So in reading through the threads, there is a pretty general consensus are which classes are hits, and which are misses. So, while attempting to be impartial, I'm going to try and list them and then discuss why they are where they are. That part will be opinion.
Hits:
Swashbuckler
Investigator
Slayer
Misses:
Hunter
War priest
The other classes seem to be more positive that negative, but somewhere in-between these. Meanwhile, arcanist is either too good or not good enough and the brawler is "better" than the monk but has a lot of problems of its own (I almost labeled it a miss).
Now, what can we look at in those Hits that they have in common? From my perspective I see an internal system of customization. The slayer and investigator have talents to pick from, and the swashbuckler goes a step further, effectively giving you ALL their talents and then a pool to use them with. This is a mechanic that has been well received with Gunslinger and Magus as well. Do I think every class should work this way? I definitely think every class should have a way to meaningfully customize - and calling them talents is very fitting - beyond feat choices (which can end up being meaningless anyway if you have to take certain feats). But I don't know if I'd say every class needs a full access and then a pool of points. However, I think the swashbuckler is a great class to compare any other martial class to when designing one to see if you're doing enough. But having every member of X class having all their abilities always available will go right back to being generic. Talents allow each one to be different. Fighters get to pick X or Y weapon, but after that, X fighters look the same and Y fighters look the same. But what if X fighters could pick up talents to decide when/where/how they were useful outside combat, or what their real role was while in combat? Martial maneuvers sort of allows brawlers to play with the idea, but 1. they're brawlers and 2. that's its own can of worms to be sorted out.
On the other end of the spectrum we have the hunter and war priest. And I think they both suffer from the same problem at their core. At some point between the CRB and now, possibly right at the APG, there seems to have been a design philosophy decision that no character with full spell casting would also receive full BAB. This seems to have been developed further into a hard fast rule: Full BAB=4th level cap, 3/4BAB=6th level cap, and 1/2 BAB=9th level cap. The only problem is, there are 2 glaring contradictions to that rule right in the CRB, the cleric and druid. You'll notice those as components of these two hybrid classes. Sometime back before pathfinder was even a thing, it was decided that divine magic wasn't exactly on par with arcane magic, and so it was decided that divine casters could get full spell casting while retaining a 3/4 BAB. Why hasn't that been maintained? More importantly, if that's the case, could we not also reasonably allow a Full BAB with a greater number of spells, if they're divine? Say 6th level? It just doesn't seem right to cut their spell levels and give nothing in return. You may be wondering if I've forgotten that next to the cleric and druid, we have the ranger and paladin, two divine casters with full BAB who were allotted only 4th level spells. So wouldn't it be crazy to give them that AND up their spell level? The hunter is in fact a mix of ranger AND druid. Well, to me, it looks like a sort of impasse. In which case, I think it would be best to do what creates the most fun and balanced class.
In both the case of the hunter and the warpriest, I would lean towards bumping up the BAB over the spell levels. When I look at hunter vs druid and warpriest vs cleric, I don't see a whole lot more in terms of abilities, which makes the scales seem uneven when you look at those 3 missing spell levels. Adding points to BAB would balance it back out, and also give more of a mixed feel of the two source classes (I'm trying to coin "source class" over reusing "alternate class") as opposed to an oddly underpowered archetype of one half. And could we also get some more talent-esque stuff in there?
----
But that's just my opinion. What's yours?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think the only hit is the Swashbuckler. It is funny coming from me, I know, because I was totally uninterested in the Swashbuckler coming into this and I managed to be impressed anyway. Meanwhile, the class I was most interested in, Shaman, totally disappointed me in nearly every way.
The Investigator is just "Hey, we know we messed up with Rogues, but we can't really admit that because, duh, so here's a better Rogue and you can just pretend that other Rogue isn't around if you like."
The Slayer, well, I know people seem high on it, but I'm not. It feels pointless--like just a "let's take the Druid out of Ranger" thing that could have been an archetype. It did basically finish off the Rogue, though--or rather whatever was left with Rogue after the Investigator shoved him under the rug.
The Hunter is a total fail--it's a Druid with weaker spells and no wildshape and, uh...that's kind of it. There's nothing really there to replace what the Druid loses. It's pointless. It doesn't even fit the flavor of the name.
The Warpriest is basically the exact same kind of fail except with a Cleric chassis instead of the Druid. You get, well, nothing, in exchange for the loss of 3 levels of spells!
The Brawler is a better monk, but simultaneously a worse Fighter, so, yeah, why?
I think the real philosophy behind the successful entries are, "Hey, let's try to fulfill this concept we have (swashbuckler, better rogue, etc.) using a mix of mechanics we already have!" while the unsuccessful entries are, "Hey, let's fill out this hole in the class grid where the Magusicized version of Cleric and Druid would go and see what happens!"
I'd like to hear the results of your playtesting as well.
I'd like to hear the results of your playtesting as well.
Oh you ;)
I'm aware that a game is worth a thousand words. That's a big part of why I'm reserving judgement on Brawler and Arcanist. They're the two I think can potentially play much differently than they look on paper. They're also the 2 I'm going to be play testing myself. I'll be GMing a shaman, slayer, and hopefully a swashbuckler, maybe a hunter if I can convince him.... I believe I'll be playing with a warpriest. And I intend to rebuild my NPCs where applicable.
There was one design decision I noticed that I was curious about. Out of the first batch of new classes released (from the APG, UM, and UC), all of the spellcasters save one got customized spell lists.
For this second batch of new classes, none of the casters got new spell lists. I'm assuming this was intentional. Was it support for the hybrid class design? Was it for ease of expansion as new supplements are added? Is it generally thought that the custom spell lists of the last wave of classes was a mistake, and going forward, new classes will use the existing spell lists?
Ease of use. It saves on book space and doesn't require exponential upkeep as new books come out.
See my post on custom spell lists for the new classes here.
I wonder if part of the flaws (And I am just brainstorming here) with the above misses is that they're blending together classes that just don't mesh well together? At least on this level of hybridization.
Maybe instead of Druid they should blend Ranger with Summoner. Full BAB, arcane magic (The up to 4th level kind) and a powerful magical animal companion.
And for Warpriest, what if they dropped spells altogether, and made a Fighter/Paladin blend. It might seem silly (Even I think it might be) but basically a fully armored, fully martial class that has some divine powers and some fighter training, but no actual spells, and less feats/training that a fighter receives.
Buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuut I'm not a developer. I'm not a professional, I just love the game and want to see it be as awesome as possible :)
I like the way that this thread is starting out and hope that we can continue talking philosophy of design and mechanics rather than devolving into an "I hate hybrid classes" vs. "I love them" discussion, because I think the other forums have that covered. It would be cool of the designers and forum participants wanted to outline essential components of the classes that carry over to the hybrids so that they will be useful in a party and viable as an alternative to the standard class. So for example, the slayer lacks the trap finding ability. That means that the party still needs a rogue, even though a slayer would otherwise be a great scout. Thoughts?
|
I like the way that this thread is starting out and hope that we can continue talking philosophy of design and mechanics rather than devolving into an "I hate hybrid classes" vs. "I love them" discussion, because I think the other forums have that covered. It would be cool of the designers and forum participants wanted to outline essential components of the classes that carry over to the hybrids so that they will be useful in a party and viable as an alternative to the standard class. So for example, the slayer lacks the trap finding ability. That means that the party still needs a rogue, even though a slayer would otherwise be a great scout. Thoughts?
You don't 'need' trapfinding. Anybody can max Perception and find traps by taking 20.
You 'needed' trapfinding in 3.5, with its stupid "only Rogues can find traps above Search DC 20" clause, which is gone in Pathfinder.
I like the way that this thread is starting out and hope that we can continue talking philosophy of design and mechanics rather than devolving into an "I hate hybrid classes" vs. "I love them" discussion, because I think the other forums have that covered. It would be cool of the designers and forum participants wanted to outline essential components of the classes that carry over to the hybrids so that they will be useful in a party and viable as an alternative to the standard class. So for example, the slayer lacks the trap finding ability. That means that the party still needs a rogue, even though a slayer would otherwise be a great scout. Thoughts?You don't 'need' trapfinding. Anybody can max Perception and find traps by taking 20.
You 'needed' trapfinding in 3.5, with its stupid "only Rogues can find traps above Search DC 20" clause, which is gone in Pathfinder.
True, I guess I should have specified the disable device that allows for the disabling of traps above a certain DC as well as magical traps that is part of the rogue's trap finding. My bad.
True, I guess I should have specified the disable device that allows for the disabling of traps above a certain DC as well as magical traps that is part of the rogue's trap finding. My bad.I like the way that this thread is starting out and hope that we can continue talking philosophy of design and mechanics rather than devolving into an "I hate hybrid classes" vs. "I love them" discussion, because I think the other forums have that covered. It would be cool of the designers and forum participants wanted to outline essential components of the classes that carry over to the hybrids so that they will be useful in a party and viable as an alternative to the standard class. So for example, the slayer lacks the trap finding ability. That means that the party still needs a rogue, even though a slayer would otherwise be a great scout. Thoughts?You don't 'need' trapfinding. Anybody can max Perception and find traps by taking 20.
You 'needed' trapfinding in 3.5, with its stupid "only Rogues can find traps above Search DC 20" clause, which is gone in Pathfinder.
However, maybe that is not a requirement for the slayer role for everyone. I am open to that feedback as well.
