The Point of Hybrids


Advanced Class Guide Playtest General Discussion

151 to 200 of 275 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

Gluttony wrote:

Just figured I'd note that the opinions of us vocal folks on a forum don't represent all, or even a majority of players. Honestly, groups that seem extremely vocal in a small community often seem to turn out to hold minority opinions among the larger populous.

The Arcanist is one of the most interesting ones I'm seeing, reading through these comments. Mostly because this thread seems to bear near-universal hatred for it, whereas every Pathfinder player I've talked to today--both in real life and on forums other than these--has been hyping the Arcanist as one of the best and most interesting of these new classes. It's a bit jarring to see how massive the difference of opinion can be between fans of the same game, but it happens.

Personally I'm looking forwards to the Arcanist most of all these classes. (People say it brings nothing new, but the prepared spontaneous casting IS the new that it brings. It's really interesting-looking.)

Except it is not new. It was done by the Spirit Shaman in 3.5's Complete Divine. It is a cool way of doing it for sure, but the rest of the class really fits nowhere mechanically or flavor wise. It is best as an alternate option (and an option that coukd be cool for all prepared casters).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Thanks for that, Eric, but how do you mesh that with Jason's statement that the "ship has long sailed" on subbing out any of these classes?

On first blush most of these classes look really good, but some strike me as "meh" at best. It's a little off putting that even if the playtest response is universal dislike, the class will still make it to print.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Coridan wrote:
Gluttony wrote:

Just figured I'd note that the opinions of us vocal folks on a forum don't represent all, or even a majority of players. Honestly, groups that seem extremely vocal in a small community often seem to turn out to hold minority opinions among the larger populous.

The Arcanist is one of the most interesting ones I'm seeing, reading through these comments. Mostly because this thread seems to bear near-universal hatred for it, whereas every Pathfinder player I've talked to today--both in real life and on forums other than these--has been hyping the Arcanist as one of the best and most interesting of these new classes. It's a bit jarring to see how massive the difference of opinion can be between fans of the same game, but it happens.

Personally I'm looking forwards to the Arcanist most of all these classes. (People say it brings nothing new, but the prepared spontaneous casting IS the new that it brings. It's really interesting-looking.)

Except it is not new. It was done by the Spirit Shaman in 3.5's Complete Divine. It is a cool way of doing it for sure, but the rest of the class really fits nowhere mechanically or flavor wise. It is best as an alternate option (and an option that coukd be cool for all prepared casters).

If the only sources of not-new status come from outside of Pathfinder, then it is new to Pathfinder, which is enough to consider it new.

And if I'm not mistaken the ACG is a book for Pathfinder players, isn't it? Not everyone who plays Pathfinder has played 3.5, and content shouldn't be denied to players of one system just because players of another system have seen it elsewhere. Content shouldn't be declared to be 'not new' in the context of a Pathfinder rulebook when it is new to Pathfinder.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mystic Lemur wrote:

Thanks for that, Eric, but how do you mesh that with Jason's statement that the "ship has long sailed" on subbing out any of these classes?

On first blush most of these classes look really good, but some strike me as "meh" at best. It's a little off putting that even if the playtest response is universal dislike, the class will still make it to print.

Unfortunately, Paizo is a company with limited time and money. They can't spend an infinite amount of time coming up with new class ideas and throwing out old ones. Time spent throwing away, replacing, or rebuilding even *one* class will make the rest of the book suffer because in all likelihood they will not be able to delay the book for very long (if at all) before it has to go to print.

Basically, just give whatever feedback you can about the existing classes to try and help Paizo improve them. Telling them to throw away or replace any of these these is extremely likely to just be a waste of time. The biggest change that we can probably expect to see is probably something similar to what happened to the gunslinger during its playtest.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16

Erik Mona wrote:
JoelF847 wrote:


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.

The classes themselves are unlikely to change. The book will have 10 hybrid classes, roughly similar (if not quite similar) to the presentation in the playtest document.

That said, Paizo is committed to a full, interactive playtest for these classes. The book is far, far, far from 90% complete. We are making every effort to take player comments to heart, and many changes will be made to the classes based on feedback during the playtest.

Our last playtest received valid criticisms about the amount of hands-on designer involvement and communication. We are committed to making sure that this is NOT the case with this playtest. I think you can see by the interaction Jason and his team have brought to this effort that they are committed to reading comments, responding frequently, and making changes if necessary.

Erik, I wasn't saying that the Advanced Class Guide was 90% complete, I meant that previous playtests seemed to be about 90% of where they wound up, with fairly minimal changes needed, since the playtest version of things was pretty good and just needed some minor tweaking and balancing.

In contrast, this playtest seems to have a lot of material that is far from being almost ready to print, and several classes need some pretty drastic changes.

I understand that there's a lot more work to getting the document itself in publication ready state, as well as writing the content for the rest of the book, with new feats, archetypes, spells, and whatever other surprises you have cooked up.

I'm glad though that there's more designer and developer involvement though, that's one of Paizo's great strengths and I hope it never changes.

Paizo Employee Publisher, Chief Creative Officer

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Mystic Lemur wrote:

Thanks for that, Eric, but how do you mesh that with Jason's statement that the "ship has long sailed" on subbing out any of these classes?

On first blush most of these classes look really good, but some strike me as "meh" at best. It's a little off putting that even if the playtest response is universal dislike, the class will still make it to print.

The classes themselves will not be subbed out. Elements of their implementation can and will be changed as a result of constructive playtest feedback.

Theoretically, this could include "how exciting they are," but since that's highly subjective and likely differs from gamer to gamer, it's very difficult to be specific--that's where your feedback comes in.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Coridan wrote:
Except it is not new. It was done by the Spirit Shaman in 3.5's Complete Divine.

Actually, the magister from Arcana Unearthed has a similar mechanic and predates it by a calendar year.

The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'd just drop in and blame the decimal system.

I mean, 10 is a nice number. Really nice. It sounds good, and it's natural to our every day thinking. Having 10 of something sounds much more "comfortable" than 7, or 14. 10 is swell.

It also seems to me like the decision to include 10 new classes in a single rulebook is not the greatest idea ever. Some of the new classes have actual reasons to exist, others much less so. I do believe that if each class would have been part of a different rulebook instead of a whole lump of them in a single book, we would get much better classes.

Pathfinder is not ready to handle 10 new classes all at once, and the designers are not really capable of coming up with 10 solid new classes all at once. After seeing what they can do with the APG, I know Paizo can produce far better thought out classes than some in this playtest (the flavor-less arcanist, the disappointing war priest, the "what is the point" hunter...).

Pick the best six classes out of this book and you have a really, really solid addition to the game. Take on all 10 and things start looking worse.

Silver Crusade

16 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Funny, I remember all those "those classes are cheap uninspired knockoffs" posts from APG playtest.


9 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the carnivorous pouch. The sky isn't falling.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Cthulhudrew wrote:
I agree with the carnivorous pouch. The sky isn't falling.

I agree with the horrible monsters above me. By the end of this playtest I'm sure all the classes will be quite useful.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Cthulhudrew wrote:
I agree with the carnivorous pouch. The sky isn't falling.
I agree with the horrible monsters above me. By the end of this playtest I'm sure all the classes will be quite useful.

In support of the cube and his eclectic associates, I need to add that the reality is that the average player will likely see something in this book they want it for, not that everyone is going to like everything in it.

For every person that thinks half the classes aren't worth the paper they're printed on, there'll be someone that thinks "wow, I can see five new classes I want to try out!"

The point of this playtest isn't to say "I don't see the point in class X and would rather it wasn't in there" - others almost certainly disagree, and enough of them to make it worth including. The point is to point out why you don't like that class, in the hope that there will be enough playtesters with similar thoughts that the developers decide to make the changes needed to make it more suitable for you - and more importantly perhaps, to focus on the classes that do excite you and ensure your input is heard on those.

Or to look at it another way - Paizo isn't asking us to playtest the book, as the overall concept is going to happen regardless, our job here is to playtest the classes within it and to lobby for the changes we'd like to see made to them.

I certainly see enough excitement in each individual class thread to believe each class has its own merits, even if we all disagree on what those merits are or should be, and the majority of the criticism I see on individual classes looks like exactly the sort of thing that can be changed before publication, or is simply down to the fact all we have right now is the base class and not the final book in our hands with archetypes and other options to customize them.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Matt Thomason wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Cthulhudrew wrote:
I agree with the carnivorous pouch. The sky isn't falling.
I agree with the horrible monsters above me. By the end of this playtest I'm sure all the classes will be quite useful.

In support of the cube and his eclectic associates, I need to add that the reality is that the average player will likely see something in this book they want it for, not that everyone is going to like everything in it.

For every person that thinks half the classes aren't worth the paper they're printed on, there'll be someone that thinks "wow, I can see five new classes I want to try out!"

The point of this playtest isn't to say "I don't see the point in class X and would rather it wasn't in there" - others almost certainly disagree, and enough of them to make it worth including. The point is to point out why you don't like that class, in the hope that there will be enough playtesters with similar thoughts that the developers decide to make the changes needed to make it more suitable for you - and more importantly perhaps, to focus on the classes that do excite you and ensure your input is heard on those.

I certainly see enough excitement in each individual class thread to believe each class has its own merits, even if we all disagree on what those merits are or should be, and the majority of the criticism I see on individual classes looks like exactly the sort of thing that can be changed before publication, or is simply down to the fact all we have right now is the base class and not the final book in our hands with archetypes and other options to customize them.

I agree with the Dwarf and his collection of strange artifacts and his horribly piscine friend.

They've already said the book will have ways for characters who don't take the hybrids to get some use out of the hybrid's abilities, so let's all just do that one thing that we're meant to do and test by playing.

Silver Crusade

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

It's a cycle that repeats with every playtest.

Core playtest had its usual 'SKR killed Monks because a Shaolin guy stole his girlfriend' and 'Paizo hates my favorite class because it didn't get any buffs' (bonus points if Cleric, Wizard or Druid fanboys were involved)

APG had the very same 'cheap and uninspired' round of arguments (Oracle? SorCleric, lame. Inquisitor? DivBard, shame. Witch? We have Mystic Theurges, WTF is this class for? Also, shouldn't male Witches be called Warlocks? SUMMONER? YOU GOT YOUR POKEMON IN MY SERIOUS FANTASY!)

UM saw dozens of people beoman that Magus is/isn't Duskblade and asking why the hell does Paizo cater to Gish fanboys when they already have EK and Bard rocking their boats.

UC had "Gunslinger as a Violent Assault on Tolkien's Legacy" PhD theses published on this very forum.

Cut to few years later and everybody is swooning over Magus, nobody even squints about Inquisitors and well, the Guns in Fantasy people are still here, I guess.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Matt Thomason wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Cthulhudrew wrote:
I agree with the carnivorous pouch. The sky isn't falling.
I agree with the horrible monsters above me. By the end of this playtest I'm sure all the classes will be quite useful.

In support of the cube and his eclectic associates, I need to add that the reality is that the average player will likely see something in this book they want it for, not that everyone is going to like everything in it.

For every person that thinks half the classes aren't worth the paper they're printed on, there'll be someone that thinks "wow, I can see five new classes I want to try out!"

The point of this playtest isn't to say "I don't see the point in class X and would rather it wasn't in there" - others almost certainly disagree, and enough of them to make it worth including. The point is to point out why you don't like that class, in the hope that there will be enough playtesters with similar thoughts that the developers decide to make the changes needed to make it more suitable for you - and more importantly perhaps, to focus on the classes that do excite you and ensure your input is heard on those.

I certainly see enough excitement in each individual class thread to believe each class has its own merits, even if we all disagree on what those merits are or should be, and the majority of the criticism I see on individual classes looks like exactly the sort of thing that can be changed before publication, or is simply down to the fact all we have right now is the base class and not the final book in our hands with archetypes and other options to customize them.

I agree with the Dwarf and his collection of strange artifacts and his horribly piscine friend.

They've already said the book will have ways for characters who don't take the hybrids to get some use out of the hybrid's abilities, so let's all just do that one thing that we're meant to do and test by playing.

I agree with the halfling all the people/things he agreed with :P

I especially like the approach Paizo has taken with this playtest of having various degrees of uniqueness to the classes. This is a great way to get a baseline of what people want from a hybrid, so bravo on that. Going to be trying to run some mock encounters soon since I don't have a group I can playtest with at the moment. I hope the data will still be useful.

Keep up the good work Paizo, I have faith that all of these classes will be awesome for people to play with, even if they don't all personally work for me :)


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:


Design space is a tricky thing and sometimes reinventing the wheel is just not worth it (you almost always end up making a better wheel or a worse wheel, never a different but equal wheel). We kept a number of class features because we know they work, and know how they work. 10 classes is a lot for the game to absorb and a mountain of entirely new mechanics would cause havoc (which I am sure we will have enough of as it is, even with a number of tried and true mechanics forming the spines for these classes).

...so add less than ten classes?

I'm sorry, but this sounds an awful lot like "we know we're being formulaic, but hey, being formulaic makes us money, so why not". Everything I've seen from the playtest packet thus far leads me to believe that the Advanced Race Guide is the Pathfinder equivalent of Iron Man 2: the same stuff we've seen before in a fancy new shell. Show me something different, or at the very least show me something new in a way I haven't seen it before. Why are we getting a Ranger/Druid when Rangers are already just Druid/Fighters? Why are we getting a Warpriest when every single divine class already gets 3/4 attack progression and medium armor proficiency, making them all perfectly capable of smashing faces on the front line?

This feels like filler. It all feels like filler.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:

There will be tinkering. There will be replacements of some mechanics. There will not be any complete revamps or reworkings. We wont be replacing any of the classes at this point. That ship has long sailed.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer

Here's where the Design/Playtester disconnect really exists.

Playtesters (and people who just read the document) are treating this like an Alpha test. So when testers give alpha-level feedback to the designers (all of whom are already set into "beta test" mode) they're getting shot down with statements such as, "We're long past the part of design where X can happen."

Unfortunately, some of these classes are not "beta-worthy" yet. So there's a bunch of confusion as to why alpha feedback is still getting shot down.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

What the real problem is is people thinking their opinion is worth far far more then it is.

Classes not being "beta-worthy" is nothing more then your opinion and a poor one at that. All the classes function (some better then some of the core classes.) I don't like all of them by a long shot but ohh well. I don't like all of any book.

This "I don't like it so its trash and should never happen" mentality is nothing short of childish.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Even if you were fixated on some of these class combinations, you could still do something unique with them. For example, ranger/druid could get Wild Shape but not spellcasting, and be focused on turning into a bear and mauling people's faces with the help of her bear companion. But that would require having a vision beyond "take two classes, smash together in the most mindless way possible, hope that works".

I guess design space does seem pretty tight when you have self-imposed restrictions like "no new mechanics or ideas" and "we really need more divine melee classes".


7 people marked this as a favorite.

I remember reading a post fairly recently, I believe it was by Jason Bulmahn, that spoke of a rule of design he learned while working on 3.5. I wish I could find the post, but I will paraphrase for now, and maybe someone else can locate it.

He said, basically, you shouldn't have an ability that says "This is just like this other class feature but a little bit different. If it does the same thing as an existing class feature, it should be exactly like the existing class feature."

That is an issue I have with some of the hybrids. They say, you have this previous extant ability, but it works differently.

Shaman has Hexes that aren't the same a Witch Hexes. Bloodrager has Bloodline that isn't the same as Sorcerer Bloodline.

I think it would be better to either rename the abilities or make them mechanically closer to the parent ability.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

It's a cycle that repeats with every playtest.

Core playtest had its usual 'SKR killed Monks because a Shaolin guy stole his girlfriend' and 'Paizo hates my favorite class because it didn't get any buffs' (bonus points if Cleric, Wizard or Druid fanboys were involved)

APG had the very same 'cheap and uninspired' round of arguments (Oracle? SorCleric, lame. Inquisitor? DivBard, shame. Witch? We have Mystic Theurges, WTF is this class for? Also, shouldn't male Witches be called Warlocks? SUMMONER? YOU GOT YOUR POKEMON IN MY SERIOUS FANTASY!)

UM saw dozens of people beoman that Magus is/isn't Duskblade and asking why the hell does Paizo cater to Gish fanboys when they already have EK and Bard rocking their boats.

UC had "Gunslinger as a Violent Assault on Tolkien's Legacy" PhD theses published on this very forum.

Cut to few years later and everybody is swooning over Magus, nobody even squints about Inquisitors and well, the Guns in Fantasy people are still here, I guess.

This times a million.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

It's a cycle that repeats with every playtest.

Core playtest had its usual 'SKR killed Monks because a Shaolin guy stole his girlfriend' and 'Paizo hates my favorite class because it didn't get any buffs' (bonus points if Cleric, Wizard or Druid fanboys were involved)

APG had the very same 'cheap and uninspired' round of arguments (Oracle? SorCleric, lame. Inquisitor? DivBard, shame. Witch? We have Mystic Theurges, WTF is this class for? Also, shouldn't male Witches be called Warlocks? SUMMONER? YOU GOT YOUR POKEMON IN MY SERIOUS FANTASY!)

"Someone complains about anything" does not mean "therefore everything is good."

Are you really seriously saying that these classes look as interesting and iconic as the APG classes? Because that's a valid viewpoint, but it sounds to me that you're just putting up a bluster layer for whatever "protect Paizo" white knight reason you're doing it, without engaging in the real discussion. It's exactly like those being dismissive of criticisms of 4e because "I remember someone complained about 3e!"

Liberty's Edge

The vibe is completely different in this playtest. Those who are unhappy aren't simply complaining, we are offering alternative ideas and constructive criticism. I am right now going ckass by class in their respective threads. Whether or not Paizo takes my advice is up to them, it is after all their livelihoods, and only a hobby for me. I am not simply b&!**ing though, and I see a lot of others in the "disappointed" camp also offering ideas and solutions.

If you don't like our opinions, debate them, but don't simply write us off because "people complain every playtest".


4 people marked this as a favorite.

This playtest would really be a lot more successful if people would just stop pointing out problems and offering suggestions.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:

Core playtest had its usual 'SKR killed Monks because a Shaolin guy stole his girlfriend' and 'Paizo hates my favorite class because it didn't get any buffs' (bonus points if Cleric, Wizard or Druid fanboys were involved)

I was not htere in the core playtest and I have no idea what happened but the monk certainly was born dead. Maybe if they were more receptive in those days the monk were not the headache it is.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Roberta Yang wrote:
This playtest would really be a lot more successful if people would just stop pointing out problems and offering suggestions.

A great suggestion that have been given somewhere is to make the warpriest a magus/cleric hybrid. AS it is now the there is no much reason to play a warpriest, thematically or mechanically, a magus/cleric that uses spellcombat to cast self buff spells by the other hand...


Gluttony wrote:
Coridan wrote:
Gluttony wrote:

Just figured I'd note that the opinions of us vocal folks on a forum don't represent all, or even a majority of players. Honestly, groups that seem extremely vocal in a small community often seem to turn out to hold minority opinions among the larger populous.

The Arcanist is one of the most interesting ones I'm seeing, reading through these comments. Mostly because this thread seems to bear near-universal hatred for it, whereas every Pathfinder player I've talked to today--both in real life and on forums other than these--has been hyping the Arcanist as one of the best and most interesting of these new classes. It's a bit jarring to see how massive the difference of opinion can be between fans of the same game, but it happens.

Personally I'm looking forwards to the Arcanist most of all these classes. (People say it brings nothing new, but the prepared spontaneous casting IS the new that it brings. It's really interesting-looking.)

Except it is not new. It was done by the Spirit Shaman in 3.5's Complete Divine. It is a cool way of doing it for sure, but the rest of the class really fits nowhere mechanically or flavor wise. It is best as an alternate option (and an option that coukd be cool for all prepared casters).

If the only sources of not-new status come from outside of Pathfinder, then it is new to Pathfinder, which is enough to consider it new.

And if I'm not mistaken the ACG is a book for Pathfinder players, isn't it? Not everyone who plays Pathfinder has played 3.5, and content shouldn't be denied to players of one system just because players of another system have seen it elsewhere. Content shouldn't be declared to be 'not new' in the context of a Pathfinder rulebook when it is new to Pathfinder.

I'm with Gluttony on this one. I am LOVING the Arcanist. As I mentioned in the Arcanist thread, I hate prepared casters, and barely tolerate Witch and Magus because their non-casting abilities are just interesting enough for me to deal with their casting method (I'd still prefer they were spont-casters though!). I haven't touched Cleric and Druid in years, since I got hold of the Oracle and Kobold Press's Shaman. Arcanist gives me the opportunity to play the concepts best associated with a Wizard without having to deal with... well, being a Wizard.

Also I never knew that's how Spirit Shaman worked, I'd always played them as regular old prepared casters.... whoops!


Roberta Yang wrote:
This playtest would really be a lot more successful if people would just stop pointing out problems and offering suggestions.

What you're basically saying here is, "I think it would be better if there was no play-test and we get whatever they give us and be happy for the opportunity to play."

I mean, the whole point of a play-test is to allow us the opportunity to offer feedback on as yet unreleased mechanics. If they didn't want to hear our feedback, they wouldn't have opened a play-test. And the thing about feedback is that it's mostly a bunch of pointing out flaws and offering suggestions to fix them. :P


Neo2151 wrote:
Roberta Yang wrote:
This playtest would really be a lot more successful if people would just stop pointing out problems and offering suggestions.
What you're basically saying here is, "I think it would be better if there was no play-test and we get whatever they give us and be happy for the opportunity to play."

I'm not sure if she's being usual snarky sarcastic Roberta, or if she's meaning to say "stop just complaining and couple your commentary with 'here's a way to fix the problem'". It's hard to tell.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ernest Mueller wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

It's a cycle that repeats with every playtest.

Core playtest had its usual 'SKR killed Monks because a Shaolin guy stole his girlfriend' and 'Paizo hates my favorite class because it didn't get any buffs' (bonus points if Cleric, Wizard or Druid fanboys were involved)

APG had the very same 'cheap and uninspired' round of arguments (Oracle? SorCleric, lame. Inquisitor? DivBard, shame. Witch? We have Mystic Theurges, WTF is this class for? Also, shouldn't male Witches be called Warlocks? SUMMONER? YOU GOT YOUR POKEMON IN MY SERIOUS FANTASY!)

"Someone complains about anything" does not mean "therefore everything is good."

Are you really seriously saying that these classes look as interesting and iconic as the APG classes? Because that's a valid viewpoint, but it sounds to me that you're just putting up a bluster layer for whatever "protect Paizo" white knight reason you're doing it, without engaging in the real discussion. It's exactly like those being dismissive of criticisms of 4e because "I remember someone complained about 3e!"

APG classes weren't iconic (except for Summoner, which was actually something that wasn't really done in d20 before, and Alchemist, maybe). They were fillers of mechanical niches: spontaneous divine caster, divine bard, skilly social full BAB, arcane/divine caster. What made them iconic were, well, iconics, art, and eventually their inclusion in the setting and acceptance by players.

There's nothing different in the case of ACG classes.

Sczarni RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Roberta Yang wrote:
Even if you were fixated on some of these class combinations, you could still do something unique with them. For example, ranger/druid could get Wild Shape but not spellcasting, and be focused on turning into a bear and mauling people's faces with the help of her bear companion.

This is actually something that is missing from the class design space. There really isn't a way to build a shapeshifting-focused character without being a druid. The game could really use a base class built around "I turn into monsters and fight with natural weapons."


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Ernest Mueller wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

It's a cycle that repeats with every playtest.

Core playtest had its usual 'SKR killed Monks because a Shaolin guy stole his girlfriend' and 'Paizo hates my favorite class because it didn't get any buffs' (bonus points if Cleric, Wizard or Druid fanboys were involved)

APG had the very same 'cheap and uninspired' round of arguments (Oracle? SorCleric, lame. Inquisitor? DivBard, shame. Witch? We have Mystic Theurges, WTF is this class for? Also, shouldn't male Witches be called Warlocks? SUMMONER? YOU GOT YOUR POKEMON IN MY SERIOUS FANTASY!)

"Someone complains about anything" does not mean "therefore everything is good."

Are you really seriously saying that these classes look as interesting and iconic as the APG classes? Because that's a valid viewpoint, but it sounds to me that you're just putting up a bluster layer for whatever "protect Paizo" white knight reason you're doing it, without engaging in the real discussion. It's exactly like those being dismissive of criticisms of 4e because "I remember someone complained about 3e!"

Well, the only class I am legitimately upset about is the Warpriest, because it occupies the same gamespace as the Inquisitor, yet still manages to be worse in about every respect to it. I don't see how the developers came up with the idea for this class and could overlook that. It needs an identity of its own, maybe in the realm of being a fast group buff melee class or something like that. In its current state, it just makes me scratch my head why I would ever want to play one over an Inquisitor. The developers also could chime in with an explanation what niche the class is supposed to occupy (especially in comparison to the Cleric, Inquisitor and Paladin).

The other classes are either in a good place (Swashbuckler, Investigator, Bloodrager), need some minor to middle amount of work (Hunter, Slayer, Shaman) or a better identity (Arcanist, Hunter).

That doesn't mean that criticism is unwarranted or that people who voice that criticism should be shouted down by some people which often try to mock and deligitimize any criticism of the rules. However, voicing criticism should be done in a curteous and constructive manner and some of the people not happy with the playtest have expressed themselves in a manner which made it seem as if Paizo had done them some personal grievance. And that is not the way to get the developers ear.

Liberty's Edge

Ernest Mueller wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:

It's a cycle that repeats with every playtest.

Core playtest had its usual 'SKR killed Monks because a Shaolin guy stole his girlfriend' and 'Paizo hates my favorite class because it didn't get any buffs' (bonus points if Cleric, Wizard or Druid fanboys were involved)

APG had the very same 'cheap and uninspired' round of arguments (Oracle? SorCleric, lame. Inquisitor? DivBard, shame. Witch? We have Mystic Theurges, WTF is this class for? Also, shouldn't male Witches be called Warlocks? SUMMONER? YOU GOT YOUR POKEMON IN MY SERIOUS FANTASY!)

"Someone complains about anything" does not mean "therefore everything is good."

Are you really seriously saying that these classes look as interesting and iconic as the APG classes? Because that's a valid viewpoint, but it sounds to me that you're just putting up a bluster layer for whatever "protect Paizo" white knight reason you're doing it, without engaging in the real discussion. It's exactly like those being dismissive of criticisms of 4e because "I remember someone complained about 3e!"

Yes I think that some of these classes are as interesting and iconic as the APG classes. Yes some have yet to wow me. Some of the APG classes have yet to wow me still.

Liberty's Edge

Roberta Yang wrote:
This playtest would really be a lot more successful if people would just stop pointing out problems and offering suggestions.

They are. Over in the forums for each class. And several of them have already been added.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I fear I hold the unpopular opinion that most of these are amazing.

What exactly did people want instead of these? Sure they might not all be totally original but so what? What hasn't already been done in some form across some fantasy game? And really, what's wrong with having similarities to already published classes? Did you ever want a magic barbarian (Bloodrager) or non-Paladin divine melee (Warpriest)? Have you ever wanted to ditch the animal and magic of Ranger in favor of pure combat efficiency (Slayer)? Would you like to use your fists without the steadfast discipline of the Monk (Brawler)? What about the other way around and adding more animal-centric abilities to really make a non-Summoner pet class (Hunter)? Ever wanted to feel like a Wizard but not be restricted by all the rigidity (Arcanist)? Wanna play a Gunslinger but the DM won't allow firearms (Swasbuckler)? Dislike the massive support focus and versatility of the Bard and/or would prefer to be a bit better in combat (Skald)? Want to get in touch with the spirits or play an interesting new caster (Shaman)? If your answer to any of these questions has been yes, you're in luck!

Aside from Investigator (which seems to trump the Rogue at everything) these are all awesome additions. I just think the Investigator feels like the real Rogue class while Rogue now feels more like a Thief-type class with stealth and sneak attack.

These look like solid classes. Alternate classes sure, but solid. But so what if they seem like alternate classes? They can be a bit niche but at the same time, I want to play all of them and all of them provide a good option without relying on either the sub-par multiclassing or a half-success because you're trying to change the entire class with an archetype.

And that's okay. These classes seem to fill the alternate rolls that just couldn't be done with archetypes or done well with multiclassing. Personally, I CANNOT WAIT for this book to come out.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Part of what lets me know they've hit the mark, is that there is absolutely NO consensus on which classes are boring. Everyone says that at least half the classes are boring, flavorless, or superfluous. But when listing which classes fit that description, well, pretty much every class has been labeled "Stupid and pointless" by at least one person, and "Best class ever" by another. None of them are standing out as getting more or less flak than any of the others.

In any set of 10 classes, at least half are going to bore any given player. The fact that it's not the same half for everyone means that the list is about where it should be.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I actually think the bloodrager has seen mostly praise, and the warpriest and skald mostly criticism. There certainly haven't been any universal opinions, but the skald and warpriest lovers and bloodrager haters have been few and far between.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ernest Mueller wrote:


"Someone complains about anything" does not mean "therefore everything is good."

Are you really seriously saying that these classes look as interesting and iconic as the APG classes?

If someone says why they're uninteresting, and what they'd like to see done differently (bearing in mind all we really have to look at is the equivalent of the first chapter, and that all kinds of archetypes are likely to be put in or redesigned as a result of the playtest results), then it's valuable feedback. Maybe when the book is complete these classes will look as interesting and iconic as the APG classes, and maybe that will be because of feedback given at this time.

Just giving a "meh" doesn't explain whether the issue is with the class itself and can be fixed within the current product spec, or whether that class (or even the whole concept of this particular book) just isn't something that player could ever be interested in. If the latter, then it's better to focus on the people that are interested in it.

The book is happening. Those ten classes will be in it (along with a lot more material we haven't seen yet.) People that don't like that probably just need to accept this isn't the product for them, although I'm sure Paizo will read those comments and give them the appropriate weighting in the the future if this product doesn't sell as well as they hope.

However, they're (thankfully) not going to reverse major product design decisions based on the internet feedback of a small number of prospective customers. That sort of thing is more likely to happen as a result of actual sales figures - if the product flops, then they'll look into why and read back to these comments, but effectively cancelling a book and redoing it because a couple of dozen (or even hundred) people say they don't want to buy it is kinda silly - there's obviously enough interest shown by the relative numbers of forum posts for it to be a viable product, plus the majority of customers are nowhere near as vocal or picky as the typical forum-goer (and no, that doesn't mean it's fine to put out sub-standard products, it means some people just expect too much tailored to their personal preferences and get upset when they're not the target audience - something I'm more than guilty of myself.)

So, we know what isn't going to happen is a huge change in the product or the classes that'll be in it, only changes to the rules each is using. Right now poking at those rules is the only thing worth focusing on for the purposes of the playtest, to ensure they work for the majority of people that want to use them in their games.

Everything isn't automatically good - otherwise the playtest would serve no purpose.
Everything isn't terrible just because a few people think it is, either.
Some people just aren't going to like the design concepts for this book, that's a given for any product, it's just better to focus on those that do appear to want it in something resembling the current format.


One more thing about playtests.

I see a lot of "We told you this was broken ever since the initial Pathfinder playtests, and you didn't listen to us!" floating around the forums.

Pathfinder still sells well, and gets played a lot. To me, that doesn't say Paizo didn't listen to those people, it just tells me they decided to listen to other players instead. Whatever is behind their design decisions, it appears to be working for them.

I don't expect the ACG to be any different - there'll be a number of vocal people complaining a year from now that they don't like it, never liked it, said so at the playtest, and want to know why were they not listened to. Then there'll be everyone else that bought it and uses it in their games.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

So, if Paizo is interested in multi-class hybrids, have they considered the Multi-class Archetypes.

http://mcarchetype.wikispaces.com/New+Home+Page

It seems to me that this system would allow for pretty much all the multiclass combos offered in this playtest so far, and also be much easier to expand upon in the future. This would allow Paizo to add more hybrids in the future with less effort and also not obsolete the existing multi-class system. Plus, everyone loves archetypes. Seems like a win-win. You can even take the existing class hybrids and adapt them to multi-class archetypes with minimal work.


Shadows_Of_Fall wrote:

I fear I hold the unpopular opinion that most of these are amazing.

What exactly did people want instead of these? Sure they might not all be totally original but so what? What hasn't already been done in some form across some fantasy game? And really, what's wrong with having similarities to already published classes? Did you ever want a magic barbarian (Bloodrager) or non-Paladin divine melee (Warpriest)? Have you ever wanted to ditch the animal and magic of Ranger in favor of pure combat efficiency (Slayer)? Would you like to use your fists without the steadfast discipline of the Monk (Brawler)? What about the other way around and adding more animal-centric abilities to really make a non-Summoner pet class (Hunter)? Ever wanted to feel like a Wizard but not be restricted by all the rigidity (Arcanist)? Wanna play a Gunslinger but the DM won't allow firearms (Swasbuckler)? Dislike the massive support focus and versatility of the Bard and/or would prefer to be a bit better in combat (Skald)? Want to get in touch with the spirits or play an interesting new caster (Shaman)? If your answer to any of these questions has been yes, you're in luck!

Magic barbarian, You mean a witch doctor or shaman? I the words magic and barbarian don't ever go together in my mind. Maybe it is because I have with the barbarian class as whole and don't see need for it. Because Rage ability and barbarian don't go together in my book. Rage is a berserker trait, Which have always been a type of fighters. Barbs are simple and primitive weapon wielding savages and hunters scared of magic. Again it is just another type of fighter. But witch doctor could easily be alchemist archetype, and Shaman a druid or cleric archetype.

Non-Paladin divine melee (Warpriest)? you mean a cleric that worships deity of war, and has war domain. or Crusader(could easily just be a paladin archetype that gets rid of alignment restriction like the martials monk did for them. That is everyone problem with the Paladin in the Alignment restriction. If it was not there no one would even be asking for this type of class at all.) Some people mention making this class like a magus. That is a great idea , but that could easily be an archetype for a magus, that changes spell casting from arcane to divine. there no need for this one at all.

Have you ever wanted to ditch the animal and magic of Ranger in favor of pure combat efficiency (Slayer)? yes it is called a fighter

Would you like to use your fists without the steadfast discipline of the Monk (Brawler)? yes it called martial artist archetype or the fighter brawler archetype

What about the other way around and adding more animal-centric abilities to really make a non-Summoner pet class (Hunter)? yes but it should be called as other suggested called something else other than a hunter, best master sounds good, but then again easily archetype for ranger or druid. Rangers already fill the role of hunters/wilderness combatants.

Wanna play a Gunslinger but the DM won't allow firearms (Swasbuckler)? would love to but I have not gotten to this class yet to judge it. but while every one really wants a Swashbucklers I think the Theme of one just does not work in the game play style of pathfinder past level 8 or 9. Someone wrote a really good thread about this and how not a single d20 game system has been able to do them justice. It basically talked about how swashbucklers that we all enjoy only ever really fight other human and swashbucklers. So the action goes back and forth back and forth and use their environment as well as their sword for combat. That why they are so entertaining. That just not work if the game does not play like a movie. and no d20 game plays like a movie there all about doing damage and doing it fast or ending combat via magic ect. the swashbuckler theme just gets lost in this system and loses it flair.

Dislike the massive support focus and versatility of the Bard and/or would prefer to be a bit better in combat (Skald)? I still need look to at this one.

Want to get in touch with the spirits or play an interesting new caster (Shaman)? as I said this could easily be an archetype for a druid or cleric.

and the Arcanist may lack flavor but as I said in previous pot, the spell casting system for that class is the Gem, and should be used for all future casting class. You get the best of both worlds and it is really new and refreshing. I can say I don't care for the name of the class it just sounds funny, maybe go old school and Just call them Mages. They could make archetypes Black(arcane damaging spells only), Red(gets witch spell list or bard), White(gets cleric/ oracle spell list).(hope square soft don't sue lol)

Sovereign Court RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I agree with the concerns of the Warpriest. "Anything it can do the Inquisitor can beat the heck out of it and steal its lunch."

So, Warpriest fans, take the class attributes and suggest how to make it a d10/good BAB/not an alignment version of the Paladin class? Propose how you think it can work. I'll take a look tonight, since that is a niche that's missing (as far as I can tell, 3pp don't count (unfortunately)).

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Shadows_Of_Fall wrote:
I fear I hold the unpopular opinion that most of these are amazing.

I think a lot of the ideas have merit but the execution needs some work. Fortunately, this is a playtest!

Quote:
What exactly did people want instead of these?

I know you're being rhetorical, but there is an answer to your question: there are people who have desperately clamored for both a non-spellcasting shapeshifter and an artificer/engineer sort of class. Where they are in the majority or minority I've no idea, but I have a feeling at least some of the disappointment going around here is that these did not realize, when some other, perhaps odder or more obscure choices, did.

The sad thing is both of those they could probably pass off as a hybrid (fighter/druid and alchemist/summoner or alchemist/wizard). There may be other classes people hoped for as well, but I think those were what were really really hoped for and we didn't see.

Quote:
Sure they might not all be totally original but so what?

The "so what" is that if I can already build it in the existing system, AND feel that it is about as effective (if different) than the classes presented here, then why is it taking up space? NOT ALL ACG CLASSES I THINK DO THIS. But I think there's a sentiment amongst some that a few of the classes do. (Some of those sentiments I disagree with, others I agree.)

Quote:


What hasn't already been done in some form across some fantasy game?

Ultimately, the real question is what do you (generic) want officially supported by Paizo? I think the issue is some of these concepts are getting support when it wasn't wanted, and in lieu of some other concepts still unsupported by Paizo. Prior existence doesn't really matter--this is a Pathfinder board, and it's about what people want to see in Pathfinder.

Quote:
And really, what's wrong with having similarities to already published classes?

See above. Nothing's WRONG with it, but if we had something that we DON'T yet have mechanics for (like, say, nonspellcasting shapeshifter) that might light certain fires currently unlit.

Quote:
Did you ever want a magic barbarian (Bloodrager)

Honestly? Not really. And it may be different amongst different groups, but I've seldom seen the complaint. That said, the bloodrager seems to exist to serve two purposes:

- Be a single classed version of the barbarian/sorcerer/dragon disciple I've seen thrown around (which doesn't cast while raging but still benefits from the physical enhancements) plus allow other bloodline options. (Personally, even though it takes time to build, I'd rather play the dragon disciple, but that's entirely just me.)

- Allow a raging barbarian to cast spells. Interestingly, that restriction I always thought was for balance, so I am looking at the bloodrager playtest with interest to see how that works. This DOES fulfil Paizo's desire to build a class combo that doesn't work multiclass (as you can spam moment of clarity only so much).

But weirdly, I've seen few people say, "Gee I wish my barbarian could cast spells." Seems like most people who play barbarians aren't interested in spells. This observation should be taken with the usual anecdotal grain of salt (same goes for anything else I say here). Not seen clamoring for this, certainly not compared to say the swashbuckler.

Given the bloodrager, skald, and also the rage prophet PRC in the APG, I am guessing there is a Paizo writer who REALLY likes barbarians, and REALLY wants to be able to cast spells while still playing one.

Quote:
or non-Paladin divine melee (Warpriest)?

Yes, and that's why I'm glad we have clerics and inquisitors. It is hard to see what the warpriest accomplishes that we can't already build. And I need to test this out, but I think I could build a multiclass fighter/cleric that actually is a better fighter and divine caster than the warpriest, yes still with higher caster level and more spells. I could end up being proven wrong however. But if I'm right, then the developers' aim of building hybrids that do not work well as multiclass concepts is not achieved with this hybrid. This is one of the ones where they could have made space for something else that more people have asked for, like the artificer or shapeshifter.

(And just for the record, I personally don't care much about having an artificer or shapeshifter. I just know I've seen a lot of demand for them, which is why I mention them, and I think Paizo missed a massive opportunity by not including them.)

Quote:


Have you ever wanted to ditch the animal and magic of Ranger in favor of pure combat efficiency (Slayer)?

You can do that with a Ranger who takes Hunter's Bond and the Skirmisher Archetype. Multi with fighter or rogue as desired. This is actually I think one of the best multiclasses that works as is, so I didn't see it need to be "fixed."

That said, if it were flavored more as a single-class assassin, I think I could see it filling a more cobweb-filled niche.

Quote:
Would you like to use your fists without the steadfast discipline of the Monk (Brawler)?

Yes, and while I know many would disagree with me, brawler is one of the ones they got right. Monks are NOT superduper martial artists, they're mystics who are decent at punching things. The martial artist archetype wasn't good enough because it was hindered still by BAB. If you wanted to play a brawler, you were stuck with fighter or maybe brutal pugilist; the fighter archetypes for this weren't great, and all of the prior mentioned suffered from dealing with a 1d3 damage die, which was a pain in the butt, and if you wanted better, you then basically had to multi to monk, which wasn't an awful idea, but then brought in some armor issues and other things you had to account for. It was much harder to build a "guy good at punching stuff" build and took several levels to properly accomplish, so I think Brawler is indeed needed and fills its purpose very well. So I agree with you there.

Quote:


What about the other way around and adding more animal-centric abilities to really make a non-Summoner pet class (Hunter)?

Ranger and cavalier, with archetypes, already accomplished this fine. The Hunter really feels just like the Ranger wearing a different hat. (The ranger began its life as a fighter/druid combo.) I don't really get this one at all. This is the other one I'd really would prefer to have seen swapped for something there's been actual, oft-expressed desire and demand for, like the artificer or shapeshifter (it sort of has some shapeshiftery stuff but it's rather meh).

Quote:
Ever wanted to feel like a Wizard but not be restricted by all the rigidity (Arcanist)?

Well, the answer to your question would be "sorcerer," that's why it was introduced in 3.0.

BUT in fairness, I do think the arcanist's casting mechanic is clever and useful. I think however to shine, the arcanist more of an identity than "wizard and sorcerer put in a blender." It needs unique class abilities that are NOT school and bloodline based for starters. It does have a place here, I think, but it needs a lot of work.

Quote:
Wanna play a Gunslinger but the DM won't allow firearms (Swasbuckler)?

No, but I have wanted to play a finesse based swordsman, so the swashbuckler is fine.

Quote:
Dislike the massive support focus and versatility of the Bard and/or would prefer to be a bit better in combat (Skald)?

The bard has some of THE best archetypes in the game, IMO, and amongst them are several that accomplish what you ask without requiring a new class to come out of it, such as arcane duelist and savage skald.

Quote:
Want to get in touch with the spirits or play an interesting new caster (Shaman)?

The Shaman idea is great. But like the arcanist, it is much too much oracle and witch smashed together and needs its own mechanics. It's a class entirely built on copy and paste and copy paste is not what loyal customers should be paying for.

Quote:


Aside from Investigator (which seems to trump the Rogue at everything) these are all awesome additions. I just think the Investigator feels like the real Rogue class while Rogue now feels more like a Thief-type class with stealth and sneak attack.

I am not going to get into a rogue debate save to say it perhaps should be restricted from taking all rogue talents and lose sneak attack (doesn't fit the flavor), but I think the Investigator is a clever idea. It also suffers a bit from copy-paste syndrome but can probably be fixed more easily, especially as it does have some nice unique mechanics like inspiration.

Quote:
These look like solid classes. Alternate classes sure, but solid. But so what if they seem like alternate classes? They can be a bit niche but at the same time, I want to play all of them and all of them provide a good option without relying on either the sub-par multiclassing or a half-success because you're trying to change the entire class with an archetype.

Again, the so what is -- why are you spending paper and ink printing something you can already build?

I think they've done a good job with a lot of these but there's a few that really it seems like few Pathfinder players wanted or asked for and they exist in the place of things that these players did. Again, grain of salt for opinion and anecdotal experience.

I think there is a lot of potential here and we are not in disagreement on several things but I do think there was additional potential that was wasted or lost, which is unfortunate.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Kaisos Erranon wrote:

If 10 classes is too many for all-new mechanics, why do 10 classes to begin with?

To be frank, even with reusing older mechanics it doesn't feel like a great idea, a lot of these are conceptually... weak.
I'm not alone in thinking that most of these would have been better off as archetypes, so wouldn't it have been better to make a book about those instead?

Most of these are not DOABLE as archtypes. You can't give cleric features to a fighter as an archetype, or the other way around. It's more drastic change than what an archetype is supposed to address. These are essentially a new class of archetype if you must use that term, an archetype to address certain classic multi-class models, such as the fighter/cleric, sorceer/wizard, druid/ranger, fighter/assassin, etc.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Kaisos Erranon wrote:

If 10 classes is too many for all-new mechanics, why do 10 classes to begin with?

To be frank, even with reusing older mechanics it doesn't feel like a great idea, a lot of these are conceptually... weak.
I'm not alone in thinking that most of these would have been better off as archetypes, so wouldn't it have been better to make a book about those instead?
Most of these are not DOABLE as archtypes. You can't give cleric features to a fighter as an archetype, or the other way around. It's more drastic change than what an archetype is supposed to address. These are essentially a new class of archetype if you must use that term, an archetype to address certain classic multi-class models, such as the fighter/cleric, sorceer/wizard, druid/ranger, fighter/assassin, etc.

It'd be cool if they decided to create a multiclass archetype system that allows players to blend different classes with the right multiclass archetype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber
Caedwyr wrote:
It'd be cool if they decided to create a multiclass archetype system that allows players to blend different classes with the right multiclass archetype.

This, a million times. Instead of playing the Paizo-approved multiclass options, none of the ten being combinations that interest me, I'd really like to have a set of sorta-multiclass/sorta-gestalt rules that would allow me to make the combinations I want to play without being crippled by missing out on all the high-level abilities of both classes.

No, I've never wanted to play a bard-barian, but I'd sure like my rogue/cleric of Desna not to be as much of a liability as she is, since she doesn't have the divine spells the AP expects her to have at her level and just keeps falling further behind. Or play the ranger/witch I once played in a gestalt game without being both a crappy ranger and a crappy witch in relation to level-appropriate encounters.


Yeah, that's a mix you don't see often: rogue/cleric.
Maybe for the next playtest?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Caedwyr wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Kaisos Erranon wrote:

If 10 classes is too many for all-new mechanics, why do 10 classes to begin with?

To be frank, even with reusing older mechanics it doesn't feel like a great idea, a lot of these are conceptually... weak.
I'm not alone in thinking that most of these would have been better off as archetypes, so wouldn't it have been better to make a book about those instead?
Most of these are not DOABLE as archtypes. You can't give cleric features to a fighter as an archetype, or the other way around. It's more drastic change than what an archetype is supposed to address. These are essentially a new class of archetype if you must use that term, an archetype to address certain classic multi-class models, such as the fighter/cleric, sorceer/wizard, druid/ranger, fighter/assassin, etc.
It'd be cool if they decided to create a multiclass archetype system that allows players to blend different classes with the right multiclass archetype.

You don't have to wait for Paizo to do something it's probably not going to do. There are folks in the community who have already done considerable work on this. Take advantage of their work.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
KainPen wrote:
the words magic and barbarian don't ever go together in my mind. Maybe it is because I have with the barbarian class as whole and don't see need for it. Because Rage ability and barbarian don't go together in my book. Rage is a berserker trait, Which have always been a type of fighters. Barbs are simple and primitive weapon wielding savages and hunters scared of magic. Again it is just another type of fighter.

Whereas on the other hand I saw the Bloodrager and noted that it was perfect for a character I have in ways that Barbarian worked before but didn't quite fit precisely.

Just because you can't imagine a concept working because your brain has blockaded two things from ever cooperating together doesn't mean anyone else can't.


Kryzbyn wrote:

Yeah, that's a mix you don't see often: rogue/cleric.

Maybe for the next playtest?

I thought the inquisitor can cover this pretty well. No SA, but gets a bunch of skills to make up for it.

151 to 200 of 275 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / General Discussion / The Point of Hybrids All Messageboards