Lead Designer
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey there all,
Its been almost three weeks since the playtest kicked off. Throughout this process the design team has poured through thousands of posts containing feedback, concerns, ideas, and playtest data. First off, thank you for all of your hard work.
Now its time to see it pay off. The revised version of the playtest document is LIVE. You can download the file by going to my downloads. You will notice the that date of the playtest file has been updated to today. You will be receiving an email reminding you of this as well.
Grab the file and take a look to see what changes we've made. Of course, we are not done yet. This is just one step on the path to the final version of these classes. Give these new ones and try and let us know what you think. Post your feedback here on the boards and in the special threads created in the class forum. Update your Surveys! to let us know how we are doing.
We look forward to seeing what you have to say.
The playtest closes on December 17th, so get those games going now!
Thanks again
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
|
Lead Designer
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Didn't grab the playtest the first time around... No problem.
You can find the product page for it right HERE!
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is there a change log?
I think I've seen all the arcanist changes, but wondering about the rest.
Dennis, hop on chat!
I'd say so. They've locked the old class discussion and added revised threads for each class
|
So I have taken a brief look and here are my thoughts:
Bloodrager- I enjoy the custom spell list. There's a few I'd change or add (bladed dash) but I don't know all the spells so I have to look them up later.
Shaman- not too many changes, and it still needs help. Battle's first spirit ability is very good, and should be the life spirits greater ability(because, frankly, why would you need mass stabilize after you already have channel? There might be niche situations, but still)
EDIT: I hadn't noticed earlier, was the shaman spell list changed?
Slayer: much smoother. I am converting some of the creature in Jade Regent book 4 to these and it looks promising.
Investigator- I like the combat changes. I don't see much of a reason to not combine them though. Also, why is there an option to add the precision damage. Why wouldn't you? I dot see any penalty to using it, or resource cost.
Warpriest- I definitely noticed improvements that look promising.
Hunter- same as was priest. I'm not sure it'll replace wild shape Druid, but headed the right way. Does hunters aspecting the pet cost a use? Perhaps some half favored enemy ability when the pet and you attack the same target.
Just initial impressions. More to come in the main class threads.
IlovethearcanistIlovethearcanistIlovethearcanist
Just had to say it.
Also, cursory look over Slayer and Investigator changes; REALLY liking them. ESPECIALLY Investigator, Poison Lore is fantastic and a good compromise between those who wanted usage, and those who thought it didn't fit.
... Not so happy about Warpriest, but eh. 'll playtest it and see if it's changed /enough/ from the monsterous super-cleric I saw durin' low level plays :s
EDIT: I hadn't noticed earlier, was the shaman spell list changed?
Yep, the Shaman now draws spells from the Druid list instead of the Cleric list.
Alright so I am hating on where the bloodrager has gone.
However, I'm liking where the warpriest has gone (which considering it's a divine class is amazing -- I hate divine classes generally). In addition I feel like the shaman has been nailed, the inquisitor has found what it needed, the hunter is something I would really enjoy playing, the slayer is fine and the skald has actually peeked my interest (even if only on a powergamey sort of front), so all in all I would call it a net improvement.
Unfortunately I simply cannot make the character I want with the bloodrager at all... which is a real shame since it is the one class that should be able to do it.
I'm liking the warpriest changes. Swift action buffing and healing, freedom to choose a weapon, weapon BAB and damage increases that make using a smaller weapon viable, all very impressive. Less front-loaded than it was before, a few less feats but that won't hurt much. Still can't get power attack at first level, or get fighter-only feats, but the power level of this class is greatly increased.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So, quick impressions on the revised classes as a whole:
Arcanist: It now has flavor! Good. And I like the Exploits.
Bloodrager: No major changes. That's fine with me, I like this one.
Brawler: Still as boring as cardboard and lackluster mechanically as compared to a Fighter/Monk multiclass. Biggest disappointment of the playtest as a whole.
Hunter: For the single most complained about class (besides the Warpriest), sure was a whole lotta nothing changed about this class overall. It still has all of the same problems that were being complained about before: It brings nothing to the table that a Druid or Ranger can't do, but better.
Investigator: Taken from the surprise favorite of mine in the playtest, to one I would not even toy with the idea of playing (other class with that dubious honor: the Rogue). The Sneak Attack replacement is, as currently written, nigh unusable (COMPLETELY unusable until you have 18 Int, and then only for one round...) and not very good when it DOES work.
Shaman: Haven't really looked at this one in depth...but very disappointed it now uses my least favorite spell list (the Druid's).
Skald: Haven't even really looked at it. Wasn't interested at all the first go around and as far as I can tell by a quick glance, no major overhaul was done on this one.
Slayer: It now has 6+Int skills. Good. 4+Int was baffling for a 8+6 babby. Other than that, don't see any real changes, but I don't object to that.
Swashbuckler: Good attempts to fix its issues, still need a playtest to see if Charmed Life is actually worth it. Disappointed that the Design Team figured a Feat Tax was necessary to use Slashing weapons with its class abilities. I don't see why that shouldn't be built in to the class.
Warpriest: Really like the changes to this one for the most part. Peeved that a Warpriest of, say, Irori is the one type that misses out on Weapon Focus because while everybody else gets proficiency in their Deity's weapon, he is forced to take IUS for Focus Weapon. Big grump on that one, but overall some good changes for the previous second least favorite class of mine.
Abraham...if it makes you feel any better I saw your posts about the bloodrager not being just another self buffing class and was really hoping they would listen.
So, quick impressions on the revised classes as a whole:
Warpriest: Really like the changes to this one for the most part. Peeved that a Warpriest of, say, Irori is the one type that misses out on Weapon Focus because while everybody else gets proficiency in their Deity's weapon, he is forced to take IUS for Focus Weapon. Big grump on...
Yeah, that kinda goes counter to something answered in the FAQ about Unarmed Strike as a Favored Weapon for Clerics.
|
Quick Question - We can use the new classes for PFS events, right? The playtest ends soon. What happens to a character I run in a PFS event after the playtest ends:
1) Can I continue to play the character in PFS events, using the latest version of the rules.
or
2) Does the character have to sit on the shelf till GENCON after the playtest ends?
My apologizes if this has been covered already.
Quick Question - We can use the new classes for PFS events, right? The playtest ends soon. What happens to a character I run in a PFS event after the playtest ends:
1) Can I continue to play the character in PFS events, using the latest version of the rules.
or
2) Does the character have to sit on the shelf till GENCON after the playtest ends?
My apologizes if this has been covered already.
#1...You continue to play the character in PFS using the latest version of the rules until the actual book comes out. Then you need the book/PDF and have to update the character to the finalized version of the class.
|
|
First , great material , and a lot of improvements from the first version.
Second , wasn´t it going to come out with some Archtypes ?
Third ,we are seing from the forums, a fair amount of errors/typos/forget/etc writings in the document ( only normal in this "quickened phase" of delivering the playtest).
Would it be too much to ask, for a "corrected version" of this playtest for all of us using the playtest classes until the book comes out?
It can (should) be after 17th, and without any "repercussions"of the playtest feedback , just a "as it is document".
It would be a tremendous help to us players , and not having to go thru the thousands posts in the forums where you guys confirmed them.
Thanks
Will we see a third revision before the playtest ends? There are at least four classes where it seems additional playtesting could be very poignant.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Nope. the Devs have stated that after this document we will have to wait for the rulebook release in August.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't had a chance to take an in depth look at the new classes, so I'm not going to comment yet on what I think of them until I have a better idea. For now, I just want the PAIZO staff to know that I like the idea of these hybrid classes, but I am very concerned that most players won't want to play core classes anymore. I understand that players will, and should, desire to play these classes because of the flavor of them, but their should also be an equally strong pull to be a core class. If these new classes make the core classes seem bland or, even worse, seem useless, then I will be very dissapointed.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if I frequently hear players saying "Why would you want to be [core class] when you can be a [hybrid class]? They get nearly all the benefits of [core class] without hardly any drawbacks, but they also get most of the cool stuff from [core class] too. It's way smarter to be the [hybrid]," then I'm not okay with what Paizo is trying to do.
If instead I hear "Well...the [hybrid class] is kinda cool because you get some of the benefits from [core class] while also getting some of the abilities of [core class], but you also sacrifice being able to do A, B, and C effectively. It's really a toss up to me. Do you want to be bad-@ss awesome on occasion like the core classes, or just be really good a bit more often?" then I will support this whole heartedly.
It would be nice to have a blog post that is essentially their latest round of errata for the document once the playtest ends. While it won't bring everything up to what will end up being the final version over the next couple weeks, it should hopefully at least tide people over until GenCon.
I haven't had a chance to take an in depth look at the new classes, so I'm not going to comment yet on what I think of them until I have a better idea. For now, I just want the PAIZO staff to know that I like the idea of these hybrid classes, but I am very concerned that most players won't want to play core classes anymore. I understand that players will, and should, desire to play these classes because of the flavor of them, but their should also be an equally strong pull to be a core class. If these new classes make the core classes seem bland or, even worse, seem useless, then I will be very dissapointed.
I guess what I'm trying to say is, if I frequently hear players saying "Why would you want to be [core class] when you can be a [hybrid class]? They get nearly all the benefits of [core class] without hardly any drawbacks, but they also get most of the cool stuff from [core class] too. It's way smarter to be the [hybrid]," then I'm not okay with what Paizo is trying to do.
If instead I hear "Well...the [hybrid class] is kinda cool because you get some of the benefits from [core class] while also getting some of the abilities of [core class], but you also sacrifice being able to do A, B, and C effectively. It's really a toss up to me. Do you want to be bad-@ss awesome on occasion like the core classes, or just be really good a bit more often?" then I will support this whole heartedly.
Even if they did obsolete the Core classes (and they don't), saying something just a few of days before the playtest ends is too little, too late to change anything anyway.
I have to agree with Rynjin on the Investigator. Interesting class with no niche in combat. That means 80 to 90% of the game he will be fairly useless. I like the concept behind Studied Strike. The actual execution is unwieldy. Not allowing it work with ranged weapons doesn't make sense at all.
I'm extremely late to the playtest/discussion party. I had fallen out of the loop with Pathfinder due to work.
Right now I am playtesting The Investigator class through RotRL and I feel these changes could better balance the class.
Looking at the class, I liked its overall feel and flavor, but I agree, that combat is rather lacking in early levels. Not to mention the Studied Combat/Strike abilities are sub par to sneak attack.
Honestly I would like to see Sneak Attack return, but have a 1d6 at 1st then +1d6 every three levels thereafter. I think that is fair, not competing with rogue, but not entirely negating its use either.
Studied Combat is another nice addition, but I believe that the insight bonus and how long the ability lasts should be switched. I.E. The bonus is equal to your intelligence modifier, and the bonus lasts a number of rounds equal to your level (Or half if you want to keep it from being combat heavy.)
I also feel Inspiration should be renamed to Gnosis, I think that fits better flavor-wise.
I'm not much on the use of poisons, so I don't see much use for it in the class, but others probably like it better. I'd rather see Poison Lore/Resistance be switched for some more investigative abilities like Detect Magic, Detect Alignment, Zone of Truth, and the like.
I do hope these suggestions are taken into account, I sincerely wish I had seen these classes be released earlier and not missed the window for feedback.
Hmmm, I don't know where to post that, but in a game I GM, we decided to playtest a swashbuckler and a warpriest. Very good experience and stuff...
Except we maybe found something interesting: The swashbuckler parry is a little tricky, because of the lack of information to whenever we can use it.
It seems that you can parry even when your unarmed, when you don't see your opponent, you're flat-footed, or the foe is incorporeal and you don't possess a magic weapon, because you only have to make an attack roll. Miss chance are ignored too.
I think it should be reworded.
But really, good job!
I can't wait to see the final product!
I didn't find out about this until the playtest was over. :( Can I find the pdf anywhere else?
|
|
I didn't find out about this until the playtest was over. :( Can I find the pdf anywhere else?
I believe the pdf remains available on the product page HERE.
It is not.
Yes, it's like a beta version. There will have been changes, updates, etc. done between the end of the playtest and the release of the ACG that will not be reflected in the playtest documents. They likely haven't been touched, much less updated, since it ended.
If you want the fully updated final versions, you have to either buy the ACG, or wait until the PRD gets updated in September.
Eh? Street release was two weeks ago. Your FLGS should have it on their shelf already.
I don't know if this has been addressed yet but, if I read this correctly, you can take 1 level as a sorcerer, one level as a wizard and the rest as a archaist. Then, take the school knowledge and bloodline exploits and now stack your archaist levels with those of the other two classes to determine their bloodline power or school specialization?
So 18th level archanist/ 1 level Sorcerer, Cross Blooded (Orc/Draconic Gold Dragon)/ Wizard, Evoker
With the magical knack trait (+2 CL, this helps counter the 2 1 level dips)
+2dmg/die rolled (Bloodline Arcanas)
+1dmg/2level = +9 (19/2) (Evoker)
Talk about the best of both worlds!
Am I missing something? Is this right?
Also, if you could take the favored class options of the archanists parent classes, would taking the orc bloodline grant you access to the half-orc sorcerer favored class option, if you are not a half-orc, since you gain the orc subtype from the blood line?