|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, ok.
I would suggest you take a look at the document again. While they are a blend of 2 classes you cannot achieve what any of these do by multiclassing and you would not be more powerful. This is a playtest, it is designed to gather feedback from people playing these classes to make ti better. Making an account to make the post complaining about something with no real positive feedback or suggestions as you have above just seems like the exact opposite of what the spirit of the playtest is all about. If you don't like the book don't buy it.
Um, ok.
I would suggest you take a look at the document again. While they are a blend of 2 classes you cannot achieve what any of these do by multiclassing and you would not be more powerful. This is a playtest, it is designed to gather feedback from people playing these classes to make ti better. Making an account to make the post complaining about something with no real positive feedback or suggestions as you have above just seems like the exact opposite of what the spirit of the playtest is all about. If you don't like the book don't buy it.
While I don't approve of rampant negativity for its own sake, I do think it is valid feedback to say, "I don't like anything you've done here". Voting with your dollars is a little late to influence the product. They asked for feedback and opinions, they get them. I understand that saying "I don't like this" without any suggestions of alternatives is not much feedback. But let's be honest, how much are they going to alter the rules in a beta test? Not much. And yet, once it gets published in final form, it becomes legal material for PFS.
So, voting with your dollars doesn't save you from dealing with a product that you don't approve of.
I for one, agree with Arkath on some of the classes in ACG. I think they are mostly uninspiring milk-toast, and rely far too much on the spellcasting side for "power". The Slayer, the Hunter, and perhaps the Brawler are good. The Warpriest trades in too much in spellcasting for bonus feats; and the Arcanist looks like one houserule away from a Wizard...blah.
two coppers....
I think Arcanist is interesting with a little work if only for an option for world design. Warpriest is ugh... Brawler needs just a little fine tuning. The Hunter seems useless for most groups and the Inquisitor is a better slayer than the Slayer class.
NOTE: I hate Vancian Casting!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Um, ok.
I would suggest you take a look at the document again. While they are a blend of 2 classes you cannot achieve what any of these do by multiclassing and you would not be more powerful. This is a playtest, it is designed to gather feedback from people playing these classes to make ti better. Making an account to make the post complaining about something with no real positive feedback or suggestions as you have above just seems like the exact opposite of what the spirit of the playtest is all about. If you don't like the book don't buy it.
While I don't approve of rampant negativity for its own sake, I do think it is valid feedback to say, "I don't like anything you've done here". Voting with your dollars is a little late to influence the product. They asked for feedback and opinions, they get them. I understand that saying "I don't like this" without any suggestions of alternatives is not much feedback. But let's be honest, how much are they going to alter the rules in a beta test? Not much. And yet, once it gets published in final form, it becomes legal material for PFS.
So, voting with your dollars doesn't save you from dealing with a product that you don't approve of.
I for one, agree with Arkath on some of the classes in ACG. I think they are mostly uninspiring milk-toast, and rely far too much on the spellcasting side for "power". The Slayer, the Hunter, and perhaps the Brawler are good. The Warpriest trades in too much in spellcasting for bonus feats; and the Arcanist looks like one houserule away from a Wizard...blah.
two coppers....
While it's good to give people their opinion, I am not sure a broad "I don't like this" is really that informative. It's probably better to list specific suggestions on things you want to see.
Generally I have found multiclassing to result in weaker characters, and Pathfinder has definitely (intentionally or not) made that the inferior option. So frankly I am glad that we are getting hybrid classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I like the concept of Hybrid Classes but I would rather see a Magus style hybrid than these.
I think Arcanist is interesting with a little work if only for an option for world design. Warpriest is ugh... Brawler needs just a little fine tuning. The Hunter seems useless for most groups and the Inquisitor is a better slayer than the Slayer class.
NOTE: I hate Vancian Casting!
And that is precisely my point about the Arcanist....one house rule (that I am implementing in my next campaign) away from Wizard. Just say that Wizards prepare their spells, but then use spell slots to cast them without wiping them from their minds. I know, what about the Sorcerer....I'm working on it.
(It is worth pointing out that the Sorcerer came into existence as an alternative to purely "Vancian casting"....so if you fix Vancian casting, you can just let them go.....except there is something about them that we, now, can't let go of!)
I think you are undervaluing the Slayer; favored target is pretty sweet, and sneak attack is cool if you can exploit it....with bonuses...and full BAB.
Which brings up another point. There are multiple breaks of the HD/BAB rule. I.e. d6/poor, d8/ average, d10 good. True there is precedent in the Barbarian for "breaking" the "rule", but I'm not so sure that's the case here. Specifically, the Slayer: traditionally when granting sneak attack, you restrict BAB to average. Not so with the Slayer, although they curiously have d8 HD. Conversely, the Warpriest has d8 HD and gets his spellcasting SLASHED, and he STILL has average BAB....???
Also, did I say the Hunter was good? I was confusing parts of the Slayer with the Hunter...yeah, the Hunter is crap.
The Slayer is okay, on the sixth/seventh read through, though they do lack a bit on options to me.
Hmm... I think making it to where the Arcanist could choose an Arcane School or Bloodline would be better. Or do like the Tome of Secret Warlock and let them pick and choose powers between the arcane schools at certain levels.
The Slayer is okay, on the sixth/seventh read through, though they do lack a bit on options to me.
Hmm... I think making it to where the Arcanist could choose an Arcane School or Bloodline would be better. Or do like the Tome of Secret Warlock and let them pick and choose powers between the arcane schools at certain levels.
But see, now you're just running down the path to the One Mage to Rule Them All house rule....that I am trying to implement.
I have thought for a long time that we could do without most classes in favor of highly customizable but flavorful alternatives to the "basic" class types. Mage. Priest. Rogue. Warrior.
Just like the excellent Pathfinder Rogue, and to some extent, the Fighter, we have "talents" for all the classes that fill out the style and mechanics you want. For instance, the Mage could choose Study (Int/spellbook), Bloodline (Cha/innate), or Pact (Wis/patron) casting styles. With a matching list of "talents" to choose as you level.
/end thread-jack.....sorry.
Rage on, you crazy diamond.
Also, feel free to not buy the book if it isn't your cup of tea.
Again, I must say I think this is a cheap way out. We are all part of the Pathfinder community, and we have a vested interest in how the game develops. More specifically, many people take part in PFS play, and they can't just 'not buy the book' as the rules will be allowed eventually in PFS.
@Can'tFindthePath: I agree on both. Personally I would rather have fewer highly customizable classes than a lot of limited classes. Though I think Archetypes help with that compared to 3.x's solution...
|
Again, I must say I think this is a cheap way out. We are all part of the Pathfinder community, and we have a vested interest in how the game develops. More specifically, many people take part in PFS play, and they can't just 'not buy the book' as the rules will be allowed eventually in PFS.Rage on, you crazy diamond.
Also, feel free to not buy the book if it isn't your cup of tea.
Probably so, but the OP admits to not really into being a part of the community, creating an account for the sole purpose of launching a fire-and-forget complaint, and not bothering with sticking around for the discussion. This type of person isn't interested in the playtest, being part of the processes, or making the game better. This is a post about not participating from someone thats never participated.
Also, not buying the book is a perfectly valid option, even for PFS, because the book isn't required unless it becomes part of the core assumption.
-Skeld
@Skeld: But still the person might end up playing in a game alongside someone using the Book and thus still have to deal with it.
I agree with the OP that these classes don't have a "feel" of being new material, and don't give me any sense of anticipation for the book.
That being said, I'm expecting that the rest of the book isn't going to read like last night's leftovers mixed with tonight's leftovers and served up tomorrow with a bit of fresh garnish. There's probably going to be a lot of cool stuff in there (has been every time so far) even if what Paizo is trying with their new classes isn't to my taste.
@Fayteri: Sometimes Leftover Mash is good. Just as sometimes it isn't...
Personally I really think these have potential if slightly altered and perfected. Just as a good sword is forged with care. These are Basic Weapons that just need a bit more work to become Masterwork Weapons.
|
While some GMs will put their foot down and disallow new stuff, 3.5, 3rd party, ect. I am one of the players who just says no thank you when I am restricted to the same 11 core classes for around 13 years. For example, I choose not to play Society until the APG classes were out. The APG was a great breath of fresh air for me. Even if I now only consider one class from it worth my timeon its own, I still am grateful to have had the chance to try out others, even after finding them less than satisfactory for my high standards. I also don't like any of the core classes much either, so again, thank you Paizo for giving me new options to tinker with. Also, even after reviewing all the archtypes, I still find them unsatisfactory, so don't tell me to go look at them. I already have.
I wonder how many people were strongly opinionated against the APG and have warmed up to it and consider it intergral to the health and fun of the game now?
@Skeld: Considering Paizo prefers to release as few books as possible, releasing a polished product is important. A variety of perspectives is important, even people just popping in to let everyone know how they feel about it.
The book isn't built for those participating in the playtest, it's for the general public.
I think Arcanist is interesting with a little work if only for an option for world design. Warpriest is ugh... Brawler needs just a little fine tuning. The Hunter seems useless for most groups and the Inquisitor is a better slayer than the Slayer class.
NOTE: I hate Vancian Casting!
+1 I was about to post the same observation but you beat me to it :]
Again, I must say I think this is a cheap way out. We are all part of the Pathfinder community, and we have a vested interest in how the game develops. More specifically, many people take part in PFS play, and they can't just 'not buy the book' as the rules will be allowed eventually in PFS.Rage on, you crazy diamond.
Also, feel free to not buy the book if it isn't your cup of tea.
Probably so, but the OP admits to not really into being a part of the community, creating an account for the sole purpose of launching a fire-and-forget complaint, and not bothering with sticking around for the discussion. This type of person isn't interested in the playtest, being part of the processes, or making the game better. This is a post about not participating from someone thats never participated.
Also, not buying the book is a perfectly valid option, even for PFS, because the book isn't required unless it becomes part of the core assumption.
-Skeld
I generally agree about the OP, I just don't like how easily some will snub an opinion because they don't find it "constructive". Sometimes asking whether we should do a thing is constructive. Though, admittedly, during the "things" beta playtest is a bit late.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Here's some constructive criticism: scrap most of these and go back to the drawing board. It shouldn't be too hard, since a lot of the class abilities are just cut-n-pasted from their source classes.
There are a couple of good concepts here, like the swashbuckler. Many of the new classes, though, are just straight mechanical mash-ups of other classes with little to nothing to call their own.
What is the story of, say, the arcanist? What makes it its own thing in the game world, separate from wizards and sorcerers? For example, sorcerers get bloodlines, which are awesome and completely different from what wizards have. The arcanist, in contrast, gets limited access to what makes other classes cool.
What really differentiates a warpriest from a fighter/cleric, aside from a slightly smoother leveling process? Sacred weapon/armor is alright but it's nothing new and it's not enough to hang a whole class on. What is unique about a bloodrager? The ability to cast spells while raging? That sounds like an archetype, not a whole new class.
I just don't see much here that is interesting on either a mechanical or a fictional level. I see very little that makes me want to go out and tell stories with most of these classes. They're mechanical kludges to deal with issues related to multiclassing, but they're not even good kludges. I mean, take a look at the magus. The magus takes a classic multiclass concept, the warrior mage, and runs with it.
Paizo can do better. I expect more from them than this, frankly.
That's basically what I'm saying as well.
|
What is the story of, say, the arcanist? What makes it its own thing in the game world, separate from wizards and sorcerers? For example, sorcerers get bloodlines, which are awesome and completely different from what wizards have. The arcanist, in contrast, gets limited access to what makes other classes cool.What really differentiates a warpriest from a fighter/cleric, aside from a slightly smoother leveling process? Sacred weapon/armor is alright but it's nothing new and it's not enough to hang a whole class on. What is unique about a bloodrager? The ability to cast spells while raging? That sounds like an archetype, not a whole new class.
I think this neatly summarizes my thoughts on some of the playtest material so far. I'm enamoured with a few of the classes (Skald, Swashbuckler, Shaman - although it could do with tweaking). A few other classes just don't interest me because their individual components don't interest me (Slayer: I've never played a ranger, and I've never enjoyed a rogue).
As for the rest though, I don't see how to make them feel like their own unique class. Alchemists and Magus feel like unique ideas in their own right. Inquisitor (my favourite class) takes elements of multiple classes but goes beyond mere concatenation into something amazing.
I'd much rather have less classes being released, but make each of those classes really shine.
I like the classes overall (some need a little tweaking here and there). They do allow for more than typically available with pure multi-classing. I'll probably end up buying the book, simply because it allows for more concepts without multi-classing, which, IMO, is a very good thing.
The bloodrager to me shows that supernatural ancestry can manifest itself martially, as well as magically. How many tales of the demon-blooded antihero, or the chosen warrior of destiny, litter fantasy literature? The only suggestion I have for them is to offer more of the utility powers lasting outside of the bloodrage, to mimic the sorcerer bloodlines more in concept and have some more durability as opposed to going right for the spike of the rage every fight.
The Arcanist is a mechanical and conceptual middle ground, a prodigy of someone who possessed the supernatural bloodline but chose not to rely on inheritance, and work towards study as well. As a result, they didn't get to fully manifest their heritage, nor fully focus on the secret techniques of wizardry traditions. They represent the most comprehensive of mages out there, at least as I see them. I could not think of a way to improve this class.
The brawler is mechanically good enough(I would recommend limiting its fluid feat selection to purely combat maneuver-related feats), but it's conceptually thin to me, and done better any number of ways by existing material, without multiclassing, and with stronger results. It seems ripe for the multiclass pickings too, ironically enough.
The hunter to me has a good concept, but it falls behind mechanically. I see three diluted mechanics here, not 2: Spellcasting, polymorphing, and animal companion antics. Ranger hits up animal companion lightly and martial combat heavily. Druid hits up shapeshifting and animal companion and spellcasting, with requiring some consumable effort to be every bit as good at close combat so long as it has the wind up time to do so. To be the equal of either class, the hunter needs to be stronger. I would personally amp up the shapeshifting abilities, maybe tying them into the type of animal companions they receive. The teamwork feats with the animal companion are cool concepts and nice mechanics, but do not adequately sell the core of the class. I like the middle ground spell-casting and am fine with the d8 and 3/4 bab, but I would say bump up shapeshifting to match the druid's in relative statistical combat power or even exceed it for the raw combat purposes(if not the versatility of full animal forms), and keep the animal companion+teamwork feats. That would make the class strength on par, and also have options of hunters that are more companion and party spell buffers, hunters that are more based on shapeshift-augmented beatdowns where the beast becomes the assistant, and the standard equal merge of spells, shapeshifting, and animal synergy.
Investigator: Conceptually, I love it. Mechanically, the inspiration mechanic is beautiful. Extracts make no conceptual sense. I don't like them sneak attacking, especially in that wonky progression. I somewhat feel as though investigator would have been better as a hybrid of the inquisitor and the rogue. Spells make sense for investigating magic, as do many of the inquisitor judgment or rogue talent and trapfinding type things. The rogue half makes for the accessing of the scene to investigate, while the inquisitor was already designed around detecting lies, corruption, cover-ups, tracks, signs, and the like. The two of those classes well-merged would be a beautiful combination.
Shaman: Mechanically and conceptually, simply beautiful. Good job. Don't change a thing. More as an aside, I like that primitive communities are getting enough classes to feel full and mirror the more developed communities of fantasy lore. Fighters vs barbarians, rangers vs rogues, druids and shamans vs clerics and oracles(though this could easily go either way), and bloodragers versus the magus, skalds versus bards.
That being said, the skald...The addition of the rage powers to the party are nice. But the blanket raged mindset required to get use of it would do more party damage than benefit a good bit of the time. 6 strength and con by 16th level is a laughable consolation for being in full rage mode to all but the most martially focused of characters, some of which have minor spellcasting to contend with, and others wouldn't even be able to stack the morale bonus, whereas the base inspire courage mechanic assisted most classes, and at the least would not do more damage to accept than decline, assuming at least 1 spellcaster and 1 skill monkey.
Culturally, skalds were known for being deeply entranced by their stories. I would make the skald and the skald only, take the penalties of raging to represent his deeply entrenched connection to his inspired fury, while delivering the benefits to the party without a blanket handicap.
Slayer hurts my brain. It crashes together but not smoothly at all. A sneak attack mechanic is primarily best against a single, stalked foe. A favored enemy mechanic is meant for a category of creatures. Instead we get an unprecedented, alien fraction of either mechanic, that even when paired together under doubly conditional situations, still does not mechanically equate to either base class. I like the mix of rogue talents and tracking stuff, but I would caution against the 1 or 2/day dissociated mechanics. Excepting supernatural abilities, that mentality is the stuff that turned 4th edition into a wanna be MMO, and I would rather not see things go in that direction.
I would either offer a partial favored enemy progression or even a single favored enemy that improves without tacking on additional consolation prizes, and keep the sneak attack as a rogue. I can see this balancing out either by removing the rogue talents and going full ranger with the tracking and stalking and camouflage abilities, or dropping to a d8 and 3/4th bab to keep the full sneak attack and get some of the core, worthwhile favored enemy mechanic. This should be a class that when it's a favored prey under flatfooted conditions, it should outshine any other class at taking it down, not almost measure up to one or the other of its inspirations.
I like the swashbuckler in pretty much every way. It's too narrow to be a whole class, as is gunslinger in my opinion, but if you're going to open up that can of worms, it was done well. Balanced, and conceptually sensible. The uses per day of things are directly associated as luck and motivation, i.e. panache.
Warpriest. I like a lot of its stuff, but it feels like being filled up on appetizers. In my opinion what would best serve this class, is a stabracadabra mechanic almost if not identical to the magus spell combat and spellstrike ability, but for divine spells. I don't care what has to get cut to make that happen: Channel energy(probably for the best considering paladins and clerics and some oracles already have this niche, and at the levels you get the diluted ability, its effects are laughably irrelevant during combat), domain whatnot stuffs(I would keep this), sacred weapon and armor, whatever. Until you have a divine martial/caster combo that doesn't have to wind up its buffs before wading into combat, cleric will always be the solid choice for a hybrid of buff, bash, and heal. Especially considering that you lose the 3 highest spell levels only to keep the d8 and 3/4 bab, i'd say give them the stabracadabra and call it a day.
This was long-winded, thorough, and it may have appeared oft critical. Overall, I am grateful for the hard work to expand options, and I want to say that not once did I even consider anything in these playtests to be 'overpowered.' And if we learned anything from 3.5, it's that the moment late-game material starts to outshine the core classes at their initial roles comprehensively, we have broken our game beyond repair.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Paizo can do better. I expect more from them than this, frankly.
I agree 100%. It's pretty bad when a group of people who have homebrewed this same concept 30 different ways for people who like gestalt but don't want to use those particular rules, can make better multiclass hybrids than the official company of PF.
Probably about the only good thing about this playtest is everyone can put their two copper in let them know why what's presented is not acceptable.
|
I've only done a quick read-through. Generally, I do like what I've read. The only thing that really stuck out as I was going through it was the Archanist: while I could certainly see myself using this class as a player, as a GM, I don't see this class ever being used with NPC characters. Considering the enemy spell caster can have spells ready to deal with the PCs, this can be done with a sorcerer or a wizard. The "flexibility" of the archanist isn't really necessary.
Here's some constructive criticism: scrap most of these and go back to the drawing board. It shouldn't be too hard, since a lot of the class abilities are just cut-n-pasted from their source classes.
Pro-tip: If you start your "constructive criticism" with "scrap most of these" it's probably not constructive criticism.