Advanced class guide is awesome


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion


Just checked the ACG playtest. Haven't done before.

I have to say the classes are very good. I *love* Maneuver mastery from the brawler.

I'm actually thinking about banning all the CRB classes from my games :/

Great classes, Paizo. I love what you can do when you aren't bound by heritage from 3.5

Dark Archive

I like a lot of it; Slayer is the "Full BAB Rogue" that people have said needed to be created for a while. Warpriests are pretty amazing; Arcanist and Bloodrager are "meh", Brawler makes core Monks look terrible (few things don't though; so this is OK), Swashbuckler is "good but narrow-focused"; you can really only create one character out of it.. it's solid, but really I prefer classes with options. I have yet to see a Shaman in play so can't comment, but they seem good in option. I think hunter needs a bit more "Oomph".

Sczarni

I am currently playing a Slayer and I love the class.

Sczarni

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Thalin wrote:
I like a lot of it; Slayer is the "Full BAB Rogue" that people have said needed to be created for a while. Warpriests are pretty amazing; Arcanist and Bloodrager are "meh", Brawler makes core Monks look terrible (few things don't though; so this is OK), Swashbuckler is "good but narrow-focused"; you can really only create one character out of it.. it's solid, but really I prefer classes with options. I have yet to see a Shaman in play so can't comment, but they seem good in option. I think hunter needs a bit more "Oomph".

Bloodrager is 'meh'?! Don't make Bubba mad!


Thalin wrote:
I like a lot of it; Slayer is the "Full BAB Rogue" that people have said needed to be created for a while. Warpriests are pretty amazing; Arcanist and Bloodrager are "meh", Brawler makes core Monks look terrible (few things don't though; so this is OK), Swashbuckler is "good but narrow-focused"; you can really only create one character out of it.. it's solid, but really I prefer classes with options. I have yet to see a Shaman in play so can't comment, but they seem good in option. I think hunter needs a bit more "Oomph".

Actually Swasbluckler makes damage fighters looks dull and Brawler is a gimped monk.

Ki powers are the monks tools, combined with medusa's wrath make the monks work... Brawler are awesome at first look and completely gimped when you analyze it further.


I'm seeing the classes as a hint of what Paizo could have done, if they weren't bearing the burden of heritage.


RafaelBraga wrote:

Actually Swasbluckler makes damage fighters looks dull and Brawler is a gimped monk.

Ki powers are the monks tools, combined with medusa's wrath make the monks work... Brawler are awesome at first look and completely gimped when you analyze it further.

Maybe, or maybe not. I'm focusing more in the new mechanics than the class itself, to see how the core skeleton of d20 could improve. The ability to take any feat/chain of feats as a move action for 1 minute IS wonderful. It doesn't matter really if the brawler would be better or not with ki. The important thing, is to see how new "technology" within the game system is applied to martials. A fighter able to swap feats as a move action gives them options, and that's nice


I think that the ability to have changeable feats should be a fighter or fighter archetype ability, that would had made the fighter unique and in very in touch with a pure fighter much more than with a brawler.

That said, it wont make the brawler better than a pure fighter or a pure monk. The Qinggong monk made the pure monk much more powerful than before giving extra customization options.

I really hope they give the fighter an archetype that get the ability of "blank feats" to be usable as needed for the encounter.

If i was to make a monk/something hybrid i would have chosen a monk/druid without spells and with wildshape-like abilities... the brawler is a monk/fighter hybrid with the worse of both worlds.

The slayer is awesome and the warpriest too, but the warpriest just took monk place as the most MAD class in the game. You literary can have a dump stat unless you want to have 1 skill point per level(wich doesnt fit the class).

Sovereign Court

I rather like the Bloodrager. Here is a barbarian that doesn't need someone else to cast Fly on him, because he can do that himself. It's a full martial with more independence.

I think the Arcanist is an exciting compromise between wizard and sorcerer; it's somewhat slower spell level schedule might be good in a game where wizards seemed to be a little OP, but they're not so restricted as sorcerers, which felt a bit too strict to me. I'm not wild about the somewhat complicated way they import Bloodline/School powers though, that could've been more elegant somehow.

I really like the Investigator. I think this is the "Sherlock" style rogue: skillmonkey with enough skill to really make it stick, and some interesting angles with alchemy, but not the weird Jekyll/Hyde/Bombthrower weirdness.

The Slayer makes a nice dirty fighter. Likewise, the Brawler seems like a nice straightforward maneuver/punch dude.

The hunter's teamwork-with-animal companion is brilliant; it makes so much more sense to me than Inquisitor's Solo Tactics.

The Shaman appeals to me because while I like the druid spell list, I always felt the Wildshape was stealing all the attention.

I think the Swashbuckler looks a bit fragile, glass cannon. Hits hard, and ways to get out of danger himself. However, what I'd really wanted in a Swashbuckler would be low reliance on personal gear. I want someone who doesn't much care if he's fighting with his ancestral sword or with something he just stole from a random guard; but that's hard in PF's WBL system.

---

To summarize: lots of exciting new stuff.


Stuff I like, for Paizo "going forward" (yes, there'll be a Pathfinder 2.0 someday, it's inevitable):

Maneuver Mastery giving a mechanic for martial versatility

Toying with giving every class a "pool resource". I can't stress too much how good is this mechanic.

Investigator's ability to add +1d6 to skills as a laboratory for rogue's uniqueness

Swashbuckler's panache recharge mechanics for martials: it "feeds" of critical hits and killing blows.

Hunter's companion nicely fleshed. It's a mechanic that could give you a *companion*. That is, some one who helps you, instead of a killing pouncing machine like current eidolons/companions are. NPC shouldn't steal the show (even companion NPC shouldn't steal the show)

Warpriest as a solution for the cleric class being too much "catch it all". You could split the class in two, a caster-heavy priest and a front-line warpriest.


Hold your horses, the verdict isn't out yet, there is plenty of time for this book to either be really good or suck big time, sure having really neat ideas about game mechanics is good but actually implementing into the game is the thing that counts in the end.


I'm having fun with the Slayer. Favored Target is very flexible.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
I'm seeing the classes as a hint of what Paizo could have done, if they weren't bearing the burden of heritage.

I've not been very impressed personally. Class balance is still completely out of whack with these new classes. In fact, I've not been impressed with PF's balance compared to 3.5. A lot of the "balance" seems to be done by making a bunch of horrible options, which isn't very fun (and just makes it so new players can make even worse characters).

Overall the new classes didn't indicate to me that they really understand the caster and non-caster divide in power. And last I looked I wasn't impressed by a lot of the abilities non-casters got -- a ton of them were fairly terrible and the playtesting response didn't seem to change that much.


RafaelBraga wrote:

I think that the ability to have changeable feats should be a fighter or fighter archetype ability, that would had made the fighter unique and in very in touch with a pure fighter much more than with a brawler.

That said, it wont make the brawler better than a pure fighter or a pure monk. The Qinggong monk made the pure monk much more powerful than before giving extra customization options.

I really hope they give the fighter an archetype that get the ability of "blank feats" to be usable as needed for the encounter.

If i was to make a monk/something hybrid i would have chosen a monk/druid without spells and with wildshape-like abilities... the brawler is a monk/fighter hybrid with the worse of both worlds.

The slayer is awesome and the warpriest too, but the warpriest just took monk place as the most MAD class in the game. You literary can have a dump stat unless you want to have 1 skill point per level(wich doesnt fit the class).

I think you are in the minority on the Brawler vs. Monk stance. As far as I've seen, most of the pro-Monk people feel the Brawler does the Monk's job, only better. The Monk still has some cool Ki Powers, sure, but most of those are either really situational (slow fall), really bad (wholeness of body) or require feat taxes to work (abundant step). Some of the archetypes are really good, especially with Qinggong, but those are band aids and, usually, only makes the Monk decent in comparison (there are some notable exceptions).

All in all, the Brawler is fit to take the place of the Monk when it comes time to play an 'unarmed combatant' as much as Unarmed Fighter did.

Plus, don't even bring up the Warpriest. Unless that class goes through some significant changes, the a Warpriest is likely to be able to make both Brawlers and Monks cry when it comes to being a Face Puncher.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Advanced class guide is awesome All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.