Why You No Likey PF's New Classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 485 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

Endoralis wrote:

I disagree. I still see no issue with the summoner as it was.

The above allegory of the summoner happens even more with the Unchained summoner as they don't gain the abilities of whatever they are meant to mimic again until they reach a certain level. Which of course leaves you with no actual choices of your own because the amount of points you have got cut in half. Unchained Eidolon is only good for a select few concepts and even then they are locked behind alignment for little reason.

I think that was the point. Instead of having a pet monster that follows you blindly, you have a companion that has it's own identity. It's not just a follower that you make to look like a dragon. I even think the alignment aspect is good because of the summoner's inherent connection to the other plains. The eidolon paired with the summoner because it feels that the summoner can (or be used to) further it's own goals. And the summoner feels the same way about the eidolon. The vanilla summoner basically has a crude copy of some monster, creature, or outsider that it got from someplace. The U-summoner has a genuine article, from the actual plane that the outside's from.

I do wish that Pazio would release some of the older archetypes for the U-summoner though, or at least add some new outsider eidolons. I mean, with every bestiary there are new outsiders, and I kinda want to summon them. Or maybe even a dragon-specialized summoner, or something else out there. Perhaps a Old One themed summoner.

"I summon you, Yagaiknyadwgoimoyikna!"
*sounds man wasn't meant to hear*
"WHAT IN HELL IS TH-AAAHHHHH!!!
*sounds of a man ripping out his own eyes*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Endoralis wrote:

I disagree. I still see no issue with the summoner as it was.

Maybe you didn't. And maybe a lot of others did not as well. But obviously several years of feedback and actual play, including examples that many took pains to create on this board, demonstrated a need for major adjustments to the class.

In theory the Summoner was a six level spellcaster. In practice, though, it had access to ninth level spells and effects that were compressed into a six level spell list. In addition it had access to powerful group buff spells like haste, earlier than even a wizard would manage. It was absurdly powerful for what was supposed to be a partial caster.


I miss the sandbox eidolon though... With pounce more difficult to get and slightly less evolution points it could be fine already.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I figured that Jekyll and Hyde was a metaphor for a violent drunk. Those people that, when they drink, totally change who they are.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
It was absurdly powerful for what was supposed to be a partial caster.

This is what peeves me the most about the summoner hate. Like if it was a ninth level caster and literally was exactly the same mechanically no one would give a damn, but because it's not a full caster and it's almost as good as a wizard it freaks everyone out.


Because it was more powerful than others in its "tier". If I wanted to run a game with mostly balanced characters, having to say "No full casters...or Summoner" is kind of annoying.


There shouldn't be tiers at all. Players organizing classes into tiers takes a lot out of the game.


Jaçinto wrote:
There shouldn't be tiers at all. Players organizing classes into tiers takes a lot out of the game.

Ignoring the basic silly statement of "Categorizing things takes a lot out of the game", that wasn't the kind of tier I meant.

4, 6, and 9 level casters are all balanced against one another. If a 6 level caster is unbalanced as compared to the rest of the 6 level casting "tier" (either being too weak or too strong), that's a problem that transcends fanmade tier lists. 6 level magic is, by design, meant to be weaker than 9 level magic.

Making a 6 level caster as strong as a 9 level caster means you failed to hit your design goal, just as much as if you somehow made a 9 level caster as weak as a Rogue.


Never said it was boring. Don't say I am saying something that I am not saying.

The balance thing bugs me. The more the game makes something different, the more people want it to be the same as the other stuff. What is the point, then, of making new stuff?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Never said it was boring. Don't say I am saying something that I am not saying.

I edited about 30 seconds after posting, since I misread. Either way, doesn't matter.

Jaçinto wrote:
The balance thing bugs me. The more the game makes something different, the more people want it to be the same as the other stuff. What is the point, then, of making new stuff?

Learn what the word balance means, then return to the discussion.

Hint: It does not mean "the same".


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Tiers are very helpful for me, and add a whole lot of understanding to the game in my experience. Definitely don't want to derail a thread into being about tiers, but I love em, wouldn't play a game with people pretending they don't exist.

And as for the actual thread topic, I don't like the Arcanist because it is maddening to combine Sorcerer and Wizard, and the only Arcanist character I've seen in a game so far was a character I didn't like. So now there's a stigma. As for the rest of them, I really like that they're in the game actually. I love the variety, even if there are classes like the Hunter that I'll never play (Boring concept to me), I'm glad its there for people that are into it.

Also, we use the Chained Summoner in our games, in the event someone wants to play it. One guy played a Synthesist in a different group, and it made everyone a bit gun shy about the class, but I don't see a big issue and I wouldn't make a stink.

...

I love you tiers, marry me and we'll get away from all this.


Sundakan, when two things are equal and thus do not tip the scales one way or the other and thus have the same weight?

I'm just gonna put on my AD&D hat and say I enjoyed the balance there because the classes that start powerful level up quickly, but the ones that end powerful go slower. Diminishing returns were built into the game. The fighter would wreck house early game but as the game progressed, the mage would eventually overtake in power. Early game, a strong breeze would kill a mage though.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Sundakan, when two things are equal and thus do not tip the scales one way or the other and thus have the same weight?

What's heavier, a pound of steel or a pound of feathers?


I already know what your argument is going to be and it is along the lines of "the same but different." The problem is with how classes like the wizard is and their option level, everything is either better or worse or so similar that it is pointless and you should just be a wizard.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

Where did all this tier stuff come from anyway.


Golarion is a mash up of both historical and fantasy settings and about half are kinda stupid. Some are inventive and I give it credit other lands look like they threw it into the book to fill it up. Several members of my group would rather use Forgotten Realms material as a base world using Pathfinder rules. My biggest complaint was how vague and undetailed the various nations were compared to Forgotten Realms. To get a more complete picture you had to purchase various suppliments.

Silver Crusade

8 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
There shouldn't be tiers at all. Players organizing classes into tiers takes a lot out of the game.

How? This just gives us a relative gauge of the power level of a class, nothing more, how does this take anything out of the game? Tiers aren't balancing anything, they're measuring something.


There isn't a new class that I've hated so far TBH, but that's because they each have something could be fixed. Yeah, some of the class features look a bit off and could use an errata.

Why can't the Summoner have BOTH its Eidolon and summoned creatures at once? You can't summon when your custom creation is out, really now???

Why is the Medium so confined to specific locations to summon its spirits? You're screwed if you cannot get a spirit because you're nowehere near its prefered location.

Why is it so hard to create a vigilante? Ok, technically speaking, they have sperate the viligante talents in three groups: avenger, stalker and common. Seriously, I feel like Stalker has more talents due to the Hidden Strike feature.

Why isn't the swashbuckler proficient with firearms? Dude... if it's supposed to be a hybrid between fighter and gunslinger, firearms are kinda mandatory here. That's like making a fighter/wizard hybrid without giving it spells... and no, that's not how the magus end up, fortunately.

Why are the samurai and ninja so similar to the cavalier and rogue? The samurai sounds more like a cavalier archetype and the ninja could have been an actual hybrid between monk and rogue.

So yeah, it's these kinds of quirks that I'm talking about. I don't see anything that bad about classes, just things that bug me.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
I already know what your argument is going to be and it is along the lines of "the same but different." The problem is with how classes like the wizard is and their option level, everything is either better or worse or so similar that it is pointless and you should just be a wizard.

And yet the Bard, Alchemist, Magus, etc. have a similar amount of options, and are all very, very different.

"Same" and "balance" are not synonymous. The proof of this is around, you just need to pay attention better.


Are those classes balanced with the wizard, or can the wizard be flat out better than them?


Is it the Wizard is bestest merry go round, it stops eventually right.


Doesn't matter if it is true. If they are not on par with the wizard, how can you say they are balanced.

Captain Yesterday, why do you keep making a new alias just for a couple posts? Kinda odd.

Dark Archive

2 people marked this as a favorite.

It's kind of odd that you care.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
Are those classes balanced with the wizard, or can the wizard be flat out better than them?

They're not, but they're balanced with each other.

Inter-class balance, balance within a certain sub-set, and balance to the game as a whole are different things.

The 6 level casters are, generally speaking, balanced with each other.

The 9 level casters as well.

And the 4 levels.

And the non-casters.

The problems come in when you compare different groups. They're not all balanced to each other any more. Some are, some aren't, but not all. So sub-set balance is fine, inter-class balance is not.

Likewise, you then look at balance to the whole game.

Some classes have problems contributing to every aspect of the game.

Some classes do not.

Other classes have disproportionate amount of influence over some parts.

Yet others have too much influence over all of them.

Balancing all three things is very possible. The 6 level casters, generally (and the 4 levels, more often than not), represent a nice golden mean. They are balanced to each other, and to the game as a whole.

Were the other classes balanced around that paradigm, the game would be better balanced.

Normally I'd be flippant and say "It's not that complicated", but honestly...it is. That's why everyone's estimation of A.) What the tiers are (because, really, that's the breakdown of how tiers are formed) and B.) Where every class SHOULD be is going to differ from person to person.

And then you have t look at the game's math to determine what it expects each class to be able to do numbers-wise, and published material to see what it expects OPTIONS-wise, and so on.

Balance is hard. But it's not impossible, an it does not result in "sameness". Were 9th level spells not so powerful and versatile, there would still be room for full casters and balance, for example. Spherecasting is pretty solid proof of that.

Balancing magic and non-magic is harder, but Path of War gives it a good try.

And yet despite all that material being roughly balanced with each other, and 6 level casters, and the game as a whole...calling any of it "the same" requires quite a lot of willful ignorance.

I'm not really interested in discussing specifics of balance to this game any more than I already have, in this thread at least, but you can see what I'm getting at, I hope?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
....and you should just be a wizard

No that's the current state.

Jaçinto wrote:
I'm just gonna put on my AD&D hat and say I enjoyed the balance there because the classes that start powerful level up quickly, but the ones that end powerful go slower. Diminishing returns were built into the game. The fighter would wreck house early game but as the game progressed, the mage would eventually overtake in power. Early game, a strong breeze would kill a mage though.

I find this really bad design for a game of such a long duration. Something like League of Legends that takes an hour? Sure. Have early game power vs late game power characters. Something that takes a year to run a full campaign, where 6 months one player is feeling hopeless while the others are fine and the other 6 months the dynamic switches? No. In a game focused entirely on the player's decisions, it's not healthy to have long periods of time where one player feels empowered and others do not (by virtue of their class choice, instead of by circumstance presented in a specific encounter).

I'm still a little annoyed at the vigilante: "you know how so many of you have been begging for the fighter to get more than 2 skill points per level, more narrative power through features and even a good will save? Well we made a new class for you that's focused on one shtick that you may not care for, but it's got 2 good saves, 6 skill points and a bunch of creative features, including bonus combat feats."

JiCi wrote:
Why can't the Summoner have BOTH its Eidolon and summoned creatures at once? You can't summon when your custom creation is out, really now???

Odds are this is an action economy issue, meant to be solved by the system than by dm management (whether or not that is a good thing). I prefer the idea that if you summon things you need to spend your actions each round maintaining control lest it break free and turn on you (or just leave the melee you forced it into).


swoosh wrote:
Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
It was absurdly powerful for what was supposed to be a partial caster.
This is what peeves me the most about the summoner hate. Like if it was a ninth level caster and literally was exactly the same mechanically no one would give a damn, but because it's not a full caster and it's almost as good as a wizard it freaks everyone out.

If it was a nine level caster it would have STILL been unbalanced when saddled with a powerful build as you will Eidolon as well. I was merely pointing out one of the factors that made it unbalanced.

Getting Haste at level 4... Having Summon Monster 9 as a sixth level spell, having most of the conjuring spells at lower levels as well.

And the fact is at the low levels it wasn't "as good as a wizard" IT was BETTER than a wizard, and that's not even taking the eidolon into consideration. I played one of those summoners back in PFS, and yes he was so powerful as a caster +SLA combo, there were times I didn't even BOTHER bringing out my absurdly powerful eidolon.


Jaçinto wrote:
Are those classes balanced with the wizard, or can the wizard be flat out better than them?

Wizard smokes EVERY other class, so no, they're not balanced with the Wizard. If they were, then the Wiz wouldn't be all alone at the top of the heap.

Dark Archive

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Sundakan wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
Sundakan, when two things are equal and thus do not tip the scales one way or the other and thus have the same weight?
What's heavier, a pound of steel or a pound of feathers?

A pound of feathers, because then you also have to carry the weight of what you did to all those poor birds.


Drahliana Moonrunner wrote:
actual play

This phrase is too MMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Jaçinto wrote:
There shouldn't be tiers at all. Players organizing classes into tiers takes a lot out of the game.
Jaçinto wrote:
I'm just gonna put on my AD&D hat and say I enjoyed the balance there because the classes that start powerful level up quickly, but the ones that end powerful go slower. Diminishing returns were built into the game. The fighter would wreck house early game but as the game progressed, the mage would eventually overtake in power. Early game, a strong breeze would kill a mage though.

I'm a bit confused here...


Sundakan wrote:
I think the "perfect" Summoner is the normal Summoner's Eidolon with the Unchained Summoner spell list.

Ironically, I prefer the opposite version. I like the extra built in flavor of the USummoner, but the spell list was nerfed a bit TOO hard.

Different strokes, I guess.


I'm not a big fan of how LIMITED the UnSummoner is. The built-in flavor is cool, but there's very little you can do to BREAK that flavor, you know?

The spell list takes a nasty hit, but I think that's a fair trade off for the action economy boost and how powerful the Eidolon can be.


I like the flavor of the UnSummoner's Eidolon, I think it's cool that instead of some vague "planar entity" you now have to choose an actual outsider type. However, I keep hearing about how the UnSummoner's spell list got nerfed, yet I can't seem to figure out what the difference is between the original and Un's spell list. Can someone please summarize in what way the spell list got worse?


Basically every early access spell got pushed back to late access instead and it lost all of its ninth level spells. Then it lost a bunch of other spells like snowball, detect metal and dimensional lock because reasons.

I feel like the U-Summoner's Eidolon was the biggest failure of the class though. The baseline summoner's eidolon was a lot of fun and greatly encouraged player creativity but had serious balance issues... the U-Summoner takes a sledgehammer to creativity and agency while still leaving them a perfectly serviceable fighter in a can.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

IMHO, a balanced Summoner would be the APG Summoner with the following changes:

- Unchained Summoner's spell list.
- Limit on natural attacks: 3 at first level, 5 at 11th... Maybe 7 at 18th.
- Revised cost for a few evolutions (Pounce should cost more than 1p. Minor magic should cost less than 3).

There! No need to add alignment restrictions and halve the amount of evolution points!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Eidolons already do have a limit on Natural Attacks. It caps at 7 at 19th (and 3 at 1st), but there's more granularity in between.

A lot of GMs don't read that close enough though.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
HeHateMe wrote:
I like the flavor of the UnSummoner's Eidolon, I think it's cool that instead of some vague "planar entity" you now have to choose an actual outsider type. However, I keep hearing about how the UnSummoner's spell list got nerfed, yet I can't seem to figure out what the difference is between the original and Un's spell list. Can someone please summarize in what way the spell list got worse?

Spoiler:

Ablative barrier, haste, slow, and wind wall were moved from 2nd-level to 3rd-level.

Agonize, black tentacles, charm monster, creeping ice, dimension door, dimensional anchor, enlarge person (mass), fire shield, invisibility (greater), locate creature, obsidian flow, reduce person (mass), stoneskin, wall of fire, and wall of ice were moved from 3rd-level to 4th-level.

Baleful polymorph, contact other plane, dismissal, hold monster, hostile juxtaposition, insect plague, mage's faithful hound, magic jar, overland flight, planar binding (lesser), sending, teleport, and wall of stone were moved from 4th-level to 5th-level.

Bear's endurance (mass), bull's strength (mass), cat's grace (mass), eagle's splendor (mass), fox's cunning (mass), and owl's wisdom (mass) were moved from 4th-level to 6th-level.

Banishment, creeping doom, create demiplane (lesser), ethereal jaunt, heroism (greater), ice crystal teleport, invisibility (mass), planar binding, plane shift, repulsion, sequester, spell turning, summon monster VII, tar pool, teleport (greater), true seeing, and wall of iron were moved from 5th-level to 6th-level.

Antipathy, binding, charm monster (mass), create demiplane, dimensional lock, discern location, dominate monster, energy siege shot, energy siege shot (greater), hostile juxtaposition (greater), incendiary cloud, maze, phantom chariot, planar binding (greater), protection from spells, summon monster VIII, sympathy, teleportation circle, and walk through space were completely removed from the summoner spell list.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Luthorne wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:
I like the flavor of the UnSummoner's Eidolon, I think it's cool that instead of some vague "planar entity" you now have to choose an actual outsider type. However, I keep hearing about how the UnSummoner's spell list got nerfed, yet I can't seem to figure out what the difference is between the original and Un's spell list. Can someone please summarize in what way the spell list got worse?
** spoiler omitted **

Oh crud, no wonder everyone keeps hating on the spell list changes, that's pretty rough.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

There isn't a new class that I've hated so far TBH, but that's because they each have something could be fixed. Yeah, some of the class features look a bit off and could use an errata.

Why can't the Summoner have BOTH its Eidolon and summoned creatures at once? You can't summon when your custom creation is out, really now???

You can't do it through SLA, but you CAN do it if you bring out your Eidolon with the Summon Eidolon spell. Otherwise....

When your Eidolon is out through normal means, you can cast Summon Monster spells using your spell slots if you pick them as part of your spells known list.


The reason I dislike the Summoner and find the Spiritualist better is because of spells. I have read both classes and their respective companions and both equal out overall. It's the summoner's lack of spells that make me dislike the base class. The Spiritualist's spell list is more Divine based then arcane but the spell selection overall is more well rounded then a Summoner.
The Eidolon is the Summoner's power base I am aware of this. However I have seen Wizard archtype's where they have to give up two or more schools of magic for their abilities. Even doing this their spell selection is still better then a Summoner's list. The Summoner doesn't even get all the spells listed on the Conjuration/summoning list.
Is there a class more powerful then another. I don't think so. Consider this most martial classes peak early leveling out in power at mid level. Casters start weak slowly growing more powerful at mid to high levels.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't dislike most new classes, it's the archetypes that constantly disappoint me.


What do you mean "no likey the new classes". I actually prefer most of the new classes to the Core classes. Magus and Witch are the best spellcasting classes, and I like most of the hybrid classes. Some classes like the summoner I don't care for, but then I didn't care for summoner wizards...


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Most archtypes fail to impress me enough to experiment with them. I have however found a couple well worth taking. Titan Mualer, Tower Shield Specialist, and Exploiter Wizard I have played and found them worth using. I in fact had a Barbarian fighter using Titan Mauler and Tower Shield Specialist. It worked really well being not only a damage dealer but was a tank as well.


Lemmy wrote:

IMHO, a balanced Summoner would be the APG Summoner with the following changes:

- Unchained Summoner's spell list.
- Limit on natural attacks: 3 at first level, 5 at 11th... Maybe 7 at 18th.
- Revised cost for a few evolutions (Pounce should cost more than 1p. Minor magic should cost less than 3).

There! No need to add alignment restrictions and halve the amount of evolution points!

My current Summoner house rules are a bit more complicated than yours. Granted. Although, I wrote these before PFU came out, so I couldn't just say "use the UC Summoner spell list." I still like mine more:

--Summoning SLA and Eidolon can be used together. Because if your two main class features don't work together, the class is badly designed.
--Some evolutions have revised costs.
--The summoner is now a 4th level caster. Spells known are reduced accordingly, and spells per day match the Ranger.
--The spell list is revised using the following algorithm:
i)If a summoner spell also appears on the sorcerer/wizard list, its summoner spell level is changed to match its wizard spell level.
ii)If a summoner spell also appears on the cleric list but not the sorcerer/wizard list, its new summoner level is the same as its cleric level.
iii)If a summoner spell is also a druid spell but not a wizard spell or cleric spell, its new spell level is its druid level.
iv)If a summoner spell is not on any of the wizard, cleric, or druid lists, multiply its level by 1.5, and round up.
v)Any summoner spells whose newly-revised level is above four is removed from the summoner spell list. Summoner-only spells that are removed from the summoner spell list (such as Greater Rejuvenate Eidolon) are removed from the game.

But yes, your Summoner-rewrite is simpler and probably works better than mine:)


Derek Dalton wrote:
To get a more complete picture you had to purchase various suppliments.

It almost as if Paizo is in the business of selling books or something.


Piccolo wrote:

I disagree. Alchemy is NOT chemistry. Alchemy is literally defined as the pursuit of turning base metals and such into gold.

Meanwhile, the class itself is more of a bomb throwing/jekyll and hyde mix, which makes little to no sense. The story was written in 1886, well beyond the scope of "medieval fantasy" and well into the Industrial Era.

Basically, somebody decided it looked cool, without regard to the setting. That's fine if you don't mind a mash up, but me, I don't like it.

WHOA, 1886?! The story was WRITTEN in 1886, so it MUST be inspired by the Industrial Revolution, right? *facepalm*

Well then I suppose ALL of Golarion doesn't fit because it was created/written in the 'Modern-Post Modern' era of the new Millennia. It can't possibly be "medieval fantasy." It wasn't written until 2,00x/2,01x AD!! I demand PCs, smartphones, and tasers for my characters. Dnd itself has to be thrown out too. 1970s? Pfft.

..Do you realize just how many "medieval fantasy" stories were actually created and popularized widely in the medieval era? Not many. Most people couldn't read after all. What about the 19th and 20th century? PLENTY. When a story was written has f@%K all to do with it's subject matter. Alchemists, in some areas of our medieval times, were essentially Herbalists. They gave you the "poultice of not hurting so much while the pox ate your body" (aka opium) even though they knew NOTHING about how or WHY it worked - or some silly remedy that didn't work regardless - or even killed you, like mercury. (this began in the ancient era for crying out loud.)

Next, that's not remotely the definition of 'alchemy' as it existed in our real world. You don't even seem to grasp the obvious metaphor of 'lead into gold' which I will touch upon soon.

The Alchemist class is very clearly inspired by proto-chemistry. It involves medicines, the elements, magic, metals, myths, etc and the alteration/attempt at understanding thereof. It is a *very* medieval idea. Dante and Chaucer both wrote about Alchemists for crying out loud. Are they "Industrial revolutionist" era writers too?!

Hey look - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spondent_Pariter - an historical example, involving the Pope even! "..a moral condemnation, with the Pope expounding how fraudulent alchemists exploited the poor and charging them with knowingly engaging in falsehood."

Again, from mighty wikipedia, free to all with internet *whistles* - "These brought with them many new words to the European vocabulary for which there was no previous Latin equivalent. Alcohol, carboy, elixir, and athanor are examples." (This was early-mid 1100s AD mind you)

Yep, it's alchemy, and it's as old as dirt. The metaphor is as obvious as dirt as well. "Changing lead (something mostly useless, and possibly deadly) into gold (money.)" I.E. Selling snake oil, but not -always- totally inert snake oil. They were widely considered con-men (a role which they fit well in PF)

You don't like it because you don't even try to understand it's historical roots. Roots which were very real in our medieval world, unfortunately. Roots you haven't even tried to understand or come to grips with.

..Eh this roasting went on long enough. I just hope I inspired you to actually *look things up for yourself* and not just listen to "the (totally!) History Channel" instead.

-----

Gunslingers OTOH? Lol, yes, people, we had "gunpowder" around the 13th-14th century. Before Knights? Uh, no. The Norman Knights of ~10th century Europe would like to have a word with you as would -countless- others. When was the *first* time gunpowder was truly successful in a European context? The fall of Constantinople. Even then it was cannons, no reliable hand-held firearms existed until well into the Renaissance.

Gunslingers as a class? They're garbage and the class should be shelved but hey, just like, my opinion, man. At least history IS on my side though! ..Sorry for the wall of text, I tried to break it up reasonably.

Squiggit wrote:
Basically every early access spell got pushed back to late access instead and it lost all of its ninth level spells. Then it lost a bunch of other spells like snowball, detect metal and dimensional lock because reasons.

Uh, please show me where a Summoner EVER got a 9th level spell? They max at 6th, always have. And the spells they had? They needed to be pushed back to account for the already OP summons/Eidolon. Any other spells they lost - they should have. They are like Gunslingers - useless and silly.

Some of you really can't grasp why the Summoner is RIDICULOUS considering it SHOULD be the "Conjurer" and nothing more.


You seem to be waaaaaaaay angry about this. Why is it?


3 people marked this as a favorite.

He's just demonstrating another historical concept: Pillars of salt.


witch: save or die was toned down in pathfinder for a reason, it's boring. The witch cranks it up to 11 after they DID just make 10 louder.

Swashbuckler a mobile fighter with... no actual mobility. Is supposed to be a charismatic dexterous cutting figure but works better with a strength build a charsima of 7. everyone martial seems to dip the class for the parry/riposte extra attack.

vigilante I don't hate the class, i just don t like that you have to keep pumping features into the dual identity to get it to work, it should expand automatically as you level up like most of its features. It seems to be the rogue done right.

summoner It's a 9th level pre optimized god wizard masquerading as a 6th level caster that comes with build a bear that's better than most character classes on it's own.

Gunslinger Touch attacks are completely overpowered. AC barely scales with attack. Touch ac doesn't scale at all.
A pirate with a pistol up their sleeve for 1 shot is arguably as period appropriate as plate armor. However, gunslinger rate of fire looks more like someone with 2 six shooters or a browning automatic rifle than a blunderbuss or flintlock.

magus coookie cuuter


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personal opinion but...

Prestige classes are for hyper specialization in a concept.

Base classes should be super generic building blocks that you can use to fill a variety of concepts.

For example, with a Ranger, I can build Aragorn or Legolas from Lord of the Rings, but I can also just as easily build a noble knight on horseback, a samurai, an deserter from a destroyed army, a grizzled hunter, a wilderness guide, a viking, a bounty hunter, or god knows what else.

To me, the mark of a good base class is something that has a framework that provides a particular style of mechanical play but is very open ended in how you can work within that framework.

Some classes have a framework that is IMHO too damn tight. Or they have a lot of forced fluff that only applies to a smidgen of characters. Examples would be magus (as BNW noted, they're extremely cookie cutter in how to build them) and oracle (curse those curses, I shouldn't have to play someone with a gimp leg or a speech impediment just because I want a spontaneous cleric *shakes fist*).

301 to 350 of 485 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why You No Likey PF's New Classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.