Of the new classes, the only ones I felt could easily have been made archetypes while retaining their flavor is ninja (archetype of rogue) and samurai (archetype of cavalier). The cavalier itself I think could have been made as an alternate class to fighter.They are just big archetypes, and really shouldn't be considered a new class in itself. I am curious, however, how would you make the Fighter have all of the class features of the Cavalier without simply making a new class?
Well, im not talking about fitting every sigle mechanical ability in there, but rather the general flavor. The concept of an inspiring mounted warrior. Honestly, id probably split it into three parts; a feat chain for banner and teamworky stuff, an arcetype replacing armor training and bravery with a mount, and another archetype replacing weapon training with the orders and challenges.
The specifics of the abilities would have to be tweaked, but the general flavor would be there.Having it in those three parts also means people can make a mounted warrior that isnt part of an order, or an inspiring general that isnt bound to a mount.
But now the cavalier exists; im not saying it should be replaced, just that i think its conceptual niche is similar enough to the fighter to be an alternate classss or a bunch of archetypes instead.
Ok, what is with everyone saying the witch could be done with an Archetype? The Witch is NOTHING like the wizard, sorcerer, or the oracle. Sure it cast spells, but it's spells are drawn from a familiar, not some stupid book (like wizards). Additionally, the patrons are pretty cool and flavorful. Oh, and the hexes are actually pretty cool. They are things that none of the arcane spell casters can really replicate in the way the witch does.
Also, HOW THE BLOODY HELL DOES THE CLERIC DO THE INQUISITOR JOB??? Last I checked Clerics don' get:
4+int mod skills
Ability to drop detect lies on a dime
Monster lore which is pretty much bardic knowledge, but just for the most useful knowledges....
get a bonus to things like sense motive.
bane ability on demand
and judgments (which are just cool and flavorful).As for the Magus, JUST SHUT IT. The people suggesting that just multi classing fighter-wizard really don't know what they are talking about... Sure, EK becomes viable... eventually... But he tends to stay fallen behind the Magus for a while. Additionally, no other Gish builds can ACTUALLY dual-weild a spell and sword, of which is actually a popular trope...
Honestly, I hate when a GM says they are limiting classes to CRB only... All that means is that the GM is too non-proficient to understand the other classes, is too close minded and dislikes a class purely over petty things (like disliking the Ninja class because "its too asian" when you can simply rename is Assassin, Sulk, or anything else), Or the GM has poor system knowledge and believes the other classes are "too OP"... (which is funny because most of the powerhouse classes came from the CRP i.e. Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Barbarian, and Paladin)...
Because usually having 6+int skills in pathfinder when spells exists is redundant, people put too much value on skills because they're used to them and enjoy them mechanically, but the vast majority of encounters don't require you to have an absurd amount of skills points. Detect lies and sense motive are overlapping class abilities that don't make up the power level gap between 6th and 9th level spells. Bane ability has nothing on save or die spells and the utility that a cleric brings to a table. It's not that the cleric does the inquisitors job, it's that he can be flavored as an inquisitor and be more versatile.
Of the new classes, the only ones I felt could easily have been made archetypes while retaining their flavor is ninja (archetype of rogue) and samurai (archetype of cavalier). The cavalier itself I think could have been made as an alternate class to fighter.They are just big archetypes, and really shouldn't be considered a new class in itself. I am curious, however, how would you make the Fighter have all of the class features of the Cavalier without simply making a new class?Well, im not talking about fitting every sigle mechanical ability in there, but rather the general flavor. The concept of an inspiring mounted warrior. Honestly, id probably split it into three parts; a feat chain for banner and teamworky stuff, an arcetype replacing armor training and bravery with a mount, and another archetype replacing weapon training with the orders and challenges.
The specifics of the abilities would have to be tweaked, but the general flavor would be there.
Having it in those three parts also means people can make a mounted warrior that isnt part of an order, or an inspiring general that isnt bound to a mount.But now the cavalier exists; im not saying it should be replaced, just that i think its conceptual niche is similar enough to the fighter to be an alternate classss or a bunch of archetypes instead.
I suppose. If this is the case, though, why even make new classes other than the bare essentials? Why not just make every divine caster an archetype or extension of the Cleric? Why should the Barbarian, Ranger or Paladin exist when they can just be a Fighter that uses Rage, a Fighter with wilderness skills, or a Fighter with holy powers? Shouldn't the Sorcerer just be a Wizard with bloodline powers? I mean, they're similar enough.
I get what you mean by having similar concepts under a single class. It's cleaner. You don't need to know so many classes at once. But wouldn't that take away the variety and uniqueness of new classes if everything was packaged under an already existing class?
|
I really love a lot of the new classes, although the martial ones seem to fall flat mechanically.
Alchemist: I've written an 80 page love letter to this class, you tell me what I think of it.
Antipaladin: I really like the concept, but the CE shackles (much like the Paladin's LG ones) are a hindrance that I really don't care for. I'd run this over the Pally 100% of the time if I could get Lay on Hands on it.
Cavalier: Honestly I want to dislike this more, but a non Paladin Knight class has been needed for a while, and having full animal progression is very important. A solid melee calvary.
Inquisitor: I can't play divine classes, so this one doesn't work for me, but I think I'd enjoy it a lot if I could get over that bump.
Oracle: Divine issues again, but a class with baked in flavor like this seems rife for fun scenarios.
Gunslinger: This shouldn't be a glass, it should have been an archetype. Nothing it does is special enough to validate its own class, and that's from a person who loves guns in fantasy.
Summoner: I love this class to death, and I wish it wasn't found as so complicated, as it's such a cool design space to explore.
Witch: Hexes are god's gift to man, and I use them in lots of things (fave Magus is Hexcrafter), and everything else about them is fun, even if I'm not in love with their spell list.
Samurai: Eh, not really sure what makes it different...meh.
Ninja: A mid op Rogue in a class, and a damn good one. It should replace the default Rogue so that the class can compete.
Magus: It has great mechanics and a nice blending of spells, but again, not in love with the spell list. Still a very solid class, just a bit slow to get running.
I understand that. I know that this is an aspect of the game where I'm in the minority. But for my money any concept can be made with the rulebook classes that other than Oracle I see no point to the extra ones, even taking into account mechanical differences.
The mechanics are an important part of it. Whether or not you can realize your concept, if you hate the mechanical underpinnings, you aren't going to have fun.
And as I've said, I think having multiple ways to realize your character concept is a GOOD thing.
|
While I don't think we needed the witch class to represent witches, or the inquisitor class to represent a religious inquisitor, I think that having these classes as options is a good thing. With the witch class, I can still make myself a character of the druid class who identifies as a "witch," but now I also have an option to use that class and its mechanics. I could also make a member of a druid circle or an alchemical society using the witch class, with appropriate hex selection. Likewise, having the inquisitor class doesn't mean I can't make a cleric/rogue "inquisitor," it just means I have one more option for doing so.
After all, I could make a "druid" character with the cleric class simply by choosing the Animal and Plant domains, preparing appropriate spells, and using thematic weapons, but I still like having the druid class. A "bard" could be represented by a rogue/sorcerer or rogue/wizard with high Cha, but the bard class is still interesting and useful.
It also makes it easier for new players to use these concepts without having to struggle through the complexity of multiclassing or trying to fit a class into a role it wasn't quite designed for.
- Inquisitor - I think you can do pretty much all of this with a specialist cleric.
...Some of the Inquisitor's specialties can be reproduced by other classes.
But it's very difficult to reproduce more than one or two, and Discern Lies (immediate action) and Detect Alignment (at will, all alignments) can't be properly reproduced at all.
The Inquisitor's Discern Lies has two big advantages over the spell. First, it's activated as an immediate action, which means that rather than casting it prior to an interrogation, you can do a quick "lie check" in reaction to a suspicious statement. Second, you can use it for a non-continuous number of rounds per day based on your level, which makes it easier to interrogate multiple people over the course of a day.
- monster lore - unless you have high Int AND Wis (and optimisers probably don't have high Int here), this doesn't really offer anything more than any other class with Knowledge Nature and Knowledge Dungeoneering.
It amounts to probably +2 to +4 to your checks to identify monsters, which isn't fantastic but it's not bad for a minor class feature. It's more useful if you invest skill ranks in monster knowledge skills but you don't have to do so to get the bonus, so you don't need high Int - and if you do have a high Int you still get to add that to your knowledge checks as well.
Because usually having 6+int skills in pathfinder when spells exists is redundant, people put too much value on skills because they're used to them and enjoy them mechanically, but the vast majority of encounters don't require you to have an absurd amount of skills points. Detect lies and sense motive are overlapping class abilities that don't make up the power level gap between 6th and 9th level spells. Bane ability has nothing on save or die spells and the utility that a cleric brings to a table. It's not that the cleric does the inquisitors job, it's that he can be flavored as an inquisitor and be more versatile.
I don't care if 9 levels of spellcasting are technically more powerful or versatile. It's fun to be a human lie detector and to be able to pin down someone's exact alignment by staring into their soul.
|
By and large I think that the majority of the APG classes are not only thematically appropriate but also fill niches that couldn't be accomplished even by multiclassing (which, if you haven't noticed, tends to stink in Pathfinder). Except the Summoner. **** that guy.
The UC classes are pretty much just advanced archetypes, and when viewed in that light, they're also pretty cool.
The Magus- well, I never loved the Gish the way most do, but I can certainly see the appeal.
That being said I don't like any of the ACG classes. I don't see any of them as being thematically unique or compelling enough to justify the horrific mechanical bloat which they will entail. And as a GM, I'm dreading these classes.
suppose. If this is the case, though, why even make new classes other than the bare essentials? Why not just make every divine caster an archetype or extension of the Cleric? Why should the Barbarian, Ranger or Paladin exist when they can just be a Fighter that uses Rage, a Fighter with wilderness skills, or a Fighter with holy powers? Shouldn't the Sorcerer just be a Wizard with bloodline powers? I mean, they're similar enough.
I get what you mean by having similar concepts under a single class. It's cleaner. You don't need to know so many classes at once. But wouldn't that take away the variety and uniqueness of new...
typing off phone so sorry it looks bad.
I feel some classses are more distinct from each other than not. Think of it like this: you can right now apply a bunch of archetypes to a fighter and have it be about as different from a vanilla fighter as a cavalier is. You cant do that on a cleric to become as different as an oracle is.In some cases i think it could haveworked; making the rogue and ranger as the same base class fore xample. Or perhaps having the druid as an archetype of cleric, though changig spell lists is quite a large project. Alternate class of cleric would work. Paladin i think should be a prestige class. Its highly specific, has a specific role in society, strict prerequisites and very niche. Its more prestigous than any of the other core PrCs i think.
But i feel when it comes to remaking spell list or casting methods or BaB or whatever, i feel thats best left to new classes.
Im a big opponent of bloat though; i understand why its in paizos interest as a company to pump out books but for me as a consumer i dont like it.
...
Summoner: Yeah, I know it's cliché on these boards, but I'm not a Summoner fan. It just seems like a glorified, over-specialized version of the Conjurer specialist. Even the Eidolon, which could be very cool and fluffwise actualy is, fails to really make the class useful. If a Pathfinder 2e came out and the Conjurer killed the Summoner and took the (upgraded and less confusing) Eidolon for itself, I'd be quite happy....
I am sorry but this part of the OP made me laugh and forced me to reexamin the entier text. Ubgrading the Eidolon and giving it to what is one of the strongest wizard schools is not the way i would like the game to go.
If you dont find the summoner usefull you must play the game very differently than we do. But we all can do it in ouer own way and it is great.And grats on the first thread:)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm....
Gunslinger- I like the idea, especially in the context of more swashbuckling type campaigns. I really like the idea behind Grit, but I think the targeting touch AC and misfire mechanics are atrocious, and I always houserule them away and replace them with a PR (Penetration Rating) system that's easier to balance between builds and players.
You too?
Mine is simple (emulates idea behind Touch AC):Guns: Penetration
Replace misfire and Touch AC mechanic;
Penetration bypasses the combination of armor, natural armor, and/or shields within 2nd increment (however, keep reading). One-handed firearms have a PR of 3, two handed firearms have a PR of 6, but this is ½ outside of 1st increment.
Also PR automatically increases based on enhancementx2, so a character with a +5 musket bypasses 16 points of AC from armor, natural armor, and/or shields within 1st increment, but only 8 in 2nd increment.
Broken Condition: Penetration lowered by 3 (minimum 0).
Gunslinger:
Deadeye Deed: Same method but extends penetration
Quick Clear: If Firearm gains broken condition, can ignore for 1 minute (granted not as useful as before).
Gun Training: Raises Penetration by 1 every 5 levels.
Alchemy cartridge: Lowers Penetration by 1 or more when used (use misfire value)
Dragon's breath: The nonmagical flame deals 2d6 + BAB points of fire damage to all targets within the cone of the scatter firearm (DC 15 Reflex save half). If you roll a 1 with either of the damage dice, the firearm gains broken condition or explodes if broken.
Cap darling: we read that section completely different. I think ze was saying that the summoner could be replaced with a conjurer, that could get an updated and rebaööanced version of the eidolon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ninja and Samurai are ARCHETYPES of the Rogue and Cavalier, respectively. I guess they were more complex archetypes and Paizo felt they needed a detailed write-up instead of "this ability replaces this" like the other archetypes. They could have done that with a number of other archetypes, but decided not to.
They are still archetypes and not seperate classes.
Alchemist: My experience is that the alchemist replaces rogues not wizards. Its basically a formalized "acid slinger" rogue, but better in every way. A solid class with good flavor that proves that the rogue/fighter/barb are lacking.
Cavalier: As long as you take an order that is not mounted or a good archtype (like the one that is a bodyguard) this class is actually quite good. Usually ends up being better than the fighter as a defensive monster for all levels of play I have seen. I have played one a few times and the only issue seems to be that the cavalier still cannot compete with the paladin as the hit point sponge/high armor character because even thought he is lots better than the fighter, and many of his abilities come close to competing with the paladin on just powers alone, when you add in the spells the paladin is better at blocking monsters from the squishy characters.
Inquisitor: I had a person try this class for one session. It seemed to work pretty well but the player end up playing a cleric after 1 session.
Oracle: A divine sorcerer is needed, and honestly SHOULD be superior to a cleric because clerics don't usually end up changing up their spell selection hardly at all throughout most campaigns. They find a few spells that combo well for them and use those over and over. However, this class doesn't get enough of the other cleric goodies to make it all work. A good idea that needs some buffs.
Summoner: I see people discuss and use this class a lot on discussion boards as the basis for OP madness games, but when I have had a few at my table they never got out of hand. That is more likely to mean that the players using them were not good optimizers though. This class does seem attract people who would have previously played conjurer's and necromancers mostly and really almost obsoletes those specialities.
Witch: The first of the Pathfinder style hybrids. A perfect wizard/cleric combination. It has its own themes and a spell list that is very unique and should make the person who wanted to play a cleric/wizard very happy. If there is ever a Pathfinder 2E this calss should be in the core rulebook.
Gunslinger: People who complain about this class attacking touch AC don't realize that its only a problem be touch AC is borked in the monster design. At low levels/against smaller foes this is basically a not an advantage. This class is not overpowered compared to even a remotely optimized barbarian or paladin kitted for damage. However, the thing it really has going for it is Grit. The grit system shows what a D20/pathfinder system for acts of derring do should look like for non-casters. Fighters/Barbarians/Rogues and any other class lacking spells should have a Grit like system. Paladins/Rangers and other fighter hybrids might even need a limited pool to make them feel more hybridized.
Ninja: There are many games with an assassin base class. The ninja certainly treads on the rogues toes a little bit, however the rogue is so outdated that anything sneaky in the least bit will steal parts of his role. To get rid of the japanophile/culutral misapropriation element this should probably be called the assassin anyway. Then it should be rebuilt as a pathfinder style fighter/rogue hybrid. Its close but not quite there.
Samurai: The game needs a Knight/Cavalier/Samuari class, a non-magic warrior who represents the "upper-class" warriors that pretty much every society has had. Merging the cool things about the cavalier with the samuari would make one good class. It already copies most of itself from the cavalier anyway.
Magus: The second true pathfinder hybrid. This class should also go into any revision of the core rule book. The game has always desperately needed a gish who was not terrible. The only problem with this class is its name...
Arcanist: The powers of this class are somewhat off, but its memorization/casting method should become the standard for how all casters who memorize work. Also, the fixed number of spells memoerized at a time by this class helps it balance compared to the sorceror a great deal and honestly helps balance the caster against non casters as well. While everything else this class does bounces around in power and usefullness, its memorization method is the greatest designed fix to vancian casting in d20 history.
Bloodrager: A well designed hybrid, although it appears to be better suited to self buffing and then walloping with a big weapon. Designers have always loved the barbarian/sorcerer concept or really any sorcerer concept that tries to push them more towards a gish role. To bad there do not seem to be any players aching for this combo. Still it shows how piazo style hybrid classes work and multiclassing doesn't.
Brawler: Shows how hideously obsolete the monk is while still not really fixing the unarmed combatant core problems. Still, its another core class that is obsoleted by better design of later classes.
Hunter: A hybrid of the ranger and druid that again shows how multi-classing should work. This works right now because the ranger is a weird amalgam of fighter, druid, and rogue. However, theoretically wouldn't it make more sense for the ranger to be a fighter/druid hybrid? Eitherway, level 6 casting plus its abilities means that its already appealing to the ranger at my table.
Investigator: The alchimst already took a particular method of fighting as the rogue and beefed it up. The investigator is just a straight replacement for the rogue that makes it clear how out of touch the core rulebook is with the current state of the game. The problem is not the investigator, the problem is rogue.
Shaman: This shows where the pathfinder style hybrids can get it wrong. An Orcale/witch hybrid should be a caster with a combination of arcane/divine spells that casts spontaneously from a set list of known spells instead of a memorization caster. Otherwise the other powers fluff out correctly.
Skald: This is an idea that designers seem to love and nobody else cares about. It is superior to multi-classing barbarian bard at every level. Again, a success for the hybrid class design even if its a popular failure.
Slayer: A castingless ranger. The ranger already had some commonality with the rogue anyway. Sort of like the hunter this is a hybrid involving a class that is already basically a hybrid. It is superior to multi-classing ranger/rogue at every level 1-20. However, it should have a grit/deed system. (Perhaps called "vengence").
Swashbuckler: A great class. It replaces all fighter concepts that do not wear heavy armor completely. The fighter might as well just get a "courage" system that is functionally like grit for a strength based character.
Warpriest: If you were playing a paladin as a fighter/cleric hybrid this class does everything better. Its basically paladin 2.0.
I like the non-standard classes. They really fill out the game with some good ideas. The problem is that they obsolete the base classes. This is not a reason to restrict their use, but instead a reason to revise the base classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ninja and Samurai are ARCHETYPES of the Rogue and Cavalier, respectively. I guess they were more complex archetypes and Paizo felt they needed a detailed write-up instead of "this ability replaces this" like the other archetypes. They could have done that with a number of other archetypes, but decided not to.
They are still archetypes and not seperate classes.
Sorry, but no. They are officially "alternate classes" of rogue and cavalier.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And the distinction IS important. Samurai can not take cavalier archetypes and vice versa.Sorry, but no. They are officially "alternate classes" of rogue and cavalier.Ninja and Samurai are ARCHETYPES of the Rogue and Cavalier, respectively. I guess they were more complex archetypes and Paizo felt they needed a detailed write-up instead of "this ability replaces this" like the other archetypes. They could have done that with a number of other archetypes, but decided not to.
They are still archetypes and not seperate classes.
Actually that is not true. An alternate class can take any archetype that qualify for, provided the abilities they are trading out are at the same level as the base class,
For the most part I like the new classes added by paizo. I think the summoner needs restrictions on evolutions, and I am concerned about the upcoming arcanist. Aside from that I think that each class offers the option to play a kind of character not previously available from a mechanical standpoint.
Obviously every concept can technically be covered by some combination of the 4 basic classes, but I think new base classes offer some of the best ways to fill out new concepts. They are designed from the ground up to fill that concept, as opposed to trying to round peg square hole things. You could make a reasonable approximation of an inqusitor by mixing cleric and rogue or maybe cleric and ranger, but it wouldnt function as well as the inquisitor does. Base classes allow designers to explicately lay such concepts out to us, without having to mix and match disperate options in order to make the character work. I want a skilled divine hunter, i can just open the apg and pull out the inquisitor.
It also let paizo break from some of the shackles of 3.x design. I think the APG especially represents what paizo wanted to do with classes. THey are all interesting to play, get lots of abilities, and are reasonably well balanced toward the middle (with the exception of the much maligned summoner).
I dont believe in doing the same with archetypes, as for me archetypes represent a very restricted design space. You have to make one for one trades of abilities and keep them balanced, strongly limiting what you can do. Archetpyes are for minor tweaks. Adding a few specialities, but not conceptual changes. Base classes allow for ground up design to acheive a goal. As we have seen, there are at least a few concepts that paizo tried, and (in their opinion) failed to make work with archetypes. Namely the Swashbuckler and the Skald. Come august they'll be base classes, and I believe my game at least will be the better for it.
|
Alchemist: I really like the idea of this class. The idea of a class that has a little bit of everything, and uses mad science as a mechanic is very flavorful. That said, it is a very difficult class to play well from what I've seen, as resource management is a must if this class can be played well. Still, very neat take on spellcasting.
Cavalier: Meh. I honestly preferred the 3.5 Knight to this, though my only dislike is for the mount part of this class. Without the reliance on mounted combat I'd love the Cavalier. I like the whole warlord-esque class with teamwork feats and bard-like abilities yet very good combat prowess. That said, I almost never play/see one.
Inquisitor: Oh, this class is super cool. The monster-hunter, the Sherlock Holmes investigator, and the holy knight all wrapped up into one. I like their spellcasting, I like the judgment ability, and I love their minor class abilities like cunning initiative and monster lore. Very well designed.
Oracle: Meh, they're neat. A far better spontaneous divine caster than the Favored Soul was in 3.5, that's for sure. And they have some neat applications. I like the curse mechanic, but honestly, nothing unpredictable.
Summoner: You know, maybe it's because I loved Digimon more than anything as a little kid, but I have a soft spot in my heart for the Summoner. Oh, I know the criticisms. I agree with most of them. Still, the idea of a spellcaster who has his own personal monster which changes and grows stronger as he does, well, that's just too good for me to dislike. Flavor-wise, anyway.
Witch: One of my favorite non-core classes. I love the flavor of this. The hexes. The familiar-spellbook. The mysterious patron that may or may not be responsible for giving you all of your powers. The spell list. It's just perfect. One of my favorite spellcasting classes, and it's fairly well balanced too, unlike the aforementioned Summoner. I'd play a Witch over a Wizard any day (though that's just because I dislike the Wizard).
Gunslinger: I like the flavor of this class, the idea that it gets its class resources by being a badass. That said, it's such a...weak class. Firearms are expensive, and while useful at short range, in my experience they're actually worse in combat than a ranged fighter or a divine hunter paladin. I'm honestly a bit of a disappointment, and am uncertain why this class isn't just a re-work archetype of the Fighter like the Ninja or Samurai classes.
Magus: I've always been fond of the spell-sword classes, and this one has some pretty cool potential. My favorite is the bladebound magus, though I blame Sanderson for this bias towards warriors with bonded, intelligent weapons. That said, it's a solid class, and i have little objection. A little unbalanced near the beginning of the game, but towards the sweet-spot levels where other classes get revving, well, then he just become's fine.
Antipaladin: It's a paladin, but evil. Same opinion as for a paladin, which is, yeah, it's okay.
Ninja: Oh, the ninja is quite cool. Too cool, unfortunately. I like the ninja a lot, but I always find it shameful that the ninja overshadows it's core class. I like the rogue. I don't want it to be rendered obsolete by a flavor-archetype.
Samurai: Much neater than the Cavalier, if only for flavor purposes. But also because the Sword-Saint archetype lets you ditch the mount in exchange for a pretty cool iaijitsu attack.
I have no opinions on the Advanced Class Guide classes, because they haven't been finalized yet. I found none of them impressive or necessary. Unlike the magus, which truly felt unique as a combo-class, all of them seem like clumsy cobblings of other classes, some of them without reason (how many different times do we need to see clerics mixed with martial. Paladin and Inquisitor are good enough. Leave it be). But, I'll keep my mind open when the final version comes out. At the moment, I sort of wish they hadn't tried to combine classes and just tried to make new stuff, like maybe psionics, or perhaps the Pathfinder's take on the Binder, or Dragon Shaman, or Warlock (obviously they can't, because OGL restrictions, but I'd have liked to see their take on these regardless).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm just gonna chime in for the Cavaliers, because I actually really love the class.
Cavaliers can do a LOT of cool things that most other pure martials can't. They get a mount, which is... meh. If you take the Beast Rider archetype, that gets you access to some cool mounts that can really clean house without you, which is really what you want.
The big thing, though, is the order abilities. Some of them may seem lackluster at first, but think about it:
A cavalier of the Order of the Lion can grant allies a +Cha to damage and +2x Cha to attack rolls for one round, every combat of every day, and they keep +Cha to attack rolls for several more rounds. If you pump Charisma up (and with this build, you should), you can easily give your allies HUGE bonuses to attack and damage, on top of your Banner.
Order of the Dragon gets you the highest Aid Other action bonus in the game, and if you can find a way to make Gloves of Arcane Striking work for you, you can toss out HUGE buffs constantly. You also have the Strategy ability, one of the best team Full Attack setups ever.
Then, you have Order of the Star cavaliers, which are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. These guys function best with a 2 level dip in paladin or a 1 level dip into Cleric, because they get channeling/lay on hands progression! This, in my opinion, is the BEST way to perform the any-alignment paladin-esque character. You even get other bonuses for having a great Charisma score, aside from the obvious ones of being able to use LoH or Channel more frequently. Sure, it's only at half progression, but the abilities you get that are also charisma-based definitely make up for it. Oh, and Smite Evil/Challenge is the bee's knees.
And let's not forget Order of the Staff, which is a simply BEAUTIFUL combination with a party spellcaster. Lowers enemy DC's? Check. Bonus attacks against enemies affected by a spell? Check. Gaining bonus HP when your allies buff you? Check. That's awesome. Plus, who else can make a Knowledge (Nature) check to identify divine spells???
Oh, and remember all those awesome teamwork feats that no one wants to take but that EVERYONE wants? Guess who just became awesome.
That's right.
You did, mister Cavalier.
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
Only going to post about the classes I've played or seen played.
Alchemist: Fun and effective. Can make an unsuspecting GM upset as it gets around many traditional monster defenses. Alchemist basically ignores both DR and SR. A very good way to play a "scientist" type character in Pathfinder.
Cavalier: Better with mount than without. In a game where the mount won't be used much, you are probably better off with an alternate martial class. In a mostly outdoor game (Kingmaker for example) the cavalier rocks.
Inquisitor: I'm playing one of these right now. It's very strong, although the diminished spellcasting can be a problem if your party is relying on you to also do healing (like mine is). My biggest issue is that it's complicated to keep track of. So many swift and immediate actions, and all your judgements advance at different rates. Balancing when to switch judgements or activate bane can be tricky. Some teamwork feats are tricky to figure out with Solo Tactics as they are worded with the assumption that both people have them. Also discern lies is nearly useless as it allows a will save and as a SLA that save is like 14+Cha mod. That having been said, wow the combat utility is great if you cna juggle the action economy. My inquisitor uses daggers(Pharasma) because honestly the base die of your weapon barely matters.
Oracle: I wish they could go back and rewrite sorcerer on the oracle model. Getting your bonus spells right away just makes sense. Only real problem is that some of the mysteries are still kinda traps.
Summoner: Easy to optimize and can seem OP compared to more "normal" characters. Pet utility in general wanes after 12th level so in a long AP/campaign expect the eidolon to fall behind martials at high levels. The numbers this thing can crank out in the 9th-12th range can be fairly impressive.
Witch: The only prepared caster my girlfriend will play. She loves having non-spell options on her caster, so she always has something useful to do even if she "prepared the wrong spells."
Magus: Hello Mr Burst Damage, how are you today?
typing off phone so sorry it looks bad.
I feel some classses are more distinct from each other than not. Think of it like this: you can right now apply a bunch of archetypes to a fighter and have it be about as different from a vanilla fighter as a cavalier is. You cant do that on a cleric to become as different as an oracle is.In some cases i think it could haveworked; making the rogue and ranger as the same base class fore xample. Or perhaps having the druid as an archetype of cleric, though changig spell lists is quite a large project. Alternate class of cleric would work. Paladin i think should be a prestige class. Its highly specific, has a specific role in society, strict prerequisites and very niche. Its more prestigous than any of the other core PrCs i think.
But i feel when it comes to remaking spell list or casting methods or BaB or whatever, i feel thats best left to new classes.
Im a big opponent of bloat though; i understand why its in paizos interest as a company to pump out books but for me as a consumer i dont like it.
Okay. But I'm confused at one thing. You seem to be okay with new Archetypes and even Prestige classes being released, but not classes because new classes equal rules bloat. Why is this? What about new base classes equals bloat but not new Archetypes or Prestige classes?
Sure many concepts can be done by multiclassing or combining together many Archetypes, but do you really want a game where nothing new ever appears and the only way to realize certain concepts is to combine together existing classes which is both complicated and is not mechanically smooth play-wise? Like another poster stated, having many different ways to realize character concepts is a good thing, not a bad thing.
Also, it seems strange that you'd rather have a bunch of Archetypes pasted onto an existing class in order to play a new concept rather than just having a new class altogether. Making characters off of a new class is easier and smoother than making a character off of a class with say, three Archetypes on them. In the end you're getting the same result, just one way is easier than the other.
I'm just gonna chime in for the Cavaliers, because I actually really love the class.
Cavaliers can do a LOT of cool things that most other pure martials can't. They get a mount, which is... meh. If you take the Beast Rider archetype, that gets you access to some cool mounts that can really clean house without you, which is really what you want.
The big thing, though, is the order abilities. Some of them may seem lackluster at first, but think about it:
A cavalier of the Order of the Lion can grant allies a +Cha to damage and +2x Cha to attack rolls for one round, every combat of every day, and they keep +Cha to attack rolls for several more rounds. If you pump Charisma up (and with this build, you should), you can easily give your allies HUGE bonuses to attack and damage, on top of your Banner.
Order of the Dragon gets you the highest Aid Other action bonus in the game, and if you can find a way to make Gloves of Arcane Striking work for you, you can toss out HUGE buffs constantly. You also have the Strategy ability, one of the best team Full Attack setups ever.
Then, you have Order of the Star cavaliers, which are COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. These guys function best with a 2 level dip in paladin or a 1 level dip into Cleric, because they get channeling/lay on hands progression! This, in my opinion, is the BEST way to perform the any-alignment paladin-esque character. You even get other bonuses for having a great Charisma score, aside from the obvious ones of being able to use LoH or Channel more frequently. Sure, it's only at half progression, but the abilities you get that are also charisma-based definitely make up for it. Oh, and Smite Evil/Challenge is the bee's knees.
And let's not forget Order of the Staff, which is a simply BEAUTIFUL combination with a party spellcaster. Lowers enemy DC's? Check. Bonus attacks against enemies affected by a spell? Check. Gaining bonus HP when your allies buff you? Check. That's awesome. Plus, who else can make a Knowledge (Nature) check to identify divine spells???
Oh, and remember all those awesome teamwork feats that no one wants to take but that EVERYONE wants? Guess who just became awesome.
That's right.
You did, mister Cavalier.
I'm glad someone else likes the Cavalier. I have a player running a Cavalier in my campaign and it works really well. It's frustrating how many people seem to think that the mount is the only thing ever worth using a Cavalier for and that they suck otherwise.
|
|
Alchemist: Probably the best of all the non-core classes. It fills a niche that had been hitherto unfulfilled.
Antipaladin: It's obviously meant to be an NPC class.
Cavalier: This is a class that gets a bad rap. There is really no better class for mounted combat. Sure, a fighter has the feats, but A)good luck getting it from level one and B)then you have to be a fighter.
Gunslinger: Hate guns in my fantasy, but mechanically? Eh. . . I guess it's fine.
Inquisitor: Divine Bard with some of its own tricks. What's not to love?
Magus: Say what you will, this is what the gish was meant to be. (Cheese builds aside) We actually started a campaign just before Advanced Player's Guide came out, and our gish converted his character to a Magus and enjoyed it WAAAYYY more.
Ninja: Like the mechanics, hate the fluff. Very irritating that like everything else, they made the Eastern counterpart way better because, you know, Japan or whatever.
Oracle: Love the fluff, hate the mechanics. The Elven archetype is stupidly powerful.
Samurai: Only had a fleeting experience with this one. The Resolve ability seems cool, I guess.
Summoner: HATE. HATE. HAAAATTTEEE! The mechanics don't fit the rest of the game, and I don't think Paizo even knows how these guys are supposed to fit into the world. Too easily broken. The only class I've ever banned (I even allow hated gunslingers) and I don't regret doing so for a moment.
Witch: If Magus is how they should have done the Gish from the beginning, this is how they should have done the Mystic Theurge.
From reading the ACG, there are only a few I read enough to actually comment on:
Investigator: Awesome. Makes skill-based rogues useless.
Slayer: Fixes all of the combat problems with the rogue.
Brawler: Suffers the same problem as the Monk - it should really have full BAB. You really cannot tell me somebody looked at this class and said, "Gee, that's just too powerful."
Skald: Bardbarian was always a popular multiclass - this just seemed to make sense.
|
|
I'm glad someone else likes the Cavalier. I have a player running a Cavalier in my campaign and it works really well. It's frustrating how many people seem to think that the mount is the only thing ever worth using a Cavalier for and that they suck otherwise.
I've never played one, and only seen one played for a few low levels, but I had an Order of the Dragon Cavalier cohort I really enjoyed - my bard's bodyguard, Sir Didymus.
I have very little experience with the non-core classes, simply because most of my players play either core or 3PP. I play a blade bound magus in a friend's game and love it, however.
Okay. But I'm confused at one thing. You seem to be okay with new Archetypes and even Prestige classes being released, but not classes because new classes equal rules bloat. Why is this? What about new base classes equals bloat but not new Archetypes or Prestige classes?
You misunderstand me. I'm fully okay with archetypes, prestige classes and base classes being released. I think there's a benefit to doing it in the least intrusive/bloated way though, archetypes being less intrusive than full classes. But it's not the only concern; I'd much rather see a flavorful base class released than compressed into an archetype where it loses a lot of flavor. I feel making the inquisitor an archetype of ranger WOULD cause it to lose a lot of flavor, but the cavalier is to me not enough of a unique and coherent and separate concept from the fighter to necessitate a whole class. Don't get me wrong - I'm satisfied with the cavalier (though I think it's a bit too single-minded, but that's another issue), I just said that is one of the few new classes I feel could have been satisfyingly made as an alternate class or archetype.
My first post was meant as a response to Eryx_UK and sgriobhadair; Eryx_UK claimed that Alchemist, Magus, Inquisitor, Ninja, and Witch where unnecessary as they could be built with multiclasses, specific builds or archetypes of other classes. sgriobhadair went into a discussion with K177Y C47 about the inquisitor in specific, claiming that it could be made with a cleric, potentially dipping into rogue, ranger, taking skill focus feats etc.
My post was a disagreement with this;
That you can get a square peg into a round hole with enough bashing (read: Using a cleric to create many of the inquisitor concepts) doesn't mean it isn't better to get a round peg (read: using the inquisitor).
Then I specified that I could see the argument for a few of them being made through archetypes or alternate classes, namely cavalier, ninja, samurai and witch, but that those where exceptions and that in general, the new classes had brought new and unique things that could not have been reasonably inserted into existing classes via archetypes.
I did not mean to imply that they shouldn't have been done as base classes, that Paizo was wrong for publishing them - just that I could see the argument that these could have been designed as alternate classes (witch, cavalier) or archetypes (samurai, ninja), and that there are certain benefits to that approach (less bloaty, more inherent/automatic support for them etc).
Then the discussion went into some other areas, which is why I mentioned the paladin and that I'd have preferred if it was made a prestige class from a design perspective. It's the only core class that I feel would have been better as a prestige class though, and only because it feels so very unique compared to all other core classes.
Also, it seems strange that you'd rather have a bunch of Archetypes pasted onto an existing class in order to play a new concept rather than just having a new class altogether. Making characters off of a new class is easier and smoother than making a character off of a class with say, three Archetypes on them. In the end you're getting the same result, just one way is easier than the other.
I think it depends on circumstances. I really do love archetypes, I think they're great in that they allow for a lot of interesting decisions, without feeling as forced or complex as having a list of 30 classes.
Thing is, I feel a LOT of the fighter archetypes could have been made as base classes. We could definately have an Archer base class, or a Roughrider base class, or a Lore Warden base class, or a Viking base class, conceptually. They'd have a lot of abilities the archetypes don't give currently, of course, but even if they where to publish a full-bab full-weapons and armor class with the concept of "viking" I'd feel as if "this could have been made as an alt class/archetype of barbarian or fighter and worked equally well conceptually".
But if we had 20 different classes from the archetypes provided, and added a few mechanical changes to them in addition, the game would feel very bloated aesthetically, it would feel very complex to create a character because the amount of choices would immediately be so overwhelming.
That's why I prefer the design method of archetypes for concepts that are close to another class already. And thing is, when it comes to the Cavalier, I don't feel they are that different. Building a fighter that's part of an order _should_ be possible. Building a fighter that is an inspiring beacon on the battlefield _should_ be possible, without being forced to deal with an order or a mount.
I'm not saying they're wrong; I love the witch, and I feel the same applies there. I don't dislike the cavalier either, though I'm not super-hot for playing one. I'm not saying making them base classes was wrong, I'm just saying that with the witch and cavalier, I feel that making them alternate classes/archetype was a reasonable option, and I don't feel that is the case for, say, the alchemist or inquisitor.
I'm playing an arcanist in Skull & Shackles (lvl 4 at the moment) and so far it's been a very interesting class, but not what I'd considered overpowered compared to its parent classes. I like the spell memorization function since it's less planning intensive than the wizard and less "you have chosen... POORLY" than the sorcerer, but the slow spell preparation compared to a wizard and the heavily limited spell slot capacity compared to a sorcerer holds it back a fair bit.
Basically it plays out like a "convenient wizard" - I find there's less guesswork in what spells I'll need the most, but at the same time having less spells per day and learning spells a level slower than the wizard really, really hurts.
I'm very interested in seeing how it handles when I get a few arcane pool points to play around with.
Of the new classes, the only ones I felt could easily have been made archetypes while retaining their flavor is ninja (archetype of rogue) and samurai (archetype of cavalier).
They are archetypes. just ones that are different enuf to need stated out.
Per James Jacobs: "Ninja is an alternate rogue. Technically, it's an archetype but one that does a lot more than, say, the pirate or scout does."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I know how to solve all these arguments: just get rid of classes altogether. Go to a skill based system. While you're at it, get rid of "hit points" too.
<g, d, r>
|
|
I have played bloodrager, magus, oracle and summoner. I have had great fun with all of them, and I find each to be effective in its role. I have played alongside a witch, an alchemist and an inquisitor. All three seem to be powerful classes that are boons to the party.
I have disliked the idea of the antipaladin as a PC class since about 1981, when it was first introduced (as an NPC class only) in Dragon Magazine. An antipaladin might make a good BBEG, but I would never allow it as a PC class, even if I allowed evil characters when I GM.
What does "<g, d, r>" mean?I know how to solve all these arguments: just get rid of classes altogether. Go to a skill based system. While you're at it, get rid of "hit points" too.
<g, d, r>
Grinning, Ducking, and Running.
Come to think of it, apart from a few duds (Gunslinger, Cavalier) I think I actually prefer the non-CRB classes to the CRB classes. It could be interesting to run a game with the CRB classes banned when the ACG comes out.
The slower preparation is a big deal, but I feel like the flexibility you get from learning spells like a wizard but not expending them like a sorcerer is huge too.
This is true. From what I've experienced so far I can definitely see the merits of the wizard in relation to the arcanist, and I think these classes are fairly equal with each other. I'd have a really hard time choosing a sorcerer over an arcanist though.
Design Manager
|
Come to think of it, apart from a few duds (Gunslinger, Cavalier) I think I actually prefer the non-CRB classes to the CRB classes.
I wouldn't call either of those classes duds.
The Cavalier is an excellent class, well-balanced with multiple ways to contribute to a party and huge replayability thanks to his Orders and several excellent archetypes.
The Gunslinger is mechanically a very well-built class, with great abilities and an excellent subsystem in Grit. The problem is that the rules for firearms are terrible. Targeting touch AC was not a great idea, and "balancing" it with misfires was an even worse idea.
What I really like about the Ultimate Classes book is it is taking most of the common builds I've done with multiclassing and making them a full class that work and play better. In the case of the Slayer it replaces the common Ranger/Rogue build I and many other I've played have used. The Blood Rage replaced my Barbarian/Sorcerer build. War priest the Fighter/Cleric builds and so on.
I'm currently playing a Slayer in game. I'm finding it quite good. Not as powerful as the ranger but fills the rogues roll in party while bringing a bit more to the party. It's not quite as good as rogue when it comes to roguish parts but I think this class would work great in party to replace the fighter and work with a rogue. So solid class here.
I haven't had much of chance to play the other class in the Ultimate Classes playtest but I have built some interesting characters.
The Magus is interesting class but I find it rather weak. I've only seen in play and it seems to burn through resources too fast to maintain effectiveness. If the player doesn't do that the class is quite weak and just shines when it novas. Basically 2-3 fights a day it's really effect then sucks after that or it sucks until the BBEG when it novas to great effect. Don't much care for that.
Oracles I find are hit and miss. I've seen many people take Battle Oracle only to be highly disappointed. I've seen Flame Oracles that are great though. So it seem to me the Battle Oracle is kind of a trap. An Oracle of Metal is quite good.
Inquisitors, now they are just cool. I love the concept but it did take me a while to wrap my head around it. The mechanics are great but just what does this class do. I've played several. I have a Inquisitor of Mask in an FR game, I'm an enforcer in the thieves guild routing worshipers of Cyric and making sure the guild laws are enforced and profits are coming in. It was great. Then I played an Undead hunting Inquisitor of Sarenae in a realm of undead where the living are cattle to be fed upon by undead. Currently have Elven Inquisitor of Desna who travels the roads protecting travelers. Love this class as it's more focused than cleric or oracle. Closer to Paladin but you can have your own code and alignment.
The slower preparation is a big deal, but I feel like the flexibility you get from learning spells like a wizard but not expending them like a sorcerer is huge too.
Speaking of, one low gripe that really got me about the ACG:
Some of the gishy stuff in it is really silly. Who the hell in the design team, for instance, thought giving Arcane Bloodragers Magic Missile at level 7 was a good plan?
Magic Missile at 7th isn't bad, 4D4+1 as their have full Caster Level. Not sure if that as over sight though. Rangers are Caster level level -3 for example.
Magic Missile at 7th isn't bad, 4D4+1 as their have full Caster Level. Not sure if that as over sight though. Rangers are Caster level level -3 for example.The slower preparation is a big deal, but I feel like the flexibility you get from learning spells like a wizard but not expending them like a sorcerer is huge too.
Speaking of, one low gripe that really got me about the ACG:
Some of the gishy stuff in it is really silly. Who the hell in the design team, for instance, thought giving Arcane Bloodragers Magic Missile at level 7 was a good plan?
That would be 4d4 +4 (1d4+1 4x). As for the bloodrager having full caster level instead of level -3 like the paladin and ranger, was done on purpose. I forget the reasoning, but it was mentioned in either the original or updated Bloodrager Playtest thread. Just like them not having an alignment restriction (they can be lawful, while the barbarian cannot) was done on purpose.
Come to think of it, apart from a few duds (Gunslinger, Cavalier) I think I actually prefer the non-CRB classes to the CRB classes.I wouldn't call either of those classes duds.
The Cavalier is an excellent class, well-balanced with multiple ways to contribute to a party and huge replayability thanks to his Orders and several excellent archetypes.
Dud might be a strong word, but neither class particularly appeals to me. I'll try a short breakdown:
Challenge and Orders are nice features. I really like the roleplaying potential of orders.
I'm not crazy about the mount since many campaigns take place in areas where you'll be hardpressed to bring a large animal, so you're either leaving your mount outside or you're forced into playing a small race. I particularly vividly remember a PFS scenario literally starting with "you climb down a ladder". I also find the mounted combat rules in Pathfinder confusing, though maybe that's just me.
I strongly dislike teamwork feats, mainly since I feel like they were made a big feature in the inquisitor and the cavalier and then dumped by the wayside - there seems to be about 4 viable TW feats. Better options in the ACG or elsewhere might turn me around on this.
4 skill ranks is decent, but then you realize that the class has a number of skill taxes (Handle Animal, Ride) to go along with that so it's not quite as good as I was originally hoping for.
I must admit that I haven't spent particularly long looking into the Cavalier archetypes though, hopefully some of this is remedied there.
The Gunslinger is mechanically a very well-built class, with great abilities and an excellent subsystem in Grit. The problem is that the rules for firearms are terrible. Targeting touch AC was not a great idea, and "balancing" it with misfires was an even worse idea.
The gunslinger kind of strikes me as the Fighter Lite. It's fairly to really good at what it does (ranged damage in combat), but it doesn't bring anything else to the table.
That said, it is SAD, gets four skill ranks (though Craft: Firearms seems to tie up at least one of them), and is very good at what it does if built correctly.
In general I prefer classes like the magus, the bard, the inquisitor, the alchemist. Classes that has the potential to do well in combat but also have a plethora of options for solving problems - either by spell, skills or a mix of both.
|
|
I like having lots of class options, the more the merrier IMO.
I have to chip in about the brawler since almost everyone on here seems to miss the point of that class. Brawler is the combat maneuver class. They get full bab, class bonuses to cmb, and the ability to switch out combat feats on the fly allowing them to have the improved and greater feats for any maneuver they wish to perform. Any other character has to focus on one maneuver to be any good at it, the brawler can do them all.
Dotting for now, will add my opinions when I get home.
Challenge and Orders are nice features. I really like the roleplaying potential of orders.
I'm not crazy about the mount since many campaigns take place in areas where you'll be hardpressed to bring a large animal, so you're either leaving your mount outside or you're forced into playing a small race. I particularly vividly remember a PFS scenario literally starting with "you climb down a ladder". I also find the mounted combat rules in Pathfinder confusing, though maybe that's just me.
I strongly dislike teamwork feats, mainly since I feel like they were made a big feature in the inquisitor and the cavalier and then dumped by the wayside - there seems to be about 4 viable TW feats. Better options in the ACG or elsewhere might turn me around on this.
4 skill ranks is decent, but then you realize that the class has a number of skill taxes (Handle Animal, Ride) to go along with that so it's not quite as good as I was originally hoping for.
I must admit that I haven't spent particularly long looking into the Cavalier archetypes though, hopefully some of this is remedied there.
I have to agree that the cavalier being tied so heavily into mounted combat can be a problem for the class. Scenarios where mounted combat isn't an option crop up a lot, and the mounted combat rules themselves have been a bit of a mess lately. More and better options for an unmounted cavalier would help the class' popularity quite a bit.
|
|
Come to think of it, apart from a few duds (Gunslinger, Cavalier) I think I actually prefer the non-CRB classes to the CRB classes. It could be interesting to run a game with the CRB classes banned when the ACG comes out.
I agree with this, since honestly the CRB classes were tied into their older forms, so the problems that plagued them couldn't be fixed. It was a shackle that held back design. I know it worked for backward comparability, but without it, a lot of the new classes really got a chance to shine.
This is true. From what I've experienced so far I can definitely see the merits of the wizard in relation to the arcanist, and I think these classes are fairly equal with each other. I'd have a really hard time choosing a sorcerer over an arcanist though.
A Wizard's best benefit is the earlier spell level (which is big), and more flexibility. Although my issue with the Arcanist is that it completely invalidates the Sorc in my opinion. The Sorc has lost their niche, really because the Arcanist does the whole spont caster thing infinitely better, and bloodlines aren't enough to make up the difference. I'd honestly like to see the Arcanist as the basis for the Wiz in PF 2.0 myself.
I'm at the point that I'd prefer to only run/GM non-Core class PCs, as if the Core classes were too boring now. I appreciate that the wizard/sorcerer are still the most powerful casters in the game, but I'm at the point of playing settings that have lower magic expectations and don't want Superman in the game. An alchemist, magus or witch is about as powerful of a caster as I want. I prefer Oracles (with archetype granting channnel capability) and Inquisitors to Clerics and Druids. I actually prefer the samurai to the cavalier, and both samurai and cavalier to the fighter. Nobody in our group tends to play rogues and monks anymore, so no needed replacement classes for those. As far as classes go, I could almost chuck the Core rules at least as it applies to those classes.
I'm not eschewing the Core classes altogether, just for an interim, while I run a game of non-Core based classes.
This thread really makes me want to play a witch or a shaman. Which is saying something, since I hate prepared casters over spontaneous.