|
Apparently a video was uploaded of Paizo's Gen Con announcements. Somewhere around 44 minutes in is where Jason starts talking about the ACG.
Link
http://youtu.be/CQbNw4C0bSU
One of the things mentioned is that all Hybrid classes will have their own archetypes, and as a hybrid you can multi-class into other classes but not the two parent classes (maybe). So in a nut shell A hybrid class is (or at least seems to be) a cross between a alternative class and a multi-class character. Also hybrid get their own take on the parents classes abilities, the example given was a War Priest getting blessings which acted like domains but were geared towards a more martial end. Otherwise everything is still vague at this point.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A Musketeer would make a good archetype for swashbuckler...I don't think it would be a good idea to ingrain it into the class as that will lead to uproars from the anti-gun in my fantasey RPG fraction.
Another Idea I have is for Swashbuckler to be Cavaliers/Gunslinger...Which the get a grit point like system...but instead call Panache or something like that. Also maybe some ability to use a pistol with their off-hand...probably as a option as not everyone loves guns.
You read my mind - a Musketeer
The Anti-gun in my Fantasy RPG group are going to complain if its an Archetype, a PRC or a base class that has guns as part of the baseline assumption to the concept no matter what. They don't want firearms in their fantasy RPGs, and that's fine for them, but I do not see why that this vocal minority of the community should hobble the game designers. There is a similar sized group who don't want Asian themed characters and yet we still have base classes of Monk, Ninja, and Samurai so why not a base class Musketeer with its own collection of archetypes like say Highwayman and such?
I only hope to see a class builder, then I can have all the classes mentioned here, muahahaha.
@Zombie Ninja: Also thanks a lot for the video.
Apparently a video was uploaded of Paizo's Gen Con announcements. Somewhere around 44 minutes in is where Jason starts talking about the ACG.
Link
http://youtu.be/CQbNw4C0bSUOne of the things mentioned is that all Hybrid classes will have their own archetypes, and as a hybrid you can multi-class into other classes but not the two parent classes (maybe). So in a nut shell A hybrid class is (or at least seems to be) a cross between a alternative class and a multi-class character. Also hybrid get their own take on the parents classes abilities, the example given was a War Priest getting blessings which acted like domains but were geared towards a more martial end. Otherwise everything is still vague at this point.
Just watched the whole video, but yes the ACG stuff hits around 44:00. They definitely indicated a section/chapter advising how to create classes. At least that's how it sounded to me.
Again, sounds very similar to what we have been doing with multiclass archetypes here at the Multiclass Archetypes wiki and in our (so far) five Multiclass Archetypes threads - to whit - no multiclassing with either of your parent classes and tweaks to your parent class' abilities.
Can't wait for the initial announcement or the playtest!!!
|
|
Just watched the whole video, but yes the ACG stuff hits around 44:00. They definitely indicated a section/chapter advising how to create classes. At least that's how it sounded to me.
Again, sounds very similar to what we have been doing with multiclass archetypes here at the Multiclass Archetypes wiki and in our (so far) five Multiclass Archetypes threads - to whit - no multiclassing with either of your parent classes and tweaks to your parent class' abilities.
Can't wait for the initial announcement or the playtest!!!
I've checked out the multi-class archetype threads and wiki before. Muli-class archetypes was always a great idea, so kudos to Paizo's for taking an idea that started with the players and running with it. Plus the way muli-class archetypes are written I wouldn't think it would take much adjustment to turn them into new hybrids or archetypes for existing ones (if a DM would want to). Multi-classing really needed some attention, glad Paizo's agreed.
Man, I can't wait until we get some more info from Jason, this could end up as one of Paizo's best books to date, of course, in my opinion.
Just watched the whole video, but yes the ACG stuff hits around 44:00. They definitely indicated a section/chapter advising how to create classes. At least that's how it sounded to me.
Yeah I don't know how to take that, I really hope is class builder like races from ARG and not just a section with some phrase that doesn't help.
Can't wait for the initial announcement or the playtest!!!
Me neither.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the problem with a class builder will end up being a much larger example of what made the race builder occasionally wonky. None of the 3.X legacy classes were designed with any sort of numerical or mechanical formula in mind (just as spells, magic items, monsters, etc. are generally designed in a vacuum, making any sort of 'build an X' system problematic).
A game with a point-buy class builder or spell research system or custom magic item chart or monster creator or race builder would almost have to start out with that baked right into the game design, and not half-arsedly try to cobble something together after the fact, and discover that it's crazy hard to make a workable system that doesn't have more exceptions than examples of working as intended. (See the custom magic item rules and the 'ring of true strike' nonsense or the attempt during the Advanced Race Guide playtest to make dwarf abilities cheaper so they didn't 'look funny' with their more than 10 RP final totals.)
A game that allowed total class modularity might as well not have classes at all, just menus of abilities, some of which 'cost' enough that you can't take them all at once (9th level spellcasting, full BAB, rage, smite, an eidolon, etc.). That would be GURPS or Mutants & Masterminds or something, and a pretty far step from anything D&D-style fantasy has attempted as of yet. (Even Green Ronin's True20 didn't go quite that far, still having three class frameworks.)
I'm not saying it's impossible, just something that, like the Race Builder or, even more so, the Custom Magic Item 'guidelines,' would be at least much art as science, with plenty of space to get lost in the weeds and create atrocities.
I don't need it to be perfect, and yes in this part of the life system is more an art than science and it would be complicated to say th less but still I think is possible to do something decent, like Class Construction Engine form Shadowcraft Studios, in my opinion it has severe flaws but still I think is good enough. A class builder can help a lot to play some weird concepts specially villain NPCs without incurring in fiat, some people don't like fiat.
More choices? This book will probably be great for players who have played Pathfinder for awhile, but since I keep introducing new players to the game, I think it will be on my bookshelf :)
But kudos to Paizo for doing this, I cannot imagine the math and balance hell to make this.
But kudos to Paizo for doing this, I cannot imagine the math and balance hell to make this.
Considering the game is already not balanced, I don't think it's a huge concern... :(
I am thinking more like the dread necromancer but not so insanely OP.Whoah, ok, now I have to know what part of the Dread Necromancer you considered overpowered. I think all of those focused casters that came out at the end of 3.5 (Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Warmage, etc.) were fantastically well designed and, in my opinion, the best way to keep magic in the game without dealing with excessive imbalance.
You could take a feat that made it so negative energy healed you instead. Remember that infinite use negative energy touch that Dread Necros got? Aside from infinite healing, they also got giant zombie summons with reach.
You could take a feat that made it so negative energy healed you instead. Remember that infinite use negative energy touch that Dread Necros got? Aside from infinite healing, they also got giant zombie summons with reach.I am thinking more like the dread necromancer but not so insanely OP.Whoah, ok, now I have to know what part of the Dread Necromancer you considered overpowered. I think all of those focused casters that came out at the end of 3.5 (Dread Necromancer, Beguiler, Warmage, etc.) were fantastically well designed and, in my opinion, the best way to keep magic in the game without dealing with excessive imbalance.
I don't know, I would blame that more on the feat than the class, personally. There's nothing inherently overpowered about the class, it's only an issue in combination with that one feat (and even then, not that bad, since effectively infinite healing isn't too hard to get in 3.5 anyway).
When is this book set to be released? Next year for GEN CON?
When is this book set to be released? Next year for GEN CON?
Yes it will be a Gen Con release.
I know there's already a "ACG" Wishlist Thread out there. But I haven't seen a Predictions thread. So here goes!
We're about a year from the release of this book, so almost anything goes. What we do know is that there are going to be 10 new classes added to the game. These classes are going to be hybrid concepts of existing classes. Four of these classes have been revealed already:
Shaman (Cleric/Druid)
Warpriest (Cleric/Fighter)
Hunter (Druid/Ranger)
Slayer (Ranger/Rogue)So what are your predictions for the remaining six? What are your justifications?
Here are my thoughts:
** spoiler omitted **
There are certain combinations that we can probably rule out. Barbarian/Paladin or Barbarian/Monk for example are too different to make a cohesive hybrid (IMHO). One cannot be a chaotic rager whilst also be dedicated to maintaining balance and order after all. Also, class concepts like the Bard/Sorcerer or the Cleric/Paladin overlap...
I admire you enthusiasm for typing all those combinations. I do not think that many exist. In Unearthed Arcana , the three generic classes were: Adept, Expert and Warrior. The Adept, a spontaneous caster, could select any spell and be either arcane or divine.
From that basis, the possible combinations are the following:
1. Adept arcane
2. Adept divine
3. Expert
4. Warrior
5. Expert/Warrior
6. Adept arcane/Adept divine
7. Adept arcane/Expert
8. Adept arcane/Warrior
9. Adept divine/Expert
10. Adept divine/Warrior
Now determine what classes fill what roles.
1. Sorcerer; Wizard
2. Oracle; Cleric, Druid; Shaman
3. Thief
4. Fighter; Barbarian,
5. Monk
6. Witch
7. Bard
8. Magus
9. Ranger; Hunter; Slayer
10. Paladin; Warpriest
I really do not see what unique roles these 6 new classes will fill. I could be wrong.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically never play a rogue again?Wait, people play rogues now when there are bards, inquisitors, rangers, and alchemists? Do people really play rogues for a reason other than "challenge mode" or "I don't care about mechanics?"
Yes, actually they do.
And they have fun doing it.
I can't wait to see the improved Wasp Queen PrC.
There was a Wasp Queen PrC?
So basically never play a rogue again?Wait, people play rogues now when there are bards, inquisitors, rangers, and alchemists? Do people really play rogues for a reason other than "challenge mode" or "I don't care about mechanics?"Yes, actually they do.
And they have fun doing it.
This is a totally legit question not meant to be contentious or "fighty":
What mechanical reason do those players have for being a Rogue?
I agree with you, but will attempt to answer your question
1. they are slightly better at skills than any other class than bard. Useless for almost everything else
2.people over value the ability to find and remove magic traps. Especially common in older players who still think in terms of trap TPK's instead of as a ridiculously easy challenge.(I include the design team in this group).
3 abuse of sap master and enforcer feat
4 people like to roll a lot of dice even if it gives you smaller numbersThe last reason isn't mechanical, but it does play into a lot of it(at least in this area). A number of people have "locked in" ideas about what other classes are. They think that every ranger is a woodsy archer lost in the hatte of their FE, that every bard is walking around dressed in chiffon while strumming a large harp, and that inquisitors are all fanatics. To those people the only way to have any leeway at all in making a skill monkey means rogue.
Yeah, see, pretty much all of those reasons fall into the "I don't care about mechanics" group. Bards have more skills and several archetypes (including bard archetypes) can get magical trapfinding anyway. The archaeologist can even get the Trap Spotter talent. Abusing Sap Master can be done (better) with a vivisectionist alchemist, and it's actually not as powerful as people like to think anyway. The rest is non-mechanical.
So, I stand by my statement. That still seems like you're either ignoring mechanics or you are deliberately choosing to play something weaker for some other reason.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So basically never play a rogue again?Wait, people play rogues now when there are bards, inquisitors, rangers, and alchemists? Do people really play rogues for a reason other than "challenge mode" or "I don't care about mechanics?"Yes, actually they do.
And they have fun doing it.
This is a totally legit question not meant to be contentious or "fighty":
What mechanical reason do those players have for being a Rogue?
Specialization vs generalist.
I can build a rogue who is more diverse in skills than most other class...the only other one is Bard...and sometimes I don't want to have that many perform skills. Or magic.
I also in general like the tactical mechanics of the class. Getting off a sneak attack in combat is fun and rewarding...because you have to think about it and plan it.
Sometimes playing a rogue is like playing chess where the other classes is like playing checkers.
Though I truely doubt this will mean much to you as from your posts I gether you just hate this game and only play because it what your group likes to play.
Rogues are still fun to play irregardless and besides Rogues are Rouges; and are probably not going to reveiled in the advanced class guide... getting back on topic; I feel like we need a 10HD 1:1 BAB Light Arcane Caster (More of a blaster though-- controlling ones opponent is just dishonorable)
I wouldn't mind more mountless Cavalier archetypes too...
Specialization vs generalist.
I can build a rogue who is more diverse in skills than most other class...the only other one is Bard...and sometimes I don't want to have that many perform skills. Or magic.
I also in general like the tactical mechanics of the class. Getting off a sneak attack in combat is fun and rewarding...because you have to think about it and plan it.
Sometimes playing a rogue is like playing chess where the other classes is like playing checkers.
Though I truely doubt this will mean much to you as from your posts I gether you just hate this game and only play because it what your group likes to play.
I don't hate the game at all--I hate quite a few RPGs and won't play them at all (for example, FATE, Don't Rest Your Head, RIFT and almost every other d% based games...).
I like D&D, I just think that 3rd edition was one of the worst versions of D&D out there,and Pathfinder built on top of it. I do like other games better (Savage Worlds is my absolutely favorite), but I'd still put Pathfinder in my top 10, I think. Maybe at 10. Er, well, it'd be Top 20 at least.
I am "stuck" playing it because the new group I found last year won't play anything else, which is funny because the group I've been in for almost a decade now would play almost any game except D&D.
Anyway, I never tried to suggest there were no reasons to play a Rogue, or that you couldn't enjoy doing it. I only meant that there were no mechanical benefits for doing so--which means you're either left not caring about mechanics whatsoever or your left knowing they're weaker and doing it anyway.
For example, the idea that you don't want magic sometimes (the perform thing is irrelevant now that Archaeologists exist who don't perform at all) is not a mechanical advantage--choosing not to have magic, which is the most powerful thing in the game, is deliberately choosing to be weaker for some other reason (flavor, in this case).
What you described after that is enjoying the challenge, which still fits under my statements--sneak attack is a weak mechanic, but you still enjoy using it. There's nothing wrong with that, but it being fun to play does not make it mechanically strong--it's certainly not stronger than other options. Oh, plus Vivisectionists also get Sneak Attack and better equipped for the game as a whole beyond that.
I apologize for distracting the thread with this--I never meant to. I'll let it go if everyone else does ;)
Specialization vs generalist.
I can build a rogue who is more diverse in skills than most other class...the only other one is Bard...and sometimes I don't want to have that many perform skills. Or magic.
I also in general like the tactical mechanics of the class. Getting off a sneak attack in combat is fun and rewarding...because you have to think about it and plan it.
Sometimes playing a rogue is like playing chess where the other classes is like playing checkers.
Though I truely doubt this will mean much to you as from your posts I gether you just hate this game and only play because it what your group likes to play.
I don't hate the game at all--I hate quite a few RPGs and won't play them at all (for example, FATE, Don't Rest Your Head, RIFT and almost every other d% based games...).
I like D&D, I just think that 3rd edition was one of the worst versions of D&D out there,and Pathfinder built on top of it. I do like other games better (Savage Worlds is my absolutely favorite), but I'd still put Pathfinder in my top 10, I think. Maybe at 10. Er, well, it'd be Top 20 at least.
I am "stuck" playing it because the new group I found last year won't play anything else, which is funny because the group I've been in for almost a decade now would play almost any game except D&D.
Anyway, I never tried to suggest there were no reasons to play a Rogue, or that you couldn't enjoy doing it. I only meant that there were no mechanical benefits for doing so--which means you're either left not caring about mechanics whatsoever or your left knowing they're weaker and doing it anyway.
For example, the idea that you don't want magic sometimes (the perform thing is irrelevant now that Archaeologists exist who don't perform at all) is not a mechanical advantage--choosing not to have magic, which is the most powerful thing in the game, is deliberately choosing to be weaker for some other reason (flavor, in this case).
What you described after that is...
I don't play the game for the mechanics, if I did every character would be the same.
I think if there is a swashbuckler it will not be the hybrid between fighter and rogue everyone is guessing...I think it will be a hybrid between Cavalier and rogue.
I just want to see one ability in a Swashbuckler- Parry, later becoming Counter. Parry should be for weapon attacks, maybe limit it to uses a day, or whatever, but basically roll an opposed attack roll. If you win the roll, the attack is deflected. Later you can counter instead of just parry. That would fit perfectly, I think.
I'd love to see the ACG contain true fixes for the poor four, but I don't expect it.
I would like to see the opposite, true fixes for the rest of the classes, bringing them in line with the "poor four."
But kudos to Paizo for doing this, I cannot imagine the math and balance hell to make this.Considering the game is already not balanced, I don't think it's a huge concern... :(
Okei, relativly balanced, meaning not openly OP or underpowered :P
I will give Paizo the benefit of the doubt that the Monk was not as strong as they thought, or that the summoner was a bit OP and so on.It wouldn´t be 3.5, if there weren´t any unbalance involved, or I am making an outrageous claim here? xP
Both fixes would be acceptable; but making classes weaker would not make much sense... Golarion is supposed to be a tougher world to survive in after all- making the four "weaker" classes better could reflect lessons learned by the survivors of said profession passing them on the next generation...
But then again the opposite could become true by sheer luck too; I guess... but I digress...
Any feats you want to see? I would like see a couple of Feats that affect the save mechanics; Particularly the key ability score for certain saves.
Right. Give them the tools to be better, don't bring every other class down because of their problems.
What four "weaker" classes?
What four "weaker" classes?
I'm guessing fighter, monk, rogue, and ninja, since I rarely see anyone complain about any other classes being underpowered, useless, or replaceable.
What four "weaker" classes?I'm guessing fighter, monk, rogue, and ninja, since I rarely see anyone complain about any other classes being underpowered, useless, or replaceable.
Ninja is a rogue. The weaker four classes are the classes with no spells, because spells > everything that isn't spells.
The four are: Cavalier, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue.
Personally, I'd throw Gunslinger in there, too, but most forget them because "ZOMG NO GUNS IN MY FANTASY," while other people get scared by touch attacks, so they don't get the credit they deserve for sucking just like the other spell-less classes.
Barbarians are still weaker than spellcasters, but they at least have enough defenses against spells to be slightly more viable at the end game, so they might be a good baseline to aspire to, for now, at least.
|
|
My Thoughts..
Artificer (Alchemist/Wizard)
Assassin (Alchemist/Rogue)
Aracanus (Wizard/Sorc)
What? you might ask on that last one. Basically my idea ist he Arcanus combines a small ability to have a spell book along with the ability to spontaneously cast. This could end up thrusting itself into a heavy Word-Casting based class.
So, in that light, while Swashbuckler seems like it has lots of traction as a Fighter/Rogue, how could it really be a Fighter/Rogue? Won't combining those classes just ruin the concept? You don't want Sneak Attack on a Swashbuckler, and Rogue Tricks don't make much sense either. Unless they're just going to call "Fighter with extra skills and lighter armor" a Fighter/Rogue...
...2) I think someone at Paizo might be a little sore about how negatively the Gunslinger is perceived by the general public. However, lost somewhere in between "ARGH! Guns don't belong in fantasy!" and "Oh no! Full weapon attacks vs. Touch AC is broken!" is a really solid Grit mechanic that merits expanding. I'd predict some kind of melee Grit using class--Fighter/Gunslinger or Ranger/Gunslinger or whatever.
Just wanted to brag about my eerily accurate prediction from earlier in this thread ;)
Just wanted to brag about my eerily accurate prediction from earlier in this thread ;)So, in that light, while Swashbuckler seems like it has lots of traction as a Fighter/Rogue, how could it really be a Fighter/Rogue? Won't combining those classes just ruin the concept? You don't want Sneak Attack on a Swashbuckler, and Rogue Tricks don't make much sense either. Unless they're just going to call "Fighter with extra skills and lighter armor" a Fighter/Rogue...
...2) I think someone at Paizo might be a little sore about how negatively the Gunslinger is perceived by the general public. However, lost somewhere in between "ARGH! Guns don't belong in fantasy!" and "Oh no! Full weapon attacks vs. Touch AC is broken!" is a really solid Grit mechanic that merits expanding. I'd predict some kind of melee Grit using class--Fighter/Gunslinger or Ranger/Gunslinger or whatever.
I toyed with that concept myself; With it being more of adrenaline junkie based warrior that simply a swashbuckler...
Artificer - alchemist/wizard - uses tech in some fashion. Mostly a flavor class for steampunk fans.
Tank - cavalier/paladin - something Pathfinder lacks, a class feature that encourages enemies to attack you over other targets. Someone who "draws aggro".
Faceman - bard/inquisitor - a class that focus' on making allies and tricking foes. The social equivalent of a two-handed fighter.
Ascetic - monk/summoner - someone who uses evolution points to increase their abilities or the abilities of others. Maybe a true shapeshifter class.
Just some wild speculation.
As I mentioned in another thread I would love some transformational classes. The bloodrager seems fitting.
What four "weaker" classes?I'm guessing fighter, monk, rogue, and ninja, since I rarely see anyone complain about any other classes being underpowered, useless, or replaceable.Ninja is a rogue. The weaker four classes are the classes with no spells, because spells > everything that isn't spells.
The four are: Cavalier, Fighter, Monk, and Rogue.
Personally, I'd throw Gunslinger in there, too, but most forget them because "ZOMG NO GUNS IN MY FANTASY," while other people get scared by touch attacks, so they don't get the credit they deserve for sucking just like the other spell-less classes.
Barbarians are still weaker than spellcasters, but they at least have enough defenses against spells to be slightly more viable at the end game, so they might be a good baseline to aspire to, for now, at least.
This is not a healthy basis to start from when designing, so I doubt this will be taken into consideration.
I don't know. Were you the only one in the room other than Jason?