A message about the advanced class guide


Advanced Class Guide Playtest General Discussion

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

8 people marked this as a favorite.

I love it. This is exactly what I have been waiting for. I have always loved making my characters unique and that were more than just the "Fighter" or the "cleric" of the group.

But there will be many naysayers to these advanced class ideas. Those opposed to it believe that multiclassing or any deviation from the core class system should never be an option.

Please do not listen to those people. For the love and god and everything holy please do not let this be spoiled by people with little to no imagination when it comes to character roles.

A little paranoid I know. . . . . Ok a lot paranoid but I just hate players that have little to no imagination when it comes to class combinations.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

Heh, thanks for your comments, legolizard. :)


Huh? I've seen people argue that these are bad entirely because you can already multiclass, not the other way around? Has anyone actually posted on these boards that the ACG classes are bad because they do something else than warrior or mage/thief/priest?


One of the most common complaints I've seen is that they could make better classed strictly by multiclassing


Just wanted to put my actual face on the comment. Sorry about that, was making a hunter for the playtest.


Chaotic Fighter wrote:
One of the most common complaints I've seen is that they could make better classed strictly by multiclassing

If there is a way to be a barbarian spellcaster with full BAB I would like to see it.

But I see where what you mean. The thing is every time you multiclassed to get these combos you would always need to give up some very important things that would make the character weaker overall to their pure class counterparts. Namely the characters BAB, caster level or saves.

I will use the bloodrager as an example again. Unlike a Barb/Sorc combo, the bloodrager gets, like I mentioned, a full BAB, a higher caster level and far more synergy (unless someone else can show me a feat or prestige class that allows for casting any arcane spells while raging).

What these advanced classes give over the older multiclass option are all the little things that prevented multiclassing from being better or equal to the pure classes. There was not enough ways to synergize class abilities and honestly many prestige classes were far too underpowered compete with a pure class.

A good example was the rage prophet (Barbarian/oracle prestige class). It was soooo close to being able to do what a bloodrager could, but lets see who they stack up at lets say level 10.

5 bar/1 Oracle/4 Rage proph

BaB +8 Caster lv 4 Fort +6 Ref +2 will +5

10 Bloodrager

BaB +10 Caster lv 7 Fort +7 Ref +3 will +3

So the multiclass option only has a -2 BAB compared to the hybrid class, that is not too bad. The Hybrid has 3 caster levels over the multiclass and that is pretty big, especially since you start running into things with high SR at 10th level. As for the saves they are pretty matched, with the hybrid having the higher Fort and Ref saves by one each bu the multiclass having the higher will save by 2.

That all being said, lets not forget the little bonuses from the favored class bonus. The favored class bonus was intended to be that little reward for those that stuck with their class, a better alternative to the old xp penalties from 3.5 (which I never remember once being used). It is only 1 skill or hp point per level, but the hybrid in the end will have 5 more hp or skill points to choose from than the multiclass character.

All those small factors add up in the end. That is why I see these hybrids as a functional solution to many if the issues I have with multiclassing.

I honestly would have liked to see more options for multiclassing over these hybrids (feats, better prestige classes, ect). Sadly doing more multiclass option in the past has led to characters being made like 3 Pal/3 Monk/3 Cleric/1 prestige A/2 prestige B/2 prestige C >.<

The character Hybrid option allows us to mix up the character roles and at the same time lead to less horrible, unbalanced and convoluted character builds.


Arae Garven wrote:
Huh? I've seen people argue that these are bad entirely because you can already multiclass, not the other way around? Has anyone actually posted on these boards that the ACG classes are bad because they do something else than warrior or mage/thief/priest?

I apologize for not clarifying what I meant. I was referring to people I have met while playing the game and not any specific person that has posted on the forums.

Sorry about that :)


You're using the class that almost everyone agrees is awesome as a comparison. Also you're using a class that probably has the most originality in it. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Brawler. There are a at least 3 monk/fighter combos that will end up miles better then what the brawler brings to the table.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Chaotic Fighter wrote:
You're using the class that almost everyone agrees is awesome as a comparison. Also you're using a class that probably has the most originality in it. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Brawler. There are a at least 3 monk/fighter combos that will end up miles better then what the brawler brings to the table.

^Yep. MoMS 2/Brawler (Fighter) X is about 100 times better than the current Brawler (class) and all it loses is 1 BaB (negligible) and progression on Unarmed Strike damage (also negligible, and rectified with Monastic Legacy and/or a Monk's Robe).

Warpriest as well feels like a watered down Fighter 3/Cleric X multiclass.


Monk/Two-weapon Warrior for an unarmed fighter that uses a large number of hits better than a monk. Monk/Unarmed fighter for an awesome grappling machine that can keep up considerable damage and get's dirty tricks and excellent DR thrown in the mix. And Monk/Brawler like Rynjin mentioned.


Chaotic Fighter wrote:
You're using the class that almost everyone agrees is awesome as a comparison. Also you're using a class that probably has the most originality in it. I'm thinking more along the lines of the Brawler. There are a at least 3 monk/fighter combos that will end up miles better then what the brawler brings to the table.

And at the same time monk multiclassing pretty much goes great with everything. But I see your point.

That really just means the Brawler (along with the arcanist) need to have some changes made to put them on par with the Bloodrager and the others.

But at this time, the Bloodrager, the slayer, the skald and the War priest are all better alternatives than their multiclassing equivalents.

I kind of hope these new hybrid standards make them go back and change the Magus a little. (You can all call me crazy but I still believe it needs a higher BAB!)


Ahh. I thought you were reffering to the general state of the playtest a few days earlier.

But I must say that I disagree with you on the complication of builds.

take the Bloodrager, for example. I don't really see a situation where he wants to stop attacking in order to cast his piddly 1-5 levels behind the real casters spells. He's either going to be spending his first action buffing, or he's going to be buffing before combat. This means that a regular barbarian/sorcerer can safely wait to enter rage 'till his second round of combat.

And I think that I can safely make the argument that, since neither the bloodrager, nor the sorcerer/barbarian wants to be targeting the enemy with his spells (they don't have enough cha to make save spells stick, and they do more damage attacking than blasting anyway) caster level doesn't matter beyond spell duration. This means that a bloodrager only rally gets the edge in rounds/lvl spells - and that's only until the sorcerer/barbarian reaches CL 5. I'm hard pressed to think of any combat I've been in that lasted longer than 5 rounds.

Compare Barbarian 11/sorcerer1/dragon disciple 8 to Bloodrager 20. They both get 4rth level spells. Neither of them is going to be casting spells in combat beyond the first round, and if the sorcerer/barbarian really needs a fly or protection from energy at the opportune time, he can use moment of clarity to copy the ability of the bloodrager. Interestingly, the bloodrager has 2 less strength than the dragon disciple. In turn, the bloodrager gets three points of base attack bonus. with power attack, this means that the bloodrager gets a +1 to hit over the dragon disciple and between +1 and +2 to damage per attack.

There are other factors as well, of course. But all in all, I'm still not convinced a sorcerer/barbarian multiclass warrants a whole new class in itself.


Arae Garven wrote:

Ahh. I thought you were reffering to the general state of the playtest a few days earlier.

But I must say that I disagree with you on the complication of builds.

take the Bloodrager, for example. I don't really see a situation where he wants to stop attacking in order to cast his piddly 1-5 levels behind the real casters spells. He's either going to be spending his first action buffing, or he's going to be buffing before combat. This means that a regular barbarian/sorcerer can safely wait to enter rage 'till his second round of combat.

And I think that I can safely make the argument that, since neither the bloodrager, nor the sorcerer/barbarian wants to be targeting the enemy with his spells (they don't have enough cha to make save spells stick, and they do more damage attacking than blasting anyway) caster level doesn't matter beyond spell duration. This means that a bloodrager only rally gets the edge in rounds/lvl spells - and that's only until the sorcerer/barbarian reaches CL 5. I'm hard pressed to think of any combat I've been in that lasted longer than 5 rounds.

Compare Barbarian 11/sorcerer1/dragon disciple 8 to Bloodrager 20. They both get 4rth level spells. Neither of them is going to be casting spells in combat beyond the first round, and if the sorcerer/barbarian really needs a fly or protection from energy at the opportune time, he can use moment of clarity to copy the ability of the bloodrager. Interestingly, the bloodrager has 2 less strength than the dragon disciple. In turn, the bloodrager gets three points of base attack bonus. with power attack, this means that the bloodrager gets a +1 to hit over the dragon disciple and between +1 and +2 to damage per attack.

There are other factors as well, of course. But all in all, I'm still not convinced a sorcerer/barbarian multiclass warrants a whole new class in itself.

But the +1 to hit and strength is a trade off for the +3 to hit you would get from the full bab of the bloodrager. Not to mention you are getting 9 more skill points or hp (or both if your human and get a feat) on the bloodrager. Not to mention all the bloodlines for the bloodrager are designed specifically for the bloodrager. The build you posted, barb/sor/dragon discp. is limited to only the dragon bloodlines.

But at the same time, I would take the sorc spell list over the magus spell list (the one the bloodrager uses) any day of the week.

There is a lot of give and take when comparing the builds. Enough to that it feels like it would come down to personal preference.

That isn't to say that the bloodrager does not need some work. It does. Namely in the spell selection department and the fact there is really no reason to cast many of the eligible spells while raging. Maybe if they added an extra something to cast these spells while raging.

Like a warmage war edge, adding the bloodragers Str or Con bonus to the spells damage.


legolizard wrote:


But the +1 to hit and strength is a trade off for the +3 to hit you would get from the full bab of the bloodrager. Not to mention you are getting 9 more skill points or hp (or both if your human and get a feat) on the bloodrager. Not to mention all the bloodlines for the bloodrager are designed specifically for the bloodrager. The build you posted, barb/sor/dragon discp. is limited to only the dragon bloodlines.

But at the same time, I would take the sorc spell list over the magus spell list (the one the bloodrager uses) any day of the week.

There is a lot of give and take when comparing the builds. Enough to that it feels like it would come down to personal preference.

That isn't to say that the bloodrager does not need some work. It does. Namely in the spell selection department and the fact there is really no reason to cast many of the eligible spells while raging. Maybe if they added an extra something to cast these spells while raging.

Like a warmage war edge, adding the bloodragers Str or Con bonus to the spells damage.

I did factor both the Str gain, BaB loss, and Power Attack into my comparison.

At any rate, I'm on-board with there being a bloodrager. So long as it gains something like the mechanic you described, something to set it apart from a barbarian/sorcerer/dragon-disciple. It doesn't at the moment, and that makes me go "ehh, I could that just as well already" and that's not really the feeling I want when I open my newly purchased paizo book.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This may the the only thread to comment on, considering Sean's zealousness in closing so many others. I am concerned that Paizo is actually not considering a mistake in their design decisions for this book and telling everyone "too bad, it's set in stone" has been very counterproductive, sadly.

The reason I saw no reason to playtest these is because from reading all of them, they're gestalts. There's nothing unique about any of them, like there was with the Magus and Gunslinger. I guess the "playtest" is really just "see what abilities we can mix together to make the perfect hybrid." I was hoping for new mechanics or a big twist on old mechanics. That's my feedback and I think it's legitimate coming from an experienced gamer.

The other fact is I am disappointed in these being called "Classes" when, in truth, they stated they're "Alternate Classes". So Paizo wants suggestions and feedback? Please change the name, do not false advertise. I was looking forward to a book of classes, not alternate classes. And, personally, I feel some of these alternate classes should be able to multiclass (like Investigator/Ninja would be interesting or Swashbuckler/Fighter).

Would it be that hard to maybe reconsider the design decisions and start from scratch or take the design in a different direction at this point? Can't assume you never make mistakes.

Sczarni

Markolius Craggmorn wrote:

This may the the only thread to comment on, considering Sean's zealousness in closing so many others. I am concerned that Paizo is actually not considering a mistake in their design decisions for this book and telling everyone "too bad, it's set in stone" has been very counterproductive, sadly.

The reason I saw no reason to playtest these is because from reading all of them, they're gestalts. There's nothing unique about any of them, like there was with the Magus and Gunslinger. I guess the "playtest" is really just "see what abilities we can mix together to make the perfect hybrid." I was hoping for new mechanics or a big twist on old mechanics. That's my feedback and I think it's legitimate coming from an experienced gamer.

The other fact is I am disappointed in these being called "Classes" when, in truth, they stated they're "Alternate Classes". So Paizo wants suggestions and feedback? Please change the name, do not false advertise. I was looking forward to a book of classes, not alternate classes. And, personally, I feel some of these alternate classes should be able to multiclass (like Investigator/Ninja would be interesting or Swashbuckler/Fighter).

Would it be that hard to maybe reconsider the design decisions and start from scratch or take the design in a different direction at this point? Can't assume you never make mistakes.

While I can not disagree with your viewpoint more I must say, I truly appreciate the way in which you worded your concerns and feelings about the ACG and the Hybrid Classes. I just want to give you props.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Markolius Craggmorn wrote:
The reason I saw no reason to playtest these is because from reading all of them, they're gestalts. There's nothing unique about any of them, like there was with the Magus and Gunslinger.

I think you should read them again.

True, arcanist didn't really have anything new (which is why we're revising it).
Bloodrager has bloodrage and its custom bloodrager bloodlines, which are different than sorcerer bloodlines.
Brawler has martial maneuvers, which is a mechanic that I don't think we've seen in any other class.
Hunter has animal focus, which is new (I admit it is a little weak right now but is going to be revised).
Investigator has investigation, which is similar to the mythic surge ability but is the first time it's appeared in a base class.
Shaman has spirits, which are new.
Skald has raging song, which is new, and the ability to grant rage powers to others, which I believe is new.
Slayer has favored target, which is new.
Swashbuckler has panache, which (I admit) is a variant form of grit, but it is a mechanic that makes perfect sense for the class, and can do things that grit can't do.
Warpriest has blessings, which is a new mechanic (and, like the hunter, could use some more "oomph").
So I think you're wrong when you say there's nothing unique about any of them. And we already have a lot of good feedback about making each of these classes better and more unique.

Markolius Craggmorn wrote:
I guess the "playtest" is really just "see what abilities we can mix together to make the perfect hybrid." I was hoping for new mechanics or a big twist on old mechanics. That's my feedback and I think it's legitimate coming from an experienced gamer.

APG created six new classes with new mechanics. UM added another, and UC added another, for a total of eight new classes. Now the available design space in the game is smaller, yet you were expecting these TEN new classes (more than what we had added to the game so far) to have totally-new mechanics or big twists, all in one book. Do you think that is a reasonable expectation for the book, or an unreasonable one?

I'm an experienced gamer, too, and I still want to hear playtest feedback about these classes.

Markolius Craggmorn wrote:
The other fact is I am disappointed in these being called "Classes" when, in truth, they stated they're "Alternate Classes". So Paizo wants suggestions and feedback? Please change the name, do not false advertise. I was looking forward to a book of classes, not alternate classes.

I'm not sure what the categorization of these classes has to do with how you can use them.

Markolius Craggmorn wrote:
And, personally, I feel some of these alternate classes should be able to multiclass (like Investigator/Ninja would be interesting or Swashbuckler/Fighter).

As I've said, we may not go forward with the multiclassing limitation, but we want the playtest to proceed with it in place. And even if we published the classes with that limitation, there's nothing stopping you from house ruling against it, just as you could house rule that characters could be multiclassed ninja/rogues or samurai/cavaliers.

Markolius Craggmorn wrote:
Would it be that hard to maybe reconsider the design decisions and start from scratch or take the design in a different direction at this point? Can't assume you never make mistakes.

Obviously we are open to reconsidering design decisions, that's why we've already announced significant changes to the arcanist, posted updates to the other classes, and having a meeting Monday to discuss various feedback for further changes.

Starting over from scratch on this book is not an option, unless you just don't want there to be a core book in August.

Suggesting that we assume we never make mistakes is a ridiculous assertion, especially given how open we are to discussing game rules and even making significant errata changes to those rules.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
APG created six new classes with new mechanics. UM added another, and UC added another, for a total of eight new classes. Now the available design space in the game is smaller, yet you were expecting these TEN new classes (more than what we had added to the game so far) to have totally-new mechanics or big twists, all in one book. Do you think that is a reasonable expectation for the book, or an unreasonable one?

It seemed, to me at least, that ten new base classes, who, like the magus, takes features of two existing classes and integrates them into a new cohesve whole was what was being advertised beforehand. This made reading through the playtest a dissappointment.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Arae Garven wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
APG created six new classes with new mechanics. UM added another, and UC added another, for a total of eight new classes. Now the available design space in the game is smaller, yet you were expecting these TEN new classes (more than what we had added to the game so far) to have totally-new mechanics or big twists, all in one book. Do you think that is a reasonable expectation for the book, or an unreasonable one?
It seemed, to me at least, that ten new base classes, who, like the magus, takes features of two existing classes and integrates them into a new cohesve whole was what was being advertised beforehand. This made reading through the playtest a dissappointment.

For you.

Many of us really like the new classes.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

My opinion is, in fact, opinion. What of it?

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Arae Garven wrote:
It seemed, to me at least, that ten new base classes, who, like the magus, takes features of two existing classes and integrates them into a new cohesve whole was what was being advertised beforehand. This made reading through the playtest a dissappointment.

That's... exactly what they did. People are complaining that they don't have new fancy mechanics, when they were always touted specifically as combinations of classes (and also some of them do have fancy new mechanics, but people seem to like ignoring those in order to justify complaining a lot). But you're saying that reading the playtest was disappointing... because they delivered exactly what they promised to deliver?

Yes, some of the classes have problems. That's because it's a playtest, the whole point is that these aren't the final versions. You can't compare these classes to the Magus, because you're comparing the unfinished, test versions of ten classes to the finished, thoroughly tested and polished version of one class that already has support in a supplement (UC).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

First look, I have to say overall I'm not much impressed with this. As many have said, it doesn't bring much more to the table than multiclassing already does.

EDIT: Putting a spoiler tag around my comments, just to make it not so long on the page. I will also save what I said to a text file, and if Paizo would like to me post this on a different thread, I'd be happy to do so, just at the beginning it sounded like this was the main thread to discuss on.

Spoiler:
For example, the class that most interested me is the Shaman, as I love both Oracles and Witches and was even strongly considering having this witch character I am posting with multiclass as a Flames oracle. However, cutting her ultimate witch powers in half keeps me from doing it.

So, now look at the Shaman! Is this the answer to make her the Flames Oracle/Witch I want?

Well, first of all she's a divine witch. Instead of having arcane spells with a few non-standard arcane spells like Cure thrown in, she's a straight up cleric, but with a few spontaneous spells.

Second, she gets hexes like the witch, but far fewer as I'm seeing it than she would even if she were Witch 10/Oracle 10!

Third, looking at the Flames spirit ability, there is honestly nothing there except Cinder Dance that interests me. It's all defensive (plus one debuff, which is passive aggressive therefore still defensive more than true offensive) and there is really no choice, because by the 20th level you'll have them all just because there is so few.

Fourth, the familiar. Now, here is where (possibly the only place?) the shaman shines, because it's pretty much the same as the witch's familiar, however it's not going to get gimped by multiclassing. One saving grace is the Spirit Familar's abilities are... wow... like the Flames Shaman's familiar is immune to fire? Seriously? At 1st level? That's awesome... but... hmmm is it kinda OP? Sure, they take extra damage from cold, but still... Fire Immunity/cold vulnerability is something I very much wanted to give my familiar but have always felt (and been told by others) that would mean taking Improved Familiar at 3rd level cause normal familiars just are that... normal.

Fifth you have the extra spirit companion which is alright, in that from what I can tell it gives you some limited abilities from another spirit path, and you can change it every time you prepare spells. Kinda cool, actually.

Lastly... where is the curse? That's the coolest part of the oracle that makes them unique, which maybe that's why the shaman doesn't have it, but as a fan of the oracle, I sorely miss it on the shaman.

So, this is why I think that while this is an interesting idea, at least how it's been done in the case of the shaman is kind of weak, in that while it's slightly better than being an Oracle 10/Witch 10 because you still get the 9th level spells, you get so much less of what makes the two classes by themselves so appealing in trade for a small amount of semi-unique stuff.

This is of course just my opinion, and honestly I've only really read the shaman so far but since oracle/witch are the two classes I am most likely to multiclass with when I do, I felt it was best to turn my eye on it more than the others, at least at first.

In closing, I think the idea of this book has potential, however I'm not yet convinced it has much necessity, especially when we already have great hybrid classes like the Paladin, Bard (which does that make the skald a fighter/mage/thief?), and the Magus. Which, as others have said make it so those classes end up looking like crap compared to the new ones. I'll keep reading, and maybe offer the book to my gaming group tomorrow and let them, if they wish have a free retrain to them, same if we don't like them, free retrain back to their original classes.

Postscript, just a cursory glance at the warpriest, maybe I'll make another post if I read more and find out I'm wrong, but... Why not just play a Paladin? Especially since wasn't a book recently released with alternate paladins? Or why not play an oracle with the battle mystery or a cleric with the war domain then you have full spell progression and decent combat skills?

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Arae, I was specifically referring to Markolius's statement, "I was hoping for new mechanics or a big twist on old mechanics," which implies there aren't any new mechanics or twists on old mechanics, or that he was expecting classes that are totally new... but that's not what we promised or planned for this book.

These classes do take features of two existing classes and integrate them into a new cohesive whole. If you're disappointed with the results, playtest a class or two, report back, and tell us how you think the play experience can be improved for them.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

I opened the playtest document expecting it to literally have classes with X features from class A and Y features from class B. The fact that there are new mechanics at all has been a very pleasant surprise for me. Maybe that speaks to my lack of imagination, or my propensity for keeping my expectations low to avoid disappointment.

Regardless, what I'm seeing out of this book are classes that provide an appealing level of flexibility:

The Arcanist combines the long-term adaptability of the wizard with the short-term reactivity of the sorcerer.

The Bloodrager gives you offensive and defensive adaptability (reach, enlarge, blur, flight) on demand.

The Brawler gives you adaptive maneuvers. Fighting a spider? Pick Improved Grapple instead of Improved Trip.

The Hunter gives you Animal Focus, allowing you to pick a bonus to the situation at hand. I admit they're a little underwhelming right now, but it's being revisited.

The Investigator gets Inspiration, which I think is a really fun and useful mechanic for a skill monkey, and which can be applied to different rolls at different costs.

The Shaman has the Wandering Spirit, which for PFS is amazing. Being able to tweak your role on the fly is a huge plus when you're playing with a different group every time you sit down at the table.

The Skald, I admit, is of questionable utility, especially in that same context of PFS.

The Slayer has favored target is adaptable to whatever you happen to be fighting.

The Swashbuckler's Deeds give you flexible offensive, defensive, and evasive options.

The Warpriest takes the Battle Cleric and lets them buff up using Swift actions, so you don't need 3 rounds before you can be effective in combat. This class also needs work, but the PDT has admitted that as well.

They're not perfect, but I think this is a great start on a bunch of fun new options. Maybe some of these concepts can be better built mechanically via multi-classing, but not everybody wants to plan out a complex multi-class using early entry SLAs and retraining Feat swaps. Some people just want something that gets angry and casts spells and works out of the box. Neither side is right or wrong, and the existence of one does not invalidate the existence of the other.

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

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:


Markolius Craggmorn wrote:
I guess the "playtest" is really just "see what abilities we can mix together to make the perfect hybrid." I was hoping for new mechanics or a big twist on old mechanics. That's my feedback and I think it's legitimate coming from an experienced gamer.
APG created six new classes with new mechanics. UM added another, and UC added another, for a total of eight new classes. Now the available design space in the game is smaller, yet you were expecting these TEN new classes (more than what we had added to the game so far) to have totally-new mechanics or big twists, all in one book. Do you think that is a reasonable expectation for the book, or an unreasonable one?

Sean, I think this is the issue some are having, all about expectations. Paizo has done a great job so far with introducing new things to the game with each rules hardcover to date. Therefore, a large portion of the fan base does expect that if you introduce a book with ten new base classes, that all ten would have totally new mechanics or big twists (understanding that as hybrids they'd be more like the magus's combination of fighter and wizard rather than something completely new like the summoner and eidolon.

The concern is that Paizo might have bitten off more then they can handle if that expectation is not true. I know I'd much rather have had an ACG book with 6 or even 3 new classes if that's all that could be developed in the design space that also kept things high quality and new and pushing the boundaries of what you can do in the game. As an example of where this isn't happening with the playtest, you mention that the slayer has favored target, which is new. It's not though. It's pretty much the same as:

Advanced Player's Guide wrote:
Ranger's Focus (Ex): At 1st level, once per day, the guide can focus on a single enemy within line of sight as a swift action. That creature remains the ranger's focus until it is reduced to 0 or fewer hit points or surrenders, or until the ranger designates a new focus, whichever occurs first. The ranger gains a +2 bonus on attack and damage rolls against the target of his focus. At 5th level, and every five levels thereafter, this bonus increases by +2.

I'm not saying that the slayer's favored target isn't appropriate for the class, but at least for me, it doesn't satisfy the desire for each class having something unique.

I have a huge amount of faith in Paizo and the designers, developers, and free-lancers that Paizo employs, so I hope that there isn't a mis-match between expectations and final product. I like what you've announced for the arcanist v2, and that goes a long way to assuaging my concerns about the classes as presented in the playtest document.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
These classes do take features of two existing classes and integrate them into a new cohesive whole. If you're disappointed with the results, playtest a class or two, report back, and tell us how you think the play experience can be improved for them.

The thing people are running into here is that in a number of ways, the classes don't feel cohesive to them as compared to preexisting hybrid classes in Pathfinder.

For example, look at bloodrager, which has the magus spell list but not the spell combat and spellstrike abilities that makes that class feel like it actually mixes up casting and fighting together.

Bloodrager is leaps and bounds beyond attempting to do the same thing using multiclassing and prestige classes, but it doesn't have the little touches like the magus' spellstrike or the 3.5 beguiler's DC-increasing pseudo-sneak attack that feel like they really weld together the different parts of the class on a conceptual and mechanical level. Instead, it feels like, well, a streamlined version of putting the same concept together by multiclassing.


Is there a single place where all the dev spoken changes are collected? I have only found a few quotes here and there in the main class threads, and sorting through hundreds of posts per class doesn't really seem like a productive use of time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
As I've said, we may not go forward with the multiclassing limitation, but we want the playtest to proceed with it in place. And even if we published the classes with that limitation, there's nothing stopping you from house ruling against it, just as you could house rule that characters could be multiclassed ninja/rogues or samurai/cavaliers.

I'd like to pipe up with the opinion that I hope the limitation stays. After getting a few third party classes I became very concerned with backwards compatibility and things like shared spell lists have been very helpful in using spells that exist in the Player Companion lines. If the new classes exist as gestalt alternate classes it would be very easy to allow favored class bonuses to be ported over. Otherwise we'd need new favored class bonus lists for each race, including featured and uncommon races, and there's no telling how long it will take for third parties to catch up and adjust.

I know I've seen a lot of posts against shared spell lists, the class restrictions and reusing class features but there's at least one voice that thinks these are good ideas and I hope my reasoning is sound enough for those ideas to pull through.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grey Lensman wrote:
Is there a single place where all the dev spoken changes are collected? I have only found a few quotes here and there in the main class threads, and sorting through hundreds of posts per class doesn't really seem like a productive use of time.

They're putting them all in the first post of each class thread. Well worth revisiting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Arae, I was specifically referring to Markolius's statement, "I was hoping for new mechanics or a big twist on old mechanics," which implies there aren't any new mechanics or twists on old mechanics, or that he was expecting classes that are totally new... but that's not what we promised or planned for this book.

These classes do take features of two existing classes and integrate them into a new cohesive whole. If you're disappointed with the results, playtest a class or two, report back, and tell us how you think the play experience can be improved for them.

I think some of the hesitancy on the boards is about a high degree of complexity. There are a lot of new mechanics, with a lot of questions about interaction with existing mechanics. Much of it feels cluttered, without broad, cross-cutting ways of integrating, or much commonality.

I recognize the amount of effort that has gone in, and there are some diamonds - arcanist casting style, inspiration, bloodrager bloodlines. A lot of it feels like a disunited pile of features - warpriest blessings, swashbuckler deeds.

The kind of mechanical innovations that might be more integrative might include a single mechanism for warpriest blessings, rogue talents, ninja talents, ranger traps, swashbuckler deeds, and perhaps a few other things. Allow overlap between the lists. Allow feats or archetype class features to extend access - sanctified rogue with access to warpriest blessings? clever swashbuckler with access to ranger traps?

A unification/alignment of ki points, inspiration points, and blood points, possibly incorporating bardic rounds per day and rage round per day into a clear mechanic could be a positive contribution. Particularly if the way the mechanic is specified in class lists, and clear ways to stack, bump with feats/talents/traits, and potentially cross over in hybrid classes, was specified and expressed.

I was looking for clean, crosscutting mechanics. I was hoping for hybrid classes that are not easily achieved by archetypes, with specific flavor features.

Sean has stated in another thread that the outlines for ACG, 10 hybrid classes, August release, etc. are signed off, approved, locked. Part of what I'm hearing from the boards is that many folks - motivated and interested enough to participate in the boards on this playtest - are more devoted to the quality of the product and the integrity of the system than with the corporate internal commitments. I'm a software program manager, I understand deadline pressures, and the difficulties in falling back for a rethink. The feedback from the boards - particularly in which folks are providing specific reasoning and examples - may be a flag to consider such a rethink.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.
redward wrote:
Maybe some of these concepts can be better built mechanically via multi-classing, but not everybody wants to plan out a complex multi-class using early entry SLAs and retraining Feat swaps. Some people just want something that gets angry and casts spells and works out of the box.

IMO, the importance of this cannot be understated. It's going to be way easier to get new or intermediate RPGers interested in the game if they can come to the table and have a one-stop shop for their specific character concept, as opposed to being told that they need to research five sourcebooks and/or copy a very narrow, optimized build from the boards/guides/etc just to be able to make a street fighter or duelist or battle cleric that won't get looked down upon for having non-optimal DPR or something like that.

I do want my roleplaying games to have a "game" component, and reward system mastery with additional character effectiveness, but I'm against requiring system mastery just to make your character concept survivable and playable. I've seen people get turned off to the game because they realized that their character concept was not supported by the "optimal" versions of the core 11 classes and they would have to attain system mastery just to be able to make their concept as effective as the typical or pregen builds of the core 11 character classes when yhey were built to match the stereotype (Fighters/Barbs using STR and Two-Handed Weapons, Clerics buffing up and wading into combat, etc)

And some ideas didn't even really work with multiclassing. I think there's a place for a "Cleric-Rogue" in the fantasy narrative of PF and other game worlds I have used the PFRPG to explore (Eberron and Planescape in my own home games) but multiclassing Cleric and Rogue was going to lead to some serious disappointment. I applauded the introduction of the Inquisitor in the APG for that reason - Cleric-Rogue was not only a rules-supported idea now, but it had a strong in-world justification and concept. As a GM, I went back and revised old NPCs with that class because it was *perfect* to their concept, which was previously more flavor then mechanics. I'm going to do the same thing with Swashbuckler and Slayer, because there are Rogues, Rangers, Fighters, and others in my home campaign that will be expressed with mechanics that more closely match the flavor of those NPCs in my mind.

The classes add to the total complexity of the game, but they don't create more complexity per player - there aren't any more decisions during chargen than there already were. They just give more granular choices to one specific decision point so that, much like the Magus, if you have a very specific idea of what you want your character to be, you can be that exact idea from first level onward.

And then there are actual rules holes that needed to be filled, like a Dex-based fighter that didn't rely on twinking specific, non-core game elements (Dervish Dance or Lore Warden). Even though I've been playing PF since the day the core released and study CharOp boards/guides more obsessively than I probably should, the very fact that I can make a playable, even if not 100.00% optimized, Rapier Fighter is something I'm extremely exited about. I've been waiting for that since the days of 3.5.

It helps me as a GM, too, since when I'm writing a session for my home game, working out builds that can challenge my PCs (many of whom are at least moderately optimized because players like it when their characters win and there's nothing wrong with that) takes a long time. I remember spending hours writing an early PF game just because one of the NPCs was a Brawler in concept, but there was no easy way for the system to support it, so I played with builds for a couple of hours before I settled on something that still didn't stand up to a typical martial PC build. If I, as a GM, can make NPC characters by just deciding upon a level and a single class that encompasses everything that character is supposed to do, my prep time is going to drop by a lot.

If I have to choose between preserving the depth of multiclassing or having extra classes in order to give a greater range of "out-of-the-box" options, I'm personally going to choose the out-of-the-box options. Multiclassing is important to the complete-ness of the rules and 3.5 compatibility, but IME it's a feel-bad experience more often than it isn't.


I have to tell you, I GM primarily for young and first time RPG'ers, every addition to our group is brand new to the game, and the desire to try multi-classing is very prevalent.

You are right, it often ends up being a feel bad experience, but when someone wants to try a ranger/rogue, they will be disappointed if I say "you are better off playing a slayer, it's the same thing but the work is already done for you."


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Grimmy wrote:

I have to tell you, I GM primarily for young and first time RPG'ers, every addition to our group is brand new to the game, and the desire to try multi-classing is very prevalent.

You are right, it often ends up being a feel bad experience, but when someone wants to try a ranger/rogue, they will be disappointed if I say "you are better off playing a slayer, it's the same thing but the work is already done for you."

So the ACG is bad if the options it presents are worse than multi-classing, and the ACG is bad if the options it presents are better than multi-classing?

Man, this book just cannot catch a break.


Maybe there is a sweet spot, where the hybrid class avoids some pitfalls of multi-classing, but with a little effort and skill a multi-class character could surpass the hybrid.

That would be pretty sweet.


redward wrote:
Grimmy wrote:

I have to tell you, I GM primarily for young and first time RPG'ers, every addition to our group is brand new to the game, and the desire to try multi-classing is very prevalent.

You are right, it often ends up being a feel bad experience, but when someone wants to try a ranger/rogue, they will be disappointed if I say "you are better off playing a slayer, it's the same thing but the work is already done for you."

So the ACG is bad if the options it presents are worse than multi-classing, and the ACG is bad if the options it presents are better than multi-classing?

Man, this book just cannot catch a break.

This is what I felt 5 mins before the playtest came out.

Dark Archive

redward wrote:
Grimmy wrote:

I have to tell you, I GM primarily for young and first time RPG'ers, every addition to our group is brand new to the game, and the desire to try multi-classing is very prevalent.

You are right, it often ends up being a feel bad experience, but when someone wants to try a ranger/rogue, they will be disappointed if I say "you are better off playing a slayer, it's the same thing but the work is already done for you."

So the ACG is bad if the options it presents are worse than multi-classing, and the ACG is bad if the options it presents are better than multi-classing?

Man, this book just cannot catch a break.

I wish I could favorite your post more than once redward


I never thought this thread would explode as it has.

Scarab Sages

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Slayer has favored target, which is new.

Actually it reads like a selfish version of freebooter archetype's Freebooter's Bane feature. So not new.

Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Warpriest has blessings, which is a new mechanic (and, like the hunter, could use some more "oomph").

Except of course of Liberation, Magic, Nobility, Repose, Rune, Strength, Travel, and Trickery. All those lesser blessings are copy-pastes of the respective domain's first level ability. So not new.

Designer, RPG Superstar Judge

5 people marked this as a favorite.

Sure, and a magus's ability to make a melee attack and cast a spell the same round is basically the same as melee attack + quickened spell, and therefore "not new."

Feel free to continue nitpicking and focusing on the negatives instead of trying to improve the classes.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Sure, and a magus's ability to make a melee attack and cast a spell the same round is basically the same as melee attack + quickened spell, and therefore "not new."

Feel free to continue nitpicking and focusing on the negatives instead of trying to improve the classes.

It really is. I wish people would take a moment and look at the end effect of things. If they're exactly the same thats not very interesting.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Scavion wrote:
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Sure, and a magus's ability to make a melee attack and cast a spell the same round is basically the same as melee attack + quickened spell, and therefore "not new."

Feel free to continue nitpicking and focusing on the negatives instead of trying to improve the classes.

It really is. I wish people would take a moment and look at the end effect of things. If they're exactly the same thats not very interesting.

Seriously? You're saying spell combat was nothing new? It changed the action economy radically without being unbalanced for a base class across all the levels. Such a design triumph IMO.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Its not exactly new. Its a great ability but its not like it's never happened before.

Although now that I think of it, if Magus gets spellstrike, can Warpriest get some form of channel-smite that does something depending on his blessing? Pretty Please?(Note: I'm biased. Most of my ideas on Warpriest revolve around hating that it has so many per day abilities to track)


That would be cool.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber
Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Sure, and a magus's ability to make a melee attack and cast a spell the same round is basically the same as melee attack + quickened spell, and therefore "not new."

Feel free to continue nitpicking and focusing on the negatives instead of trying to improve the classes.

And to point out, I used to be a nay-sayer against the Magus. Then I did something brave... I tried playing one! Wow, it makes a significant difference to try it out in play instead of just looking at it and saying "Gee, that Arcane Pool looks gimmicky" or "why can't a character just get a feat and do spell combat? X character should be able to do that easily enough.".

Less complaining, more playing. Making up a character is part of it, but PLAY that character, too. There are a lot of things that look stupid, silly, or just "not playable", on paper but are actually a lot of fun in play (i.e. the Savage Worlds RPG).


I am with the OP in thinking this book is a very welcome addition. It is one thing to post constructive criticism and it is another to just b++@+. I don't understand so many people just b&&!*ing. If you don't like it don't play it. If you think you have an idea that could help improve it, advice is actively being used right now to help improve the product. Paizo doesn't have to do this, I can't count how many things in life come to you as "This is what you get, your input is not required."

I have a certain style of characters I like to play and felt my options on those were starting to run low. While I will probably only ever use two or three classes in this book for characters, the fact these options have opened up to me have made me quite happy.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens Subscriber
SeeleyOne wrote:

And to point out, I used to be a nay-sayer against the Magus. Then I did something brave... I tried playing one! Wow, it makes a significant difference to try it out in play instead of just looking at it and saying "Gee, that Arcane Pool looks gimmicky" or "why can't a character just get a feat and do spell combat? X character should be able to do that easily enough.".

Less complaining, more playing. Making up a character is part of it, but PLAY that character, too. There are a lot of things that look stupid, silly, or just "not playable", on paper but are actually a lot of fun in play (i.e. the Savage Worlds RPG).

Wait, you mean you actually played a character in a game, instead of relying on theorycraft alone?

What have we come to?


The kind of mechanical innovations that might be more integrative might include a single mechanism for warpriest blessings, rogue talents, ninja talents, ranger traps, swashbuckler deeds, and perhaps a few other things. Allow overlap between the lists. Allow feats or archetype class features to extend access - sanctified rogue with access to warpriest blessings? clever swashbuckler with access to ranger traps?

A unification/alignment of ki points, inspiration points, and blood points, possibly incorporating bardic rounds per day and rage round per day into a clear mechanic could be a positive contribution. Particularly if the way the mechanic is specified in class lists, and clear ways to stack, bump with feats/talents/traits, and potentially cross over in hybrid classes, was specified and expressed.

I was looking for clean, crosscutting mechanics. I was hoping for hybrid classes...

Been thinking that from 3.5, maybe in the next decade.


I am looking forward to trying out the Arcanist. It is everything that I have wanted out of an arcane class. I have always liked how the sorcerer casts spells but really hate how limited you are in selecting spells.


thunderspirit wrote:
SeeleyOne wrote:

And to point out, I used to be a nay-sayer against the Magus. Then I did something brave... I tried playing one! Wow, it makes a significant difference to try it out in play instead of just looking at it and saying "Gee, that Arcane Pool looks gimmicky" or "why can't a character just get a feat and do spell combat? X character should be able to do that easily enough.".

Less complaining, more playing. Making up a character is part of it, but PLAY that character, too. There are a lot of things that look stupid, silly, or just "not playable", on paper but are actually a lot of fun in play (i.e. the Savage Worlds RPG).

Wait, you mean you actually played a character in a game, instead of relying on theorycraft alone?

What have we come to?

I dunno, I'm currently playing a Magus and some things do kind of bug me about it. I wish it were designed more like the hybrids. I hate it's spell list and a lot of arcana early levels are really not fun or very defining. Also it feels pigeon-holed into very few weapon selections. I'm having enough fun as it is, but I think I could be having more fun. Was there a Magus playtest?


Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Companion, Lost Omens, Maps, Rulebook Subscriber
Malwing wrote:
Was there a Magus playtest?

Yes.

1 to 50 of 65 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / General Discussion / A message about the advanced class guide All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.