Gestalt

[Chief Cook and Bottlewasher]

Deanoth wrote:

Also to be fair. This is almost 6-8 months of playtesting of these classes and we are barely in the first month.

Actually, no. There may be 8 months till the book will be published, but play testing ends mid December (18th?).

[Suz]

I am with Scrimmy on this.

As for the rest, the reason it isn't an argument isn't because there is no argument to be made, but that I am no longer indulging you guys on the matter. I have accepted your believe on the matter and don't rightly care if you take the opinions of others or not.

You are correct darling, and I don't find you rude because you give constructive input and have not once been agressive in any manner of your posting. I have made a few "spur of the moment" errors as I have been posting far more aggressively than I like so I have been missing some crucial details, with that in mind I am no longer contributing to that area of the discussion.

@Scrimmy,

I noticed Solomen Grundy was looking at Gestalt vs Advanced Classes vs Base classes that fall into the role. For example rather than Bloodrager vs Barbarian sorcerer, he also looked at the Magus.

What would the other comparisons be if we looked at the roles they now fill as hybrid classes?

Arcanist - All 9th level spellcasters
Bloodrager - Magus/Paladin/Inquisitor
Brawler - Monk/Fighter/Barbarian
Hunter - Ranger/Druid
Investigator - Rogue/Bard
Shaman - Druid/Oracle
Skald - Bard
Slayer - Inquisitor
Swashbuckler - Rogue/Fighter/
Warpriest - Paladin

What do you think?

[Cap. Darling]

Suz wrote:

I am with Scrimmy on this.

As for the rest, the reason it isn't an argument isn't because there is no argument to be made, but that I am no longer indulging you guys on the matter. I have accepted your believe on the matter and don't rightly care if you take the opinions of others or not.

You are correct darling, and I don't find you rude because you give constructive input and have not once been agressive in any manner of your posting. I have made a few "spur of the moment" errors as I have been posting far more aggressively than I like so I have been missing some crucial details, with that in mind I am no longer contributing to that area of the discussion.

@Scrimmy,

I noticed Solomen Grundy was looking at Gestalt vs Advanced Classes vs Base classes that fall into the role. For example rather than Bloodrager vs Barbarian sorcerer, he also looked at the Magus.

What would the other comparisons be if we looked at the roles they now fill as hybrid classes?

Arcanist - All 9th level spellcasters
Bloodrager - Magus/Paladin/Inquisitor
Brawler - Monk/Fighter/Barbarian
Hunter - Ranger/Druid
Investigator - Rogue/Bard
Shaman - Druid/Oracle
Skald - Bard
Slayer - Inquisitor
Swashbuckler - Rogue/Fighter/
Warpriest - Paladin

What do you think?

I think we need to distinct between the role they fill in a combat mechanic role: damage, melee front(what is called a tank in a game with a aggro mechanic) support/buff, control/debuff. And the role they fill in the game World. Most classes can fill more than one role and some even at the same time and there is no rule saying that you need them all.

What i want from the new classes is the possibillity to make a concept work that have been less workable until now. The swashbuckler must be a reasonable melee fighter if he is to give that errol flynn feel that have been absant from the game so far.
Not all the new classes give me that. But i have complained in the relevant forum parts i think.
But any way grundys comparative analysis was from what i can undestand clawed because he was looking at the BL and then making 3 other builts that then should do what the BL does Best. The thing he manager to show me was that non of the existing classes can be that supernaturally powered death machine. And that is good. The magus can be good at what he does and i dont belive that the BL is gonna obsolete him. The sorcerer wont be a great melee figther, no surprise there. And the barbarian. May be besind the self buffer meleers if they get time to self buff all they need, but the barbar can be buffed too remember.

[AncientSpark]

I don't see anywhere where they has been a personal attack. Frustration, yes, because there are some very very obvious flaws in arguments that keep getting glossed over. Especially considering the point that, again, Suz's playtest experience has very little to do with the general "gestalty" feel of classes and more to do with the fact that some individual abilities are very strong and everything keeps getting put out of context, nor this idea that somehow, certain abilities aren't different from each other due to technicalities rather than feel or effect.

Suz wrote:

@Scrimmy,

I noticed Solomen Grundy was looking at Gestalt vs Advanced Classes vs Base classes that fall into the role. For example rather than Bloodrager vs Barbarian sorcerer, he also looked at the Magus.

What would the other comparisons be if we looked at the roles they now fill as hybrid classes?

Arcanist - All 9th level spellcasters
Bloodrager - Magus/Paladin/Inquisitor
Brawler - Monk/Fighter/Barbarian
Hunter - Ranger/Druid
Investigator - Rogue/Bard
Shaman - Druid/Oracle
Skald - Bard
Slayer - Inquisitor
Swashbuckler - Rogue/Fighter/
Warpriest - Paladin

What do you think?

It's only semi-accurate, up to a point.

Arcanist isn't all 9-th level spellcasters. It's mostly a sorcerer who has the ability to switch utility spells every once in a while, but generally has weakened alternative features to compensate. If you played Spirit Shaman back in 3.5, it's like that.

Bloodrager resembles more a Paladin than a Magus or Inquisitor. For Magus or Inquisitor, spellcasting is a CENTRAL part of their combat style. For Paladin, it's more a minor boost. Sure, some effects are powerful, but without some seriously high powered spells (again, Holy Sword), the Bloodrager is never going to rely on spells as his complete standby.

Brawler is basically a fighter. It has Unarmed Damage instead of Weapon Mastery and some additional features, but it's mostly a fighter type. I don't see how it has much to do with Monk (who are about the unarmored style and utility effects) or Barbarian (who are concentrated on rage)

Hunter...eh. I don't think you can even describe Hunter with just Ranger/Druid. Heck, if I had to take something as close to Hunter, it'd be an Inquisitor who took Animal Domain.

Investigator, yeah, I can see Investigator being reasonably close to Rogue/Bard, but it doesn't really share the same role as Bard so much as Bard just happens to be good with Knowledge like Investigator. Which is fine, since Knowledge is archetypal to both kinds of classes.

And etc., etc. I don't want to go through all the classes, but there's enough ideas that it isn't so easy to just "fit them into class combinations" like it's so claimed. Those that can be easily fit need fixing, sure, but that's more a problem of the individual design than anything.

[christos gurd]

Btw, as someone pointed out in the bloodrager thread, a bloodrager RAW does not gain bloodline powers. Bloodrager bloodlines grant bloodrager powers. Even if you do interpret them as allowed access to sorcerer bloodlines, they would get no benefit from them.