I'd really like to see a way a fighter wouldn't have to specialize. They get weapon training, focus, specialization, etc. I'd like to see the guy thats the special forces action hero. He fightes with pistols, SMG's, Assault rifles, knives, fists, a chain he finds on the ground, a book....thats what I'd like to see. Unfortunately massive specialization is almost a prerequisite in PF to not sucking.
Weapon focus is a trap. Weapon training + gloves of dueling is all you need.
Fighter's don't have to fight with their main weapon, much like how Wizards don't have to cast their highest level spells. Sometime your Greatsword fighter needs to pull out a bow.
People forget the in movie action sequences, the hero is mid level fighting low level mooks. Full BAB+more isn't really needed for mooks.
This is still specialization with a group, i.e. your still going to be using one weapon 85% of the time, and you feel the pain when you pull out that other weapon, thats not in your training group until level 9, or you have to pick one off the ground, and never get that bonus, etc.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This came up in a lot of campaigns
*Awesome weapon drops
Fighter: But it's not MY weapon
*into the sell pile it goes
When I played a Ranger it was more like
*awesome weapon drops
Ranger: Cool. I'll use that till the next awesome weapon drops!
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
This came up in a lot of campaigns
*Awesome weapon drops
Fighter: But it's not MY weapon
*into the sell pile it goesWhen I played a Ranger it was more like
*awesome weapon drops
Ranger: Cool. I'll use that till the next awesome weapon drops!
This. I'm not a fan of the fact that the guy who's supposed to be pretty much the weapon guy actually has less functional facility with weapons than other martial classes.
A Barbarian can apply his Rage equally to any weapon he picks up.
A Ranger only cares what enemy he's striking, not what weapon he's wielding.
A Paladin can Smite Evil with literally anything. He can Smite with a bow or a shoe if that's what he's got to hand.
A Cavalier can challenge anyone, anytime, with anything.
The Fighter's bonus feats and class features actually limit his choices.
This came up in a lot of campaigns
*Awesome weapon drops
Fighter: But it's not MY weapon
*into the sell pile it goesWhen I played a Ranger it was more like
*awesome weapon drops
Ranger: Cool. I'll use that till the next awesome weapon drops!This. I'm not a fan of the fact that the guy who's supposed to be pretty much the weapon guy actually has less functional facility with weapons than other martial classes.
A Barbarian can apply his Rage equally to any weapon he picks up.
A Ranger only cares what enemy he's striking, not what weapon he's wielding.
A Paladin can Smite Evil with literally anything. He can Smite with a bow or a shoe if that's what he's got to hand.
A Cavalier can challenge anyone, anytime, with anything.The Fighter's bonus feats and class features actually limit his choices.
challenge is restricted to melee actually, but thats just a nitpick by me. overall i agree.
The weapons guy is the barbarian (doesn't even have all the armor).
You play fighter when you want to be a particular kind of weapons guy. Particularly the swordsman.
The one weapon fighter isn't very practical.
Weapon Training should simply apply the highest bonus to different weapon groups, instead of giving lower bonuses for each following choice. That would make Fighter more versatile instead of encouraging overspecialization.
|
|
Weapon Training should simply apply the highest bonus to different weapon groups, instead of giving lower bonuses for each following choice. That would make Fighter more versatile instead of encouraging overspecialization.
Better options for re-assigning his feats and Weapon Training would be good too. Like the ability to drill with a new weapon in the morning and apply his training and specialization bonuses to that, with each new instance of Weapon Training increasing the number of weapons he can drill and attune with.
|
I'd really like to see a way a fighter wouldn't have to specialize. They get weapon training, focus, specialization, etc. I'd like to see the guy thats the special forces action hero. He fightes with pistols, SMG's, Assault rifles, knives, fists, a chain he finds on the ground, a book....thats what I'd like to see. Unfortunately massive specialization is almost a prerequisite in PF to not sucking.
Amusingly, I'm pretty sure you can do the medieval equivalent of all this with a switch-hitting Slayer pretty readily. That's cool.
Perhaps, but if the only way for Barbarians to compete is using their most powerful build, then Bloodragers are a much stronger class. That's like saying Arcanists are not better than Sorcerers because of Paragon Surge. If a class has to put that much effort and use every cheesy trick they have just to avoid being completely overshadowed, then it's already obsolete.
Whoah, I didn't say the optimal Barbarian build was necessary to compete with Bloodragers. I said it was necessary to blow them out of the water, making a build they couldn't even hope to equal. Most Barbarian builds do a pretty good job of matching most Bloodrager builds...and then there are the really good ones of both, where Barbarians are just ahead.
Might that change either way post-playtest? Sure. But less so than Barbarians did, since Bloodlines are much less modular than Rage Powers.
Don't misunderstand me, the concept for Swashbucklers is really cool, but I think it failed to deliver the basic premise. Instead of creating an mobile combatant, Paizo created yet another DPR-machine whose only real course of action is standing still and full-attacking. And for whatever reason, they also gave him bad Fort, despite that being a good save for both Fighters and Gunslingers. ¬¬'
I agree the Fort save is a problem, though I also think it's one likely to be fixed. And I don't actually think moving around in 5-foot steps is anti-theme for Swashbucklers. Look at the fencing scene in, oh, the Princess Bride. They aren't moving more than 5 feet a turn for most of that, just slowly backing each other up. The same is true in most duel scenes. They could stand to be more mobile when not attacking, or to have a pounce style ability, but it's not needed for them to be cool or effective.
While the trick to deny full attacks is good (too good, IMHO), what else can it do? Kip-Up is nice, but minor and Derring-Do is pathetic. They really should have made Swashbucklers a mix between Gunslinger and Monk, but based on Cha instead of Wis. Using Fighter are a parent class pretty much guaranteed the class would be as one-dimensional as possible.
Eh. I agree that several of their abilities are a bit lacklustre, but again, changes when the book comes out seem pretty likely on this one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not just drop weapon groups completely? I've been preaching this for a while but it tends to fall on deaf ears. Just let fighters gain that bonus when they attack. Would it truly be so bad?
I agree the Fort save is a problem, though I also think it's one likely to be fixed. And I don't actually think moving around in 5-foot steps is anti-theme for Swashbucklers. Look at the fencing scene in, oh, the Princess Bride. They aren't moving more than 5 feet a turn for most of that, just slowly backing each other up. The same is true in most duel scenes. They could stand to be more mobile when not attacking, or to have a pounce style ability, but it's not needed for them to be cool or effective.
it is against the theme in the description of the calss. It was promised a highly mobile warrior, but taht is just not true.
They could stand to be more mobile when not attacking, or to have a pounce style ability, but it's not needed for them to be cool or effective.
"Oh crap, I have to move more than 10 feet and suck for a round!" is neither cool nor effective and the bane of pretty much all the martial classes. "I full attack!" is not cool, but pretty friggin' effective in pathfinder. Anytime I think combat with a pure mundane I think they need a way to be mobile and get around. At the moment they play like they have glue on their feet.
More specific to the theme, while dueling moving back and forth slowly while fencing is a thing, I do think about that tactical retreats and the charge to get started or around or swashbuckling around the room is a pretty important part of the gig.
Why not just drop weapon groups completely? I've been preaching this for a while but it tends to fall on deaf ears. Just let fighters gain that bonus when they attack. Would it truly be so bad?
People knock vital strike, but when it increases your damage by 50% for half or more of the turns you take in combat, that isn't a bad thing.
Although it is something that only fighters really have enough feats for. It's too intensive for other classes.
Off topic mythic vital strike is 'Balls.
|
|
People knock vital strike, but when it increases your damage by 50% for half or more of the turns you take in combat, that isn't a bad thing.
Although it is something that only fighters really have enough feats for. It's too intensive for other classes.
You've got to have pretty terrible damage in the first place for Vital Strike to equate to a 50% bump.... That, or you're a wildshaped druid.
Generally Vital Strike isn't going to give you much more than than the specialization feats, and only on plain standard action attacks that don't stack with anything else. If you've got the full line of VS feats + Devastating Strike, and you use a high damage die weapon like a greatsword, you might be able to squeeze out a reasonable return on investment. Without Devastating Strike, the whole feat chain, and a larger weapon though, you'll be lucky to get even as much out of it as Power Attack all by itself.
People knock vital strike, but when it increases your damage by 50% for half or more of the turns you take in combat, that isn't a bad thing.
Although it is something that only fighters really have enough feats for. It's too intensive for other classes.
You've got to have pretty terrible damage in the first place for Vital Strike to equate to a 50% bump.... That, or you're a wildshaped druid.
Generally Vital Strike isn't going to give you much more than than the specialization feats, and only on plain standard action attacks that don't stack with anything else. If you've got the full line of VS feats + Devastating Strike, and you use a high damage die weapon like a greatsword, you might be able to squeeze out a reasonable return on investment. Without Devastating Strike, the whole feat chain, and a larger weapon though, you'll be lucky to get even as much out of it as Power Attack all by itself.
Level 20 great sword fighter
Damage of one swing: 2d6 + 5enh + 15str + 6wt + 18PA = 51 average damageGreater vital strike adds 6d6 damage = 21 average damage
72/51 = 141.2%
So only a 41% increase in damage by 20.
At 11
Damage: 2d6 + 2enh + 10str + 4wt + 9PA = 32
Improved vital strike adds 4d6 = 14 average
46/32 = 143.8%
So only a 43.8% increase in damage.
Considering how many turns are move and attack, especially once haste comes into play, it's a good boost in damage.
EDIT: I don't see any reason to pick vital strike up at 6 though. I wait until 10 and then grab improved at 11.
Off topic mythic vital strike is 'Balls.
Easily the most deadly thing in the game.
AC is set up such that the first attack hits, but the others might miss. Mythic vital strike poops all over that concept.
Really that alone keeps fighters on-par with caster in mythics for offense. So much so, I see no reason for them not to go Guardian and layer up on the mythic defenses.
On the other hand, the definition of fun is very subjetive, every class works in low optimization, why then not make all works in high optimization too?Just because it is easier said than done, I think.
I'm going to back Ross up on this having designed plenty of classes myself. Optimizers are clever people who know how to f!@$ you over on a simple typo or misinterpertation. Editors and playtesters help, but they can only go so far.
And you really really can't write for literally all the content out there. That's impossible.
On the other hand, the definition of fun is very subjetive, every class works in low optimization, why then not make all works in high optimization too?Just because it is easier said than done, I think.I'm going to back Ross up on this having designed plenty of classes myself. Optimizers are clever people who know how to f@~+ you over on a simple typo or misinterpertation. Editors and playtesters help, but they can only go so far.
And you really really can't write for literally all the content out there. That's impossible.
Ok, my bad. I rephrase. Why not Try?
Ok, my bad. I rephrase. Why not Try?On the other hand, the definition of fun is very subjetive, every class works in low optimization, why then not make all works in high optimization too?Just because it is easier said than done, I think.I'm going to back Ross up on this having designed plenty of classes myself. Optimizers are clever people who know how to f@~+ you over on a simple typo or misinterpertation. Editors and playtesters help, but they can only go so far.
And you really really can't write for literally all the content out there. That's impossible.
We do?
I agree the Fort save is a problem, though I also think it's one likely to be fixed. And I don't actually think moving around in 5-foot steps is anti-theme for Swashbucklers. Look at the fencing scene in, oh, the Princess Bride. They aren't moving more than 5 feet a turn for most of that, just slowly backing each other up. The same is true in most duel scenes. They could stand to be more mobile when not attacking, or to have a pounce style ability, but it's not needed for them to be cool or effective.
If moving around in 5ft-step is mobility, then every class is "mobile". They should have something like spending Panache to move as a swift action, the ability to add Cha to Acrobatics and Escape Artist, ability to ignore difficult terrain, etc.
Instead, we got a DPR-obsessed unnecessarily complicated finesse build. Read the class description given for SBs and you'll see how badly they fail to live up to it.
I'm under impression that many players are so happy to finally have a "swashbuckler" class, that they either fail to realize or simply choose to ignore the flaws with the class' design.
We do?
Yeah, but inside of classes at the moment its pretty wildly different. The difference between a pouncecharger barbarian and a spirit rager is pretty crazy, and then comparing them to outside classes like a fighter or wizard is a ridiculous gap. Lots of reasons for all that.
That said, different games have a different problem with balance. Some are too much alike, some have a lot of systems(psionics, vancian, martial adepts, incarnum, and core all balancing with eachother looks like a nightmare), and some try to strike a sweet point and ensure a close balance by making a lot of things similar but still different.(Legend by rule of cool).
When talking about pathfinder's ACG its probably easiest to compare classes to their parents, but some gaps are wider than others. Warpriest is a mix between one of the weakest and one of the strongest, and hunter between a tier 3 and tier 1 itself, and slayer a mix between two of the weakest. Each of those classes lands... somewhere, and its probably easier to compare them to whatever spawned them.
I'm under impression that many players are so happy to finally have a "swashbuckler" class, that they either fail to realize or simply choose to ignore the flaws with the class' design.
At least he's not the investigator? That guy isn't getting much love in this thread.
Spring attack let's you move more than five feet and attack.
Which is great if you can burn the feats on it. Does the swashbuckler get that for free?
But as class design goes, the new classes look fun.
Your mileage and opinion may vary.
|
|
People knock vital strike, but when it increases your damage by 50% for half or more of the turns you take in combat, that isn't a bad thing.
Although it is something that only fighters really have enough feats for. It's too intensive for other classes.
You've got to have pretty terrible damage in the first place for Vital Strike to equate to a 50% bump.... That, or you're a wildshaped druid.
Generally Vital Strike isn't going to give you much more than than the specialization feats, and only on plain standard action attacks that don't stack with anything else. If you've got the full line of VS feats + Devastating Strike, and you use a high damage die weapon like a greatsword, you might be able to squeeze out a reasonable return on investment. Without Devastating Strike, the whole feat chain, and a larger weapon though, you'll be lucky to get even as much out of it as Power Attack all by itself.
Level 20 great sword fighter
Damage of one swing: 2d6 + 5enh + 15str + 6wt + 18PA = 51 average damage
Greater vital strike adds 6d6 damage = 21 average damage
72/51 = 141.2%So only a 41% increase in damage by 20.
At 11
Damage: 2d6 + 2enh + 10str + 4wt + 9PA = 32
Improved vital strike adds 4d6 = 14 average46/32 = 143.8%
So only a 43.8% increase in damage.
Considering how many turns are move and attack, especially once haste comes into play, it's a good boost in damage.
EDIT: I don't see any reason to pick vital strike up at 6 though. I wait until 10 and then grab improved at 11.
Ummm... Thanks for proving my point that taking the whole chain and using a high damage die weapon gets you a reasonable return on investment that's still not 50%?
If the Swashbuckler is unplayable in your campaign you could houserule that the five-foot step increases by five feet at every fifth level.Spring attack let's you move more than five feet and attack.Which is great if you can burn the feats on it. Does the swashbuckler get that for free?
But as class design goes, the new classes look fun.Your mileage and opinion may vary.
That's great but uhh... I didn't say it was unplayable.
|
|
At least he's not the investigator? That guy isn't getting much love in this thread.
Actually, evidence from the playtest thread strongly suggests Investigator is gonna be awesome. The current version is pretty weak...but the designer of the class explicitly stated that was almost certainly gonna be fixed.
I have high hopes for changes in the Swashbuckler (though I don't think they need such changes) I have high expectations for changes in the Investigator.
I agree the Fort save is a problem, though I also think it's one likely to be fixed. And I don't actually think moving around in 5-foot steps is anti-theme for Swashbucklers. Look at the fencing scene in, oh, the Princess Bride. They aren't moving more than 5 feet a turn for most of that, just slowly backing each other up. The same is true in most duel scenes. They could stand to be more mobile when not attacking, or to have a pounce style ability, but it's not needed for them to be cool or effective.If moving around in 5ft-step is mobility, then every class is "mobile". They should have something like spending Panache to move as a swift action, the ability to add Cha to Acrobatics and Escape Artist, ability to ignore difficult terrain, etc.
Instead, we got a DPR-obsessed unnecessarily complicated finesse build. Read the class description given for SBs and you'll see how badly they fail to live up to it.
I'm under impression that many players are so happy to finally have a "swashbuckler" class, that they either fail to realize or simply choose to ignore the flaws with the class' design.
It has its bright sides and its down sides. It is not the mobility maestro.
And honestly PRecise strike helps with damage while moving in the TWF builds I've made of it.
Honestly my two areas of real concern are the hunter (which is blandest of the bland) and the investigator. The investigator went from a solid rogue replacement to an alchemist minus. I really really wanted his combat ability to work. And there are ways to do it and it sound like we were being listened to. But the dev song we heard of "but we don't want him to outshine the rogue" made me cringe. I don't care about the rogue in terms of other classes. I've tried my damndest with the rogue. When the ACG comes out with more rogue options I'll try again because that thread was hoenstly one of the best things to come out of that experiment (Actual progress! Actual builds!) but I want my Batman now.
I honestly think the shaman is more powerful than the arcanist. No really. After actually sitting down and building one they have so much mroe going for them than arcanists.
But that's a question of opinion really.
Which is partly why it's damned hard to balance things.
But the dev song we heard of "but we don't want him to outshine the rogue" made me cringe.
Working as intended.
I honestly think the shaman is more powerful than the arcanist. No really. After actually sitting down and building one they have so much mroe going for them than arcanists.
A lot of the arcanist power is in that hard to recreate ideal that you can be ready for anything. Ultimate arcane power and full casting both go pretty far into it. Shaman went through so many changes I'm not sure what we'll be looking at. I was really hoping for a fun prepared divine caster, but then somehow he was turned into a druid so... who knows where that goes. I really hope he gets the arcanist style of casting but with cleric spells and that his hexes become some cool scaling things with lots of nice flavorful options, but who knows.
Ummm... Thanks for proving my point that taking the whole chain and using a high damage die weapon gets you a reasonable return on investment that's still not 50%?People knock vital strike, but when it increases your damage by 50% for half or more of the turns you take in combat, that isn't a bad thing.
Although it is something that only fighters really have enough feats for. It's too intensive for other classes.
You've got to have pretty terrible damage in the first place for Vital Strike to equate to a 50% bump.... That, or you're a wildshaped druid.
Generally Vital Strike isn't going to give you much more than than the specialization feats, and only on plain standard action attacks that don't stack with anything else. If you've got the full line of VS feats + Devastating Strike, and you use a high damage die weapon like a greatsword, you might be able to squeeze out a reasonable return on investment. Without Devastating Strike, the whole feat chain, and a larger weapon though, you'll be lucky to get even as much out of it as Power Attack all by itself.
Level 20 great sword fighter
Damage of one swing: 2d6 + 5enh + 15str + 6wt + 18PA = 51 average damage
Greater vital strike adds 6d6 damage = 21 average damage
72/51 = 141.2%So only a 41% increase in damage by 20.
At 11
Damage: 2d6 + 2enh + 10str + 4wt + 9PA = 32
Improved vital strike adds 4d6 = 14 average46/32 = 143.8%
So only a 43.8% increase in damage.
Considering how many turns are move and attack, especially once haste comes into play, it's a good boost in damage.
EDIT: I don't see any reason to pick vital strike up at 6 though. I wait until 10 and then grab improved at 11.
Hey I don't make up numbers just to better prove my point.
Personally, I see 40+ percent as more than a decent boost to damage, even if it isn't 50%.
Yeah not the best investment for most martials, but the fighter isn't most martials.
Vital strike boost effectiveness in non-optimal rounds, which are really the most important kind of rounds. A fighter can kill a balor in two full attacks. Most fights aren't "I full attack!" many different things happen and martials are still expected to bring the damage, even during non-full attacking rounds.
*Someone always brings up archers at this point. Soft cover is a very interesting mechanic. The cover rules and concealment rules in general seem to not get a lot of consideration. Between rapid shot, soft cover, and cover, an archer is looking at an effective -6 to hit in comparison to melee-ers.
\Don't misunderstand me, the concept for Swashbucklers is really cool, but I think it failed to deliver the basic premise. Instead of creating an mobile combatant, Paizo created yet another DPR-machine whose only real course of action is standing still and full-attacking. And for whatever reason, they also gave him bad Fort, despite that being a good save for both Fighters and Gunslingers. ¬¬'
While the trick to deny full attacks is good (too good, IMHO), what else can it do? Kip-Up is nice, but minor and Derring-Do is pathetic. They really should have made Swashbucklers a mix between Gunslinger and Monk, but based on Cha instead of Wis. Using Fighter are a parent class pretty much guaranteed the class would be as one-dimensional as possible.
Well, they can Fight Defensively as a swift action with 1 Panache. Meaning, they could do the mobile thing.
But most of their useful abilities are full rd action or similar sadly.
This came up in a lot of campaigns
*Awesome weapon drops
Fighter: But it's not MY weapon
*into the sell pile it goesWhen I played a Ranger it was more like
*awesome weapon drops
Ranger: Cool. I'll use that till the next awesome weapon drops!
This. And still lots of people claim that the fighter has always the optimal weapon while the ranger can't always fight his favoured enemies.
If you buy what you need you have to sell other stuff first and by that reduce your total wealth compared to when you use what you find.
A ranger's animal companion shares his favored enemy and favored terrain bonuses.Huh, I literally have read over that line dozens of times... you learn something every day.
Dont feel bad Kolokotroni, I never noticed it either. THis makes me want to play a ranger.
That is a very reasonable response, "not everything can be perfect" is more than enough. However, it is hard to believe in some cases. For example all the underpowerdness of rogues have been shown and paizo still relase awful rogue talents in inner sea combat dan then release the salyer to overshadow the rogue (again).On the other hand, the definition of fun is very subjetive, every class works in low optimization, why then not make all works in high optimization too?Just because it is easier said than done, I think.
The problem is the people who will shout power creep from the rafters. People howled about the ninja, which is a rogue alternate class because it is 'better' then the core rogue. If they release talents that were hands down better then the core talents (which they should) then that is 'clear power creep, omg sky is falling!'.
Its a rock and a hard place sort of situation. The only solution that is workable is to release a rogue like class that can actually do the combat job that many want the rogue to be able to do, while being a little less 'theify'. Thats what they did. In reality the rogue should have always been several separate classes. In the ACG we finally have that.
Someone always brings up archers at this point. Soft cover is a very interesting mechanic. The cover rules and concealment rules in general seem to not get a lot of consideration. Between rapid shot, soft cover, and cover, an archer is looking at an effective -6 to hit in comparison to melee-ers.By the time you've got Improved vital strike, the archer has Improved Precise Shot and ignores anything but total cover/concealment.
Tell that to our inquisitor.
If your Inquisitor isn't taking the needed feats, that's not a useful comparison. If it's just that he's a 3/4 BAB class then "By the time a melee cleric or other 3/4 BAB class gets Improved vital strike, the 3/4 BAB archer has Improved Precise Shot"Tell that to our inquisitor.Someone always brings up archers at this point. Soft cover is a very interesting mechanic. The cover rules and concealment rules in general seem to not get a lot of consideration. Between rapid shot, soft cover, and cover, an archer is looking at an effective -6 to hit in comparison to melee-ers.By the time you've got Improved vital strike, the archer has Improved Precise Shot and ignores anything but total cover/concealment.
Why would a 3/4 BAB class take vital strike?
Inquisitor gets enough bonuses to-hit to basically be FULL-BAB. They just aren't for feats.
Why would a 3/4 BAB class take vital strike?
It can actually be useful for natural attack builds. Druid enjoys it, and so can the eidolon if I remember right, because they can make their character around one big hit. The full BAB natural attacker, barbarian, doesn't have access to big weapon dice as much as great static modifiers and multiple attacks, so he doesn't really benefit from vital strike. Alchemist can also beast shape, but he probably enjoys high static modifiers and monstrous form more than beast shape with a big hit.
Just as a different comparison, and probably not even particularly parallel one, one of the games that I'm currently playing in has two paladins and two warpriests as the PCs. I'm playing one of the warpriests.
I was similarly worried that there would be no reason to play a paladin or a cleric with the warpriest class, but I really think that at least at the levels we're playing at (played through 1-6 in Wrath of the Righteous) there's really great balance. The warpriests aren't putting out as much damage but their ability to hurt and heal is so very usefully flexible.
They'll never replace a paladin, and if there weren't TWO of us warpriests handling the healing when needed we'd probably be begging for an NPC healer. But I'm really enjoying the middling role, it's done really quite well. But as replacements forever, no way.
I haven't read the whole thread. Have you guys talked about ACG classes marginalizing multi-class character's? That's why the book bums me out, I really enjoy the toolkit approach to realizing a concept.
I would have rather seen some nice balanced options for multi-classing effectively beyond dips, rather than a book of pre-fab hybrids.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I haven't read the whole thread. Have you guys talked about ACG classes marginalizing multi-class character's? That's why the book bums me out, I really enjoy the toolkit approach to realizing a concept.
I would have rather seen some nice balanced options for multi-classing effectively beyond dips, rather than a book of pre-fab hybrids.
Unfortunately limiting multiclassing is sort of a direct result of the design goals of pathfinder. They couldnt support it without reversing on those goals.
It is also a much more complicated design space (to get right) and a much higher barrier for entry for new players.
New player wants to be a swashbuckler swinging on ropes and dueling with a rapier.
Option 1: Well you can mix figher and rogue, and take a bunch of specific talents, and these mutlclassing feats here in this other book. *stuffs 4 books in players hands*.
Option 2: Play a swashbuckler *shows player 5 pages to read about the swashbuckler.
Single base classes that fill the concept are in my opinion a cleaner and more effective way to reach concepts. The toolkit approach is dramatically harder to balance from the creator side, and it is harder to implement and figure out from the player side. Pathfinder moving away from that is ultimiately a good thing (to me) so long as they actually provide single class options to fill those niches