Gonna have to pick on you here a bit. No hard feelings.
Hunter...Your animal companion now does some nifty things.
Name one thing. ONE nifty thing the Hunter gives an AC that wasn't already achievable by another class. Because the Hunter has exactly three real class features, and one is the AC itself, another is a bunch of crappy Bonus Feats, and the third is a bunch of short duration semi-useful buffs.
Warpriest: Divine version of magus?
Where? Did they reveal an 11th class also named Warpriest?
Yes plz, I'll take that.
So would I, if you'd direct me to it.
Better buffs and all the goodies of a cleric.
Last I checked he had the same buffs as the Cleric, since he uses the same spell list. But is missing 3 spell levels. Did they change something?
|
I see a lot of post calling them un-flavorful among other things.
I have to say, I completely and 100% disagree with all of you.
I have my own disagreements with some paizo content like how necromancers are nerfed when it comes to raise dead so this isn't just fan boy praise.Arcanist: Honestly this is always what I've imagined casters being like.
I don't see it as a hybrid vs what a wizard should have been from the start.Bloodrager: Great fluff potential and awesome abilities. I love how it works.
Brawler: Finally! A good unarmed class that doesn't require you to be lawful. TY PAIZO.
Hunter: Reminds me more of the WoW hunter. Your animal companion now does some nifty things.
Investigator: Thank you for this... I really didn't want to multi-class just so I could make poisons worthwhile with concentrate poison. Great fluff as well.
Shaman: Exactly what a shaman should be like. I never liked the dr00d shaman archetypes. This is a definite better fit.
Skald: My absolute favorite of the lot. I can now have my heavy metal bard who starts mosh pits! Going to have so much fun with this guy.
Slayer: What every ranged rogue dreams of being.
Swashbuckler: My least favorite of the lot but has potential for lots of flavor. Reminds me of Cary Elwes (the man in black) from the Princess Bride.
Warpriest: Divine version of magus? Yes plz, I'll take that. Better buffs and all the goodies of a cleric.
Now, I don't see why so many people are so negative about it all.
Are you all a bunch of optimized min/maxers where a class has to be 5/5 to get your seal of approval?
Were you expecting all tier 1 classes?
I like it and you should be happy more classes were added. Its only been out a day, give it time and you may come to love them.
I have to agree with Rynjin.
Arcanist: Sure, you get the studious aspect of the wizard combined with the spontaneity of a sorcerer, but these things DO NOT BLEND WELL. How many times do people have to post about the inefficiency of combining class features that do not compliment each other well before people stop trying to force things together (see: Bardbarian a.k.a. Skald below).
Bloodrager: A raging barbarian who can cast a spell or two while enraged. That's great and all, but there's a reason why support casters exist. Barbarians are for smashing things, clerics and the like are for buffs and support (among other things). What is so special about a pissed off guy that can sometimes be a passable caster? People need to stop trying to do everything and focus on what their class is good at.
Brawler: Four words: Martial Artist monk archetype. But I honestly won't argue your point beyond that, because despite the negativity surrounding these classes I see this as one that holds up next to the other classes. I still believe I could put out much better damage with a straight fighter or a straight monk, but that's just me.
Hunter: Useless. Utterly useless. There is nothing else I can say about this class other than it is useless. If you want to play WoW, go play WoW. There is nothing redeeming about this class. I will back Rynjin's play on this. Name ONE thing.
Investigator: I feel as if it's just me that feels this way, but this is a pure fluff class. You want poison use? Be a ninja. I don't play rogues, but isn't there a rogue talent for this? Or a feat? This seems superfluous, and I almost feel like this class was made specifically because of the popularity of Sherlock Holmes in the past couple of years (two US shows, a BBC miniseries, a successful and less successful film, etc.).
Shaman: The way I've always felt about divine and arcane is that you don't mix. It's like oil and water. If you want to play a divine caster, play a divine caster. If you want to play an arcane caster, play an arcane caster. Don't try and blend them because it's unnecessary. This is basically an oracle with hexes and a familiar. That is the extent of the crossover. Just play an oracle. If you like the fluff, by all means have at it, but this is wrought with inefficiency. And also another step toward WoW.
Skald: As funny as the idea of a Bardbarian is, it is an utterly useless idea. I'M GOING TO PLAY A SONG THAT WILL MAKE YOU RAGE but you have the option of not raging if you aren't really in the mood or would be unaffected or suffer ill effects by accepting the rage. If you played this character in a party of strictly martial classes it might be worthwhile, but its very circumstantial. I'll reiterate: SOME CLASSES ARE NOT MEANT TO BE COMBINED. These two are the best example. It is a purely fluff class and is incredibly inefficient for combat purposes. Have fun role playing though! That is what this game is about after all.
Slayer: What every melee rogue could kill in a heartbeat. What every ranged rogue thinks he/she wants to be, but in actuality ranged rogues are much more deadly. If you aren't putting out the damage needed to slaughter everything with a rogue, especially with sneak attack, then maybe you should adjust your playstyle and character to better compensate. I personally do not see any reason whatsoever to play this class.
Swashbuckler: Paizo needs to go see a doctor about the erection they have had for this type of character since they created Pathfinder. They've got so many archetypes and even one or two prestige classes that accomplish this much better. Add that to the fact that most people omit firearms from their games and you have a Dex based melee character that will be put to shame by monks, Dex fighters, Dex magi, rogues, Dex rangers, and melee bards every time. Nice try on this one, Paizo. We see through this thin veil every time.
Warpriest: This is NOT a divine magus. This is a melee cleric, otherwise known as a Crusader cleric archetype. When they do finally put out a divine magus I'll be the first in line to play it, but this is not it. Fewer spells, 6th level spell cap, same buffs, less channeling... sounds like only a few cleric goodies and not enough to compensate for the loss of the rest.
Look, I don't mean to sound like a butt. For some reason I always sound so negative and mean when I type. I just call it like I see it. And you are well within your right to like and enjoy these classes. I'm truly glad someone will. But I do want you to fully understand these classes before you try and play them.
I'm glad this is just a playtest. I'm sure they'll hammer out all of the cons and focus more on the good things they have here. It isn't much, but I'd say it's a start.
|
I don't really disagree with your points, but you did basically just dare negative people to come and stomp on your opinions.
I wouldn't suggest baiting them with comments like "Now, I don't see why so many people are so negative about it all." If you say things like that, don't be surprised when people come and explain, in great detail, why they hate everything.
That said, I think the classes are pretty cool. Almost all of them have at least one of my players excited and I can easily see why people would be excited about the rest.
But, I can also see why people would dislike each of them. My personal bugaboo is complexity, but there are tons of reasons to dislike every single class in the game.
Which is kind of the magic of classes, really. You can choose one you like and ignore the rest... except for arguments on the internet :)
Cheers!
Landon
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I also really like the new classes. I see alot of potential in them. I see some potential issues too, but hey isnt that why we have a playtest?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm glad to see a play test. We won't get better if we don't try new things.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbuckler: Paizo needs to go see a doctor about the erection they have had for this type of character since they created Pathfinder.Uh, maybe that's because a swashbuckler is an inherently awesome concept that needs to happen and have the full support and range of a regular, standard character class?
With that acknowledged, please spell out your suggestions for how to make the Swashbuckler even better--because its existence is absolutely essential.
This. Those archetypes and prestige classes you mention just don't do the concept justice, and we're hoping this new class will actually manage to pull it off for once.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love these classes as well and truly am happy that they decided to make them. I think the playtest will allow for some tweaking that needs to be done to some of the classes but I must say something. I really really hate the argument "You can already do that with archetypes and multiclassing" Actually I couldnt because if I multiclassed I would have to jump back and forth and try and balance it out myself Possibly having to deal with different saves, hit dice, base attack bonus and also deal with lower DC's as well as no chance at getting a capstone ability. I must also say I dislike that a common argument has been "I can do more DPR with what already exists" honestly it is not all about DPR. I will end with saying again. I love these classes, I love that they made a book that shows how this can be done and that they understand that multi-classing is not for everyone.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Look, I don't mean to sound like a butt. For some reason I always sound so negative and mean when I type.
If you are aware that what you say sounds negative and mean, edit what you say before you hit "submit post."
Apart from your gushing over the new Hybrids (and more power to you if you like them!) this seems to actually be your central tenet:
Are you all a bunch of optimized min/maxers where a class has to be 5/5 to get your seal of approval?
Were you expecting all tier 1 classes?
I like it and you should be happy more classes were added. Its only been out a day, give it time and you may come to love them.
- I'm not an optimizer at all.
- I wasn't expecting *anything*.- I shouldn't be happy if I'm disappointed.
This is just the playtest, and there may be another. But so far I'm personally disappointed by the concepts chosen, the names given to them (which SKR has said will *definitely not* be changing) and I find the mechanical approaches uninspired. I have hopes that these changeable parts will improve.
Not for DPR.
Not for power.
For interest and inspiration's sake.
Are they playable now? Evidently so. But I'm not actually inspired by one of these classes to playtest it. And that makes me sad.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are they playable now? Evidently so. But I'm not actually inspired by one of these classes to playtest it. And that makes me sad.
Actual playtest feedback is more valuable than any other kind of feedback. Perhaps playing one of these classes will let you see how fun they are--or aren't, as the case may be.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the new classes are a great start and I love the direction they are going in. Multiclassing is a legacy weight on the system, it just doesn't work as we'll in the current pathfinder paradigm. Merging multicast concepts into single classes is brilliant. This allows the flavor of the multicast combo to have solid mechanical support. I like that they use components of the parent classes because they are familiar and understood abilities which lessens the learning curve, but they each get new mechanics to help bring them up in power with single class characters and express the unique combo of two classes.
Sure the classes need some work, but this is a play test for a reason. I love the direction and the reasoning behind it, very savvy Paizo. This new multi class single class paradigm will allow Paizo to pump out more classes without increasing unique mechanics by a metric ton. This will combat the rules bloat issue that comes along with expansion.
There's a few things that I dislike about the new classes but when I started formulating my opinions there isn't much that I don't accept.
I dislike anything that had a mandatory pet.
I dislike anything that will make a book keeping nightmare.
Outside of those concerns the new classes fall into one of three categories.
1. Boring but I'll play it because we don't have that archetype done properly yet.
2. I've always wanted to play this class X way and now I do.
3. Well I'm never going to play that old class anymore, I have this new class that does what that old class only better or without flavor I don't like.
I think the barrier that people need to cross is that these aren't so much base classes but Franken-alternate classes. For example; if Ninja did not let you take Monk levels it would not be much different from the ACG classes.
Are they playable now? Evidently so. But I'm not actually inspired by one of these classes to playtest it. And that makes me sad.Actual playtest feedback is more valuable than any other kind of feedback. Perhaps playing one of these classes will let you see how fun they are--or aren't, as the case may be.
I know and agree Sean. That's why my comment is here on this thread and there is little from me in the Playtest Feedback sub-forum except support for playtests that have been run.
I appreciate the work you guys have done. My point is that I'm not inspired to play any of these Hybrids as they are. Archetypes hold hope for me. As do feats. One playtester already mentioned the lack of an "extra inspiration points" feat was disappointing. I'm sure it's already been designed/projected, but still.
Sigh. I'll try and get a concept together and playtest the hell out of it. For the common good. ;)
Actual playtest feedback is more valuable than any other kind of feedback. Perhaps playing one of these classes will let you see how fun they are--or aren't, as the case may be.
What matters is not "how they play" but "why should I play this over the myriad of other options that do much the same thing but better"?
Listen, I understand that you're going to say the same thing no matter how many people complain, that you are going to ignore any and all criticism of the basic concepts that underlie this, and ultimately you are going to send this off to the printers with few real changes, that the most important thing is having fun because who really cares about mechanics, right, and that everyone should be nice and happy all the time everywhere.
Doesn't mean I have to like it.
|
Lead Designer
|
| 16 people marked this as a favorite. |
Kaisos,
Looking at your posting history, it is pretty clear you are unhappy about the playtest. I get it. These are not what you wanted. Moving from thread to thread expressing your displeasure without offering anything constructive other than "do something else" is not really beneficial to this process.
The classes will undergo revisions and changes. You can either be a part of the process and work to make the classes better, or you can continue to spout negativity and insults. I hope you choose the former. If not, I suggest you find a better use for your time.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Incredible. I like what I've read. I feel like some character concepts are able to flourish from the get-go, instead of waiting to blossom around later levels.
If I get a chance, I'll be trying a few of these out this winter break with our group.
Hunter: Teamwork feats with companion, hence nifty. I never said unique. However I am not a fan of multiclassing in PF because the capstones are good and most PRCs suck.
I wouldn't classify Bonus Feats (from pretty much the worst category, besides Combat Performance) as "something nifty".
Warpriest: How is this not like a divine version of magus?
Because it has nothing in common with the Magus.
Can't cast a spell throw my sword?
Which is the main Magus ability. Which as you pointed out he doesn't have.
So what, I can make the sword a +X with X ability
Which is also a Paladin ability, and this one works more like that one (minutes/day instead of using Arcane Pool which is usable for other things).
and use cleric buffs/warpriest buffs to do good stuff.
Yes.
Still comes off as a divine magus.
I still don't see how. Beyond the superficial 3/4 BaB/d8 HD/6 levels of casting bit (which eh shares with the Bard and Inquisitor and Alchemist and Summoner as well...), they share no abilities. Thematically or mechanically.
Also, by better buffs, I meant better than a magus. You over analyzed and it cause you to miss the point.
I didn't over-analyze. I just didn't see the point in comparing the Warpriest to the Magus. It is an attempt at "Battle Cleric, the class!". It partially succeeds. Still needs some work IMO, because it just feels like an out of the box Cleric 12/Fighter 8 multiclass with an archetype to change the Domain abilities slightly.
I like most of the other classes. Swashbuckler and Brawler still need a bit of tweaking. Skald needs some major work because it's kinda bland ATM. Bloodrager and Investigator are awesome. I haven't really given the Slayer more than a once-over, don't really care for the concept but it looks pretty solid overall. I'd probably play one next time I got a hankerin' to try a Ranger. Shaman seems cool because my favorite Divine caster is Oracle. And Arcanist seems redundant. I kinda like the casting style but it doesn't have much beyond that to distinguish itself from the Wizard and Sorcerer either thematically or mechanically. Blood Focus is essentially just "Spend points to get things this class already has".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Love the classes overall, but they still need some adjustments.
Specially the Skald and the hunter.
Both look a little bare-bones to me (at moment) to be a full class.
Also I really like the concept behind the warpriest, but mechanical I can't see a lot of reason to take up the class. It's probably better to just build a regular melee focused cleric.
I like a lot of these, because they do what classes should do in my opinion. They give you a starting point for customization with some interesting ideas and lore/fluff that fits the class into the world.
Even if you can achieve one of these through manipulating an existing class with archetypes and feats, that's what you end up with at the end of the process. By having these as the base classes, you can then choose to drift in any direction from there with your customization selections. I find that they fit into the world better that way. YMMV.
Here's what I think about the different classes:
Arcanist: I have at least two players in my group who would want to play this one. They're often conflicted over whether to play wizards or sorcerers and from what they've described about what they like from each this would be a great compromise. Fluff-wise it's good background for what happens if someone from a sorcerous background actually studies their magic. The blood-focus is a bit complicated and gives another resource to keep track of, but I like the way it makes the user fatigued when they run out. This seems like a fun bit of drama you could have in scenes where the arcanist goes all out. I'd like to see more options for characters to exhaust themselves using abilities.
Bloodrager: Exactly what it says on the tin, a barbarian who does some limited spellcasting. The spells and bloodline abilities seem a good trade for the barbarian rage powers. Much like the arcanist, from a fluff perspective it shows that people of sorcerous background can develop in a lot of different ways depending on how they train. This is pretty cool for worldbuilding. This class really wins me over with the arcane bloodline though. I love the idea of someone from a long line of wizards who turns out to be really good at killing wizards. I can get some good mileage out of that concept.
Brawler: Never been a huge fan of the monk and I find that somewhat carries over to the brawler. It's got some interesting ideas, but when I imagine a player sitting there rebuilding their character for each fight by replacing/altering their feats I just don't think it'd work. That'd cause major delays at my table, or at least I expect it would.
Hunter: This is how a lot of people I know try to build the ranger and druid anyway. It's nice to have a base class that does it. Otherwise this is pretty basic and straightforward. I can imagine this working pretty well in actual play.
Anyway, got to run for work. Don't have time for a more detailed look.
I have mixed feelings about the new classes so far. I'll probably not get the time to playtest any of them, so 'Ill just say for now what i picked p from readin them.
Concerning fluff i love all of them, I think the ideas behind them are awesome, especially because they are not all the same as "This a little bit of X and a little bit of Y" but actually have their own angle (shaman being a good example)
Arcanist: After reading this one I was very positive about it. It does prepared casting the way I always wanted to see prepared casting being done. And I think it adds an option for a scholarly mage for Dragon Age-like settings in which magic cannot be learned purely through studying but requires an inherent ability to cast it.
I absolutely don't understand what Casanova means by saying they don't blend well. They work perfectly fine together and make a beautiful middle ground between the large resource pool and flexibility of a sorcerer and the less limited versatility of a wizard.
Bloodrager: Altogether I like this class although I see it falling behind easily compared to its martial parent class, because it has to sacrifice actions that it wants to use to smash things in order to cast spells on itself to close the gap between itself and a regular barbarian. I haven't looked over the magus spell list the class uses in a while though, but if the bloodrager can actually put himself slightly above the output level of a regular barbarian with one spell, it would definitely have its place. Regardless even if it is worse than a barbarian considering pure DPR or whatever I still think this class is worth it (no two classes are always equally good). And the idea behind the class is really cool.
Brawler: I'm personally not big on unarmed melee classes and do think when it comes to that, this guy basically kicked the vanilla monk out of his ever so tiny little niche, but that's not the brawler's fault. Altogether I think the class is solid.
Hunter: I read the class features of this one and couldn't really see why it warrants less casting ability than a druid. Because druid's definitely are better at melee on the virtue of wild shaping alone. The teamwork feats are a cool idea and it should definitely keep those, but to truly become a companion focused double-team character i think both the hunter and his AC still need to get a little better. Teamwork feats alone don't make up for all the stuff it lost, coming from the druid. I could see the hunter either going full BAB or getting ranger combat style options and some extra bonuses to his AC (something that puts the AC ahead of any other even when it's not teamworking), i think then it would be worthwhile.
That being said I definitely love the idea of a class that works together with its companion to become greater than the sum of its parts and I would definitely be excited to play this concept.
Investigator: I think this one turned out well, I already loved the idea behind the extracts of the alchemist, and combining it with some sneak attacking and skillmonkeying is definitely nice. Like the ninja it seems like a straight up superior alternative to a rogue though.
Shaman: Spirit-calling caster? I'm in! Again why Casanova thinks they don't mix is beyond me. The spell casting works just fine and a divine caster with a familiar is a cool idea. I especially love how your spirit influences the appearance and abilities of the familiar. Only thing i was disappointed with is it having straight up the cleric/oracle spell-list. I think the witch spell list would have combined enough divine flavor while retaining some of the arcane aspect of that parent class. An entirely new spell-list I wouldn't have minded either.
Skald: Definitely a cool idea and I like that it acknowledges the artistic finesse of the historical skalds in its fluff. But it still has its problems in my eyes. Inciting rage in others is awesome, but very situational. You need a party filled with non-casting melee types to pull it off successfully. And those melee types better not be barbarians because those guys have enough rage of their own to last them through the day and with better bonuses too.
Inspire courage works on everyone. Inspire rage while slightly better will maybe be used by one guy in the party, maybe two, because the others all won't want to lose their ability to cast spells or do whatever, or simply don't really benefit from the rage because they're ranged.
Slayer: The slayer looks like a spell-less assassin base class to me, if i get the concept right. Its abilities definitely give off a sort of bounty hunter feeling. Tracking, dedicating yourself to a target and all these things, but altogether I feel that it amounts to neither the fighting ability of a ranger nor the sneak attack output of a rogue. I think a simple full bab progression would have done a lot here and fit conceptually too.
Swashbuckler: The way they are going with this class definitely feels right to me. The gunslinger brings the daring hero aspect with its pool abilities that a swashbuckler needs to the table, while the fighter delivers on the melee part.
I will have to say, I can't make any estimate at all how this class will play. Personally I was missing an "add Ability X to melee damage with light/one-handed piercing weapons" type ability. I was actually surprised there isn't one, because I was expecting the gunslingers gun training ability to get translated into such a thing. But then looking at the deeds he has i don't think the concept of the class is putting out lots of DPR.
Warpriest: I actually haven't looked at this one yet. So I'll reserve judgement.
so altogether I see a lot of problems but I also see a lot of really cool class concepts, (even though none of them have taken advantage of the endless opportunities of combining classes with summoners) and after all that's why it is a playtest, to figure out how the classes actually perform in-game. I'm definitely excited to see how they will change during the playtest period and what they will look like in the final product.