The Point of Hybrids

[ciretose]

Nicos wrote:

I do nto liek to say it but this concept of Hybrids is boring, uninteresting and unimaginative. I think that at least 40% of the class should be new mechanics.

The chassis has been around for 13 years. What new do you want to put on it? What "new" can you add that won't cause more problems then it creates?

I want good. New isn't always better. The attempts at new haven't been all that lauded.

Eideolons, Words of Power, even Spell Combat have created a ton of new issue that may or may not balance out what they added to the game. Others, like piece meal armor and alternative hit points have gone over like a lead balloon.

What I'm looking at is 8 out of 10 new classes that I would love to see at my table or play myself.

That is what I want more of. Chasing "new" rather than just making something better and just focusing on good is why Pathfinder exists in the first place, and frankly hasn't been all that popular.

If new was the best, this company wouldn't exist.

[Anonymous Visitor 163 576]

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

Hi Jason,

While I like the hybrids using mechanics of their parent classes, I would like to see some more niche protection.

At this point an Investigator gets: Sneak attack (9d6), Trap Finding AND Poison Use, with the addition of Inspiration to increase skill successes AND rogue talents that can be taken as investigator talents this is a class that just makes a vanilla rogue a worse choice for doing all the things a rogue is supposed to do. Please try to protect some of the niches.

Kind regards,

DM_aka_Dudemeister.

Dear developers,

I too would like to see some niche protection. Please remove the rogue class from the game permanently, so that we can more clearly move ahead with Investigators and Stalkers.

Dudemeister is correct, a plain rogue is just worse at everything. Like old Yeller, it should be taken out back and shot.

[thistledown]

One thing I noticed when I started pathfinder that resurfaced with the ACG. Paizo likes you to spend all 20 levels in one class. They encourage it a lot. It's not required, but it has some good reason to.

The hybrid classes seem like an expansion of this. Now you can be that X/Y combo, but still stay in one class for 20 levels.

[Nicos]

ciretose wrote:

Nicos wrote:

I do nto liek to say it but this concept of Hybrids is boring, uninteresting and unimaginative. I think that at least 40% of the class should be new mechanics.

The chassis has been around for 13 years. What new do you want to put on it? What "new" can you add that won't cause more problems then it creates?

I want good. New isn't always better. The attempts at new haven't been all that lauded.

Eideolons, Words of Power, even Spell Combat have created a ton of new issue that may or may not balance out what they added to the game. Others, like piece meal armor and alternative hit points have gone over like a lead balloon.

What I'm looking at is 8 out of 10 new classes that I would love to see at my table or play myself.

That is what I want more of. Chasing "new" rather than just making something better and just focusing on good is why Pathfinder exists in the first place, and frankly hasn't been all that popular.

If new was the best, this company wouldn't exist.

I hope paizo have great sales for whatever they printed in this book, I am just stating my personal opinion, I feel most of this classes are pointless if they are only a mixing of old class features. Particularty the swashbuckler (the one I was more exite about) feels so unispired, really.

Weapon training, weapon mastery, precise strike, parry, riposte, nimble,BRAVERY?.

I feel that new content could only make this good better (if the contet itself is not bad of course)

[MMCJawa]

I don't get why people are disappointed.

This isn't a bait and switch. Since the Gencon announcement, they have clearly stated that this book would consist of hybrid classes, and have also described why they are doing hybrid classes and what a hybrid class entailed.

Is every class amazing? No. And I would say given differences in play style as well as personal preferences, that is an impossible goal. Overall though I find 8 of the classes interesting, even if a few of those need some tweaks (which hey, is what playtesting is for.

[MadScientistWorking]

ciretose wrote:

I want good. New isn't always better. The attempts at new haven't been all that lauded.

Except this flat out isn't a good idea and its Paizo's attempt at doing the same exact thing that they all ready invented a mechanic for.

[Calybos1]

My reaction's been mixed, but mostly positive. After all, everything in here is optional anyway.

And some gamers might still have post-traumatic reactions to the very word 'hybrid,' which conjures up nightmares of (shudder) Rolemaster.

[RJGrady]

To be fair, "hybrid" is also the name of something vaguely horrible in D&D 4e.

[Calybos1]

RJGrady wrote:

To be fair, "hybrid" is also the name of something vaguely horrible in D&D 4e.

Really? I never even saw D&D 4, so I wouldn't know.

[MadScientistWorking]

RJGrady wrote:

To be fair, "hybrid" is also the name of something vaguely horrible in D&D 4e.

To be fair that actually would be a infinitely more interesting mechanic to have shown off than that.

[JoelF847]

Since this thread seems to be serving as an impromptu poll, I'm also in the underwhelmed camp (and a subscriber).

To be clear, I don't have an issue with the hybrid class, the Magus shows you can do this and come up with something brand new, innovative, and that adds something that wasn't there before.

The swashbuckler, investigator and bloodrager do this, and I think the warpriest is close with the addition of blessings (but think this class needs some more work).

The rest come across as bland and/or barely providing something that can't be done with actual multi-classing and/or archetypes.

I get that the inclusion of these 10 classes is pretty much set in stone, but I hope that this playtest results in some very substantial changes to a lot of them, unlike many recent playtests which were 90% of the way to completion when released.

[DeathQuaker]

Going to repeat something I said in another thread:

"I think Paizo may restrict themselves unnecessarily and even to the detriment of the game if they bind themselves too much to the idea of "hybrids" -- let the idea of the hybrid inspire the new classes, but then let the new classes evolve and have skills that make sense for THEIR CONCEPT, not rigidly stick to the idea of hybridizing.

Not a hybrid, but look at the gunslinger--the idea of it started as a fighter alternate class. Then the dev team realized that was holding them back from designing the gunslinger properly. The gunslinger became much better when it was un-locked from the fighter class.

Or you want hybrids? The ranger was an answer to a desire to combine fighter and druid. The bard was a hybrid wizard/rogue (and originally a far more complex hybrid than that)(and also, yes, more a sorc/rogue in the current game engine). Paladin = fighter/cleric. I think we can all safely say over time they definitely became their own thing, that now even they are seen as classes valid to hybridize with others (well at least ranger and bard are). But forcing class development to stop at, "this has to be a cross between x and y and can't evolve beyond being an alternate class of sorts" is a poor idea.

I think a lot of the proposed classes, just as they are neat from starting as hybrids, they still will not shine or be worth playing until they get wriggled away from their formative classes and become their own thing."

And I'll add here: I think the fear that more original classes won't play well with the original classes just plain makes no sense whatsoever. There was no fear about that when the APG base classes came out, when many of the concepts there were quite radical, and neither any fear for the magus, gunslinger, or the alternate classes presented in the Ultimate books. I cannot see any logical reason for that fear to suddenly loom now. If the classes are good, we'll find space for them in our campaigns.

If they just feel like same old same old in new packages, just for the sake of assimilability, all the more likely people will just pass them over for what is already familiar and guaranteed to work.

And I AM a subscriber at the moment, but being amongst the "underwhelmed..." looking at this playtest as the future of what the line I subscribe to holds.... I will probably not be a subscriber much longer. (I do really like the brawler though.)

[Calybos1]

I can see the point of taking the hybrid approach. Learning ten brand-new sets of abilities, class features, rules, etc., would be a nightmare for many players and all GMs. I've seen game systems where every PC race or class had its own separate powers & spells system, with totally different mechanics and rules. Ugh, what a mess!

But I also don't think the hybrids are 'more of the same.' There's plenty of original concepts in there, and interesting variations on what we see in the core classes. It seems to me that they've struck a decent balance, based on solid entertainment/fiction principles: enough familiar stuff to reassure and maintain comfort levels, mixed with enough new things to spark interest.

[knightnday]

As of right now I find the new material OK. Then again, they are less than a day old and haven't been shaken out all the way either. I'm more than willing to give them a chance and run them around a bit to get a feel of them before calling them underwhelming or a failure.

[Todd Morgan]

Wondering out loud if, like the gunslinger, these classes will change into something unique or even morph into some low-level entry prestige classes. I mean, the Bloodrager seems like a more fully formed Rage Prophet, just to name one example.

[MukkBarovian]

I can't believe no one has mentioned it before, but the reason the Magus is such a successful hybrid class is that it synergizes the two components. You could play a Wizard X / Fighter X and at any given time cast a spell or hit something with a sword. At any given time either being a mediocre Fighter or a second class Wizard. The only way to force synergy was to use the Wizard spells to buff yourself up prior to hitting something with a sword. The Magus lets you cast and fight at the same time. This is what I believe the gold standard of a hybrid class should be. A hybrid class should allow you to combine the class features of both classes better than multiclassing alone would allow.

There is also open design space that can be filled. The slayer, investigator, and swashbuckler go this route.

The problem is that many of the classes that attempt to bridge class features do a poor job, and that concepts that fill new design space shouldn't count as hybrid classes. On top of that, there are possible balance issues and some of the core classes are getting shouldered out of their design space. Overall it feels desperately in need of polishing. Which is what the play test is supposed to do. However at the same time I hope that the designers take the ideas that made the Magus successful to heart.

What makes a hybrid class successful is the smooth integration of both component parts.

[Caedwyr]

Yeah, from what I've seen these classes don't seem that inspired as new classes. They may mesh two ideas, but it really feels like a bandaid to the multi-classing system rather than an improvement. Many of them could easily have been presented as alternate classes or archetypes. I still think adopting and expanding the Talented Class design from Owen K. Stephen's Talented line and adding any desired talents and edges would be the better alternative. The Talented system does not obsolete the existing classes, rather it expands the customizability. You can pretty much re-create all of the base/core classes with their talented counterparts, which strikes me as something that would be good for the Advanced Class Guide. The core and base versions are for less experienced players, the advanced is where the full level of customizability is made available for the more experienced players or for people looking to create something more unusual.

It also strikes me, that rather than trying to bandage over the problems with multi-classing, it might be better to address it directly in this book and come up with some rules that would allow players to multi-class existing classes so the hybrid classes are unnecessary. There's not a whole lot of new concepts or ideas in these classes, which makes them a bit lackluster when compared to previous classes.

[Jason Bulmahn]

Hey there folks,

I get that this is not what some folks were expecting, but its not as if we were unclear on this from the outset. These classes were specifically designed from the early days to be a blend of two classes, to be something that you just could not pull off well through multiclassing, primarily due to the nature of that system.

I can see that many folks are surprised by this approach, and as a result, disappointed in the results. This is why we playtest, to iron out bugs and solve problems. While our original design philosophy is not going to change on this (we are way to far down the road for such changes), we are going to be tinkering and changing the classes to improve their playability and add some excitement. Such discussions are already well underway.

So, if you are hoping to get us to scrap them and start over, I think your energy would be best spent elsewhere. If you would like to participate in making them better, giving suggestions, taking them for a test drive, then this playtest is for your. Even if you dont have the interest for that, stop back later in the playtest and see the fruits of such labors put to work. That is the nature of this process.

Finally, I understand your frustrations. The entire point of this post was to open a dialog about managing the expectations of the folks participating. We are trying to be transparent about this process and these rules, and I hope folks have a better idea where we are coming from.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

[Roberta Yang]

It's true, Warpriest just isn't something you can pull off well through multiclassing.

It's something you can pull off well through singleclassing.

Likewise, Investigator can't do a whole lot that Vivisectionists can't do already, considering that they don't really get anything to spend their points on other than a piddly "get +1d6 to one skill check" and don't have any Magus-style abilities that make their cobbled-together pieces synergize.

[Kaisos Erranon]

Okay.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I get that this is not what some folks were expecting, but its not as if we were unclear on this from the outset. These classes were specifically designed from the early days to be a blend of two classes, to be something that you just could not pull off well through multiclassing, primarily due to the nature of that system.

You said "like a Magus". None of these classes are anything like the Magus, which managed to synergize the abilities of its component classes while having a very strong flavour of its own.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

This is why we playtest, to iron out bugs and solve problems.

The problems and bugs here are that most of these hybrid classes are both bland and wholly unnecessary. I understand that it's a lot of work coming up with ten new classes, but if that was the case then why did you feel the need to try in the first place?

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

If you would like to participate in making them better, giving suggestions, taking them for a test drive

"Taking them for a test drive" seems a little pointless to me, what's wrong with any of these can be seen immediately by comparing them to their parent classes, archetypes, or the Magus.

I get that you're pretty married to the hybrid concept, but I think it was a pretty bad idea to begin with. Like I've said before, why not just make a book entirely about archetypes, which are a strong mechanic and most of these classes would have been represented by anyway?

[Atarlost]

My problem is more that several of them just aren't what they say on the tin.

The war priest is not a fighter cleric hybrid, that would be a generalized paladin. It's yet another medium BAB semi-martial divine caster essentially treading the same ground clerics have been treading since they were introduced and which the Inquisitor also covers.

The Shaman is not much of a hybrid witch oracle. There's more cleric in it than oracle with prepared casting. This would have been a good opportunity for a spontaneous witch list caster or a 1/2 BAB divine caster or a spontaneous cleric list caster that doesn't have a curse dragging down the roleplaying of everyone around it that might rationally want to go into danger with people who have good eye sight, working legs, the ability to hear, and such instead of someone who lacks one of those things. Only the names of the spirits and the bonus spell lists actually come from the oracle rather than the cleric and they could just as easily have come from the witch patrons. The contribution to the feel of the class of using superficial oracle elements instead of equally superficial witch elements is insignificant compared to the enormous difference between prepared and spontaneous casting.

The Hunter claims to be druid/ranger, but there's almost no druid in it. Ranger already had the companion and 2/3 of the casting. A druid/ranger would need to bring in druid elements the ranger doesn't have. This was an opportunity to put out the martial shapeshifter that's so frequently requested.

The Slayer, while an acceptable martial rogue, has next to no ranger in it. There's track and near the end game there's quarry, but that's about it.

I don't think these are really the hybrids they're sold as, and at least in the case of the Shaman and War Priest I think that's to their detriment. The Slayer, though, I think is better for not really being much of a hybrid.

[Chris Lambertz]

Removed a post and the responses quoting it. Subscriber status is irrelevant in this discussion. People may choose to purchase Paizo products from whatever venue works for them and does not invalidate their opinions.

[Jason Bulmahn]

So, yes, we have mentioned the Magus in referencing these classes, and I think ultimately we will end up closer to that class in concept, but remember we said that it was "like" the magus, not exactly the same thing. To quote

"You can think of the magus (from Ultimate Magic) as our first test of this concept. It takes some rules from the fighter, some rules from the wizard, and then adds its own unique mechanics."

That is exactly what we hope to deliver with these classes. You can argue that we are not there yet, and some of you certainly hold that position. You can throw up your hands and refuse to participate and that is certainly your prerogative. We wont hold it against you, your thoughts on the matter have clearly been noted and we are working to address them.

Pointing out deficiencies only gets us half way there. We are going to work on solutions. You can be a part of that, or you can sit it out. The choice is up to you.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

[DeathQuaker]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

I get that this is not what some folks were expecting, but its not as if we were unclear on this from the outset. These classes were specifically designed from the early days to be a blend of two classes, to be something that you just could not pull off well through multiclassing, primarily due to the nature of that system.

I can see that many folks are surprised by this approach, and as a result, disappointed in the results. This is why we playtest, to iron out bugs and solve problems. While our original design philosophy is not going to change on this (we are way to far down the road for such changes), we are going to be tinkering and changing the classes to improve their playability and add some excitement. Such discussions are already well underway.

So, if you are hoping to get us to scrap them and start over, I think your energy would be best spent elsewhere. If you would like to participate in making them better, giving suggestions, taking them for a test drive, then this playtest is for your. Even if you dont have the interest for that, stop back later in the playtest and see the fruits of such labors put to work. That is the nature of this process.

Finally, I understand your frustrations. The entire point of this post was to open a dialog about managing the expectations of the folks participating. We are trying to be transparent about this process and these rules, and I hope folks have a better idea where we are coming from.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Maybe I missed something, but with all due respect, I think there's a disconnect somewhere between what you're hearing (or at least what you're responding to) and what many of us are saying. This may be our fault for not being very clear in our passion.

Based on what I've read so far, as far as I can tell, few people are surprised by the idea of the hybrid. Yes, you were absolutely clear that hybrids were going to be the key focus of the new classes presented. I don't think people's expectations were shattered because of this.

Where you failed to meet expectations was how well you worked with the hybrid idea. People expected things like the magus, itself a hybrid class. (ETA: You ninjaed me while I was writing this; I have read your response on that matter but am leaving this here.) Some playtest classes, I think, are close to it. Others fail to meet the expectation of quality, not content, that Paizonians tend to anticipate from you and your team. That's a compliment, by the way, however negatively some might express it---people set a really high bar for you because they truly believe you can meet it. (Unfortunately, sometimes this means we expect you to be superhuman when perhaps--only perhaps--you are not, and this may lead to disappointment even when it may not seem warranted to some.)

In my opinion, the issue is that you are allowing yourselves to be so shackled by the hybrid idea that you are failing to let some of the class concepts you've presented truly shine and be as good as they can be--to be as good as we are absolutely certain you can design them.

For ONE example: many people ADORE the investigator, but at the same time, some feel that several of its rogue-like and alchemist-like aspects of the investigator are actually muddying the investigator's flavor and making it a scattered and unfocused class. Is it a detective or an assassin? Why does something called an investigator have poison use? It's great that you started building the class by combining rogue and alchemist, but you are letting that combination actually hold you back from designing the class in a way that would both focus it and make it shine even more.

If we feel like the classes here could be built multiclass or with an archetype and be as effective, you have not done a good enough job with them---YET. They need to be able to stand alone as classes--a design standard you yourselves set yourselves and repeatedly so. By clinging so rigidly to your concept, you are not letting that happen.

AGAIN: the problem is NOT that they began as a hybrid concept. The problem is NOT the hybrid idea at all, per se. And the problem is certainly NOT that we didn't expect hybrids to show up after the original GenCon announcement that said very clearly that the classes were coming from a hybrid concept. It's that the hybrid idea is being adhered to so rigidly that it is keeping SOME of the classes from fulfilling their potential and being anything more than a mishmosh of things we could already build before they existed.

I very much hope the playtest results will help guide you out of the unnecessarily rigid box you've put yourselves in so the final product with the tweaked and enhanced classes will be far more than just "a mix of this and that"--but truly spectacular, memorable classes we will one day think of as wondering how we played the game without them before.

[Sara Marie]

Kaisos Erranon wrote:

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

If you would like to participate in making them better, giving suggestions, taking them for a test drive

"Taking them for a test drive" seems a little pointless to me, what's wrong with any of these can be seen immediately by comparing them to their parent classes, archetypes, or the Magus.

I would suggest actually trying them out. I had doubts about playing a cavalier until I actually sat down and played one and now they are one of my favorites. Sometimes a class isn't for everyone and that's ok. If you try it out and still don't like it, that's fine and feedback at that point is going to be a bit more useful. It is called a playtest for a reason ;)

[MadScientistWorking]

Kaisos Erranon wrote:

I get that you're pretty married to the hybrid concept, but I think it was a pretty bad idea to begin with. Like I've said before, why not just make a book entirely about archetypes, which are a strong mechanic and most of these classes would have been represented by anyway?

Its not a bad idea persay but most of the more interesting hybrid classes tend to actually throw more into the mix than what we are getting here. The Alchemist is definitely a hybrid combination of a few classes but it has distinct enough variations of the different concepts to make it its own unique thing.

[EldonG]

Works for me. I love Ftr - Rog characters... but Pathfinder always made me feel like I lost out by not single classing... Bbn - Brds... lots of interesting possibilities... and so now I have 10 I can go all the way to a capstone with.

[Jason Bulmahn]

DeathQuaker wrote:

I very much hope the playtest results will help guide you out of the unnecessarily rigid box you've put yourselves in so the final product with the tweaked and enhanced classes will be far more than just "a mix of this and that"--but truly spectacular, memorable classes we will one day think of as wondering how we played the game without them before.

Thanks for a well reasoned response. I am not convinced everyone shares your opinion, but I think you make a solid point.

That said, I think we pushed further on some than we did on others. This was quite intentional. We wanted to get a feel of where the line should fall on these classes as a concept and I think we are starting to get a grasp on it. Some are much closer to where they need to be, while others are relying a bit too strongly on their parents, without showing off what could allow them to better explore the niche we have in mind for them.

We will be working on these as we go along. The entire point of this post, as I mentioned before, was to give people an idea as to where our heads are in this process and where we go from here. Relying on assumption and hearsay is a problem with the playtest process as a whole and I constantly endeavor to keep this process open and transparent.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

[DeathQuaker]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

That said, I think we pushed further on some than we did on others. This was quite intentional. We wanted to get a feel of where the line should fall on these classes as a concept and I think we are starting to get a grasp on it. Some are much closer to where they need to be, while others are relying a bit too strongly on their parents, without showing off what could allow them to better explore the niche we have in mind for them.

We will be working on these as we go along. The entire point of this post, as I mentioned before, was to give people an idea as to where our heads are in this process and where we go from here. Relying on assumption and hearsay is a problem with the playtest process as a whole and I constantly endeavor to keep this process open and transparent.

Fair enough! I hope the playtest helps define and push the boundaries to where they need to be then. Thanks very much for your response.

[wakedown]

I'll chime in here with some thoughts on "hybrid" as a concrete game term with a mechanical impact, since it seems to be the best thread for these thoughts. And to get this thread back on track about talking about the concept of hybrids overall, and suggesting iterative improvements to said concept.

Specifically, I'm not sure if we need:

"If you have levels in one of these new classes, you cannot take levels in either of its alternate classes, nor can you take levels in a class in this playtest that also has either of those alternate classes."

Often times, I imagine how I will explain options to new players. I've totally used the words "a magus is like a hybrid of a wizard and fighter" or "a paladin is like a hybrid of a fighter and cleric" while educating new players.

Now, this presents some ambiguity because this set of 10 new classes has special rules governing them. It's great that they are hybrids of existing things players have some awareness of (i.e. brawler is a hybrid of a monk and fighter). But, folks playing a magus (fighter/wizard hybrid) are free to take a level in fighter right now (however short-sighted that may be) if they want an extra feat for example.

I'm sure there's some reason for this to limit abuse, but it does feel like a new extra-effort-to-articulate restriction that we'd have to further dedicate brain space to remembering... it would be great in the final product if these didn't have more special rules so that years down the line folks have a conversation like - "Oh, you want to multiclass your skald? Wait, that's an ACG hybrid, not a normal hybrid right? There's some extra restictions, then. Oh, I'm afraid you can't multiclass him. Oh wait, you wanted to multiclass fighter? Oh, I think that's okay then, because it's an ACG-Hybrid based on barbarian. Oh, the fighter with the viking archetype? I think that's still okay... *brain aches*".

I could probably be more constructive here too with ideas if I knew why the restriction was put in place? I assume it's meant to simplify rulings (like what happens if a swashbuckler multi-classes into gunslinger -- how does grit work now?). But we have the same issue potentially if a swashbuckler multi-classes into another class w/an archetype that provides grit, so this particular problem doesn't go away.

[Coridan]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

Hey there folks,

I get that this is not what some folks were expecting, but its not as if we were unclear on this from the outset. These classes were specifically designed from the early days to be a blend of two classes, to be something that you just could not pull off well through multiclassing, primarily due to the nature of that system.

I can see that many folks are surprised by this approach, and as a result, disappointed in the results. This is why we playtest, to iron out bugs and solve problems. While our original design philosophy is not going to change on this (we are way to far down the road for such changes), we are going to be tinkering and changing the classes to improve their playability and add some excitement. Such discussions are already well underway.

So, if you are hoping to get us to scrap them and start over, I think your energy would be best spent elsewhere. If you would like to participate in making them better, giving suggestions, taking them for a test drive, then this playtest is for your. Even if you dont have the interest for that, stop back later in the playtest and see the fruits of such labors put to work. That is the nature of this process.

Finally, I understand your frustrations. The entire point of this post was to open a dialog about managing the expectations of the folks participating. We are trying to be transparent about this process and these rules, and I hope folks have a better idea where we are coming from.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

I take a little issue with this sentiment. There were a number of us expressing apprehension about this back in August and the response was "Wait until the playtest amd you see what we are doing". Now, our apprehensions are confirmed, and it is too late to do anything about it. There will have to be major changes in the design for this (and I will collect my thoughts and opinions on each class over the weekend) before I could get on board with them.

I am not going to throw up my hands and leave in disgust, and I will likely still buy this book out of being too lazy to fiddle with my subscription settings, but I am disappointed with you guys.

Seven years ago Paizo was a very GM oriented company, and when PFRPG came out, it was to support the adventures you guys were writing and wanted to continue writing. The last few years have seen it shifting more and more, fewer modules, players companions that are basically splat books (looking at you Blood of series). This will probably be the most polarizing book you have done as it spits on multiclassing and prestige classing. In general I am not happy with this direction and I know you know that, but I wanted to elocute why. Hopefully some of this can be salvaged, but I am thinking a couple classes will need to be either completely rebuilt or even replaced/cut.

/rant

[Oceanshieldwolf]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

That said, I think we pushed further on some than we did on others. This was quite intentional. We wanted to get a feel of where the line should fall on these classes as a concept and I think we are starting to get a grasp on it. Some are much closer to where they need to be, while others are relying a bit too strongly on their parents, without showing off what could allow them to better explore the niche we have in mind for them.

* I think that approach is a good design-path idea, that some are close to the ideal and others fall short awaiting polish or to see where the line is - particularly with the fanbase.

* Deathquaker made a good point earlier about the Investigator and its concept as-married-to-its-parent-classes. If you stick too close to the parent base concepts there isn't enough room to maneuver conceptually. Hopefully archetypes will customise these greatly!

* As someone keenly interested in the hybrid concept, I like the point of giving you your multiclass-options AT 1st LEVEL. What I see missing here are more synergies - tweaks and mashes of each parent classes abilities to make new abilities. Otherwise these Hybrids feel a little uninspired and cookie-cutter. Which may be useful for qualifyin balance-wise but definitely feels creatively hollow at this stage.

As the Feedbackonauts say: Playtest! Feedback! Retweakify!

[Zombie Ninja]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

DeathQuaker wrote:

I very much hope the playtest results will help guide you out of the unnecessarily rigid box you've put yourselves in so the final product with the tweaked and enhanced classes will be far more than just "a mix of this and that"--but truly spectacular, memorable classes we will one day think of as wondering how we played the game without them before.

Thanks for a well reasoned response. I am not convinced everyone shares your opinion, but I think you make a solid point.

That said, I think we pushed further on some than we did on others. This was quite intentional. We wanted to get a feel of where the line should fall on these classes as a concept and I think we are starting to get a grasp on it. Some are much closer to where they need to be, while others are relying a bit too strongly on their parents, without showing off what could allow them to better explore the niche we have in mind for them.

We will be working on these as we go along. The entire point of this post, as I mentioned before, was to give people an idea as to where our heads are in this process and where we go from here. Relying on assumption and hearsay is a problem with the playtest process as a whole and I constantly endeavor to keep this process open and transparent.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Thank you Jason for keeping the discussion open and allowing us, the detractors, to speak. It speaks well of you that you're at least considering our opinion on this matter. All day today I've been struggling with this causing me to purposely put the issue aside, and try to get some introspection. I like Paizo's, I love the quality and innovation of the products you produce, and it pains me to say this, but in this product the quality is just not there. I have to agree with DeathQuaker, the Hybrid concept itself is hindering the creativity, and I would prefer you lean to the side of creativity. Still I would like to help bring this product to its full fruition, so I am willing to put my own feelings aside for the better of the product. I hope you understand I may challenge you on some design decisions, but if your willing to endure that, I am certainly willing to aid you. I hope you can understand that.

[Kryzbyn]

Not replaced or cut. Made better.

[Roberta Yang]

If you put up a Magus with no spell combat or spellstrike, maybe an arcane pool but no arcana, and said "Hey guys, playtest this", then playtesting wouldn't cause spell combat to spring into existence. The issue isn't one that can be solved by playtesting because it's not about tweaking numbers for balance or whatever, it's about giving the classes an actual purpose of existence at a fundamental design level.

As long as "the class has both extracts and sneak attack, HYBRID COMPLETE, next" is considered an acceptable level of design, you're not going to be able to make progress.

[Spatula]

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

I get that this is not what some folks were expecting, but its not as if we were unclear on this from the outset. These classes were specifically designed from the early days to be a blend of two classes, to be something that you just could not pull off well through multiclassing, primarily due to the nature of that system.

I can see that many folks are surprised by this approach, and as a result, disappointed in the results.

This isn't what I'm reading here, and it certainly isn't my complaint. What I see is people saying that they find many of these classes to be unimaginative and lazy hybrids, because they were expecting something unique and flavorful like the magus.

Jason Bulmahn wrote:

If you would like to participate in making them better, giving suggestions, taking them for a test drive, then this playtest is for your.

Well, here's the problem. The suggestion from many here is to make these classes unique, instead of copy and pasting half the abilities from class A and half from class B and adding in a secondary "extra" mechanic. What's the focus, the theme, the niche, of some of these classes? What defining attribute does it have that no one else has, or doesn't have in the same way? What makes it special? It's surprising to me that this is even an issue, given past work like the magus and the sorcerer (which was a bland and flavorless class in 3e, and absolutely is not in PF).

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what a playtest is supposed to be, but I don't see how playtesters are going to change any of the above. We can ensure that the language is clear, catch typos, and identify the mechanical concerns. We can't make the content less boring or superfluous.

[Makarion]

Calybos1 wrote:

My reaction's been mixed, but mostly positive. After all, everything in here is optional anyway.

And some gamers might still have post-traumatic reactions to the very word 'hybrid,' which conjures up nightmares of (shudder) Rolemaster.

I actually managed to play a hybrid RM class and like it for about a year. Admittedly, I've grown up since.