All PP classes?


Advanced Class Guide Playtest General Discussion


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Talking seriously: I like them all, and I'd always liked multiclassing since the 3.5 and especially for the Ultimate Magus. But now this new classes are just too way powerful. The Arcanist (such a sad name...) is the fusion of the sorcerer and the wizard using their best qualities. I never liked the wizard and prepare the spell in general, but now with this new kind of preparation I think that the wizard is a dead class. Just as the rogue and the monk. So my question is: Why at every new handbook the base class are stronger and stronger? Can't Paizo simply belance all the classes? There a also many wonderful archetypes unclear like the Undead Lord and the Synthetist that still wait clarifications. Why a player have to coice the barbarian if the bloodrager is essentialy identical with the addiction of the bloodline power?
PS: Sorry for my bad English

Liberty's Edge

First : do not worry about your English. Your post was quite easy for me to understand and I am not even a native speaker.

I feel that you raise a very good point that appeared only too late (if ever) in previous playtests : will these new classes make their alternates obsolete and how ?

This is definitely something that happened before between the Ninja and the Rogue. So let's tackle the issue from the get go this time.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bertox200 wrote:

Talking seriously: I like them all, and I'd always liked multiclassing since the 3.5 and especially for the Ultimate Magus. But now this new classes are just too way powerful. The Arcanist (such a sad name...) is the fusion of the sorcerer and the wizard using their best qualities. I never liked the wizard and prepare the spell in general, but now with this new kind of preparation I think that the wizard is a dead class. Just as the rogue and the monk. So my question is: Why at every new handbook the base class are stronger and stronger? Can't Paizo simply belance all the classes? There a also many wonderful archetypes unclear like the Undead Lord and the Synthetist that still wait clarifications. Why a player have to coice the barbarian if the bloodrager is essentialy identical with the addiction of the bloodline power?

PS: Sorry for my bad English

The jury is out on the arcanist, I have a problem with it too. But that is an issue because the wizard is already a strong class.

The rogue and monk are NOT strong classes. They are the weakest in the game. Making something that is monk like or rogue like and making them balanced with the entire game space (not just those 2 classes) means they MUST be more powerful. Otherwise you just create new underpowered classes which is not balanced. Balance does not mean there is NO option more powerful then another. That hasnt existed in dnd since always. Balance means that you have a certain framework of power and you stay within that. The brawler and slayer are not more powerful then a druid or wizard. So they lie somewhere in the middle of the power scale with classes like the alchemist, sorceror, inquisitor, paladin and barbarian. Thats balanced. We shouldnt always compare every new option to the least powerful counterparts and scream overpowered.

As for the bloodrager. As my player found out in our playtest, it isnt better then a barbarian. You are missing the rage powers which the blood rager doesnt have access to that are quite powerful. There are very good reasons (as of the current playtest and existing barbarian material) to go barbarian instead of blood rager and it has everything to do with how awesome alot of those rage powers are.


When I changed from the 3.5, I liked a lot pathfinder because all the Core Classes were the powerful variant of their old selfs, and because they seemed to be all balanced. I think that since the alchemist all the classes started to be more broken. I find all Pathfinder classes beatiful, but with the Advanced Class Guide new classes are too way powerful. I think that we are falling into the same error of the 3.5 with their prestige classes.


EDIT:

Kolokotroni wrote:

The jury is out on the arcanist, I have a problem with it too. But that is an issue because the wizard is already a strong class.

The rogue and monk are NOT strong classes. They are the weakest in the game. Making something that is monk like or rogue like and making them balanced with the entire game space (not just those 2 classes) means they MUST be more powerful. Otherwise you just create new underpowered classes which is not balanced. Balance does not mean there is NO option more powerful then another. That hasnt existed in dnd since always. Balance means that you have a certain framework of power and you stay within that. The brawler and slayer are not more powerful then a druid or wizard. So they lie somewhere in the middle of the power scale with classes like the alchemist, sorceror, inquisitor, paladin and barbarian. Thats balanced. We shouldnt always compare every new option to the least powerful counterparts and scream overpowered.

Me too think that rogue and monk are the weakest class in the game, but why don't improve them? I don't think that a brawler come from a monastery, so a player that want to role a true monk find himself weaker than a simply brawler? It is the same with a player that want to be a stealthy rogue... and find himself weaker then the slayer?

Kolokotroni wrote:

As for the bloodrager. As my player found out in our playtest, it isnt better then a barbarian. You are missing the rage powers which the blood rager doesnt have access to...

Which rages power are good choices? I find all the blood line power much better and powerful


bertox200 wrote:


Me too think that rogue and monk are the weakest class in the game, but why don't improve them?

Because Pathfinder needs to stay compatible with 3.5. So they con't go changing Rogue and Monk significantly, like changing their BAB or saves or stat dependencies. Therefore, they have to make something new that fills the same role but doesn't match an existing class in 3.5, hence the brawler.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Akerlof wrote:
bertox200 wrote:


Me too think that rogue and monk are the weakest class in the game, but why don't improve them?
Because Pathfinder needs to stay compatible with 3.5. So they con't go changing Rogue and Monk significantly, like changing their BAB or saves or stat dependencies. Therefore, they have to make something new that fills the same role but doesn't match an existing class in 3.5, hence the brawler.

Pathfinder needed to stay compatible with 3.5 4 years ago, not now.


3.5 compatibility hasn't been an issue since forever.

The Monk DID change significantly; they gained Ki powers and some tinkering with flurry. Rogues also got a pretty big change in the form of rogue talents (and the alchemical item builds being one).

For better Monk and Rogue, check out the Talented versions; which BTW are still compatible with 3.5 as far as I can tell.


Nicos wrote:
Akerlof wrote:
bertox200 wrote:


Me too think that rogue and monk are the weakest class in the game, but why don't improve them?
Because Pathfinder needs to stay compatible with 3.5. So they con't go changing Rogue and Monk significantly, like changing their BAB or saves or stat dependencies. Therefore, they have to make something new that fills the same role but doesn't match an existing class in 3.5, hence the brawler.
Pathfinder needed to stay compatible with 3.5 4 years ago, not now.

Exatly, now dnd is changing to dnd next, that is significatly different to the 3.5. I'm thinking that is better or to improve the base classes or disempower these new classes until we are in time.

Shadow Lodge

LoneKnave wrote:
For better Monk and Rogue, check out the Talented versions; which BTW are still compatible with 3.5 as far as I can tell.

These are 3rd-party though, which some GMs won't allow and aren't permissible in organized games like PFS.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

But the time have passed. There is not point in fixing now the rogue when in the last 4 years paizo never wanted to do it.


The way I see the Bloodrager is that it isn't more powerful than the standard Barbarian.

Both are powerful but in different ways.

Sure, a single Bloodrage Power is usually more powerful than a single Rage Power. However, a Barbarian gets more Rage Powers than Bloodrager gets Bloodrage Powers.

Rage Powers add more crunch for your attacks (think Reckless Abandon, Beast Totem-pounce, Come and Get Me).

Bloodrage Powers add more variety. Many of them grant you a flying speed or other magical abilities. The end result is that you have a small arsenal of tricks that will help you a lot but the normal Barbarian will most likely do more damage on average.

Also, it appears you need to Bloodrage if you are going to cast a spell. Did I read that correctly? That means expending Rage rounds outside of combat if you're going cast a Fly spell. Either way, you're wasting a round of Rage every time you cast a spell.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
bertox200 wrote:

EDIT:

Kolokotroni wrote:

The jury is out on the arcanist, I have a problem with it too. But that is an issue because the wizard is already a strong class.

The rogue and monk are NOT strong classes. They are the weakest in the game. Making something that is monk like or rogue like and making them balanced with the entire game space (not just those 2 classes) means they MUST be more powerful. Otherwise you just create new underpowered classes which is not balanced. Balance does not mean there is NO option more powerful then another. That hasnt existed in dnd since always. Balance means that you have a certain framework of power and you stay within that. The brawler and slayer are not more powerful then a druid or wizard. So they lie somewhere in the middle of the power scale with classes like the alchemist, sorceror, inquisitor, paladin and barbarian. Thats balanced. We shouldnt always compare every new option to the least powerful counterparts and scream overpowered.

Me too think that rogue and monk are the weakest class in the game, but why don't improve them? I don't think that a brawler come from a monastery, so a player that want to role a true monk find himself weaker than a simply brawler? It is the same with a player that want to be a stealthy rogue... and find himself weaker then the slayer?

What exact form would this take? When you say improve the monk and rogue what do you mean? Based on their business practices, they cant rewrite the core monk and rogue. It would change too much and not likely fit in the original layout.

They tried an alternate class for the rogue, the ninja, which solved some of its problems, but people complained it replaced the rogue. Archetypes are strict 1 for 1 replacements, greatly limiting their ability to 'fix' things. So what exactly can they do besides oh, i dont know, release a new class that has some of the same feel of the monk and rogue, but focuses and improves on their mechanics so they are balanced with the rest of the game?

Quote:

Kolokotroni wrote:

As for the bloodrager. As my player found out in our playtest, it isnt better then a barbarian. You are missing the rage powers which the blood rager doesnt have access to...

Which rages power are good choices? I find all the blood line power much better and powerful

First and foremost? Greater Beast Totem. The ability to pounce is literally invaluable to a martial character. Barbarians have that, blood ragers dont. In my playtest where a player who is more familiar with pathfinder barbarians then I (I have not played one, and only used a couple as npcs), built a draconic blood rager and a beast totem barbarian in almost every case the barbarian was superior. More attacks, a wider vaeriety of abilities, most of the same bonuses, plus pounce, and the ability to add more rage powers with a feat.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Fixing the rogue and monk would require more substanstial revision to the core rule book than a few errata. Adding new features or what have you changes the word count, which changes the page count, which then requires reorganization and relayout for the entire book. I think a similar argument was given on why the stealth playtest was not incorporated into the new rule book.

Basically, a revised monk, rogue, or fighter is probably best done when you redo the entire rulebook...i.e. an edition change.

P.S. I don't actually see Brawler replacing the Monk, it's more filling a niche the monk doesn't cover well - non mystical martial artist/unarmed fighter. Rogue is a bit hard to defend...


bertox200 wrote:

Talking seriously: I like them all, and I'd always liked multiclassing since the 3.5 and especially for the Ultimate Magus. But now this new classes are just too way powerful. The Arcanist (such a sad name...) is the fusion of the sorcerer and the wizard using their best qualities. I never liked the wizard and prepare the spell in general, but now with this new kind of preparation I think that the wizard is a dead class. Just as the rogue and the monk. So my question is: Why at every new handbook the base class are stronger and stronger? Can't Paizo simply belance all the classes? There a also many wonderful archetypes unclear like the Undead Lord and the Synthetist that still wait clarifications. Why a player have to coice the barbarian if the bloodrager is essentialy identical with the addiction of the bloodline power?

PS: Sorry for my bad English

I'm currently playing something very similar to the blood rager in game. I took barbarian with an Oracle of Metal using Eldrich Heritage. I would have gone Sorcerer but the BAB loss was too great. Basically the Blood Rager was the exact class I was trying build using multitasking. In the end 12 levels of Barbarian and 8 levels of Oracle for 18 BAB. Sorcerer would made it 16 BAB which was too far of 20 for what I was trying to do. I did consider going DD 7 level with 1 level but that is 17 BAB. When I saw this class it was exactly what I wanted to accomplish with multiclassing but couldn't. So with this class I get what I want, I quite like this class.


Will there be more stuff than just 10 alternate classes i.e archetypes, feats etc. also why no paladin, cavalier or inquistor stuff?

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

The book will have archetypes, feats, spells, magic items, and nonmagical gear for these classes and other base classes in the PFRPG.


Sorry if this is clear to others:
What is the PP in the thread title referring to?


1 person marked this as a favorite.
bertox200 wrote:
? Can't Paizo simply belance all the classes?

No, they can't. No one can. There is nothing simple about game balance.


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

Sorry if this is clear to others:

What is the PP in the thread title referring to?

A typo for "OP", perhaps? If that isn't it, I've got no idea.

Grand Lodge

I just want to throw it out there that this is a play test for a reason. The classes aren't set in stone, and this is intended o find balance problems and address them. If you find any class too powerful, say so in the thread so they can review your critique and balance the class. All this thread is doing is screaming power creep without giving any hard change for them to implement.


Kolokotroni wrote:
bertox200 wrote:

Talking seriously: I like them all, and I'd always liked multiclassing since the 3.5 and especially for the Ultimate Magus. But now this new classes are just too way powerful. The Arcanist (such a sad name...) is the fusion of the sorcerer and the wizard using their best qualities. I never liked the wizard and prepare the spell in general, but now with this new kind of preparation I think that the wizard is a dead class. Just as the rogue and the monk. So my question is: Why at every new handbook the base class are stronger and stronger? Can't Paizo simply belance all the classes? There a also many wonderful archetypes unclear like the Undead Lord and the Synthetist that still wait clarifications. Why a player have to coice the barbarian if the bloodrager is essentialy identical with the addiction of the bloodline power?

PS: Sorry for my bad English

The jury is out on the arcanist, I have a problem with it too. But that is an issue because the wizard is already a strong class.

The rogue and monk are NOT strong classes. They are the weakest in the game. Making something that is monk like or rogue like and making them balanced with the entire game space (not just those 2 classes) means they MUST be more powerful. Otherwise you just create new underpowered classes which is not balanced. Balance does not mean there is NO option more powerful then another. That hasnt existed in dnd since always. Balance means that you have a certain framework of power and you stay within that. The brawler and slayer are not more powerful then a druid or wizard. So they lie somewhere in the middle of the power scale with classes like the alchemist, sorceror, inquisitor, paladin and barbarian. Thats balanced. We shouldnt always compare every new option to the least powerful counterparts and scream overpowered.

As for the bloodrager. As my player found out in our playtest, it isnt better then a barbarian. You are missing the rage powers which the blood rager doesnt have access to...

Nice post mate. Well said.

Shadow Lodge

I found the arcanist to be sub par and boring compared to sorcerers, I'm not quite familiar enough with wizards to put up a definitive statement of which is better, it does fix my biggest problem with them (as in why I don't play them, not something I want fixed) but at the expense of loosing everything else
the arcanist, by itself, in my opinion is weaker than either of the base classes it is made up of
that being said, the problem with them is how attractive they make taking prestige classes
is there any reason for an arcanist not to take levels of cypher mage or blood mage or collegiate arcanist,
would there be anything they would be giving up?

Project Manager

Removed a flamebait post. Please revisit the messageboard rules.

Shadow Lodge

Kraedwulf wrote:

The way I see the Bloodrager is that it isn't more powerful than the standard Barbarian.

Both are powerful but in different ways.

Sure, a single Bloodrage Power is usually more powerful than a single Rage Power. However, a Barbarian gets more Rage Powers than Bloodrager gets Bloodrage Powers.

Rage Powers add more crunch for your attacks (think Reckless Abandon, Beast Totem-pounce, Come and Get Me).

Bloodrage Powers add more variety. Many of them grant you a flying speed or other magical abilities. The end result is that you have a small arsenal of tricks that will help you a lot but the normal Barbarian will most likely do more damage on average.

Also, it appears you need to Bloodrage if you are going to cast a spell. Did I read that correctly? That means expending Rage rounds outside of combat if you're going cast a Fly spell. Either way, you're wasting a round of Rage every time you cast a spell.

this sums up my feelings on the bloodrager,

I like it, but don't find it more powerful, it is however much much more versatile,


Nicos wrote:
Pathfinder needed to stay compatible with 3.5 4 years ago, not now.

Exactly. That's why now they are creating classes that fill the roles normally done by Rogue and Monk in a more powerful/balanced/fun way.

What you seem to be suggesting is that they go back and rewrite a class from the core book, that's been in circulation for nearly half a decade.
They are releasing an optional add-on book. It's not the time to basically say "Hey, replace the core rules Rogue with new mechanics listed here".
What kind of havoc would that create? Two people bring a Rogue to the table, but they are using entirely different mechanics because one used an expansion book? What would PFS or any organized play do about that?
It'd be like having a 3.5e Rogue and Pathfinder Rogue side-by-side. "Oh, he can sneak attack the zombie, but I can't? Wha?"

This is why you are going to see a new class name when they make something new that is Rogue-like.

.

What you are looking for is something typically done when making a new edition of the core rules.
Considering some of the issues involved with the core classes (Stealth rules, movement + full attack), some of the "fixes" will require an overhaul of the system itself, not just the class abilities.


Why pathfinder needed to stay compatible with 3.5 four years ago and now no?


You can't easily 'fix' the rogue by, say, giving them full BAB and d10 hit dice. Even if it did improve balance it would mean that, for example, all stat blocks for rogue (and multi-class rogue) NPCs in published adventures were suddenly wrong.

However, you could, if you wanted to make rogues better, add a bunch of new rogue talents that were way more powerful than the existing talents. (Possibly with the addition that these talents can only be taken by regular rogues, not alterative-class rogues like the ninja.)

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Starfinder Society Subscriber

PFS question: Once the play test 'ends'. Will Society characters be able to continue on as is and make changes when the book comes out or will they be illegal to play?

Shadow Lodge

bertox200 wrote:
Why pathfinder needed to stay compatible with 3.5 four years ago and now no?

Because four years ago Pathfinder was competing with 4E for the attentions of former 3.5 players.

That's no longer really the case. Those who liked 4E moved to 4E. Those who liked 3.5 either moved to PF or stayed with 3.5 and dealt with the fact there would be no new content.


Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

Sorry if this is clear to others:

What is the PP in the thread title referring to?

I assumed Paizo Publishing.

I'm likely wrong.


Throne wrote:
Oceanshieldwolf wrote:

Sorry if this is clear to others:

What is the PP in the thread title referring to?

I assumed Paizo Publishing.

I'm likely wrong.

Sorry, where I come from PP = Power Player


Matthew Downie wrote:

You can't easily 'fix' the rogue by, say, giving them full BAB and d10 hit dice. Even if it did improve balance it would mean that, for example, all stat blocks for rogue (and multi-class rogue) NPCs in published adventures were suddenly wrong.

However, you could, if you wanted to make rogues better, add a bunch of new rogue talents that were way more powerful than the existing talents. (Possibly with the addition that these talents can only be taken by regular rogues, not alterative-class rogues like the ninja.)

The rogue needs 'fixed' by giving it a more clear role and then by orienting it towards that role. Is it a combat beast? A striker? An undercover agent?

It suffers similarly to the monk. I like the brawler in this book because it addresses that identity issue. I'm not sure that investigator does; I believe it's a good step in the right direction. Swashbuckler definitely does...

I think the rogue just has too 'many' concepts of how it 'should' work. That is, too many identities.

Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / General Discussion / All PP classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in General Discussion