damn. you stop clicking f 5 for a little while and the world changes...
"flavorful" should not be synomynous with "bad"
Any other ACG classed you think could benefit from multiclassing?
The world became a much better place now that you can multiclass with Swashbuckler.
Awesome. The Brawler was pretty bad on its own but if I can combine it with my favorite MoMS flavor? Mmmmmm...Style Feats...
You can't multiclass barbarian/ bloodrager because the bloodrager is already part barbarian.2 level barb dip then bloodrager so you can grab a bunch of rage powers?
Also Skald hurray!
In the final version, we removed this restriction.
Given the sheer number of archetypes listed in the latest spoiler -- I was right in suspecting that the playtest barely scratched the surface of what Paizo will be offering with this book.
Given the sheer number of archetypes listed in the latest spoiler -- I was right in suspecting that the playtest barely scratched the surface of what Paizo will be offering with this book.
Well it is a full sized book and that was just a test for the classes, many of which changed even inside of the testing!
Glad to see shaman get his own spell list, though I'd like to see it.
The arcanist ability to just say "There's a spell for that!" and burn an arcane point to have it for the day looks pretty crazy though.
Given the sheer number of archetypes listed in the latest spoiler -- I was right in suspecting that the playtest barely scratched the surface of what Paizo will be offering with this book.
I can't find that spoiler, link?
I can't find that spoiler, link?Given the sheer number of archetypes listed in the latest spoiler -- I was right in suspecting that the playtest barely scratched the surface of what Paizo will be offering with this book.
Go to the Paizo Blog "Victory For Paizo! Victory For The Kids!"
The archetypes are listed in the first message under the blog.
Omg so many of those archetype names sound cool!
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2 level barb dip then bloodrager so you can grab a bunch of rage powers?
Yeah, but I bet they don't advance (the current wording they would, but that might easily change). And you certainly can't get any with a level restriction. That makes it a lot less broken.
Also Skald hurray!
I'm with you. With Versatile Performance, I'll probably actually play a Skald now, since I can still do the 'winning at skills' thing that I love about Bard (even with the lower skill ranks). Combined with Barbarian Rage...that's just really awesome.
Yeah, you wouldn't get beast totem, but there are many really cool and strong rage powers out there that don't have level restrictions.
Skald getting Uncanny dodge and Versatile performance+ more songs makes them really really good for me! Still deciding if Skald with sword and board or skald with 2HW will be my first go.
If Skald can get Bardic Masterpieces I may have a new favorite class.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, you wouldn't get beast totem, but there are many really cool and strong rage powers out there that don't have level restrictions.
True, I'm not saying it's not good, just that it's not so good as to be broken or anything.
Skald getting Uncanny dodge and Versatile performance+ more songs makes them really really good for me! Still deciding if Skald with sword and board or skald with 2HW will be my first go.
Yeah, I'd be inclined to go Greataxe Skald all the way, personally...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
>When the ACG comes out how do you think it will influence your Home games? : No, won't be using it.
>and PFS games? : I'll avoid them.
>In the Short Term what do you think will happen? : A rush of silly characters.
>In the Long Term? : A further stratification of players/characters on power-level lines. A lot of scenarios built to handle Inquisitors, Magi, Arcanists, Bloodragers, and Gunslingers.
>Based on the Play test Rule set 2 do you think this book will be power creep? : Unquestionably.
>Do you think any of the classes have an unclear role? : Hunter.
>When the ACG comes out how do you think it will influence your Home games? : No, won't be using it.
>and PFS games? : I'll avoid them.
>In the Short Term what do you think will happen? : A rush of silly characters.
>In the Long Term? : A further stratification of players/characters on power-level lines. A lot of scenarios built to handle Inquisitors, Magi, Arcanists, Bloodragers, and Gunslingers.
>Based on the Play test Rule set 2 do you think this book will be power creep? : Unquestionably.
>Do you think any of the classes have an unclear role? : Hunter.
Would you like to list reasons why the whole book will be banned as opposed to parts of it? Specifically do you think that the Brawler and Slayer are bad for the game? I can understand hating some of the classes in that book (Arcanist and Shaman) but I fail to see how Brawler, Slayer, Skald, and Investigator are in any way overpowered.
In the Short Term what do you think will happen?
Short term I think it'll be "flavor of the month"-syndrome and everyone will roll up an ACG character. I might run a short campaign (like a mini-AP or a series of modules) using only the classes from the ACG to get the hang of their mechanics.
In the Long Term?
Long-term I think it'll add to the variety of the game and give more players more options to realize the character they want to play. I am not going to lie however, I am a little concerned about how some of the CRB classes stack up against their new compatriots. Hopefully the book will include options that make the core classes better as well.
Based on the Play test Rule set 2 do you think this book will be power creep?
No, not really. Then again, I consider "power creep" a negatively loaded term and use it sparingly. For instance Blood Money strikes me as an example of power creep, Snake Style does not.
Do you think any of the classes have an unclear role?
I think some of them could do with a bit of clarification. The Hunter seems a little confused, the Bloodrager's slow caster level progression and primarily arcane blast spells seems counter-intuitive lackluster and finally I think the Skald could do with a few more options - it seems extremely geared towards a "melee" party, and honestly feels more like a big archetype/alternate class than a new original class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When the ACG comes out how do you think it will influence your Home games and PFS games?
It'll definitely be influencing my home games because I plan to make villains and stuff with the classes in the Advanced Class Guide. I have a few characters in mind that would make perfect slayers.
Plus there are a few characters that I've been waiting to cover on Iconic Design that need these classes. Especially brawler; we really needed the brawler and the swashbuckler.
In the Short Term what do you think will happen?
We'll see a large influx of Advanced Class Guide builds on the forums but they'll trickle slowly into Pathfinder Society. Most people aren't going to toss away their character of X years for an Advanced Class Guide class just because it's shiny.
In the Long Term?
Since this book'll account for just shy of 50% of the classes in the game, just shy of 50% of the players in the game will try an Advanced Class Guide class and either love it or hate it. We'll have people complaining about their power being too strong and too weak simultaneously and overall, grumpers are gonna grump. Eventually it'll die down to a complaint form-a-week forum as people start playing with these classes.
Based on the Play test Rule set 2 do you think this book will be power creep?
No. I don't think that any of these classes are indisputably better than their "parents" at every aspect of the game. Even if they were, options don't need to be perfectly balanced. The holistic idea of what it means to be a rogue is much different than a slayer, for example, and I'm personally glad that his book will be getting the people who want the rogue to be something it isn't into an appropriate class for them. I'll likely keep playing rogues where I find it appropriate, myself.
Do you think any of the classes have an unclear role?
Counter question: what defines a "role." Are we talking about the role entry each class has in the book, or are we talking about how players envision the class functioning in the game? Those are often two very different things.
If playtest advice was taken well, I imagine that the Hunter will end up as the Ice Climbers of Pathfinder classes; horrible weak on his own, but pretty darn cool with his partner. Skald, on the other hand, has always had the weakest role of the ten in my opinion. He's based on the bard, who is a buffer, and the barbarian, who is a damage-dealer. So what does he do? Makes everyone angry? I don't think the rage buff is anywhere close to being as good as bardic music, so right now I'm on the fence about him. I'm not convinced that the skald wasn't a concept that would have been suited to life as an archetype.
Skald, on the other hand, has always had the weakest role of the ten in my opinion. He's based on the bard, who is a buffer, and the barbarian, who is a damage-dealer. So what does he do? Makes everyone angry? I don't think the rage buff is anywhere close to being as good as bardic music, so right now I'm on the fence about him. I'm not convinced that the skald wasn't a concept that would have been suited to life as an archetype.
That's strange, because I always thought the Skald, with the proper party, would be the stuff of nightmares for a GM. The ability to give Superstition and the entire Beast Totem line seems like it would be incredible. That means Raging Song would give bonuses to Str, Con, Will saves, then all saves against magic, extra AC and the entire party the ability to Pounce. Even if you aren't a melee class, you'd still be able to make use of those defensive stats.
Skald, on the other hand, has always had the weakest role of the ten in my opinion. He's based on the bard, who is a buffer, and the barbarian, who is a damage-dealer. So what does he do? Makes everyone angry? I don't think the rage buff is anywhere close to being as good as bardic music, so right now I'm on the fence about him. I'm not convinced that the skald wasn't a concept that would have been suited to life as an archetype.That's strange, because I always thought the Skald, with the proper party, would be the stuff of nightmares for a GM. The ability to give Superstition and the entire Beast Totem line seems like it would be incredible. That means Raging Song would give bonuses to Str, Con, Will saves, then all saves against magic, extra AC and the entire party the ability to Pounce. Even if you aren't a melee class, you'd still be able to make use of those defensive stats.
Spell Kenning, short of a few exploits, is hands down the best ability in the game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This book will add new characters that will show up in my games. I think that will be fine. I still think some of their hybrids are designed backwards but whatever. I think that the bigger issue will be Pathfinder society play where we will begin to see core rulebook characters show up a lot less. This won't be bad but will push the game further down the road to needing a second edition.
Skald, on the other hand, has always had the weakest role of the ten in my opinion. He's based on the bard, who is a I've buffernd the barbarian, who is a damage-dealer. So what does he do? Makes everyone angry? I don't think the rage buff is anywhere close to being as good as bardic music, so right now I'm on the fence about him. I'm not convinced that the skald wasn't a concept that would have been suited to life as an archetype.That's strange, because I always thought the Skald, with the proper party, would be the stuff of nightmares for a GM. The ability to give Superstition and the entire Beast Totem line seems like it would be incredible. That means Raging Song would give bonuses to Str, Con, Will saves, then all saves against magic, extra AC and the entire party the ability to Pounce. Even if you aren't a melee class, you'd still be able to make use of those defensive stats.
Man, I have a boss fight with a skald for my home game right now. It's totally cr appropriate, but i think it may very well be unfair. After 2 rounds all the mooks will be straight beasts. I did modify the list and add Mass Bulls Strength (really it should be on his list) but otherwise he's just raw. And if the party let's him, 3-4 rounds in those mooks are probably a good cr+3 or 4, it goes from a reasonable battle to a potential tpk real fast.
He won't be as good as the bard may be in as many parties, but i think he's WAY better in the right party.
Also remember, the bonuses would stack, so you could have a bard, skald, cleric or oracle, fighter Tactician or Cavalier and all drop insane buffs in 1 or 2 rounds. I actually tried to get the buff party going in a campaign once, but only like half the people went for it. It's pretty cool thematically.
Skald, on the other hand, has always had the weakest role of the ten in my opinion. He's based on the bard, who is a I've buffernd the barbarian, who is a damage-dealer. So what does he do? Makes everyone angry? I don't think the rage buff is anywhere close to being as good as bardic music, so right now I'm on the fence about him. I'm not convinced that the skald wasn't a concept that would have been suited to life as an archetype.That's strange, because I always thought the Skald, with the proper party, would be the stuff of nightmares for a GM. The ability to give Superstition and the entire Beast Totem line seems like it would be incredible. That means Raging Song would give bonuses to Str, Con, Will saves, then all saves against magic, extra AC and the entire party the ability to Pounce. Even if you aren't a melee class, you'd still be able to make use of those defensive stats.Man, I have a boss fight with a skald for my home game right now. It's totally cr appropriate, but i think it may very well be unfair. After 2 rounds all the mooks will be straight beasts. I did modify the list and add Mass Bulls Strength (really it should be on his list) but otherwise he's just raw. And if the party let's him, 3-4 rounds in those mooks are probably a good cr+3 or 4, it goes from a reasonable battle to a potential tpk real fast.
He won't be as good as the bard may be in as many parties, but i think he's WAY better in the right party.
Also remember, the bonuses would stack, so you could have a bard, skald, cleric or oracle, fighter Tactician or Cavalier and all drop insane buffs in 1 or 2 rounds. I actually tried to get the buff party going in a campaign once, but only like half the people went for it. It's pretty cool thematically.
Don't forget Skald's get http://www.d20pfsrd.com/magic/all-spells/g/good-hope Which is a minute per level GROUP buff!
With UMD there's no real need for Mass Bull's strength to be on their list, a Scroll would have the same effect.
That plus Good Hope and Haste will result in a really nasty buff list. Especially with giving everyone Beast Totem.
Yup, that + Shadow bard, Waves of Ecstasy, mass bulls strength, slow and confusion will all be starting the battle. If he finds out their there ahead of time he can also start invisible and will start throwing heroism on everyone! Should be a blast.
|
I think Arcanists will be replacing wizards (and many sorcerers) for me forever. Not because of any balance concerns either way, but because I vastly prefer how their casting works from a flavor and utility-of-DMing perspective.
Some classes are shoo-ins for PCs, including bloodrager, investigator, and swashbuckler. On the other hand, I'd be kind of surprised if we ended up with a skald, brawler, or hunter.
I suspect we'll have about half the party be ACG classes in our next campaign, which is about on the mark.
All-in-all, I'm really looking forward to picking it up.
Cheers!
Landon
|
I think Arcanists will be replacing wizards (and many sorcerers) for me forever. Not because of any balance concerns either way, but because I vastly prefer how their casting works from a flavor and utility-of-DMing perspective.
Some classes are shoo-ins for PCs, including bloodrager, investigator, and swashbuckler. On the other hand, I'd be kind of surprised if we ended up with a skald, brawler, or hunter.
I suspect we'll have about half the party be ACG classes in our next campaign, which is about on the mark.
All-in-all, I'm really looking forward to picking it up.
Cheers!
Landon
Since the other GM in my group has been planning a steampunk type campaign for quite some time, I imagine that we'll probably see brawlers, investigators, and swashbucklers cropping up quite a bit.
I personally really like the Hunter and am looking forward to the eventual chance to get play one.
I'd imagine that your estimate of about half the group running them is pretty on the money, and it wouldn't suprise me if there's always at least one of the ACG classes in the party going forward, though I don't imagine it will be any particular one of them.
The skald, arcanist, shaman, and hunter will probably be played by myself almost exclusively in my group because they just aren't really up the alley of any of the other people I play with and they involve the kind of shifting bonuses and resource management that most of the others in my current group would rather just leave me to deal with :P
1(.5)/4 for my gaming group and 0/7 for my parents group, maybe when the book comes out.
With UMD there's no real need for Mass Bull's strength to be on their list, a Scroll would have the same effect.
This is an odd thing to say. Any class can have UMD as a skill.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Short-term: Players will want to try the new classes.
Long-term: Without house-rules, Sorcerers will never see play again. Same goes for Rogues and Fighters, but that's already the case anyway.
Long-term: Without house-rules, Sorcerers will never see play again. Same goes for Rogues and Fighters, but that's already the case anyway.
You may have that problem with fighters and rogues, but not sorcerers.
More slots, more spells at once with things like human favored bonus. Wizard might be more in danger but they also have more slot because of arcanist delayed progression.
I see arcanist as a silver bullet mage. Only devastating in the hands of people who know what it the silver bullet spell for that encounter.
Meh, the difference is spell slots is not significant enough, IMO. And who knows if Arcanists will have something like the Sorcerer's FCB? Look at the insanely powerful stuff some of the Arcanist's powers can do. Jason seems determined to give the class as much power and versatility as possible, so I wouldn't be surprised.
Paragon Surge Sorcerer/Oracle still wins, so there's something in defense of the old world order.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I suppose... If your GM allows you to use the most broken loophole in the game, Sorcerers do have an edge. Unfortunately, that is very unlikely to happen, so Sorcerers are as good as dead.
Paragon Surge Sorcerer/Oracle still wins, so there's something in defense of the old world order.
New Cheese vs. Core Cheese! Which cheese will win in a contest of cheesiness!
Anyways, slightly different, both in effect and use. Getting the arcane/divine paragon surge with lunar oracle is pretty crazy, but it requires mixing a few things up, while the arcanist has it built right into the class apparently.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Short-term: Players will want to try the new classes.
Long-term: Without house-rules, Sorcerers will never see play again. Same goes for Rogues and Fighters, but that's already the case anyway.
I don't agree with the disappearance of the Core Classes. Arcanist is nice, but the sorcerer can sling spells a lot longer than he can. Also, if you pick the right spells you can have everything you really need as a sorcerer.
I also don't think we'll see the fighter disappear. The fighter is extremely versatile and ironically enough, he's better at doing combat things that don't involve simple attacks than any other class in the game thanks to the obscene number of feats he receives.
Last, I think that the slayer is going to do to the rogue what the magus did to the eldritch knight; the slayer is going to be more commonly played, but the slayer is also going to help define the rogue better. The rogue is squarely the skill expert martial class now. He's burstier than the bard and has all of the social skills that the slayer lacks. She's a better at being a thief while the slayer is better at being a killer.
I don't agree with the disappearance of the Core Classes.
To be fair it is asking about your games in particular.
I also don't think we'll see the fighter disappear. The fighter is extremely versatile and ironically enough, he's better at doing combat things that don't involve simple attacks than any other class in the game thanks to the obscene number of feats he receives.
... Is this serious? I... I'm just not sure sometimes. I mean, we have all these classes with spellcasting and class features and stuff that feats can't even replicate, and feats don't give options 9 out of ten times, so I'm not sure where this comes from.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I also don't think we'll see the fighter disappear. The fighter is extremely versatile and ironically enough, he's better at doing combat things that don't involve simple attacks than any other class in the game thanks to the obscene number of feats he receives.... Is this serious? I... I'm just not sure sometimes. I mean, we have all these classes with spellcasting and class features and stuff that feats can't even replicate, and feats don't give options 9 out of ten times, so I'm not sure where this comes from.
I love seeing people blow his mind every time they say something along the lines of finding the fighter interesting.
EDIT: Notice he said simple attacking, so attacking via lunge, great cleave, blind-fight, combat reflexes, vital strike, or a host of other feats could count in addition to all the combat maneuver feats.
|
|
I don't agree with the disappearance of the Core Classes. Arcanist is nice, but the sorcerer can sling spells a lot longer than he can. Also, if you pick the right spells you can have everything you really need as a sorcerer.
This I'll withhold judgement on. It depends what the final version of the Arcanist looks like. With the current version...I wouldn't expect Sorcerers to go away entirely, but I'd expect a significantly lower number.
I also don't think we'll see the fighter disappear. The fighter is extremely versatile and ironically enough, he's better at doing combat things that don't involve simple attacks than any other class in the game thanks to the obscene number of feats he receives.
Uh...with 6 bonus Feats over their first 12 levels if they like (to the 7 Fighters get over their first 12), Slayers are good enough at this that it makes no practical difference...and have Skill Points and Sneak Attack to boot.
Last, I think that the slayer is going to do to the rogue what the magus did to the eldritch knight; the slayer is going to be more commonly played, but the slayer is also going to help define the rogue better. The rogue is squarely the skill expert martial class now. He's burstier than the bard and has all of the social skills that the slayer lacks. She's a better at being a thief while the slayer is better at being a killer.
Eh...the only social skill Slayers actually lose is Diplomacy. That's a far cry from lacking social skills, especially when Traits are a thing.
Indeed, the only skills they lack are Appraise, Diplomacy, Escape Artist, Linguistics, Perform, and Sleight of Hand. And if you want those, the answer would seem to be Bard, not Rogue.
All Rogue has is slightly superior Sneak Attack progression, earlier Evasion, and 2 extra skill points per level. Unlike Eldritch Knight's better BAB, HD, and nearly-full Wizard progression (as compared to Magus), that doesn't seem enough to sustain a Class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcanist is nice, but the sorcerer can sling spells a lot longer than he can. Also, if you pick the right spells you can have everything you really need as a sorcerer.
The difference in spell slots is minimal, and it's pretty easy to get more of them (simply raising you casting attribute does that). Arcane exploits are far more powerful and versatile than most Bloodlines (and an Arcanists can get some of those with feats). Last but not least, Int-based casting is far superior to Cha-based casting. Especially considering Sorcerers don't have enough skill points to make good social characters.
Like it or not, Sorcerers have just been made obsolete. Arcanists are better in 90% of the situations. Arcanist should either be limited to 6th-level spells or at very least, have separate slots for spontaneous and prepared casting, instead of fusing both styles into a much better one.
But I digress... I've talked enough about my views on Arcanists. I'll just rebuild my Sorcerer into the ACG's Sorcerer+ and move on.
When the ACG comes out how do you think it will influence your Home games? Hey, new toys for use to use. I already use about 30 third party classes in my game so that means the Pathfinder classes will come up in ratior.
PFS games? Don't know anything about FPS games, never seen one, never interested.
In the Short Term what do you think will happen? Lots of new characters with new classes. Most like to play with new toys.
In the Long Term? It will settle down, with a few classes getting a lot of play, others niche. Lots of arguments on boards about overpowered and underpowered and core-only games... wait that is already here.
Based on the Play test Rule set 2 do you think this book will be power creep? maybe a little overall, but not in my game (see the 30+ 3PP classes note above)
Do you think any of the classes have an unclear role? Nothing I've ever worried about - I look and think "can it does something interesting either mechanically, or storywise, or better both?" all of the ACG classes have a yes to that question, so they are fine by me.
I don't see such a glaring imbalance between Arcanists and other arcane casters. Even so, I think I'd like them based on the method of spell prep even if the exploits were nerfed substantially.
Even so, I still like Sorcerers as well.
But choices in my group aren't focused on power level so much as the 'feel' of the class. I.E. We have people playing fighters and rogues even with stronger choices because they like the flavor of fighters and rogues as compared to the other options.
I run most of our group's games, but when I get to play I certainly don't think: "I won't play this class or that class because its weak," but I suppose mileage does vary from group to group.
At any rate: I don't see our gaming group being that greatly impacted by ACG's release, save that there will be more options for our character concepts.
|
I almost feel like the Advanced Class Guide is to Pathfinder what Tome of Battle was to 3.5 D&D. It almost feels like Paizo is testing the waters with something to determine if this is the direction forward for Pathfinder Part Duex or something.
ACG just doesn't feel like it belongs with regular Pathfinder to me. My group has 2 of the 6 players playing ACG classes right now in a new campaign so maybe with more experience and usage that feeling will change but for now that's how I feel.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I almost feel like the Advanced Class Guide is to Pathfinder what Tome of Battle was to 3.5 D&D. It almost feels like Paizo is testing the waters with something to determine if this is the direction forward for Pathfinder Part Duex or something.
ACG just doesn't feel like it belongs with regular Pathfinder to me. My group has 2 of the 6 players playing ACG classes right now in a new campaign so maybe with more experience and usage that feeling will change but for now that's how I feel.
Well if the ACG is Paizo's ToB then that makes me quite happy.