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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

701 to 737 of 737 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | next > last >>

Once I'm done tinkering I'll post the full build, but I think I've already got a core summoner/eidy 15 point build combo that has:

~200 HP between the two of them

The eidy rocking around ~220dpr on a charge(10 arms, huge quadroped, haste, bulls strength, falcatas)

The options of a SOD DC 21 with 3 potential spams (baleful polymorph), spamming 3 SM V's or fully healing the eidy, plus 6 more SM IV's

Spamming any class skill with a wand of evo surge. This spam can also grant flight or a nice natural armour boost.

The real issue is saves so far, but I'm pretty sure this build will casually do everything a Barbar/sorc needs to do... Might be another shot in the OP bucket.

Will post tomorrow.


Our DMs have restricted classes to core book and powers to the core book mainly because certain players always go for the most broken stuff just to see if the GM will let it in the game -.-

Plus, the newer classes are fuzzy, ill defined deom what Ive seen, or just broken outright, like the Gunslinger - hitting everything at ranged touch attack rather than Armor Class -.-


buddahcjcc wrote:

Our DMs have restricted classes to core book and powers to the core book mainly because certain players always go for the most broken stuff just to see if the GM will let it in the game -.-

Plus, the newer classes are fuzzy, ill defined deom what Ive seen, or just broken outright, like the Gunslinger - hitting everything at ranged touch attack rather than Armor Class -.-

When close... like 15ft or so. They have to be with in one range increment for that to work.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also, the fact that targeting touch AC isn't broken was beaten back and forth across the forum several times. If you think gunslingers are crazy, wait for a well built Archer Fighter or Paladin.

Who can do the same amount of damage. At any range. Without relying on an expendable resource (grit). And cheaper, too.

Silver Crusade

Gorbacz wrote:

Also, the fact that targeting touch AC isn't broken was beaten back and forth across the forum several times. If you think gunslingers are crazy, wait for a well built Archer Fighter or Paladin.

Who can do the same amount of damage. At any range. Without relying on an expendable resource (grit). And cheaper, too.

So much this. The whole "hitting Touch AC is OMG BROKEN CHEESE" really needs to die already.

It has been proven in more fashions than should be necessary, including before UC was finished, that guns are NOT broken and still remain weaker than already available options (archer, paladin, inquisitor someone ?).


Agreed with Gorbacz and Maxximilius.

Grand Lodge

Part of what is or is not broken lies within the perception of the beholder, that's why I am in favor playtesting and build comparisons. Now, I'm not saying that everything within pathfinder is perfectly balanced, that would simply be false, but the designers are going to great lengths to minimize balance issues and providing great content.

Sometimes it feels like some people just want the folks over at paizo to design a system specifically for them, even if it alienates others.


This spell progression on summoners, d6 HD, 1/2 BAB, put all their spells back at their correct spell levels and every major complaint I have with them is flushed down the toilet.


For those saying 'more options are always good,' that's wrong. More options equal more complexity, and complexity is bad. I stick with the core book unless my players can give a good reason to add something outside of it.

As for the added classes...

Alchemist: The most interesting of the bunch. The only one I'd be willing to give a try with little hesitation.

Cavalier: This is a fighter/paladin prestige cl--errr, archetype.

Inquisitor: This is a cleric archetype.

Oracle: A CHA-based version of the cleric, which matches the sorcerer/wizard setup. OK, if not particularly necessary.

Summoner: A summoning specialist is just that--one of the specialties available to wizards. The 'eidolon' stuff? Ugh, no thanks. No WoW warlocks in my game, please.

Witch: This is a weakened wizard archetype; if you really want to call yourself a witch instead of a wizard, just say you went to Hogwarts and be done with it.

Ninja, Samurai, Magus: Huh? Never heard of 'em. No idea what you're talking about, sorry. (Whistling innocently, staring off into space)

Gunslinger: Die. Just die. Get out of my game, my ZIP Code, and my planet. You have no right to exist.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Calybos1 wrote:
For those saying 'more options are always good,' that's wrong. More options equal more complexity, and complexity is bad.

Source?

I assume you have some sort of proof that this assertion is the actual truth since you're putting it forward it so forcefully.


Calybos1 wrote:
More options equal more complexity, and complexity is bad.

If this is true, why not remove all the options? We only need one class. And no stats. And no dice rolls. And no player choices. "Orc and pie" is far too complicated.


Already covered... the more complexity, the more room for min/maxing, the more hunting for loopholes, and the more stuff the GM has to have memorized and be prepared for.

"More features = bad" has been a standard for products for a very long time (yes, including software), and games are no different. Anyone can write a novel; a good short story is much harder. There's a sweet spot of flexibility vs. simplicity. No one can claim that adding more features is ALWAYS an improvement--you reach a point of diminishing returns, and faster than you might think.


Calybos1 wrote:
Already covered... the more complexity, the more room for min/maxing, the more hunting for loopholes, and the more stuff the GM has to have memorized and be prepared for.

Sure, but you also need to consider whether you want the end result to be foreordained. If not, more complexity = less certainty, which a lot of people would consider an advantage.

Tic tac toe is very simple. Barring total idiocy on the part of a play, it's also very predictable. Even chess is pretty predictable, when you've got a computer processing possible future moves -- that's why the best machines can beat humans now.


Calybos1 wrote:
Already covered... the more complexity, the more room for min/maxing, the more hunting for loopholes, and the more stuff the GM has to have memorized and be prepared for.

I'm still not seeing the "bad". You may not LIKE complexity and stuff you need to know, but that in no way makes it bad.

Calybos1 wrote:
"More features = bad" has been a standard for products for a very long time

No, it really hasn't. Look around you.

Everything you own that you've bought in recent years has more features than the previously released version. Because most people like to have OPTIONS.

Calybos1 wrote:
Anyone can write a novel; a good short story is much harder.

Keeping a well written and cohesive narrative across the entirety of a novel is much more difficult than keeping a self-contained short story in line.

I have no earthly CLUE where you get this notion from.

Calybos1 wrote:
There's a sweet spot of flexibility vs. simplicity. No one can claim that adding more features is ALWAYS an improvement--you reach a point of diminishing returns, and faster than you might think.

But what you're claiming here is the opposite, which is equally false. Adding more features isn't always an improvement, no. But neither is adding new features ALWAYS a detriment either.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Calybos1 wrote:
As for the added classes...

Those are some very personal preferences. Thanks for sharing!


Ashiel wrote:
This spell progression on summoners, d6 HD, 1/2 BAB, put all their spells back at their correct spell levels and every major complaint I have with them is flushed down the toilet.

Decent work around. I still don't agree that the summoners discounted wands and scrolls are an advantage. A 2nd level wand cost 4,500 gold. 3rd lvl wands are 11,250gold. 4th lvl wands are 27,000g. No summoner is taking craft wand. Even if they did they are not going to have the days(months) of downtime needed for a magic item discount. If they just buy wands they can pickup spells they don't know on their list.

Regardless, wands are WAY too pricey when you could just be buying gear, especially since most of those wands are just for buffing and summoning. Any battlefield control spell you want needs to be in a staff or casted yourself to be useful.

1st lvl wands are pretty useful, but the summoner has no early spells until 2nd lvl spells.

You would need to make a build that included all these wands that you wanted, before I would call their 6lvl casting an advantage.

Scrolls don't count, since 1 use items are not really part of your character.

All of this doesn't even include the cost of rods that aren't extend spell (cause really double duration for slightly cheaper is not amazing).


That makes a lot of assumptions about the campaign to make statements like that. You are also emphasizing only what you might do. You state no summoner is going to buy or craft wands...well, that's fine if you think that but they can and I've seen them do it. You say they won't have item creation time but you are not what decides that and in many sandbox games (and some non-sandbox games) they can do so when they want to do so.

Gear is nice. Of course I also noted that you don't actually have to play dress-up with your eidolon for them to be powerful, and gear is pretty meaningless to summons. Which pretty much just leaves you padding your defenses and possibly getting a weapon to shoot or poke with when you're not doing something grander. Since defensive items are cheaper than offensive items we're in luck here.

As for the consumables such as scrolls, they do count because they are a class feature (the ability to use scrolls and wands and staffs with spells from your class without making a UMD check is a feature of your class and nothing else). I've seen enough to know that having one or two major scrolls can be a get out of jail free card.

I'm also not sure why you seem to ignore all the rods other than extend.


Ashiel wrote:

That makes a lot of assumptions about the campaign to make statements like that. You are also emphasizing only what you might do. You state no summoner is going to buy or craft wands...well, that's fine if you think that but they can and I've seen them do it. You say they won't have item creation time but you are not what decides that and in many sandbox games (and some non-sandbox games) they can do so when they want to do so.

Gear is nice. Of course I also noted that you don't actually have to play dress-up with your eidolon for them to be powerful, and gear is pretty meaningless to summons. Which pretty much just leaves you padding your defenses and possibly getting a weapon to shoot or poke with when you're not doing something grander. Since defensive items are cheaper than offensive items we're in luck here.

As for the consumables such as scrolls, they do count because they are a class feature (the ability to use scrolls and wands and staffs with spells from your class without making a UMD check is a feature of your class and nothing else). I've seen enough to know that having one or two major scrolls can be a get out of jail free card.

I'm also not sure why you seem to ignore all the rods other than extend.

I ignore extend rods.

Build it or I won't believe it. You may find it's harder than you think to throw wands into a build.


Marthkus wrote:


I ignore extend rods.

Build it or I won't believe it. You may find it's harder than you think to throw wands into a build.

If I recall she did build it up thread.

You dismissed it for no other reason than she had magic items in the build.

It's not hard to throw wands into a build unless all magic items are willfully put at a lower level of availability than usual.


Rynjin wrote:
Marthkus wrote:


I ignore extend rods.

Build it or I won't believe it. You may find it's harder than you think to throw wands into a build.

If I recall she did build it up thread.

You dismissed it for no other reason than she had magic items in the build.

It's not hard to throw wands into a build unless all magic items are willfully put at a lower level of availability than usual.

Equipment +2 strength gloves, +2 dexterity boots, +4 constitution vest, +2 intelligence circlet, +4 charisma headband of persuasion (+3 to Charisma-based checks), , amulet of natural armor +2 and protection +2 (12,000 gp), +3 celestial armor, lesser bracers of archery and resistance +4 (23,500 gp), lesser metamagic rods of extending (2), +2 mithral breastplate, +2 mithral buckler, 5,000 gp in additional gear

Look at all of those wands!!! You can't say summoners reduce casting is a buff because of cheaper wands while having a build of the summoner THAT HAS NO WANDS! I ask for another build because this one does not have the summoner benefiting from the "buff" of reduced casting. The extra 5K gold she has could buy 1 wand.

Oh yes and as far as meta magic goes we have extend spell. Weeee!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

He didn't say that cheap wands were a buff for a summoner PC, but that it was a problem in general. You don't need any summoners in the party in order to buy those cheap wands, just like you don't need a wizard or cleric in the party in order to buy wizard/cleric wands.

At least, that's how I understood it. It could certainly be a misunderstanding on my part :)


No it was and has been stated that the 'summoner's 6th level casting is not a handicap in anyway compared to a real full caster because they get cheap items. Therefore they are OP since they are essentially an arcane druid with a better animal companion'


Marthkus wrote:
No it was and has been stated that the 'summoner's 6th level casting is not a handicap in anyway compared to a real full caster because they get cheap items. Therefore they are OP since they are essentially an arcane druid with a better animal companion'

less spells per day

horribly limited spells known

low DCs

very highly specialized spell list, the spell list being all about combat from summons. to buffs and battlefield control with some eidolon batteries thrown in

better pet, but the pet has the unfortunate downside of sharing item slots with it's master, requiring the master to gimp themselves to pimp out the eidolon.

Grand Lodge

But it does lead to the question, is the summoner overpowered or are rods overpowered?

In Ashiel's ranger post she (or is it he) used a wand. So are these classes overpowered or are the rods and wands?

The fighter has no spells and no need for a meta-magic rod, and well the fighter doesn't need majority of wands really. Plus UMD isn't a class skill for him, and his lack of skill points means he has to be picky with skills. If we take the rods/wands away just as a experiment the fighter seems better by comparison, just like if we change the action economy system martial characters in general get a big boon.

It's not one or two classes that are responsible for the perceived weakness of the fighter, it's the way the system itself favors spell-casters in almost every way. In a way, the fact the fighter can compete at all is surprising, almost inspiring. I still love pathfinder, and since I never cared for fighters it isn't a big deal to me.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
No it was and has been stated that the 'summoner's 6th level casting is not a handicap in anyway compared to a real full caster because they get cheap items. Therefore they are OP since they are essentially an arcane druid with a better animal companion'

less spells per day

horribly limited spells known

low DCs

very highly specialized spell list, the spell list being all about combat from summons. to buffs and battlefield control with some eidolon batteries thrown in

better pet, but the pet has the unfortunate downside of sharing item slots with it's master, requiring the master to gimp themselves to pimp out the eidolon.

That's what I've been trying to say! Somehow cheaper items negates all of that! Idk why.


Zombie Ninja wrote:
In Ashiel's ranger post she (or is it he)

I tend default to whatever a person is presenting unless suggested to do otherwise.


Marthkus wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
No it was and has been stated that the 'summoner's 6th level casting is not a handicap in anyway compared to a real full caster because they get cheap items. Therefore they are OP since they are essentially an arcane druid with a better animal companion'

less spells per day

horribly limited spells known

low DCs

very highly specialized spell list, the spell list being all about combat from summons. to buffs and battlefield control with some eidolon batteries thrown in

better pet, but the pet has the unfortunate downside of sharing item slots with it's master, requiring the master to gimp themselves to pimp out the eidolon.

That's what I've been trying to say! Somehow cheaper items negates all of that! Idk why.

very rare i see the intermediate metamagic rods used, and i almost never see the greater ones used. and 80% of the time, it's a lesser rod of extend with a 1st or 2nd level pearl of power on an hours per level spell. such as mage armor or the like.

Grand Lodge

Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
No it was and has been stated that the 'summoner's 6th level casting is not a handicap in anyway compared to a real full caster because they get cheap items. Therefore they are OP since they are essentially an arcane druid with a better animal companion'

less spells per day

horribly limited spells known

low DCs

very highly specialized spell list, the spell list being all about combat from summons. to buffs and battlefield control with some eidolon batteries thrown in

better pet, but the pet has the unfortunate downside of sharing item slots with it's master, requiring the master to gimp themselves to pimp out the eidolon.

That's what I've been trying to say! Somehow cheaper items negates all of that! Idk why.
very rare i see the intermediate metamagic rods used, and i almost never see the greater ones used. and 80% of the time, it's a lesser rod of extend with a 1st or 2nd level pearl of power on an hours per level spell. such as mage armor or the like.

Apparently a rod can make a difference in relative terms, but I can't see why this would favor hybrid casters over full casters. Likewise why would it favor the summoner and magus, but not the alchemist, bard and Inquisitor.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The argument that was presented is that, for a caster like the summoner, who gets several normally 7th-9th level spells as 6th level spells, a medium rod (which works on spells up to 6th level) will work on those spells, while a full caster would need to use a major rod on the same spell.

While other hybrid casters could also benefit similarly, most of them don't get as many spells that would normally be off-limits for a medium rod.

Again, this is only based on my perception of the presented argument :)

Grand Lodge

Are wrote:

The argument that was presented is that, for a caster like the summoner, who gets several normally 7th-9th level spells as 6th level spells, a medium rod (which works on spells up to 6th level) will work on those spells, while a full caster would need to use a major rod on the same spell.

While other hybrid casters could also benefit similarly, most of them don't get as many spells that would normally be off-limits for a medium rod.

Again, this is only based on my perception of the presented argument :)

Yes, I'm aware, but isn't it offset by the fact that there getting those spell at a later levels and less of them offset this. Summon monster 9 is at sixteenth level, a wizard has 8th level spells by then and the average party has access to a large number of magic items and wealth.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Marthkus wrote:
No it was and has been stated that the 'summoner's 6th level casting is not a handicap in anyway compared to a real full caster because they get cheap items. Therefore they are OP since they are essentially an arcane druid with a better animal companion'

less spells per day

horribly limited spells known

low DCs

very highly specialized spell list, the spell list being all about combat from summons. to buffs and battlefield control with some eidolon batteries thrown in

better pet, but the pet has the unfortunate downside of sharing item slots with it's master, requiring the master to gimp themselves to pimp out the eidolon.

I keep seeing that, but I can't find it in the rules nor in the FAQ. Could anyone tell me where it is in the rules (except if it comes from PFS, as I don't play with those rules) ?

Dark Archive

They are very good


Avh wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
but the pet has the unfortunate downside of sharing item slots with it's master, requiring the master to gimp themselves to pimp out the eidolon.
I keep seeing that, but I can't find it in the rules nor in the FAQ. Could anyone tell me where it is in the rules (except if it comes from PFS, as I don't play with those rules) ?

It's in the Eidolon rules, under Special:

PRD, Summoner wrote:
Link (Ex): A summoner and his eidolon share a mental link allows for communication across any distance (as long as they are on the same plane). This communication is a free action, allowing the summoner to give orders to his eidolon at any time. In addition, magic items interfere with the summoner's connection to his eidolon. As a result, the summoner and his eidolon share magic item slots. For example, if the summoner is wearing a ring, his eidolon can wear no more than one ring. In case of a conflict, the items worn by the summoner remain active, and those used by the eidolon become dormant. The eidolon must possess the appropriate appendages to utilize a magic item.


@Are : Thanks :) I missed it totally !


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:
As for the added classes...
Those are some very personal preferences. Thanks for sharing!

Exactly as requested in the OP, yes. Thanks for noticing!


Zombie Ninja wrote:
Are wrote:

The argument that was presented is that, for a caster like the summoner, who gets several normally 7th-9th level spells as 6th level spells, a medium rod (which works on spells up to 6th level) will work on those spells, while a full caster would need to use a major rod on the same spell.

While other hybrid casters could also benefit similarly, most of them don't get as many spells that would normally be off-limits for a medium rod.

Again, this is only based on my perception of the presented argument :)

Yes, I'm aware, but isn't it offset by the fact that there getting those spell at a later levels and less of them offset this. Summon monster 9 is at sixteenth level, a wizard has 8th level spells by then and the average party has access to a large number of magic items and wealth.

NOTE: The summoner only gets up to SMVIII as the spell. They do not have SMIX unless you count their SLA(which doesn't work with rods).


I'm not a fan of the new base classes. I would prefer they be made archetypes.

701 to 737 of 737 << first < prev | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 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.