| 14 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".
The above sort of comment is not helpful. But I'm still looking forward to seeing your playtest feedback.
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".
I guess I missed the design team meeting where we decided those were restrictions for this book. Or we didn't actually decide on either of those things, and you're just engaging in destructive hyperbole. Remember the most important rule of the message boards; it's right there under the "submit post" button.
The vibe is completely different in this playtest. Those who are unhappy aren't simply complaining, we are offering alternative ideas and constructive criticism.
Yet none of that is actual playtest feedback. Sit down, play a class, and report back how that goes.
This playtest would really be a lot more successful if people would just stop pointing out problems and offering suggestions.
Actually, the playtest would really be a lot more successful if people would just playtest the new classes and provide feedback based on that play experience.
|
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".The above sort of comment is not helpful. But I'm still looking forward to seeing your playtest feedback.
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".I guess I missed the design team meeting where we decided those were restrictions for this book. Or you're engaging in destructive hyperbole. Remember the most important rule of the message boards; it's right there under the "submit post" button.
The vibe is completely different in this playtest. Those who are unhappy aren't simply complaining, we are offering alternative ideas and constructive criticism.Yet none of that is actual playtest feedback. Sit down, play a class, and report back how that goes.
This playtest would really be a lot more successful if people would just stop pointing out problems and offering suggestions.Actually, the playtest would really be a lot more successful if people would just playtest the new classes and provide feedback based on that play experience.
Sean, some of these classes have issues in their very concept. We can, and will, playtest how some of the mechanics work with each other but my issues with most of the classes is less in class features and more the direction of the class. Specifically Arcanist, Investigator, Skald and Warpriest. I promise to run a playtest tomorriw night, recommend a PFS scenario for me to grab =)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sean, some of these classes have issues in their very concept. We can, and will, playtest how some of the mechanics work...
We asked people to playtest. That's why it's a public playtest, and not a public development pass.
So far, most of the posts have been not based on actual playtesting. It's like reviewing a movie based on its poster: you haven't seen it in action, yet you're judging it.
Michael Keaton as Batman. Heath Ledger as the Joker. Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. Wildly ridiculed and dismissed when they were announced. Applauded when actually seen in action. (I'm not saying people will applaud when they play these classes, but you're not even giving them a chance.)
More effort on playtesting how it actually plays when you play it, less effort on deconstructing motivations for doing the book and dissecting the flaws of the class concepts.
Play. Test. Playtest.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
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".
I disagree. I have been through a number of playtests (I think this is my fifth one as a designer at here at Paizo) and this vibe is very similar to the all other ones I've been a part of, and I think it is wonderful.
People who are unhappy are offering alternative ideas and criticism and we take those very seriously, whether we are responding to them on the messageboards or talking about that in design meetings here at the office.
This has happened with every single playtest we have done. We take these criticisms seriously...very seriously. They are weighed, measured, inform our design process, and we move forward the better for it.
As for debating your opinions...we do. We do occasionally on the messageboards, but our main concern is reading, absorbing, and having internal design discussions about the topics that are brought up. We can't respond or spend time to debate every point online.
Also, allow me to be frank: while theorycraft is useful and considered, actual playtest feedback has more weight in our decisions. After all, people are going to end up playing these classes, and playing them a lot, so we want to make sure that the folks who really like the concepts each class provides are happy with the end result.
That said, we are not afraid to go back to the drawing board, but remember just because something does not sing as a concept to you, it does not mean that is true for everyone. All and all we are getting excellent feedback for all the classes. We are compiling lists of things that seem to work well, and things that need fixing, expansion, or more advance redesign.
So, yeah, it's the same vibe, and I'm sure it will happen again, because it is incredibly useful. And I thank you and every other person taking the time to do this with us. We have the best and most passionate fans in the world, and I wouldn't change that vibe for all the gold in Absalom.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sean, some of these classes have issues in their very concept. We can, and will, playtest how some of the mechanics work with each other but my issues with most of the classes is less in class features and more the direction of the class. Specifically Arcanist, Investigator, Skald and Warpriest. I promise to run a playtest tomorriw night, recommend a PFS scenario for me to grab =)
Not Sean (I'm much more handsome, and have hair) but I recommend Nightmarch of Kalkamedes (nice mix of skills and combat) First Steps pt 1 (Ditto) and The Devil We Know pt 1 (swarms, spells, and traps).
A season 4, a 'training wheels' season 3 and a season 1
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We asked people to playtest. That's why it's a public playtest, and not a public development pass.
So far, most of the posts have been not based on actual playtesting. It's like reviewing a movie based on its poster: you haven't seen it in action, yet you're judging it.
Michael Keaton as Batman. Heath Ledger as the Joker. Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. Wildly ridiculed and dismissed when they were announced. Applauded when actually seen in action. (I'm not saying people will applaud when they play these classes, but you're not even giving them a chance.)
More effort on playtesting how it actually plays when you play it, less effort on deconstructing motivations for doing the book and dissecting the flaws of the class concepts.
Play. Test. Playtest.
Sean, I think it is really unfair to basically declare that concerns about the overall role of a class are not even wanted. I'm pretty much unable to playtest those classes, because in both groups I play in we have running campaigns and I don't see many players wanting to sub out their character suddenly.
That being said, nine of the ten classes seem conceptually sound, only the Warpriest is completely baffling me as to which role it is supposed to play, which is not already filled better by the three other divine melee classes. The Cleric is a better caster, the Paladin is a better fighter and the most comparable class, the Inquisitor, just is straight out better at everything you'd expect the Warpriest to do.
So, the conceptual question comes up: What's the point of a new class which is worse than the three classes in whose spot it tries to find its place? What is its role, compared to those three classes? Until this concept is really established, it is difficult to give effective feedback, outside of raw data if the class was able to hit things enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Isn't that something that should be checked with statistical models and not with annecdotal tests? Otherwise, you become more susceptible to streaky results.
So, the conceptual question comes up: What's the point of a new class which is worse than the three classes in whose spot it tries to find its place? What is its role, compared to those three classes? Until this concept is really established, it is difficult to give effective feedback, outside of raw data if the class was able to hit things enough.
Well, yes. Which is why I always feel a bit sad that playtest results come before methodical analysis. But this is about the least part of my concern for the Warpriest, so I would like to not focus on that part of my last post.
|
Play. Test. Playtest.
If these were brand new classes, I would totally agree with you that playtesting is the only way to find out if they're viable and fun.
However, the nature of these hybrid classes with their "cut and pasted" features from core classes, puts us in a much better position to judge them based simply on their first drafts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to playtest as much as I can, but please consider our initial feedback, too.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There is a side issue here concerning multiclassing and prestige classes that I think I will address in a new thread this afternoon to prevent this one from being derailed.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
I'm looking forward to that thread, I really enjoy the toolkit approach to reaching a concept and a lot of my fun would be negated if multiclassing and prestige classes were made flat out inferior to hybrids for reaching the concepts in my imagination.
Play. Test. Playtest.
If these were brand new classes, I would totally agree with you that playtesting is the only way to find out if they're viable and fun.
However, the nature of these hybrid classes with their "cut and pasted" features from core classes, puts us in a much better position to judge them based simply on their first drafts.
Don't get me wrong, I'm still going to playtest as much as I can, but please consider our initial feedback, too.
While I don't really care with the way the hybrid concept has been executed saying that it doesn't need to be playtested since it uses existing features isn't entirely accurate.
Have these combination of powers ever been put together? This class gets sneak attack and other abilities, is it able to get sneak attack more often as a result? Less often?
Swashbuckler implies high DEX low STR, but is a melee class and it doesn't give weapon finesse until level 2 meaning that going from level 1 > 2 increases your accuracy by approximately 25-30% - does this make swashbuckler a liability at level 1? Too good at level 2?
I don't like the execution of the hybrid classes, none of them feel like their own distinct class to me, they just feel like a random mash up of class features from existing classes. As a result I'm not going to allow these classes at the table when I DM (at least during the playtest and unless there are drastic changes between now and release probably not even then).
But mechanically speaking a playtest is still very important, it may not be important to people who aren't interested in what the book provides, but it is important for those who are.
EDIT: I realize that you didn't say playtesting was unimportant, I'm just pointing out that it's what they're interested in now - not whether people are interested in the classes or not.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really like to see Sean or Jason or Mark address what the concept of the Warpriest is. And especially what the concept of the Warpriest is, when compared to the Inquisitor. Why do we need two classes which seem to fill the same niche? "Selfish divine martial" is simply done better by the Inquisitor and it has great skills and way more skill points to boot. The nerfed Channel Energy of the Warpriest doesn't really compare.
I'd really like to see Sean or Jason or Mark address what the concept of the Warpriest is. And especially what the concept of the Warpriest is, when compared to the Inquisitor. Why do we need two classes which seem to fill the same niche? "Selfish divine martial" is simply done better by the Inquisitor and it has great skills and way more skill points to boot. The nerfed Channel Energy of the Warpriest doesn't really compare.
It looks to me like it's supposed to be one of two things:
A. Divine Magus without the action economy fix.
B. If the Paladin is a fighter/cleric leaning towards fighter, this is a fighter/cleric leaning more towards cleric.
Swashbuckler implies high DEX low STR, but is a melee class and it doesn't give weapon finesse until level 2 meaning that going from level 1 > 2 increases your accuracy by approximately 25-30% - does this make swashbuckler a liability at level 1? Too good at level 2?
Either way it's bad design, and getting a sudden huge boost like that means that at least one of the two won't be at a good power level. Plus, that's not a new thing, Rogues already do that, so they couldn't even screw up in an original way.
|
|
So, I apologize it this has been said, but it is a 200 post thread and I just got here :)
Here is my impression:
These classes are for the person that says "I wanted to play a wizard/cleric so I took alternate levels of wizard and cleric, and now at level 10, I can cast all the spells of a 5th level wizard and a 5th level cleric, only I still only get one action around to do it, and none of my spells are high enough level to do any good. Guess I'll just go build something else."
So to sell the book, the classes don't need to be more powerful than a 10th level wizard or a 10th level cleric, they just need to be more powerful than a 5/5 Cleric Wizard.
That is a pretty narrow power gap, but I think they will have hit it if over then next year or so most of what I hear is "I don't think X is that powerful, but the flavor is great so I really want to play one."
I also feel that they don't need to have new mechanics, what they need to have is the mechanics from each class that make people want to cross class, minus the features whose flavor turns players off.
So, the Investigator, is the int focused alchemist who loses bombs, and gains sneak attack that people have been asking for for years in PFS and constantly results in people begging to bring back the vivsectionist.
The Arcanist is a sourcerer with some of the flexibility of a wizard, or a wizard with some of the flexibility of a sourcerer (depending how you look at it.) But without that annoying familiar / arcane bond weakness that I periodically hear people complain about.
Swashbuckler is the daring, dazzling gunslinger, but with out those annoying guns that a lot of players feel are broken or athematic or just too darn much paperwork.
And so on, and so on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A. Divine Magus without the action economy fix.
Sooo... the Inquisitor?
B. If the Paladin is a fighter/cleric leaning towards fighter, this is a fighter/cleric leaning more towards cleric.
Ah, so it's supposed to be... the Inquisitor?
And before someone comes in and tells me that I am being too negative: I want to love the Warpriest. Outside of the Swashbuckler, it was the class I was most looking forward to. But the current version badly duplicates a class which already exists and I feel that it needs its own identity and design concept, which distinguishes it from the other divine 3/4 BAB, 6 levels of spellcasting martial class. Which has vastly superior class features to this new class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbuckler implies high DEX low STR, but is a melee class and it doesn't give weapon finesse until level 2 meaning that going from level 1 > 2 increases your accuracy by approximately 25-30% - does this make swashbuckler a liability at level 1? Too good at level 2?Either way it's bad design, and getting a sudden huge boost like that means that at least one of the two won't be at a good power level. Plus, that's not a new thing, Rogues already do that, so they couldn't even screw up in an original way.
I don't think you're wrong, but I also don't agree entirely - Rogue has it worse off, but this (in my opinion) is worse off from a design standpoint.
Rogues get the option of taking weapon finesse, either as a talent or as a feat at level 3. The option - yes a very important option for low STR, high DEX rogues, but still an option. Still some flexibility.
This class specifically says, "We know you need this. We know it so much it is a class feature that you will get, not an option. It is going to happen", and then proceeds to make you wait for it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sean, I think it is really unfair to basically declare that concerns about the overall role of a class are not even wanted.
None of us have said that. We have said that actual feedback from playing the class is more valuable than speculation.
I'm pretty much unable to playtest those classes, because in both groups I play in we have running campaigns and I don't see many players wanting to sub out their character suddenly.
Honestly, then you've relegated yourself to armchair quarterback. And while armchair quarterbacks can provide feedback that is useful, I really want to hear from actual playtesters--and I don't want the voices of actual playtesters to be drowned out by a sea of armchair quarterbacks who can't take the time to put together a playtest.
People complained that PFS players got an email notification about the playtest before anyone else, but we know PFS players will actually sit down and play the game and will do playtests.
If we post material for a playtest feedback, and you don't provide any actual playtest feedback, don't be disappointed in us when we prioritize actual playtest feedback above opinions based on reading. You've been asked to participate and provide a certain kind of feedback. Whether or not you comply with the specifics of that request is up to you.
To put it another way: do you, as a player and customer, think it's more important for me, designer and developer, to playtest this material, or just write it and think about it?
Lead Designer
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there folks,
Couple of points on this sunny Thursday here in Seattle,
1. I want to echo my fellow designers (and some posters) and say that the playtest is currently proceeding in almost exactly the same fashion as the previous ones. We always see a number of detractors that question our decision making process and design choices. We are quite used to that. We are also seeing a lot of great feedback and some actual playtest feedback in the other forums. We are pouring through this data with all haste and are getting a lot of useful information. For those uninterested in that process, you are missing out. I know some of you feel their is no point, due to perceived deficiencies, but this is how the process has always worked. A number of our earlier class designs faced similar criticisms, but we went through the process and came out with the iconic additions to the game that are now being used as a counterpoint to judge our current endeavors. That does not mean that we dont think you are entitled to your opinions, just that it is not very constructive to the process other than to note your displeasure.
2. I see that some folks see these concepts as something that can be accomplished with existing rules and to some extent that is true. These classes are really an experimental version of an expanded archetype, so they are going to step on some toes. We think that they are worth that cost, if the end result is what we think it will be. There are certainly some classes that have problems in both concept and mechanics, and we are working hard to fix those based on playtest feedback. For those of you helping to make them better, giving feedback, suggesting ideas, you have the design team's thanks.
3. I want to thank the folks in this thread in general. The tone has gotten a lot more constructive in the past day. I glad to see calmer heads prevail.
That all for now, I gotta get back to reading threads.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
This class specifically says, "We know you need this. We know it so much it is a class feature that you will get, not an option. It is going to happen", and then proceeds to make you wait for it.
Well, the question here is: Why does it make you wait for it? It's not as if the Swashbuckler isn't a class which explicitly is made for mixing it up in melee. The Rogue has the excuse of being a skill monkey and trapfinder.
I'd really like to see Sean or Jason or Mark.
My name is not Mark. Just say'n.
A. Divine Magus without the action economy fix.Sooo... the Inquisitor?
B. If the Paladin is a fighter/cleric leaning towards fighter, this is a fighter/cleric leaning more towards cleric.Ah, so it's supposed to be... the Inquisitor?
Different spell lists, channel, bonus feats that aren't teamwork feats, the whole sacred weapon/armor things.
Yes the two characters may wind up fulfilling similar roles, but it looks to me like they do so in very different ways.
Sean, I think it is really unfair to basically declare that concerns about the overall role of a class are not even wanted.None of us have said that. We have said that actual feedback from playing the class is more valuable than speculation.
Alright, I can see that.
I'm pretty much unable to playtest those classes, because in both groups I play in we have running campaigns and I don't see many players wanting to sub out their character suddenly.Honestly, then you've relegated yourself to armchair quarterback. And while armchair quarterbacks can provide feedback that is useful, I really want to hear from actual playtesters--and I don't want the voices of actual playtesters to be drowned out by a sea of armchair quarterbacks who can't take the time to put together a playtest.
People complained that PFS players got an email notification about the playtest before anyone else, but we know PFS players will actually sit down and play the game and will do playtests.
If we post material for a playtest feedback, and you don't provide any actual playtest feedback, don't be disappointed in us when we prioritize actual playtest feedback above opinions based on reading. You've been asked to participate and provide a certain kind of feedback. Whether or not you comply with the specifics of that request is up to you.
Fair points all.
To put it another way: do you, as a player and customer, think it's more important for me, designer and developer, to playtest this material, or just write it and think about it?
Um, both? Of course actual playtest data is extremely useful, but I think we, as paying customers and people who are supposed to be playing those classes when they are released and integrate them into our campaigns, should also be allowed to give a measure of conceptual feedback. Which is then taken into account by the developers and maybe responded to, if it merits discussion.
My only big grievance so far is that the Warpriest seems to want to fill a role where you already have plugged in a mechanically better class and so runs the danger of being wholly superfluous. That is nothing which can be easily playtested, it has to be discussed on the level of "what is the point of this class?". Which is why I'd really love to hear from you, Jason or Mark Stephen what your concept of the Warpriest is and especially how it relates to the Inquisitor.
I'd really like to see Sean or Jason or Mark.My name is not Mark. Just say'n.
Dammit, I mixed you up with Mark Moreland. Sorry about that!
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Sean, some of these classes have issues in their very concept. We can, and will, playtest how some of the mechanics work...We asked people to playtest. That's why it's a public playtest, and not a public development pass.
So far, most of the posts have been not based on actual playtesting. It's like reviewing a movie based on its poster: you haven't seen it in action, yet you're judging it.
Michael Keaton as Batman. Heath Ledger as the Joker. Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. Wildly ridiculed and dismissed when they were announced. Applauded when actually seen in action. (I'm not saying people will applaud when they play these classes, but you're not even giving them a chance.)
More effort on playtesting how it actually plays when you play it, less effort on deconstructing motivations for doing the book and dissecting the flaws of the class concepts.
Play. Test. Playtest.
Sean, while I agree that actual playtest experiences are valuable, I don't think your analogy is apt, and think there's important information that can be used from reaction upon reading the playtest document.
A better analogy is reviewing a movie based on reading the script before it's filmed. It certainly doesn't show what the finished product is going to be, but it gives enough information to decide if you want to pursue making or watching the movie.
As for the feedback from reading the playtest document, without playing the classes, I hope you're not discounting all of that feedback. A class in an RPG exists both in play and out of play. Players and GMs read the class, have discussions in person and online about the builds, pros, cons, strategies, etc. for the class, and often only decide if they want to use the class afterwards. If a class doesn't make it through that process positively enough for people to want to play it, then that's a problem.
I'm certainly not suggesting that every class needs to appeal to every player, but if a class has a significant amount of players who aren't interested in playing it either due to mechanics, flavor, or both, that's a problem. For classes like this, sure, people can playtest them, but if the class conceptually doesn't work for them (or what they were looking for in that type of hybrid class), then the playtest feedback will be "I played an arcanist, but it was flavorless and boring to play compared to a wizard or sorcerer, since there was no strong tie to something like a school or magic or bloodline to give either a role playing hook on their background or a mechanically interesting play experience." This is only an example, but one I'm pretty sure would be accurate if I were to playtest an arcansit character.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd really like to see Sean or Jason or Mark address what the concept of the Warpriest is.
It's pretty well spelled out already; both in the foreward of the playtest document (cleric and fighter) as well as in the descriptive text of the class itself- it fills a similar conceptual role to the paladin (martial divine) but without all the alignment/moral restrictions.
Now whether you agree that the class fills those purposes or not is a different matter, but the concept is clear enough. It pretty much fills the same role as the Arcanist, as I see it. Offering more flexibility than one of the existing classes it overlaps, while still offering some of the abilities of another of the classes it overlaps.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say I'm in the group that isn't happy with hybrid classes on a conceptual level. Most of the classes presented do nothing that a multiclass character couldn't already do (albeit usually slightly better). Several of them are closer to one or the other of their base classes than many existing archetypes; to me, anything that isn't at least as distinct from the base class as a Stonelord is from a Paladin has no business being anything more than an archetype.
The hybrid class concept (as being used in this book, as opposed to the uniqueness of the Magus as we were told to expect) could be decent if it was being presented as a better-balanced gestalt system that players could use to hybridize any two classes and still play with regular classed characters. That's a book that I'd be eager to buy. And it's a system that I'd be happy to see developed into a replacement for the current d20 multiclassing if there's ever a Revised Pathfinder. But as presented, the book just feels like it's being created because Paizo needs a hardback rulebook for the year, not because it's adding anything particularly interesting to the ruleset. I'd be happy if Paizo could accept that maybe the rules don't need a large expansion every year. I'd sooner spend money on setting than crunch at this point anyhow - although I'd prefer some books with substance to the pamphlets that currently make up the setting lines.
This entire book feels as though it's Paizo's solution to killing multiclassing and prestige classes. And while I'm willing to believe that their may be legitimate design reasons to want to take that flexibility away from the players (even if I can't personally understand those reasons), I suspect that there's also a financial incentive to narrowing the way that classes work. Want to play a sneak attacking cleric? Just buy the ACG 2 next year. And if this book does well, I expect it to be the model for any potential Pathfinder Revised Edition down the line - ten to twelve specific classes per book, with no multiclassing or prestige classes to be seen, and a new book of classes released annually.
If they're really trying to give us ten new classes that do something new, then they need to do something new. Swashbucklers shouldn't have Bravery; they should have Dramatic Flair that gives attack or skill check bonuses when the Swashbuckler jumps off a balcony, kicks someone off the ship, or uses a fireplace poker to parry an attack.
But it's not as though widespread dislike for what's presented in the playtest is going to matter; with a playtest period of only a month (or so), there's not going to be time to change much beyond grammar problems and a few corner cases.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Sean, while I agree that actual playtest experiences are valuable, I don't think your analogy is apt, and think there's important information that can be used from reaction upon reading the playtest document.
Yet you're still spending even more effort not playtesting. You're not doing what we asked you to do. We invited you to playtest these classes, and you're not playtesting them.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say I'm in the group that isn't happy with hybrid classes on a conceptual level. Most of the classes presented do nothing that a multiclass character couldn't already do (albeit usually slightly better). Several of them are closer to one or the other of their base classes than many existing archetypes; to me, anything that isn't at least as distinct from the base class as a Stonelord is from a Paladin has no business being anything more than an archetype.
The hybrid class concept (as being used in this book, as opposed to the uniqueness of the Magus as we were told to expect) could be decent if it was being presented as a better-balanced gestalt system that players could use to hybridize any two classes and still play with regular classed characters. That's a book that I'd be eager to buy. And it's a system that I'd be happy to see developed into a replacement for the current d20 multiclassing if there's ever a Revised Pathfinder. But as presented, the book just feels like it's being created because Paizo needs a hardback rulebook for the year, not because it's adding anything particularly interesting to the ruleset. I'd be happy if Paizo could accept that maybe the rules don't need a large expansion every year. I'd sooner spend money on setting than crunch at this point anyhow - although I'd prefer some books with substance to the pamphlets that currently make up the setting lines.
This entire book feels as though it's Paizo's solution to killing multiclassing and prestige classes. And while I'm willing to believe that their may be legitimate design reasons to want to take that flexibility away from the players (even if I can't personally understand those reasons), I suspect that there's also a financial incentive to narrowing the way that classes work. Want to play a sneak attacking cleric? Just buy the ACG 2 next year. And if this book does well, I expect it to be the model for any potential Pathfinder Revised Edition down the line - ten to twelve specific classes per book,...
Geez. Cynical much (especially that comment concerning the possibility of a ACG 2)? The book is not an attempt to cram a new rulebook in. It's an attempt to give players of Pathfinder a new avenue of creativity in the new classes, archetypes that will most certainly be in the book, and the new play options.
As the developers have stated, this is not a way to kill multiclassing. This allows for players to benefit from some often desired multiclass options without feeling like being left behind. It expands the current playable options beyond just taking an archetype, as it adds new features blended from the married classes used to make the hybrid. The goal wasn't really to make a gestalt class, either. As well as this, these hybrid classes allow for expanded character options and flavorful characters. I'm going into a Nordic campaign, and I was going to play the Savage Skald bard archetype, but the Skald class gives more of the flavor I wanted with this upcoming character than the Savage Skald archetype or even the bard class.
Lastly, if you feel like the classes don't appeal to your tastes, simply do not play them or use them in your campaigns. If you're not going to playtest these classes and give feedback that the developers can actually use (rather than making tart assumptions about Paizo's business model and practices), then why are you even posting here. Surely, you have something better to do with your time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People please!
This isn't a topic to talk about the classes and tell the devs what's wrong with them. A dozen exclusive topics have already been made for that. This topic is about discussing the idea of class hybrids, how were they conceptualized and why were they created.
I do have a question for Mr. Bulmahn: why will there be 10 class hybrids in the upcoming book? Here's what I'm looking for:
* What niche(s) are you trying to fill?
* What demand(s) are you trying to address?
* What is the point of adding more hybrids instead of totally new classes?
* What will be the impact on archetypes and prestige classes?
For instance, the magus was created to address the need for a gish character, or for a fighter/mage character if you prefer.
THAT is worth asking. I always thought that classes were created to serve a purpose, so in short, what are the new classes' purposes? Aside from being easier to create using existing class features, what are they supposed to be used for?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One thing I'd like to disagree with is the asertion. Y some posters that mticlassing is easy. It isn't in fact its really easy to screw up your character. Two of the people I play with could not successfully multiclass without a lot of hand holding.
The hybird prexisting class for them would avoid a lot of the pitfalls encountetered in multiclassing.
|
|
when multiclassing, assuming you are looking at a true multiclass as opposed to a 1-3 level dip, at 10th level, often you are playing a lvl 5/5 character with lvl 10 hps/BAB/Save/Skills, but lvl 5 powers.
The Hybrid class, at 10th level, you are playing a character with lvl 10 hps/BAB/Save/Skills, but lvl 8 powers (but minus some of the powers).
when multiclassing, assuming you are looking at a true multiclass as opposed to a 1-3 level dip, at 10th level, often you are playing a lvl 5/5 character with lvl 10 hps/BAB/Save/Skills, but lvl 5 powers.
The Hybrid class, at 10th level, you are playing a character with lvl 10 hps/BAB/Save/Skills, but lvl 8 powers (but minus some of the powers).
My point exactly
Couple of points on this sunny Thursday here in Seattle,
... Important and valid points ...
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
LIES, ALL LIES!! Believe nothing this man says because he claims Seattle can have sunny days.
Then again, since I have done no LivingInSeattle-testing, I may be the one without a valid opinion on the matter. My opinion is mostly speculative and based on what TV, movies and the Interwebs have taught me about Seattle.
Tangential Comment: I think Paizo should be the first to include a special symbol we can type into our forum posts to imply sarcasm is being used.
Otherwise, I keep looking forward to play-testing these new classes as best I can.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
LIES, ALL LIES!! Believe nothing this man says because he claims Seattle can have sunny days.
Sunny? Yes. Warm? Not particularly. Makes me feel sorry for our warehouse team on days like today.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Sean, some of these classes have issues in their very concept. We can, and will, playtest how some of the mechanics work...We asked people to playtest. That's why it's a public playtest, and not a public development pass.
So far, most of the posts have been not based on actual playtesting. It's like reviewing a movie based on its poster: you haven't seen it in action, yet you're judging it.
Michael Keaton as Batman. Heath Ledger as the Joker. Robert Downey Jr. as Iron Man. Wildly ridiculed and dismissed when they were announced. Applauded when actually seen in action. (I'm not saying people will applaud when they play these classes, but you're not even giving them a chance.)
More effort on playtesting how it actually plays when you play it, less effort on deconstructing motivations for doing the book and dissecting the flaws of the class concepts.
Play. Test. Playtest.
Speaking as someone who actually does design work and intends to you realize that saying something looks boring is actually valid feedback. Admittedly, its not something I would be happy encountering but still listening might be a good idea.