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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

401 to 450 of 737 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

For me, it has nothing to do with options. I love options. Im not against having new classea, and even if I dont care for them, (and for many of ye newer classes I personally dont)Its more than for me I think the way they where introduced removes options from others. I dont like the flavor of some. Its too specific, if that makes sense. But my biggest issues are that the newer classes tend to outdo the older classes, and are not balanced well against them, in general not universally. They offer too many options, such as methods to break action economy, or too many exclusive abilities/Feats/etc . . . that should be open to other classes if its just about flavor. Such as the ability for Wizards and Clerics to be able to Summon as a Standard action or to be able to Summon a single powerful creature, more personal to their faith for example. Planer ally, sure but thats not the same thing in a lot of cases.

A nother thing is that mechanics-flavor wise, I think the Oracle fills the Cleric's priest of a specific deity better, while the Cleric class better fits the generic divine caster without a special patron better.

I dislike that almost all of the newer classes have more skill points than the core class they break away from, especially as the biggest complaint/suggestion to Paizo back in the PF playtest days was to either improve the Fighter, Cleric, Sorcerer number of Skill Points, or to outright make 4+Int the lowest.

Shadow Lodge

The other thing is that the flavor, to me at least, is the least important aspect of new mechanics or material. I dont mean that to be a slant, but that is the easiest part for me, and something I find fun to do for myself. Maybe I want to play a LG Boondock Saint style Inquisitor. A Fighter makes a better Cavalier than the Cavalier in my opinion if you dont want to worry about teamwork feat mechanics, but then again the Fighter can still do that too and more. Or a Quick Draw Rogue samurai with a code.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Summoner Hate makes me sad. I love the master summoner, it allows me to ignore the Eidolon and focus on what I wanted to do in the first place. Summoning!

Everyone misses that the summoners spell list is meant to be a full-casting progression with far less spell slots. The early access to spells is part of the design.

Since I generally would only play a Master Summoner, I find the Eidolon to be nothing more than a neat familiar.

Grand Lodge

Assuming_Control wrote:

I haven't really encountered what you're describing, but I have encountered people who throw a fit over someone wanting to play a pole-arm Fighter (Like, a vanilla fighter with a glaive written down as guan-dao on his character sheet) from an ancient China analogue.

So maybe my experience has coloured my perception...

One last thing and then I'll end the thread hijacking:

Spoiler:
I'm quite certain most of the debate is between people who have had entirely different experiences with the issue. One thing about Geeks---we can go on and on about things that nobody else cares about. Even other geeks. I forget who said it, but I remember a quote along the lines of, "Nothing is more boring than what turns somebody else on." That was talking about sex, of course, but I'd say the intent could easily be extrapolated and applied here.

I'm betting that the guy who threw a fit over it had probably been exposed to several people shoehorning their Anime and Japanese characters into EVERY SINGLE THING he's tried to run. And not good ones.(El Digusto from Binder of Shame, anyone?) For every thoughtful Eastern inspired character I've come across, personally, I've seen about a dozen whose personality began and ended with "being Japanese". That struck me as much more racist.

Now on topic, the base classes (spoilered for brevity):

Spoiler:
Alchemist I like it. I think it's balanced, offers some nice new flavor, and mechanics that would be hard to include by just making another class archetype.
Cavalier Unimpressed. I've never seen one played, I've never seen somebody desire to play one. And now with the Tactician Fighter archetype it's completely useless.
-Samurai Slightly better. I have a friend doing an Eastern game right now with a Paladin/Samurai gestalt. It's not the most powerful, but they synergize well and create a real portrait of somebody who will not quit in the face of insurmountable odds.
Gunslinger Seems wonky. Never played on, though in the right campaign I might. Typically I prefer bows and swords to guns and siege engines.
Inquisitor Love it. Makes for a better bounty hunter than the Ranger. Kind of like a Bard, but way more about destroying than buffing.
Magus I've only seen one played, and even then not well. I like the fluff, though, and if what people are saying is true, it would be nice to have an effective Eldritch Knight.
Oracle I love this, both for versatility and flavor. The idea of somebody being cursed and thrust into greatness is just a wee bit more compelling to me than somebody who chooses it.
Summoner This is the only one I truly hate. I've read and reread it and I'm still not 100% on the rules, and the archetypes just make it worse. It's the one thing I've had to ban at my table, just because the mechanics are so mind-boggling. Not to mention all the horror stories I've read of Summoners completely breaking a game. Unnecessary, unbalanced, unintelligible. Scrap it.
Witch I like it a lot, although I still think it should be a CHA based class. It may not be as powerful as a Wizard, but it still does a lot of cool things a Wizard can't do, and again, I like the fluff a lot better.

Shadow Lodge

For the Witch, I would actually go Wis over either Int or Cha. To me there is much more lore about variius witches being social outcasts and rejects from society, which fits a lot better in my opinion with the fluff about strang, unorthodoc patrons as well, and I just see no reason at all for Int. Wis seems more about the intuitive, undisciplined sort of wild/primal magic they recieve, and would set them aside from the Wizard class more.


Schrodinger's Love Child wrote:

lets just forget about the Norse hentai anime that 3.5 loyalist asked for links to.

the original point was that ninja could wear anything

somebody pointed out the ninja having difficulty hiding stuff in a loincloth

and it made me think of some hentai anime.

then we got sidetracked by trying to find this particular series.

Actually, we should forget about the whole Ninja sidetrack, esp how ‘realistic’ ninjas are. How well they play is of course a legit thing to talk about.

Dark Archive

"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
For the Witch, I would actually go Wis over either Int or Cha. To me there is much more lore about variius witches being social outcasts and rejects from society, which fits a lot better in my opinion with the fluff about strang, unorthodoc patrons as well, and I just see no reason at all for Int. Wis seems more about the intuitive, undisciplined sort of wild/primal magic they recieve, and would set them aside from the Wizard class more.

Agreed. Wisdom or Charisma, IMO, fits better than Intelligence. But changing it really is little more than a flavor change. There's not exactly going to be a huge power up or power down to the Witch if everything Int-based becomes Wis-based (slightly higher saves, slightly less skills) or Cha-based (less skills, no real upside...).

Also agreeing with your earlier point about skill points. Everyone should probably have a base of 4 skill points per level, with the real skill-monkeys (bard and rogue) remaining at 6 or 8. Then again, as I mentioned in my Alchemist thoughts, skills should probably be used more than they are anyway. It's been a long, long road since Non-Weapon Proficiencies were kind of a strapped on afterthought, but, compared to spellcasting and magic items, d20 skills still feel kind of like a redheaded stepchild.

I find myself making more skill rolls in Mutants and Masterminds, and that's a game that has honest-to-gosh *superpowers* in it.

In the vein of the 'skill Alchemist', a mundane-ish healer class that has an upgraded use of the Heal skill, similar to how the Rogue has upgraded applications of Perception and Disable Device, could be funky. Or it could just be built off of the Rogue chassis, as an Archetype, and swap out Trapfinding for improved Heal use (and keep Sneak Attack to represent surgical skill at messing people up with one's anatomy knowledge).

Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 4

I think the new base classes are fine, all you can expect and hope for is to be reasonably close. Absolute balance is an illusion. The problem often lies with the player, sometimes the GM, sometimes both.

Play, have fun, tell a good story.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
For the Witch, I would actually go Wis over either Int or Cha. To me there is much more lore about variius witches being social outcasts and rejects from society, which fits a lot better in my opinion with the fluff about strang, unorthodoc patrons as well, and I just see no reason at all for Int. Wis seems more about the intuitive, undisciplined sort of wild/primal magic they recieve, and would set them aside from the Wizard class more.

I present an excellent example of a witch that uses INT instead of WIS or CHA. Fits most of the classic archetypes, too.

Shadow Lodge

I personally think that the Druid, Wizard, and Witch (or Druid and Int based classes that are not skill focused) should be the only ones with 2+Int skills. Like with BaB, I think it would be very cool to have Good, Medium, and Poor Skills, and like Hit Dice the same with exceptions.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Jim Groves wrote:
I think the new base classes are fine, all you can expect and hope for is to be reasonably close. Absolute balance is an illusion. The problem often lies with the player, sometimes the GM, sometimes both.

And sometimes, with the rules.


Huh, why exclude druids from 2+ if I can ask?


Assuming_Control wrote:

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 don't understand how you can justify calling them a Power Leap. If anything the Archetypes are the biggest offender in the APG. Zen Archer and Urban Barbarian are ones that easily outclass everything that any of the new base classes can do.

Every class in the game got a boost from APG just like every class in the game gets a boost when other books release. After the fiasco that was 3.5 (even without splat books) Pathfinder is beyond balanced.

If anything the APG added balance to the game by adjusting the tiers closer together. The base classes filled some holes left in the balance of smaller parties.

Honestly your post seems more like whining that your once supremely powerful class is now on par with the rest of the party.


Devil's Advocate wrote:
I personally think that the Druid, Wizard, and Witch (or Druid and Int based classes that are not skill focused) should be the only ones with 2+Int skills. Like with BaB, I think it would be very cool to have Good, Medium, and Poor Skills, and like Hit Dice the same with exceptions.

I'd halfway like to see the following implemented for all classes:

  • Full BAB, d10 HD, 4 skill points, half casting; or
  • 3/4 BAB, d8 HD, 6 skill points, 3/4 casting; or
  • 1/2 BAB, d6 HD, 2 skill points, full casting.

    Ranger and paladin and barbarian (rage powers = "spells") are more or less at (1) already.
    Bard, magus, inquisitor are more or less at (2) already.
    Wizard and sorcerer are more or less at (3) already.

    Cleric, oracle would have reduced BAB.
    Fighter would gain half casting (make his list things like true strike, magic weapon, keen edge, to keep it fighter-y).
    Rogue would gain bard spellcasting (make his list things like detect magic and find traps to keep it rogue-y).
    Monk would either get half-casting and full BAB, or else 3/4 and 3/4.

    Note that the three weakest classes (rogue, monk, fighter) gain the most, if we standardize things. Imagine that!


  • Fighters don't have spells...
    Give fighters access to feats that scale with levels or make feats scale with fighter levels.

    No spells though...


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    3.5 had tome of battle, which had the warblade. It got many abilities that were all mundane, but as you leveled they scaled in their own way. That might be a good example of "fighter spells". Spells being a word to keep it similar. Though I feel we're a little off topic from base classes.


    MrSin wrote:
    3.5 had tome of battle, which had the warblade. It got many abilities that were all mundane, but as you leveled they scaled in their own way. That might be a good example of "fighter spells".

    Exactly.

    MrSin wrote:
    Though I feel we're a little off topic from base classes.

    Maybe, by I sort of feel that if we had a "base classes should probably look something like X" as a baseline, the comparisons of new ones would be a lot simpler.


    Kirth Gersen wrote:
    Devil's Advocate wrote:
    I personally think that the Druid, Wizard, and Witch (or Druid and Int based classes that are not skill focused) should be the only ones with 2+Int skills. Like with BaB, I think it would be very cool to have Good, Medium, and Poor Skills, and like Hit Dice the same with exceptions.

    I'd halfway like to see the following implemented for all classes:

  • Full BAB, d10 HD, 4 skill points, half casting; or
  • 3/4 BAB, d8 HD, 6 skill points, 3/4 casting; or
  • 1/2 BAB, d6 HD, 2 skill points, full casting.

    Ranger and paladin and barbarian (rage powers = "spells") are more or less at (1) already.
    Bard, magus, inquisitor are more or less at (2) already.
    Wizard and sorcerer are more or less at (3) already.

    Cleric, oracle would have reduced BAB.
    Fighter would gain half casting (make his list things like true strike, magic weapon, keen edge, to keep it fighter-y).
    Rogue would gain bard spellcasting (make his list things like detect magic and find traps to keep it rogue-y).
    Monk would either get half-casting and full BAB, or else 3/4 and 3/4.

    Note that the three weakest classes (rogue, monk, fighter) gain the most, if we standardize things. Imagine that!

  • I agree that martials need awesome things as they get higher levels.

    I don't want those awesome things to be spells or spell like things. I don't even really like the pool of points to power things mechanic for martial types.


    thejeff wrote:

    I agree that martials need awesome things as they get higher levels.

    I don't want those awesome things to be spells or spell like things. I don't even really like the pool of points to power things mechanic for martial types.

    Oddly enough, Martial adepts used maneuvers. They could expend them and they had a recover mechanic so they could get them back before the battle ended and easily between. They could even change their loadout in between battles and with a feat they could give up a round to do it in battle. This system actually had a lot of hate when it was released... Melee can't have nice things?


    MrSin wrote:
    thejeff wrote:

    I agree that martials need awesome things as they get higher levels.

    I don't want those awesome things to be spells or spell like things. I don't even really like the pool of points to power things mechanic for martial types.
    Oddly enough, Martial adepts used maneuvers. They could expend them and they had a recover mechanic so they could get them back before the battle ended and easily between. They could even change their loadout in between battles and with a feat they could give up a round to do it in battle. This system actually had a lot of hate when it was released... Melee can't have nice things?

    It can. It just shouldn't get a variant spellcasting system.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I think it was more a case of "melee shouldn't get quite as nice things". Some of the higher-level maneuvers were akin to 9th-level spells in terms of what they did (one gave you a second full-round attack, if I remember correctly).


    thejeff wrote:
    I agree that martials need awesome things as they get higher levels. I don't want those awesome things to be spells or spell like things. I don't even really like the pool of points to power things mechanic for martial types.

    They don't have to be, but they should be comparable in terms of number, power, and versatility (which feats are emphatically not). Barbarian rage powers are an excellent example: they come in tiers ("You must be X level to select this rage power"), they don't occupy feat slots, and they have myriad different uses. The number known is roughly on a par with the number of spells prepared by a paladin or ranger, but instead of "whenever you want, but 1/day" they're "generally no daily limit but only when raging."

    Comparing a barbarian to a paladin or ranger is apples-to-apples, because they're all full BAB, half-caster classes. Yes, including the barbarian, in a very real sense. The fighter loses out because he gets nothing comparable to that half-casting. It doesn't have to be spells, but it should be options that are tiered from being equivalent in power to 1st level spells, to being equivalent in power to 4th level spells, because that's what half-casters get.

    Shadow Lodge

    MrSin wrote:
    Huh, why exclude druids from 2+ if I can ask?

    I'm not sure if you misunderstood what I meant or not. Currently Druids get 4+Int. In the system I was suggesting, they would be excluded from remaining that way, as would basically the Int based classes. The idea is to be a minor nerf to help it's balance a bit, and to require it to be a little more focused.

    Not counting Craft and Profession, the Druid has 9 Class Skills, compared to the Cleric's 11-15 Class Skills. Of those, (and this is just my opinion) 8 of those are basically mandatory for the (generic) Cleric to function, while for the (again generic) Druid, (again my opinion), 6 are basically mandatory, with an additional 2 that may or may not be, one of which (Fly Skill) they really can't even take until 4th level and I don't believe should even be a Skill. When I say generic Cleric or Druid, I mean in the sense of something like a pregen character, one that is suitable for pick up and play, not over or under optimized, fills the basic role of the class, but is open enough to be able to go in a few different directions, etc. . .

    It doesn't make much sense to me that the Cleric who has studied and trained most of their life in both formal and informal ways for their calling would be less skilled than the Druid. The Druid also get a lot of class features that add to their class skills, and synergizes well on it's own. The Druid is less Mad than the Cleric, and one of the 3.5 ways of balancing/differentiating the two fairly similar classes was that Clerics got better Armor (heavy), while Druids got better weapons and spells, generally.

    Now, that being said, the Druid would be the least important of the three to be excluded from 4+Int. To me the fact that the Wizard with 2 base skill points can rival the highest base skill class in the game (Rogue) and that the majority of skills are either Dex or Int based, and the Wizard is not likely to ever have an armor check penalty is a huge reason why so many people hate the Rogue and say the Wizard can out do them in every way, (even if they don't realize it as such). So basically it just comes down to balance.


    Are wrote:

    I think it was more a case of "melee shouldn't get quite as nice things". Some of the higher-level maneuvers were akin to 9th-level spells in terms of what they did (one gave you a second full-round attack, if I remember correctly).

    Yes, time stands still. The diamond mind 9th level ability. The downside to those were that they came way late(most games won't see it), one per specialization, usually had prereqs(Spells never had that!), and they were almost always once per encounter effectively. Mind you 9th level spells in pathfinder are things like Cursed Earth, Time Stop, and Gate, and a wizard can summon the herald of a god around the same time. 9th level spells rip reality to pieces, create planes of existence, and stop time for 5 rounds straight.


    Yeah, I don't think fighters should be getting spells either. I like the feat mechanic, so why not just build superfeats? This is the one thing fighters get more than anyone else.

    Why not give BAB +15 req feats like "Decapitation" that can grant save or die effects on critical hits at the end of a power attack tree or critical focus tree, or "Parry Spell" which can act as a counterspell, or have a feat tree for each of the saves that reflects a fighter's training to defend against certain types of spells. Maybe a tough fighter has spent his career taking poisons, crippling blows and such and now has become nearly immune to their effects, maybe a fighter has studied the patterns of fireballs, magic missiles and rays of frost and can now side step them or disrupt them in mid flight with his combat accumen. Or perhaps a fighter has disciplined his mind against control or suggestion and can overcome most willpower effects.

    Giving a fighter SODs and limited magical immunities at level 15+ would really put them on par with the COD-zillas and the Elminsters of the world. And making it a feat tree doesn't necessarily exclude other classes from gaining these powers, but the fighter's bounty of feats would let him have two or three of these kinds of effects rather than just one.

    Doesn't it seem fitting that an epic fighter could shrug off a deadly poison? Ignore a power word with his indomitable will? To knock aside a meteor swarm with his magic shield? Or to kill a dragon in one mighty stroke? These are all things the heroes of fantasy can do, and making them feat-expensive is how you let Fighters shine.

    If a cleric and wizard can kill with a single word, a fighter should be able to kill with a single blow.


    2 people marked this as a favorite.

    Dr. Cal,

    That's exactly the point -- they don't have to BE spells, but they have to be comparable in power, number, and availability. That one-shot-kill fighter-only feat? That's great, unless it requires him to use all his other previous fighter feats just in order to be eligible for it. Then it sucks compared to spells or barbarian powers. So if they require long trees, like you're discussing? Then the fighter in essence gets one or two powers, not 10 or 11, because you're spending a lot of your bonus slots on prerequisites that you don't really want.

    We need to compare apples to apples. In the long run, giving the fighter one bonus feat/2 levels -- and then creating a whole series of fighter-only feats that no one else can take, and that occupy a tiered hierarchy of effectiveness -- to fill them with? That's essentially saying "giving them spells," in this context, because they work more like spells than feats, from a game design perspective. Creating normal (anyone-can-take-them) feats with strings of prerequisites to fill them? That means the fighter isn't getting his share of "spells"/"rage powers"/equivalent unless you give him like 2 bonus feats per level.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Dr. Calvin Murgunstrumm wrote:
    Giving a fighter SODs and limited magical immunities at level 15+ would really put them on par with the COD-zillas and the Elminsters of the world.

    I disagree. Especially if its only from 15+ up.


    Marthkus wrote:

    The Summoner Hate makes me sad. I love the master summoner, it allows me to ignore the Eidolon and focus on what I wanted to do in the first place. Summoning!

    Everyone misses that the summoners spell list is meant to be a full-casting progression with far less spell slots. The early access to spells is part of the design.

    Since I generally would only play a Master Summoner, I find the Eidolon to be nothing more than a neat familiar.

    If it's any consolation, my hate of the Summoner is only because of my hate of Summoning in general. I only want one character sheet to juggle during a game, darn it. I don't even summon when I play other casters.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Here's a good example of a reasonably level-appropriate effect that would work as we want:

    DAZING STRIKE [COMBAT]
    Prerequisite: Fighter level 6th.
    Benefit: As a standard action or attack of opportunity, make a single melee attack. Any opponent damaged by this attack must save vs. Fortitude (DC 13 + your Strength modifier) or be dazed one round. The duration is multiplied on a confirmed critical.

    Note that it occupies one (1) bonus feat slot; it allows reasonably level-appropriate effects (Cf. hold person) and allows for limited battlefield control (thus usable as an AoO); and it isn't a spell, although it still comes with a similar built-in use limitation (you can use it more than once per day, but it eats into your action economy if you use it proactively, by preventing you from getting in a full attack, starting as soon as you get it).


    Guys, we’re getting into “how to make the fighter better’, which isn’t really what this thread is about and a subject upon which we have had many threads.


    Maybe, but it's in the interest of developing a reasonable baseline for what constitutes a well-made base class, mechanically-speaking. If the new ones deviate wildly from that baseline, we can point to that and say, "See, that's why." Otherwise, we're left with "I don't like the fluff," which is like saying "I hate M&Ms because I hate the color brown!" -- M&Ms are exactly the same if the shell is green or yellow.

    Shadow Lodge

    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Here's a good example of a reasonably level-appropriate effect that would work as we want:

    DAZING STRIKE [COMBAT]
    Prerequisite: Fighter level 6th.
    Benefit: As a standard action or attack of opportunity, make a single melee attack. Any opponent damaged by this attack must save vs. Fortitude (DC 13 + your Strength modifier) or be dazed one round. The duration is multiplied on a confirmed critical.

    Note that it occupies one (1) bonus feat slot; it allows reasonably level-appropriate effects (Cf. hold person) and allows for limited battlefield control (thus usable as an AoO); and it isn't a spell, although it still comes with a similar built-in use limitation (you can use it more than once per day, but it eats into your action economy if you use it proactively, by preventing you from getting in a full attack, starting as soon as you get it).

    It sort of seems like a swing in the exact opposite direction, but still the same problem that exists with martial/wizard disparity.

    I'm also not sure that the fact it requires a Standard Action to use really balances it at all against the caster's much more limiting and important number of times per day. Especially if you factor in things like creature immunity. For the caster, they still loose the spell, or if the target saves, which is a pretty big risk. A disarmed Fighter could still maybe pull this off without any other Feats or items (eschew Materials or a Metamagic Rod for example), while caster would basically be screwed. Add in the fact that a lot of times the later attacks will probably fail to hit anyway, and well, they are really not giving up too much for what they get in return, so I can't say this is even close to balanced. Add in maybe a restriction to a weapon from their weapon group or that they have Weapon Focus with, and then a hard limit to the number of times they can do this (and all other similar Feat trick maneuvers, maybe 1/5 Fighter levels), might do it, but then you basically destroy the other portion of why you want this sort of Feat to begin with.


    How is it not close to balanced?

    Later attacks are nowhere near guaranteed to miss. You may recall the volumes upon volumes of discussion about how full attacking is the martial's game in a nutshell, period, and a large reason why the Barbarian is great as a martial is because of Pounce.


    It has both an attack roll against full AC and a save. Definitely weaker than hold person as befits an at will ability.

    But why not compare it to another at will ability? The slumber hex. I rest my case.


    Atarlost wrote:

    It has both an attack roll against full AC and a save. Definitely weaker than hold person as befits an at will ability.

    But why not compare it to another at will ability? The slumber hex. I rest my case.

    Except you can't combine the slumber hex with AOO's to get 6 or 7 a turn. Imagine just setting up a fighter with reach and combat partol with this.

    You'd have a 15 foot aoe that anyone steps into you get an attack for regular damage and if they fail a save it auto ends their turn. The idea that you could do this to 6 or 7 people is huge.

    Edit: I might make it the higher of dex or strength, or maybe knock the base down to 10 and make it 10+dex mod + str mod. At level 20 or so you'd still probably only have around a 26 or 27 on the save but it wouldn't tie you quite so hard to "THORG MUST SMASH" which is already the best melee build as it is.


    Meanwhile, a 6th level Wizard can cast Stinking Cloud with no prior Feat investment or specific weapon choice and do the same thing...


    I'm not sure if that's an argument for or against this :P

    Is the argument that a caster can do it so we can't give the martial a nice thing because a caster can already do it? :P


    Atarlost wrote:

    It has both an attack roll against full AC and a save. Definitely weaker than hold person as befits an at will ability.

    But why not compare it to another at will ability? The slumber hex. I rest my case.

    Or the Daze cantrip?

    It's a one round affect.

    Liberty's Edge

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I'm a fan of everything sans the summoner.


    Zhayne wrote:
    Marthkus wrote:

    The Summoner Hate makes me sad. I love the master summoner, it allows me to ignore the Eidolon and focus on what I wanted to do in the first place. Summoning!

    Everyone misses that the summoners spell list is meant to be a full-casting progression with far less spell slots. The early access to spells is part of the design.

    Since I generally would only play a Master Summoner, I find the Eidolon to be nothing more than a neat familiar.

    If it's any consolation, my hate of the Summoner is only because of my hate of Summoning in general. I only want one character sheet to juggle during a game, darn it. I don't even summon when I play other casters.

    That's just personal taste though. I don't like to play barbarians, but I don't feel that they are broken OP pieces of crap that paizo should feel ashamed to ever put to print. Which seems to be the feeling I get from most people on this thread.


    Personally, I like the new classes (for the most part), because they provide more options from a role playing perspective.
    Alchemist- This class is by far my favorite, including the cores. I have always wanted to play an alchemist character, and this allows me to do that without just using craft (alchemy).
    Cavalier- I like this class as well. I like paladins, but their have been times that i have wanted to be a non-divine version, basically a martial leader and tactician, which this is.
    Gunslinger- I personally am not the biggest fan of this one, but that's just because I don't like guns in fantasy that much, but I do like the idea of a daring adventurer, risking life and limb in the pursuit of glory and fame.
    Inquisitor- Good for law enforcement/detectives, and for more stealth/combat focused divine casters. Plus they have a lot of cool abilities (monster lore and bane come to mind)
    Magus- There's a stealth/fighter (ranger), and stealth/Mage (bard). Why not fighter/Mage.
    Oracle- Spontaneous divine caster, a needed class IMO.
    Summoner- This one I don't particularly like. Seems like a way to make a more powerful conjurer, or I guess an arcane "animal companion". Eidolon idea is kinda cool though.
    Witch- I like the idea of a more primitive arcane caster, plus there are a lot of cool hexes.
    Antipaladin- I like this because it provides concrete details as to what an evil paladin would get (especially for mercies), although I think it should be LE alignment, but that's just my opinion.
    Ninja and Samurai- I don't really see the point of these, from a role playing perspective. There aren't separate classes for Northern primitives, southern jungle-dwellers, or any other separate culture or nationality, so there shouldn't be some for the dragon empires (except monk, which I do feel provides a unique role playing experience). The other cultures don't get them because they are just that, cultures. IMO, your class is just what you can do, your role playing and your characters culture (which I guess is just part of the role playing) is how you do what it is your class lets you do.


    Alec Colasante wrote:
    Antipaladin- I like this because it provides concrete details as to what an evil paladin would get (especially for mercies), although I think it should be LE alignment, but that's just my opinion.

    You know, every time I see someone state that Anti-Paladins should be X, it just makes me wish they removed alignment on both of the paladins more. Everyone wins.

    Alec Colasante wrote:
    Cavalier- I like this class as well. I like paladins, but their have been times that i have wanted to be a non-divine version, basically a martial leader and tactician, which this is.

    I don't understand how the cavalier is a non divine paladin. Does he smite? Does he have auras? Is he effective mountless? White Raven adepts are martial leaders. A cavalier is a guy with a horse and banner. So why is he always compared to the paladin?


    Marthkus wrote:
    That's just personal taste though. I don't like to play barbarians, but I don't feel that they are broken OP pieces of crap that paizo should feel ashamed to ever put to print. Which seems to be the feeling I get from most people on this thread.

    I've followed this thread from the start, and I feel confident in saying that such sentiments seem to come from a minority, rather than from "most people".

    For instance, I was one of the people who didn't particularly like the summoner as-is, but that's not for a power-reason. In my case, it's because I think it should be two separate classes, with each being more strongly focused in their respective aspects (one for summoning, and one for the eidolon) than the printed summoner is.


    MrSin wrote:
    I don't understand how the cavalier is a non divine paladin. Does he smite? Does he have auras? Is he effective mountless? White Raven adepts are martial leaders. A cavalier is a guy with a horse and banner. So why is he always compared to the paladin?

    Smite and Challenge are two similar abilities, as are the fact that each gets a mount. When many pople think of the paladin, they think of someone in heavy armor astride a majestic steed. The cavalier is basically someone in heavy armor astride a majestic steed.

    Are they effective mountless? Depends on how much the cavalier invests in mounted combat. (I prefer enough for spirited charge and no more)

    Shadow Lodge

    Rynjin wrote:
    How is it not close to balanced?

    I thought I was pretty clear on how it was not. I'm not sure if this was an honest question or not? I didn't want to mention the obvious also, but the Feat just screams for a Combat Reflexes Reach Weapon build. It deals damage regardless of the save, it's not stationary like most spells would be, and also not limited by things like a max HD. So the better question would be how can you really argue this is balanced at all?

    Rynjin wrote:
    Later attacks are nowhere near guaranteed to miss. You may recall the volumes upon volumes of discussion about how full attacking is the martial's game in a nutshell, period, and a large reason why the Barbarian is great as a martial is because of Pounce.

    There seems to be a disconnect here. I didn't say that the later attacks where guaranteed to miss, I said they where less likely to hit, especially the more of them you get. There's a reason the Paizo went away from the with Feats like Vital Strike. Pounce allows you to Charge and do a Full Attack, which further boosts your chance to hit. That's the reason they want to take it, because it means more of their later attacks will work, ultimately aiming to total destroy their target before they get attacked back, so not needing to worry about their even lower than normal low AC.

    I'm not familiar with the threads, but I'm not sure what exactly that was supposed to prove or disprove?


    Are wrote:
    Marthkus wrote:
    That's just personal taste though. I don't like to play barbarians, but I don't feel that they are broken OP pieces of crap that paizo should feel ashamed to ever put to print. Which seems to be the feeling I get from most people on this thread.

    I've followed this thread from the start, and I feel confident in saying that such sentiments seem to come from a minority, rather than from "most people".

    For instance, I was one of the people who didn't particularly like the summoner as-is, but that's not for a power-reason. In my case, it's because I think it should be two separate classes, with each being more strongly focused in their respective aspects (one for summoning, and one for the eidolon) than the printed summoner is.

    There already is the summoner and the master summoner. Each focus on a different thing and are not as good at the other.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    "Devil's Advocate" wrote:
    Rynjin wrote:
    How is it not close to balanced?
    I thought I was pretty clear on how it was not.

    Don't give me that "I thought I explained it already" nonsense. You know what I meant.

    I disagree with you. Your explanation was not satisfactory. Whatever other words you would like to put here.

    Is English your first language?

    Edit: Just realized that sounded somewhat insulting. It's a legitimate question, as I've had run-ins with non-native speakers misunderstanding rhetorical questions and such before.

    "Devil's Advocate" wrote:

    I'm not sure if this was an honest question or not? I didn't want to mention the obvious also, but the Feat just screams for a Combat Reflexes Reach Weapon build. It deals damage regardless of the save, it's not stationary like most spells would be, and also not limited by things like a max HD. So the better question would be how can you really argue this is balanced at all?

    Rynjin wrote:
    Later attacks are nowhere near guaranteed to miss. You may recall the volumes upon volumes of discussion about how full attacking is the martial's game in a nutshell, period, and a large reason why the Barbarian is great as a martial is because of Pounce.

    There seems to be a disconnect here. I didn't say that the later attacks where guaranteed to miss, I said they where less likely to hit, especially the more of them you get. There's a reason the Paizo went away from the with Feats like Vital Strike. Pounce allows you to Charge and do a Full Attack, which further boosts your chance to hit. That's the reason they want to take it, because it means more of their later attacks will work, ultimately aiming to total destroy their target before they get attacked back, so not needing to worry about their even lower than normal low AC.

    I'm not familiar with the threads, but I'm not sure what exactly that was supposed to prove or disprove?

    You said that they were less likely to hit...and then jumped to the conclusion that because each hit was less likely to hit, giving them a bigger advantage with the Daze effect than what they give up.

    The only way I see that logic working is if you're convinced that later hits rarely connect.

    It's still less powerful than a spell that's able to be gotten at the same level. Without a very specific build it only affects one target. Even WITH that specific build, it has about half the radius and 1/4 of the duration of a spell (Stinking Cloud) that can also be taken at that level. Which can also be cast from a safe distance as well. And affects the area for a duration so people coming in later can suffer the same effects with no additional usage of actions. And requires no attack roll.

    I'm not seeing how it would be unbalanced. Unbalanced compared to the current dynamic of casters being able to do anything and martials being able to deal damage and occasionally do some combat maneuvers, certainly. But not unbalanced as a whole.


    Grey Lensman wrote:
    MrSin wrote:
    I don't understand how the cavalier is a non divine paladin. Does he smite? Does he have auras? Is he effective mountless? White Raven adepts are martial leaders. A cavalier is a guy with a horse and banner. So why is he always compared to the paladin?

    Smite and Challenge are two similar abilities, as are the fact that each gets a mount. When many pople think of the paladin, they think of someone in heavy armor astride a majestic steed. The cavalier is basically someone in heavy armor astride a majestic steed.

    Are they effective mountless? Depends on how much the cavalier invests in mounted combat. (I prefer enough for spirited charge and no more)

    Smite and Challenge are different. Paladins don't all have mounts(none I've seen do. 30 days of -1 if it dies on accident!?). My first thought about paladins has nothing to do with mounts. Mechanically they are very different. Fluff is mutable. blahblahblah. I can put anyone in armor and on a horse.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.
    Kirth Gersen wrote:

    Here's a good example of a reasonably level-appropriate effect that would work as we want:

    DAZING STRIKE [COMBAT]
    Prerequisite: Fighter level 6th.
    Benefit: As a standard action or attack of opportunity, make a single melee attack. Any opponent damaged by this attack must save vs. Fortitude (DC 13 + your Strength modifier) or be dazed one round. The duration is multiplied on a confirmed critical.

    Note that it occupies one (1) bonus feat slot; it allows reasonably level-appropriate effects (Cf. hold person) and allows for limited battlefield control (thus usable as an AoO); and it isn't a spell, although it still comes with a similar built-in use limitation (you can use it more than once per day, but it eats into your action economy if you use it proactively, by preventing you from getting in a full attack, starting as soon as you get it).

    I just want to say when i first read "fighter spells" i hated it, i play a fighter to be the mundane hero, but when you put it like this i love it brother! I would love to see some kind of system that does that, as long as there within the realm of possibility like that idea.


    Marthkus wrote:
    Are wrote:
    Marthkus wrote:
    That's just personal taste though. I don't like to play barbarians, but I don't feel that they are broken OP pieces of crap that paizo should feel ashamed to ever put to print. Which seems to be the feeling I get from most people on this thread.

    I've followed this thread from the start, and I feel confident in saying that such sentiments seem to come from a minority, rather than from "most people".

    For instance, I was one of the people who didn't particularly like the summoner as-is, but that's not for a power-reason. In my case, it's because I think it should be two separate classes, with each being more strongly focused in their respective aspects (one for summoning, and one for the eidolon) than the printed summoner is.

    There already is the summoner and the master summoner. Each focus on a different thing and are not as good at the other.

    I'm aware of the master summoner. While that's closer to what I'd want a "summoner" to be, it's still a good way off. And, my "eidoloncer" would be much more strongly focused on the eidolon than the base summoner is.

    That's not what the quoted post was about, though. It was about the fact that I didn't think most people in the thread were so categorically focused on "this or that class is OP/broken/etc", but rather that most people were discussing what they did or didn't like for a variety of reasons. I only referenced my stance as an example :)

    401 to 450 of 737 << first < prev | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 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.