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?Except it's still not great and it doesn't let you move more than 5' & attack.
You can always move more than 5' and attack. You just can't Full Attack. A 3 feat chain to not get AoA'd and move before & after attacking isn't that special.Add a (fighter-only?) "And full attack while doing so" Feat to the end of that chain and now we're talking.
3.5 has feats that let you attack multiple times when Spring attacking. But high Prereqs and questions like "why would you want to Spring Attack" made it rarely used.
Bounding Assault: you attack two times not one when spring attack. Second attack has -5 penalty (also two opponents your movement don't provoke from). You can use both on same foe or split it.
Rapid Blitz: you attack three times not one when spring attack. Second attack has -5 penalty, and third has -10 (also three opponents your movement don't provoke from). You can use both on same foe or split it.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Right now the warpirest is so obviously superior to fighters, I wonder if the final version will be nerfed for this reason.
Nerf a spellcasting class to make a martial stronger? Nah, it will never happen as it totally goes against Paizo's standards.
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
I think maybe it's because I wasn't playing during the late 3.5 days. It sounds like M-C'ing and PrC got really out of hand? From what I hear it was a nightmare and I wouldn't want to head down that road, so I guess I appreciate that design goal as far as that goes.
If pathfinder hadn't rebooted things like they did I would still be playing AD&D I guess, but now I'm hooked on the toolkit thing, it's the main reason I would never go back.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think maybe it's because I wasn't playing during the late 3.5 days. It sounds like M-C'ing and PrC got really out of hand? From what I hear it was a nightmare and I wouldn't want to head down that road, so I guess I appreciate that design goal as far as that goes.
Pathfinder, as a branch of evolution for 3.5, gave a lot of classes scaling abilities that really filled in holes and dead levels in the classes that existed in core and the new classes are also full of cool things. Some classes got almost nothing(clerics), others got a ridiculous number of great things(barbarian). These abilities though, don't scale out of class unless stated otherwise, and that's few and far between. So PrCs and multi-classing in pathfinder, and dipping too, is rarely a good idea. The ACG classes, archetypes, and PrCs often fill a role of replacing where multi-classing once existed.
Looking at other branches of evolution, legend, super genius arhcetypes, and 4E, you see a different idealism. Legend by rule of cool is built around balancing the game and ideally things are balanced and built in a similar manner. Your class is built of circles. You just swap one circle for another circle, and occasionally a circle is attached to another one or a specific class and can't be swapped out or in. Super genius archetypes package the core class and give swaps for it, in a somewhat similar manner. 4E has paragon and epic paths that can control your narrative but are an expectation and don't destroy your original class, but instead act more like templates in a way. Probably easier to look at things yourself than take my word for it, just an FYI.
Yeah I hear lot's of stories about that! I guess I'm still hooked on toolkit multi-classing because I never OD'd on it like that.
In my perfect world single classing and multi-classing would both be viable.
Pathfinder has been my game of choice for a few years now but if they're moving towards a dedicated class for every concept I will probably start looking at other games again.
I think maybe it's because I wasn't playing during the late 3.5 days. It sounds like M-C'ing and PrC got really out of hand? From what I hear it was a nightmare and I wouldn't want to head down that road, so I guess I appreciate that design goal as far as that goes.
In 3.5 you had to multiclass, and there was no reason not to. Paizo has tried to eliminate that, and they have to an extent. Certain classes (like a wizard, clerics that aren't channeled focus, Oracles past the point of good revelations) are almost always better off taking PRC's past a certain point (usually level 7 or 8) as they loose almost nothing and gain a ton of extra features. Other classes are much better off never dipping and loose a ton if they do, like bomb focused alchemist, witches, arguably non-draconic sorcerers, etc. Many of the best builds I see are still multi-class, so IMO they only partially succeeded at this part of their design goal.
Right now the warpirest is so obviously superior to fighters, I wonder if the final version will be nerfed for this reason.Nerf a spellcasting class to make a martial stronger? Nah, it will never happen as it totally goes against Paizo's standards.
This is truth!!! Though they actually like ranged martials, its melee martials Paizo hates.
Actually, Paizo hates Sorcerers. They receive the fewest number of archetypes and class options of any other class regularly.
If I had to guess a most-supported class, it would probably be bards. We always get new Masterpieces and archetypes and many of the game's spells are designed with bards in mind.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This is truth!!! Though they actually like ranged martials, its melee martials Paizo hates.Right now the warpirest is so obviously superior to fighters, I wonder if the final version will be nerfed for this reason.Nerf a spellcasting class to make a martial stronger? Nah, it will never happen as it totally goes against Paizo's standards.
Tell that to the sling-staff or the crossbowman.
Actually, Paizo hates Sorcerers. They receive the fewest number of archetypes and class options of any other class regularly.
They are 9 level casters, and they've gotten tons of new wildblooded options. By the shear number of sorcerer to wizards you see running around I don't think many people feels the sorcerer class is underpowered.
Tell that to the sling-staff or the crossbowman.
Touche! Ok - they like archers and gunslingers:)
They are 9 level casters, and they've gotten tons of new wildblooded options. By the shear number of sorcerer to wizards you see running around I don't think many people feels the sorcerer class is underpowered.
I tend to think of that happening because prep casting is complicated and the spellbook can be a major liability.
I tend to think of that happening because prep casting is complicated and the spellbook can be a major liability.They are 9 level casters, and they've gotten tons of new wildblooded options. By the shear number of sorcerer to wizards you see running around I don't think many people feels the sorcerer class is underpowered.
Well that, and 9 level casting on its own is crazy powerful. Arcanist and Shaman look pretty powerful if only for that reason. All those class features are like icing on the cake imo.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For a martial to get new stuff, he needs a new feat he can qualify for, or an archetype. Not all of the feats will be useful to every character because they'll still have to meet the prereqs.
For casters, every single new spell is almost as good as if they'd released 2 new feats. Sorcerers don't have to meet prereqs to learn a spell (generally, there's a few race specific spells), so literally every sorcerer now has the potential to take that spell. It's almost like every 5-10 additional sorcerer/wizard spells is equivalent to an additional archetype for each other class. Considering how innately mutable the spellcasting classes are, it makes sense that they'd have fewer archetypes. Their selection of spells means you can have hundreds of permutations on the same character using the CRB alone. Plus, the Crossblooded archetype is kind of a super archetype as that also encompasses hundreds of possible combinations.
It's not that they have fewer options, they're just presented differently because it doesn't actually take a full archetype for a sorcerer to encompass a different feel and playstyle.
For a martial to get new stuff, he needs a new feat he can qualify for, or an archetype. Not all of the feats will be useful to every character because they'll still have to meet the prereqs.
For casters, every single new spell is almost as good as if they'd released 2 new feats. Sorcerers don't have to meet prereqs to learn a spell (generally, there's a few race specific spells), so literally every sorcerer now has the potential to take that spell. It's almost like every 5-10 additional sorcerer/wizard spells is equivalent to an additional archetype for each other class. Considering how innately mutable the spellcasting classes are, it makes sense that they'd have fewer archetypes. Their selection of spells means you can have hundreds of permutations on the same character using the CRB alone. Plus, the Crossblooded archetype is kind of a super archetype as that also encompasses hundreds of possible combinations.
It's not that they have fewer options, they're just presented differently because it doesn't actually take a full archetype for a sorcerer to encompass a different feel and playstyle.
Then of course you have clerics and druids who literally get dozens of new spells every time they release a new book with spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Actually, Paizo hates Sorcerers. They receive the fewest number of archetypes and class options of any other class regularly.
Sorcerers and wizards get fewer archetypes because they have fewer pieces to 'swap out'. They are harder to design for.
It is easier to design new bloodlines, subschools, and subdomains than it is to design archetypes for the 9-level casters, is what I'm saying.
Look, we now have what-some three dozen classes? There's then plenty of room for a simple, plain vanilla Fighter. That class is still very popular and it can contribute. Why do the optimizers want to take that choice away from the Players who want to play that way? No one is forcing the Optimizers to play a Fighter- there are now around a dozen "martial" classes. If THEY don't want a plain vanilla Fighter- then fine- run a Slayer or a Bbn or a Paladin or a cavalier or a....Lets imagine a world where paizo give sthe fighter two mor skill points per level, better and customizable calss skill list and better saves. What choise is exactly being taken away from those players according to you?How about FOUR more skill points, etc- that's called a "Ranger".
What choice is being taken away? No choices, but that's just power creep. Fighter doesn't need a increase. It's popular and powerful enough as is.
Want more skill points? Play a Ranger. Or a Slayer.
I want the fighter to have more skill points. This comes from GM point of view. I just hate it when a player plays a fighter and is not useful for when skills are required.
|
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
[I want the fighter to have more skill points. This comes from GM point of view. I just hate it when a player plays a fighter and is not useful for when skills are required.
In my experience, even players who want simple characters still want to be able to play the game. I as a GM feel bad when my player wants to roll dice with everyone else and my choices are either make up things he can help with or leave him sitting on his thumbs waiting for everybody else to wrap up the non-combat stuff.
It's like the Fighter is the group's slow cousin.
Joey the Fighter: "What can I do to help guys?"
*whispers from rest of party* "What do we do?" "I don't know, what is Joey good at?" "I think he can climb stuff....?"
Party face: "Okay Joey, we're going to bribe that guard with a shiney apple! Can you go climb that apple tree and bring us one?"
Joey: "Boy can I!"
*party* "Quick, charm the guard and tell him he wants an apple before Joey gets back!"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intimidating Prowess. Really all you need. (Don't dump cha like a t+*&)
Right now I'm playing in a group with a 26 point buy. I decided to just grab a 14 in int, so I have my two knowledge skills (I reserve perception for a +2 int item).
The character does look more balanced.
Maybe the world wouldn't come asunder if the Fighter had two more skill points per level, but I'm skeptical.
I don't really see the fighter NEEDING it. Fighters lead the party (meat in front). Progress the plot. Kill bosses. And are just the hero of the whole group. Missing out on the occasional diplomacy check is not a huge loss.
Intimidating Prowess. Really all you need. (Don't dump cha like a t!%$)
Intimidating prowess just gives you a bonus to one skill. It doesn't actually make you skilled. There's a pretty big difference between the two.
I don't really see the fighter NEEDING it. Fighters lead the party (meat in front). Progress the plot. Kill bosses. And are just the hero of the whole group. Missing out on the occasional diplomacy check is not a huge loss.
I'd imagine its hard to lead the group if you can't tell where your going, what your doing, or how your doing it. Similarly, progressing the plot is a lot easier if you have talents. His bad saves aren't that great either, "Well, our fearless leader got roasted by a dragon again." "Well our fearless leader was dominated and told to act like a dog again." "Well our fearless leader fell into the hole in the ground, again..." etc.
Wasn't this thread about the ACG?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Intimidating prowess just gives you a bonus to one skill. It doesn't actually make you skilled. There's a pretty big difference between the two.Wasn't this thread about the ACG?
Unfortunately, it's hard to have a discussion about whether ACG classes will overshadow their existing counterparts without the "Fighter good/bad" conversation consistently coming up.
Right now I'm playing in a group with a 26 point buy.
Anecdotal evidence that if you play in a high point buy game where you've got stats to spare you can shore up a weakness is not evidence that the weakness does not exist. Considering organized play players have 6 fewer points to spend, and many people play in even lower point buys, your situation is not really representative of any meaningful baseline, nor does it address the discussion at hand.
If I've got a Slayer and a Fighter, both on a 26 point buy, what can the Fighter do that the Slayer can't? What can he do better than the Slayer, and by how much?
Now swap Slayer and Fighter and ask those questions again.
Intimidating Prowess. Really all you need. (Don't dump cha like a t#*~)
Right now I'm playing in a group with a 26 point buy. I decided to just grab a 14 in int, so I have my two knowledge skills (I reserve perception for a +2 int item).
The character does look more balanced.
Maybe the world wouldn't come asunder if the Fighter had two more skill points per level, but I'm skeptical.
I don't really see the fighter NEEDING it. Fighters lead the party (meat in front). Progress the plot. Kill bosses. And are just the hero of the whole group. Missing out on the occasional diplomacy check is not a huge loss.
With a 26 point buy you can afford not to dump (and even boost) all your stats. At 20, or 15? You're dumping int or Cha, cause you need the others.
And really? Putting off Perception until you get a +2 booster for a dump stat? When are you planning on buying a luxury like that?
Eh 4k is pretty cheap up in mid levels. Before then, the not class skill isn't really worth it.
Right now I'm playing in a group with a 26 point buy.Anecdotal evidence that if you play in a high point buy game where you've got stats to spare you can shore up a weakness is not evidence that the weakness does not exist. Considering organized play players have 6 fewer points to spend, and many people play in even lower point buys, your situation is not really representative of any meaningful baseline, nor does it address the discussion at hand.
I don't really think you read my comment.
I'll say it again.
ACG classes
Oracle
-Considering they have access to a bunch of Cleric spells thanks to the spirit mechanic
-Considering a lot of their cool features like the one advertised in a recent preview
-They will probably overshadow specific Druid and Cleric builds, btu wont overshadow the classes
Brawler
-Will probably overshadow a lot of Fighter builds except two handed ones
-Will probably overshadow monk for punching builds
Swashbuckler, Investigator, Arcanist
-I will wait for final build because this one seems like it will see changes
-Currently Arcanist is the god of everything
-Currently Investigator needs to learn to fight
-Currently Swashbucker is just another flavor of full attacker
Slayer
-Invalidates almost every Rogue build except the diplomancer role, which rogues suck at anyway.
-Invalidates a lot of fighter roles
-May be weaker overall than a Ranger
Bloodrager
-Does not invalidate Barbs
-Gives cool new options
Hunter
-Disclaimer: It may get better by final release
-Is the second weakest class in the game, right ahead of Rogue.
Warpriest
-Only thing Fighter has over it is ~1 more HP per level and the ability to move fast in Heavy armor
-Better than FIghter in every other way
-Also has spells
-Probably obsoletes melee focused inquisitor builds
Skald
-Doesn't really obsolete anything
-Will fit VERY well into specific groups
-Will not fit at all into specific groups
Intimidating Prowess. Really all you need. (Don't dump cha like a t!%$)Intimidating prowess just gives you a bonus to one skill. It doesn't actually make you skilled. There's a pretty big difference between the two.
You also put skill points into it.
I don't really see the fighter NEEDING it. Fighters lead the party (meat in front). Progress the plot. Kill bosses. And are just the hero of the whole group. Missing out on the occasional diplomacy check is not a huge loss.I'd imagine its hard to lead the group if you can't tell where your going, what your doing, or how your doing it. Similarly, progressing the plot is a lot easier if you have talents. His bad saves aren't that great either, "Well, our fearless leader got roasted by a dragon again." "Well our fearless leader was dominated and told to act like a dog again." "Well our fearless leader fell into the hole in the ground, again..." etc.
You can lead the group with your eyes shut.
People overplay the save issue. You can shore those up.
I don't think accusations or personal attacks or biases are really necessary. Its like throwing Molotov at a thread or something.
Don't suppose we have a more productive in topic thing to talk about.
| 14 people marked this as a favorite. |
Seriously people, game design is hard. It's really easy to spot problems in a complex system in hindsight. It's an entirely different thing to suggest actual solutions (or avoid them in the first place.)
There are lots of things that would be great to fix if we had a time machine. Personally, I'd go back and make sure that clerics, oracles, and druids were on the 1/2 BAB track, while rogues and monks were on the full BAB track. That would do a lot to fix the limitations of the rogue, while also freeing up design space on the 3/4 progression for classes like the Hunter, Inquisitor, and Warpriest.
But, due to the limits of time and space, stuff in the ACG can't change whats actually printed in, what is it? Six printings of the Core Rulebook?
Do you have a solution for these problems that doesn't require a new edition of the game?
If you really think you can do better than the Paizo staff, 99% of Pathfinder material is Open Game Content. Go make a PDF or a webpage of your vastly improved system and slap an Open Game License on it. Playtest it. Post it in public for criticism. (Like Kirthfinder did.)
You think you have all the answers, that you can do it better? Then do it. Taking potshots is easy: building something is hard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quoting to favorite this again. So many posters just post on the forums to try to destroy this game by saying how terrible it all is.
Well, I can't speak for anyone else but when I talk about the games flaws I'm not trying to destroy them. I'm stating the way things are and sometimes I state a good houserule when I feel like that's appropriate. People usually aren't out to 'destroy' the game by posting on a forum about it. I'm pretty sure that's not people's intentions at all. I think a lot of times they're putting them to light and expressing dissatisfaction and saying they'd like a change, but not actively trying to destroy the game.
This probably isn't a healthy direction to take with the thread. Sucks too, I liked it. I liked reading people's opinions and seeing some ideas here and there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Quoting to favorite this again. So many posters just post on the forums to try to destroy this game by saying how terrible it all is.Well, I can't speak for anyone else but when I talk about the games flaws I'm not trying to destroy them. I'm stating the way things are and sometimes I state a good houserule when I feel like that's appropriate. People usually aren't out to 'destroy' the game by posting on a forum about it. I'm pretty sure that's not people's intentions at all.
This probably isn't a healthy direction to take with the thread. Sucks too, I liked it. I liked reading people's opinions and seeing some ideas here and there.
This thread was doomed from the start. Its very title is antagonistic and set it up to be a "fighters are awful rogues are awful, power creep ruined this game throw it out and start over" like has happened in so many other threads.
people keep throwing around claims like "Warpriest makes all fighters obsolete, rip the pages out and burn them" without even showing that to be the case (which I do not agree that it is.)
Did someone really say that? I'm looking but I just can't find someone who's telling people to rip out the pages and burn them.
Can we like... talk about the ACG again?
Edit:
This thread was doomed from the start. Its very title is antagonistic and set it up to be a "fighters are awful rogues are awful, power creep ruined this game throw it out and start over" like has happened in so many other threads.
You know, when you think you see things like that sometimes its best just to think and consider how to improve things and where people are having trouble or seeing problems. Don't take it to the negative extreme that people are just out to destroy, but it really does help to look at it from a productive angle.
This thread was doomed from the start. Its very title is antagonistic and set it up to be a "fighters are awful rogues are awful, power creep ruined this game throw it out and start over" like has happened in so many other threads.Quoting to favorite this again. So many posters just post on the forums to try to destroy this game by saying how terrible it all is.Well, I can't speak for anyone else but when I talk about the games flaws I'm not trying to destroy them. I'm stating the way things are and sometimes I state a good houserule when I feel like that's appropriate. People usually aren't out to 'destroy' the game by posting on a forum about it. I'm pretty sure that's not people's intentions at all.
This probably isn't a healthy direction to take with the thread. Sucks too, I liked it. I liked reading people's opinions and seeing some ideas here and there.
of course is doomed, no for rogues or fighters but because it now will be about picking personal fights.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hate this bull. I hate that people seem to have lost the ability to offer constructive criticism, and I hate the rampant negativity.
Sean's not wrong. The boards have become hostile, and the worst part is how infectious it is. Everybody starts displaying this sarcasm that devolves into downright meanness faster than a popsicle melting on a hot summer day.
Here's a thing. I work with Prince, and he's generally an ok guy. Sean was my favorite dev and is still one of my favorite people in the RPG world, having been involved in a lot of my favorite games and materials.
I think there's a lot to be said for both of their points of view when it comes to game design, and I think it can be said without verbal tirades.
Is the game perfect? No. It doesn't need to be.
I wish everyone could learn how to have a civilized conversation without getting mean, and without assigning sinister motivations to others.
You think Sean's mean and acerbic? Read the incredibly mean and acerbic things he's been bombarded with over the last 3 years.
Stop being confrontational and attacking the character of people you don't agree with, everyone. Instead of statements that amount to "Fighters suck balzz and Paizo hates the game they bust ass to make successful" let's try and focus on actually showing the alternatives and building the game.
Prince is working on a project that does a lot to change the martial/caster dynamic. You want to make a point about how the Fighter could be better? Go buy Path of War and speak with your cash.
But don't rail on Paizo for doing their best to make everyone happy, and try to show a little more respect.
You think Sean is a heartless, rude jerk? Go look up Swords into Plowshares or Hungry Little Monsters. The man literally designed awesome weapons and monsters for the game and used the proceeds to help feed starving children. When your games have done as much, then you can call him whatever you want.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I apologize Mr. Reynolds. I was going for humor, not passive aggressiveness, but I guess that doesn't translate well in text format.
Please understand that I have the utmost respect for you, the people you used to work with, and the work that they do (and that all of you have done).
Do I think the game could be better? Yes. (I think that about everything.) Do I think that diminishes the wonderful (and astoundingly hard) work you have done for us. Not in the slightest.