. I can build anything(except something that already exist according to some people, which I find to be silly.) However, they tend to be monstrous pounce chargers, they have an awkward progression, and they break action economy by spamming buffs while pounce charging. I feel they could've been built to feel a bit more sane or tame.

Witches could've been an archetype. I don't entirely agree with the spell list, and most of the hexes are unplayable awful. I don't know how child scent is even a thing. They also are extremely vague in where they get their power from. Commune with a familiar to get powers from a something... okay? The way they treat familiars is far too much dependency I feel.


The Oracle curse is kind of a pain, yes. I would probably let a character go without a curse (both the drawbacks and benefits). I'd probably go for it, though, considering how much I hate prep-casters.


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
I thought AD&D was 2E with Basic being 1E. Then you had I think it was the chainmail box set that was 0E

No, the Original 3 Vol Set is called "OD&D", this includes the original Greyhawk & Blackmoor books*. It lasted maybe 3 years. It was fairly feeble, but spawned greatness.

Then there's AD&D, which is 1st & 2nd ed. Basic is slightly dumbed down AD&D, or if you prefer simpler. You might consider Hackmaster a AD&D game. There is really little difference between 1st & 2nd ed, about that or maybe less than 3.0 to 3.5.

D20 is 3.0 & 3.5. It could include Pathfinder.

4th ed has "Essentials" which is sorta like AD&D to Basic.

I have heard PF "Beginner box' bears somewhat the same relationship AD&D and Basic has.

* and if you want to be very nice, my little supplement, and maybe Arduin.

51 to 100 of 737 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How do people feel about Paizo's "new" base classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.