| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not to be a downer, but I loved what Paizo did with the APG. The classes they added were super unique and flavorful. The archetypes in UC and UM haven't been 100% hits but have had some strong and interesting things.
Most of these classes in the playtest... They seem more like min/max options. "If only I could combine X with Y and make it more powerful." Or compensators for multiclassing being a nerf. But they are all just mashups without anything interesting and new. Which, I mean, I guess I shouldn't complain because that's what it says on the tin. "You wanted the power of both a sorcerer and a wizard? OK here you go!" "You wanted a monk with a better BAB? OK here you go!" But none of the brilliance and super archetypal flavor of the witch, the alchemist, the samurai...
I try to envision an "iconic X" (where X is most of these classes) that doesn't kinda make me yawn.
With the exception of the investigator and shaman and, I think swashbucker. Those are "new class worthy," adding not just "A new combination of numbers and powers!" but actual flavor and iconicness (iconicity?) beyond what the existing classes do. As a product manager type, I would personally take this raft of 10 things, if brought to me, and say "scrap those 7 and put extra work into those 3 to make them gold, because they're already silver." Maybe reuse the Brawler and Arcanist later to replace the monk and wizard and sorcerer in Pathfinder 2.0.
I would separate them into ~15 classes and distribute the power between them and add in a couple more to go along with the Arcanist as an option to allow for various different world building options.
Say Cleric/Oracle, Cleric/Sorcerer, &/or Oracle/Wizard.
Mainly because I hate the basic Vancian casting classes for some world designs.
Investigator, Brawler, & Arcanist are the ones that seem to need the least amount of work to be usable. Swashbuckler just needs a bit more than those three...
Arcanist and Hunter are really the only classes that are somewhat boring to me. Arcanist doesn't really seem to be that distinct a niche from either Sorceror or Wizard. I admit to be be somewhat biased on the Hunter, as I was hoping more for Druid without spells/Spell less Ranger variant, but I am still uncertain why I would take Hunter over Druid, at a conceptual level.
The others I like. Even the Skald, which I was sort of negative about prior to the playtest, seems really cool.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
What Ernest said. The six classes in the APG were unique as hell. Magus, summoner, oracle, witch, they all had concepts and mechanics which were new, fun, and imaginative. I only own 4 Paizo hard-covers and the APG is one of them.
These new classes though, they just feel...derivative. I know the features are meant to be backwards compatible with older prestige classes and feats and items, but come on! They use the same terminology as their parents classes, with abilities that function nearly or entirely identically, draw from the same spell lists, in some cases have the exact same class features in the exact same place (looking at you, bravery with the swashbuckler). At least when the prototype of this kind of thing was done with the ninja, merging monk and rogue was done with some small degree of finesse. Ki Pool was moved around and modified. You renamed talents to trick and there were plenty of unique ones. No Trace and Light Steps weren't min-maxy awesome things, but they made the class feel distinct in its sneakiness in a way that didn't ape existing options. I don't get that from brawler, or from swashbuckler, or from hunter or the skald, or the investigator.
Arcanist gives you the option to build a Black/Arcane Mage ala Mage's Requiem & Mage's Lament (Old Video Games).
EDIT: Hmm... I just finished my fourth read through. I am leaning toward GeneticDrift's view...
Though Hunter & Slayer Combined together could be usable... And would allow for a Divine Caster that combines the Cleric/Oracle akin to how the Arcanist works!
Warpriest is just Ugh...
So far Arcanist and Investigator has my creativity flowing. Shaman has inspired some NPCs as has the Brawler and Swashbuckler.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Arcanist: Not a slam on the class mechanically, but flavorwise, this is the most boring. There is literally no Arcanist I can't imagine being shoehorned into Wizard or Sorcerer, and very few that would be better as an Arcanist.
Bloodrager: Like it sounds. Not sure why bloodrage has a separate writeup, since it looks like regular rage to me. Perplexed that a barbarian/sorcerere hybrid uses the magus spell list... it's not a bad concept, it just seems really strange.
Brawler: Pretty much what it says on the tin. Bonus points for relative simplicity of concept.
Hunter: Druid who gives up three levels of spells for some of the ranger's stalking abilities. No wildshape, medium BAB. Am I supposed to read them as more of a pet trainer class?
Investigator: Not what I expected! I heard Alchemist, I thought bombs. This is actually really cool. Depending on character options, you could be Sherlock Holmes, a discount rate Batman, or a real potion wizard. Oozes modern fantasy genre savvy; this could be a character from a Glen Cook, Tamora Pierce, or JK Rowling book.
Shaman: Basically, I like everything and hate nothing. This was done well.
Skald: Medium boring fluff, makes up for it somewhat with interesting buff features. Not sure what the heck is up with Spell Kenning.
Slayer: Reduced sneak attack progression, altered favored enemy bonus. Seems unnecessarily conservative. Not bad, just, hmm.
Swashbuckler: You thought we wouldn't notice this is the Duelist with the Evasive Deed, but we did.
Warpriest: Hi, I'm a Fighter 2/Cleric X that has somehow acquired the Paladin's celestial spirit weapon. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, but this one needs some spice! Second most bland after Arcanist.
To the OP. Why yes, yes they are. :(
@RJGrady: The Arcanist can be used to replicate a Mage's Requiem/Lament style Mage who studies his spell books to prepare his spells that he can then spend his daily mana limit to cast.
Heck you could combine the Arcanist with my Modular Spell Slots and replicate that perfectly.
The Classes are nice thoughts but need a lot of work to be perfect...
Well save Warpriest. It would be better served being Archetypes and maybe use the basic Domains instead of Blessings.
Very unimpressed; I'm going to say Pathfinder has reached the point where nothing new can be added. They covered every option and are grasping at straws for character class ideas.
I do dig the shaman, despite how derivate it is like the rest.
I wouldn't go that far. So far, yes, this is a solid step down from the coolness of Mythic Adventures. Maybe two steps down. That doesn't mean future endeavors won't be back up to snuff.
|
Put me in the group of why? Nothing presented in the ACG is remotely interesting. They have a different flavor then the base classes. However they don't have any more of a different flavor of a multiclass character. Over all they are a weaker version of multiclass options you can take. Some are even weaker then some archetypes that you can take. My top pick of that one is warpriest. With only 3/4 BAB same as cleric. And diminished casting along with only a few ability's from other classes. A cleric with the Crusader archetype is much better at being a warpriest. That is just one example of how bad some of the new classes are. All the others gets ranked close to the same.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't go that far. So far, yes, this is a solid step down from the coolness of Mythic Adventures. Maybe two steps down. That doesn't mean future endeavors won't be back up to snuff.Very unimpressed; I'm going to say Pathfinder has reached the point where nothing new can be added. They covered every option and are grasping at straws for character class ideas.
I do dig the shaman, despite how derivate it is like the rest.
@Skritz --- I am guessing this to be more about Paizo attempting to not have too much "content bloat" rather than being a last ditch effort. I'd bet serious money on the idea that every Paizo staffer/intern/raptor could likely be asked to produce a completely new and original class by close of the day and the real problem most of them would face is which to present to Lisa.
Whether we as consumers of their content actually want or need those new classes and mechanics is a totally different question.@Cerberus Seven --- I wouldn't even want to say this isn't "up to snuff," especially as the classes are a small sliver of the overall content coming from the ACG and they should be understood in that context. The ACG isn't likely being made for the vast majority of the people currently playing Pathfinder and on these forums, that book seems more aimed at all those potential players will be joining our ranks in coming months and years and serve as a guidebook to become power gamers like all the rest of us :-) At least, if I understand the target audience of the ACG overall correctly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm thinking a Warpriest:
A full BAB
Full martial weapons
Full Armor
With 3 level rotations
LVL1 +1d6 channeling
LVL2 Spell Progression
LVL3 Fighter Feat
Lather, rinse, and repeat.
So lvl 9 Warpriest
3d6 channel heal,
Lvl 3 Cleric spells - (yeah I said it) at full caster level power
3 More Combat Feats
That's my kinda war priest!
(still waiting for that e-mail, Mr. Bulmahn!)
I am interested in playing at least one of these classes so even though I am less than impressed with some of the content it counts as a win in my book.
I am currently thinking of adapting the Sacred Weapon and Sacred Armour as parts of my Avenger and Defender Cleric Archetypes.
|
I'd say these new classes are superfluous, not boring. The game already has extensive rules for multiclassing; why do we need hybrid classes? Some of these new classes have already been covered by various archetypes of core classes, too.
Instead of 10 new classes, I'd have much rather seen fewer, unique classes. The swashbuckler would have actually been much cooler if it had original features instead of crumbs from the tables of two other classes. Same with the skald and shaman.
There are still a lot of fantasy tropes yet to be explored in the Pathfinder world and game system, too.
How about a tinker class, clever inventors who can simulate various effects with mechanical devices, do all kinds of awesome stuff with crossbows, and maybe even add interesting Iron Man style fold-out widgets to their armor?
How about a tinker class, clever inventors who can simulate various effects with mechanical devices, do all kinds of awesome stuff with crossbows, and maybe even add interesting Iron Man style fold-out widgets to their armor?
OH GODS -- because it's so much harder than you think Headfirst ;-) So many mechanics to add..... (back to writing)
I wouldn't even want to say this isn't "up to snuff," especially as the classes are a small sliver of the overall content coming from the ACG and they should be understood in that context. The ACG isn't likely being made for the vast majority of the people currently playing Pathfinder and on these forums, that book seems more aimed at all those potential players will be joining our ranks in coming months and years and serve as a guidebook to become power gamers like all the rest of us :-) At least, if I understand the target audience of the ACG overall correctly.
The entire book, if I'm understanding it correctly, is going to be based on these ten new base classes. If those aren't done right, the rest of the book rests on incredibly unsteady grounds.
And what world have you been living in that Pathfinder players haven't been bugging Paizo for years about a full-fledged Duelist class, aka the Swashbuckler? Writing's on the wall, dude, this book is aimed at all of us.
I wouldn't even want to say this isn't "up to snuff," especially as the classes are a small sliver of the overall content coming from the ACG and they should be understood in that context. The ACG isn't likely being made for the vast majority of the people currently playing Pathfinder and on these forums, that book seems more aimed at all those potential players will be joining our ranks in coming months and years and serve as a guidebook to become power gamers like all the rest of us :-) At least, if I understand the target audience of the ACG overall correctly.The entire book, if I'm understanding it correctly, is going to be based on these ten new base classes. If those aren't done right, the rest of the book rests on incredibly unsteady grounds.
And what world have you been living in that Pathfinder players haven't been bugging Paizo for years about a full-fledged Duelist class, aka the Swashbuckler? Writing's on the wall, dude, this book is aimed at all of us.
Yeah sorry Cereberus Seven, I for some reason was getting the basis of this book confused with the planned Pathfinder Roleplaying Game: Strategy Guide
As for the last part, I live in the world that Paizo has given us 9 "people that fight using a style that some would say buckles a swash" <Duelist Prestige Class; Swashbuckler Rogue Archetype; Rake Rogue Archetype; Mobile Fighter Fighter Archetype; Free Hand Fighter Fighter Archetype; Two-Weapon Warrior Fighter Archetype; Buccaneer Human Racial Gunslinger Archetype; Cad Fighter Archetype; Pirate Rogue Archetype> and also has even answered our prayers for "buckles a swash BUT WITH MAGIC" a few times <see most archetypes of a Magus and Arcane Duelist Bard Archetype> --- yet still we cry out for a "real" swashbuckler option. This may be as close as it comes (with modifications of course) ;-)
If Paizo hasn't done its due diligence for you, I suggest you look to 3PPs.
Really I'm thinking we, as a community, might aught to band together and build the classes and propose them and see what Paizo thinks of them.
I mean I am still playtesting these but I see many ways that this could be handled better via single class alternates or archetypes.
(From here)
Well, given that the most accurate (in my view) detraction boils down to "could you consider scrapping all of these and starting over with better ideas" I don't think listening to detractors is really viable at this point.
A shame, too.
I think we all understand what the point of ACG classes is supposed to be. That doesn't mean we have to think it's a good point.
Cerberus Seven pretty much summed up exactly what I feel after my first quick skimming of these classes.
Instead of making new classes with the "feel" of their so-called parents (which was what I expected from this book once I heard about the concept), for many of the classes the design seems more like "take abilities A,B,C from class 1, and abilities D,E,F from class 2, and mash them together". This just feels uninspired to me, even if the classes themselves may still be great in play.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The creativity of the concept should come from the player as much as any design.
If you can't find creative ideas to create with the classes presented, I'm not sure if we are reading the same document.
These classes are frameworks you can build on, which is to me great.
One of the biggest problems I had with the Magus was it was a very narrow class. One handed weapon caster.
I don't need the developers to make the ideas for me. I need them to give me a foundation to build off of.
Most of these classes do a very good job of it, and the few that don't...well...that is why it is a play test.
I've found some of the classes rather exciting and hope to see them evolve deeper into their own Toon. But was also bummed out because I had some hopes that there would be a Monk/ Sorcerer blend, akin to Dragonball Z or the Last Airbender... a monk with spontaneous casting abilities, great buffs and the possiblity of being a blaster or crowd controller.
I agree with others that the newer classes from the APG and the Magus were unique enough to stand on their own (Alchemist is my current fave!) but again as the playtesting progresses look forward to the next phase of these classes.
|
|
I think it's kind of intellectually dishonest to say the ACG classes are unoriginal, then hold them up to the APG classes, and say those ARE original.
What's original about the Oracle? Let's build a Spontaneous Cleric.
That's not really groundbreaking, lol. In fact, some of the ACG hybrids are more groundbreaking than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's kind of intellectually dishonest to say the ACG classes are unoriginal, then hold them up to the APG classes, and say those ARE original.
What's original about the Oracle? Let's build a Spontaneous Cleric.
That's not really groundbreaking, lol. In fact, some of the ACG hybrids are more groundbreaking than that.
The mysteries, curses, and revelations make the oracle something new and all its own, both in terms of flavor and mechanics, even if at its core you could call it a spontaneous cleric.
If the oracle had instead used the cleric's domains or channel energy, along with a smattering of sorcerer bloodlines, you would likely have seen the exact same complaints/concerns for that class as for these.
The problem with the ACG classes isn't that they were built to be hybrids of class x and class y. I wanted to see what Paizo could do with that concept. They did it very well with the Magus, for instance, which feels like a completely new class that stands on its own two feet, despite being kind of a fighter/wizard hybrid.
|
Sadly agree with OP. I did want to like this book, I love most things Paizo puts out, but these classes just leave me feeling a bit meh. Only one or two actually seem interesting, the rest just feel like pandering. "Do you hate that your spell progression suffers when you combine the sorcerer and wizard? Well not anymoooore!" -shrug- Not really my bag of tea. I'd so much rather they cut the number of new classes in half (at least) and focused on making those ones more imaginative and innovative.
Reading through the document, I do not have much interest in many of the hybrid classes that are presented. I understand that the designers wanted to stick to mechanics they already knew worked and not re-invent the wheel, but I do not see the purpose of certain classes presented here. Could they not have just as easily been achieved with archetypes or multi-classing and leading into a prestige class? The slayer for instance seems like something that could have easily been achieved with a ranger archetype. Same with the war-priest. I think we may have been better served with a war-priest by making variant Paladin roles that fit for each alignment type.
To be fair, Blood-Rager looks like it works in a manner that could not effectively be represented by multi-classing or an archetype.
Investigator seems weird. I always envisioned an investigative type being better served by an off-shoot of the Inquisitor. The blending of alchemy and rogue just doesn't seem to work, at least in my opinion.
The Shaman looks very interesting, very flavorful, and unique. This is the sort of approach I wish more of the classes presented here took. It definitely fills a niche that was missing and could provide some excellent role playing experiences.
The Swashbuckler is also a nice addition. Not quite as unique as the Shaman, but definitely a class I would want to try and with enough additional rules (panache) that it would have been clunky in an archetype.
|
Sadly I find these classes utterly uninspiring. I really don't see the point of this book at all, these classes don't seem to exist to fill some niche, but rather to create some gestalt like multi-class characters.
I would have preferred they do something a little more substantial than this. At this point in the game's lifespan it would have made more sense to do something along the lines of Psionics or maybe Arcana Unearthed. This is just flat boring, I've bought every Paizo hardcover thus far, but if this doesn't change substantially I will give this book a pass. I'm a Paizo fan, but not an apologetic fanboy.
|
|
The classes aren't going to be all that is in this book. It's the other stuff that I am waiting for.
But that's not all! This book will also contain archetypes for all 10 new classes, as well as a selection to help existing classes play with some of the new features in this book. There will also be feats and spells to support these new classes, as well as magic items that will undoubtedly become favorites for nearly any character. Last but not least, the final chapter in this book will give you a peek inside the design process for classes and archetypes, giving you plenty of tips and guides to build your own! Since class design is more art than science, this won't be a system (like in the Advanced Race Guide), but rather a chapter giving you advice on how the process works.
It's the extra archetypes that I assume will also include ones for the base and core classes, as well as feats that I would like to see. But the one that I am chomping at the bit for is that final chapter... to help me create my own classes. ;)
Having issues with Arcanist going for best Spellcaster ever roll, but bringing nothing really unique to that roll. Was hoping for something like choose your casting stat (either INT or CHA) and that it would dictate some of you in game abilities. Slayer seems fun, but sucks that it lost favor style feats. Warpriest the more I think about it feels like it is missing something. Bloodrager and Swashbuckler both look fun and will be playing them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Reading through the document, I do not have much interest in many of the hybrid classes that are presented. I understand that the designers wanted to stick to mechanics they already knew worked and not re-invent the wheel, but I do not see the purpose of certain classes presented here. Could they not have just as easily been achieved with archetypes or multi-classing and leading into a prestige class? The slayer for instance seems like something that could have easily been achieved with a ranger archetype. Same with the war-priest. I think we may have been better served with a war-priest by making variant Paladin roles that fit for each alignment type.
I am going to quote myself here from a different thread in response to the pretty frequent answer that archetypes, multiclassing or prestige classes are the answer:
I am going to separate my response into facts and opinions. First facts.1. The majority of the game is played at low levels. This is supported not just by anecdotal evidence, its supported by sales of products. Its supported by the proliferation of the E6 concept. Paizo adventure paths all start at level 1. Most dont run over levels 14-16. Levels 10-12 is where prestige classes start to really do whatever it is that they are meant to do. It takes some campaigns months or years of actual time to that level. Many dont ever get there. Many dont WANT to get there. Prestige classes should exist because some people like them. But they are not sufficient to fufill conceptual needs. They cannot be the only or even primary way to acheive a given concept.
2. Paizo has deliberately introduced elements of the game to make single class characters the norm. This was a design choice. Paizo set out to make a 1-20 single class character, not only acceptable, but good. All classes have abilities that explicately scale with class level. Favored class bonuses mean that a non-half elf multiclass character is explicately losing out on something if they multiclass or use a prestige class. All classes have abilities they get each level that continue (in theory) to add to its effectiveness, its concept, and (hopefully) its fun. Mixing classes delay or prevent those higher level abilities. To that effect, it is less practical and workable to multiclass or use prestige classes to acheive concepts. It simply doesnt work as well.
Since paizo made that design choice, they need to support more concepts with base classes. Archetypes and alternate classes are one way to do that. But that provides a limited design space.
There is only so much you can do to with the original class framework. Sometimes you have to break out of it. The gunslinger is an example. Paizo originally wanted to make it a kind of fighter. After playtesting and rewrites, they realized they needed to step outside of the fighter framework and made it its own class. Did it HAVE to happen? Ofcourse not. But they obviously felt the BEST way to make a gunslinger is to make it its own class. Designing a class from the ground up to make it do what you want it to do is often more managable then making another class do something different in terms of their mechanics.
3. Pathfinder has been a revolution of 'mixed' classes when compared to 3.x. 3rd edition had vrelatively few classes that where 'bard' chasis. A mix of magical, skillful and martial abilties. Paizo has more or less made that their standard. They converted the core, so they were limited by what came before. But of what they have created from scratch, The Summoner, Inquisitor, alchemist, witch and Magus (possibly ninja), are a mix of the classic 4 classes (fighter wizard cleric rogue). The cavalier, Oracle and samurai are not mixed. All of that first group of characters mixes some of what already exists and some new stuff to make something different. Mixed base classes instead of multiclassing or prestige classes is the norm in the pathfinder design space.
Opinion.
1. New classes are the best way to add options to the game in my opinion. I can take the 3-8 pages of that new class, and just read it and work with it to pretty much make my concept work. Could it be done with feats and prestige classes and multiclassing? Sure, but that is harder then just getting a class that was specifically designed to do the thing I want.
Its also much easier for new players. If they just have to read one class to do whatever it is they want to do, its less stressful, less difficult and more approachable then having to mix and match options from various sources.
2. New classes are easier to balance then prestige classes, alternate classes or even archetypes. All those other things involve trading one thing for another. Prestige classes trade prerequisites and time spent leveling up for the abilities it gains. Archetypes and alternate classes trade abilities in and out. If you have to worry about specific trades being balanced at each level, its much harder to make the class work then if you simply design it from the ground up.
3. New classes work explicately better then multiclassing because they can include new mechanics to bring disperate abilities together. I can play a fighter/wizard multiclass to acheive a 'concept'. But what I end up with is a class that has 2 sets of lower level abilities that I have to work hard to make compliment eachother well. If however, I play a magus, I get some fightery things, and some wizardy things, and then I get spell combat and spell strike to bring them together so they work as well as the single class abilties in terms of overall effectiveness.
4. New Classes are easier on GMs then any other method of adding options. This stems from #1. When I am creating npcs, or brushing up on how an existing npc works, if its single classed that gives me a very specific space to work in. If I can say, 'He will be an inquisitor' that significantly narrows down my choices, and also makes several automatic choices for me. If I am going to make that same character by multiclassing fighter, cleric, rogue, and some prestige class, its more work to make it happen, and it requires a greater mental investment to make the character.
5. I like new base classes. They excite me more then any other addition to the game. They bring forth ideas, and creativity, and make me want to play more then anything else. I have played the core classes in one form or another for 20 years. I want new stuff, even if it includes recombinations of older stuff with a few new things to bring it all together.