| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of see the Arcanist as an arcane caster with training wheels.
At its peak it's about as powerful (or slightly less, since it has fewer spell slots and gains spell levels slower) as a fully optimized wizard, but it is much easier to play for a player who finds the prep work and rules study for arcane casters daunting. The optimization ceiling is roughly the same as a wizard or a Witch (and somewhat over the sorcerer), the optimization floor is much higher than any other arcane caster.
You don't need to agonize over the optimal mix of spells prepared each morning, or building the ideal list of Spells Known. Instead you just pick some spells you want to cast and you're good to go. You brought Create Pit to an underwater dungeon? No worries, just prep Glitterdust tomorrow. You need to cast Color Spray four times? No worries, as long as you prepped it you can cast it as many times as you want (spell slots allowing).
I gotta say I'm finding the quality of life improvement over wizards and witches (no excessive homework) and sorcerers (better pick the right spells or you're screwed) the most appealing aspect of the class.
That said, I do have some concerns. Cherrypicking school powers and bloodlines with no downside as well as the spoiler exploit (Mini Paragon Surge) seems overly powerful, and I'd like to see a bit more of a focus on the intelligence/charisma split. I'll wait and see how the class turns out.
Well if the ACG is Paizo's ToB then that makes me quite happy.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.
I dunno, I don't think ACG changes enough for martials to be comparable.
I dunno, I don't think ACG changes enough for martials to be comparable.Well if the ACG is Paizo's ToB then that makes me quite happy.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.
Exactly.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thankfully we have Dreamscarred press around to make a ToB for Pathfinder! Also Psionics.
DSP martial classes don't fix the disparity, but they do a lot to give non-casters the ability to combat encounters without a cleric and wizard holding their hands.
|
Exactly.I dunno, I don't think ACG changes enough for martials to be comparable.Well if the ACG is Paizo's ToB then that makes me quite happy.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.
They're still generally working against that big issue of operating off a different action economy than casters. Martials still lose 50% or more of their effectiveness if they move more than 5 feet while casters maintain full mobility and effectiveness. That and the fact that martials abilities to interact with the world (skills) are still bounded by real world expectations of realism.
I think calling this the PF version of Bo9S would be a misnomer. Bo9S caused such an uproar because it blurred the lines between what casters and martials can do and how they use action economy. The ACG still maintains the basic paradigm where martials are more reliant on full-round actions while casters can move and cast and often gain additional actions via familiars and companions.
All of that being said, what I do like is that most of the ACG classes are more specialized and focused into their respective niches, making them easier to approach and integrate into a party. The core classes encompass such a broad range of possibilities that sometimes you don't know what a character is bringing to the table until the dice start to roll. You probably know exactly what a swashbuckler, slayer, investigator, bloodrager, etc. is bringing though, and that's a good thing. It also helps narrow the system mastery gap to give players access to classes that carry all the tools to do what they should be doing right in their core chassis. It's harder to screw up a slayer than a rogue, for example, if you want to be that badass who specializes in straight up ganking his enemies by getting the drop on them and cutting out their kidneys.
As others have mentioned, it also helps to provide additional definition to classes like the Rogue and Fighter who used to try and bleed into the roles the new classes now fill with varying degrees of success.
When the ACG comes out how do you think it will influence your Home games? It will likely see as much play as anything else, considering my home games are currently between me (dm) and one other person. Many of the players around here that I know, on the other hand, will probably use it. My last group was nothing more than an entire gang of munchkins, with a GM who doesn't read everything and just trusts the group to not cheat
PFS games? Only vaguely interested in PFS, never been to one, likely never will. Only thing I care about is if they make balance changes based on PFS and it's wonky rules.
In the Short Term what do you think will happen?
To quote someone above:
Lots of new characters with new classes. Most like to play with new toys.
In the Long Term? Eventually it'll calm. Everyone will be complaining about whether or not a given class will be OP at the same time others are whining they're UP. System mastery rears it's ugly head and incites more flame wars.
Based on the Play test Rule set 2 do you think this book will be power creep? Not as much as everyone seems to think it will be. Straight numbers only count for so much in a game where dice control your fate. Everyone focuses on the OMGUBER! builds and cries 'OP! OP!'. Take those same builds into an actual campaign with a GM that plays intelligent enemies and see how long that lasts you. I dare you. Of course, at that point people will whine the classes are UP and start whining about being targeted by the GM (I mean no offense to vast majority of PF players, I just have extremely horrible experiences with my last group and player entitlement. More than two piddly mooks target them a turn and it was 'OMFG Why are you targeting me!?'... Because you're the bloody TANK!). Fact of the matter is, usually when things are OP, is because the DM lets them be, either because she doesn't study the option first, or bother to prepare against it. Against a prepared GM who doesn't mind the little extra work of tailoring mob responses and preparation for the option, most of those OP builds are utter rubbish... Plus, I like to believe that many players don't munchkin the perfect game-destroying build, though I know I'm most likely wrong.
Do you think any of the classes have an unclear role? Hmm... Nope. Then again, I'm more for flavor and feel of classes than mechanics (probably why I'm usually at odds with many modern gamers I know). I can usually find some role, in or out of combat, for a class to fill.
Bonus Stuff: I hate the vancian system, with a burning passion that makes the sun look bleak. As such, I usually always play sorcerers when I'm going arcane (I have the occasional witch for fun flavor or hex purposes). Only time I played a wizard was when I was on a construct crafting kick. I'm extremely happy to see the arcanist, as it tickles all my buttons... Only gripe I have with it, I must agree, is the whole school/bloodline access it's got.
Also... It's pool points aren't going to be that much of a problem if Paizo plays it smart and introduces weapon abilities or spells that drain your Arcane/Ki/Whatever pool points.
Thankfully we have Dreamscarred press around to make a ToB for Pathfinder! Also Psionics.
Still a sort of awkwardness in that its not the TOB and that its not official. Feels more like an outlier than anything.
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.
Not sure if I'd go that far. A lot of the 3.5 sourcebooks released classes that worked on new systems, such as warlock's invocations, psionic power points, and incarnum magic. It wasn't just Tome of Battle that tried new things. In the ACG you still use vancian casting and martials that full attack, and quiet a bit of it is based off the old systems since the idea for the new classes is hyrid classes, taking something from two old classes. Execution... varies, to say the least, though we haven't seen the end product yet to know much.
|
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.
I'm just gonna completely disagree with you. These classes feel just as much a part of Pathfinder as any of the others to me.
But hey its all opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
no way. Someone playing 3.5 could pick up the advanced class guide and run the classes. Tomb of battle was an entirely new combat system.
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.Not sure if I'd go that far. A lot of the 3.5 sourcebooks released classes that worked on new systems, such as warlock's invocations, psionic power points, and incarnum magic. It wasn't just Tome of Battle that tried new things. In the ACG you still use vancian casting and martials that full attack, and quiet a bit of it is based off the old systems since the idea for the new classes is hyrid classes, taking something from two old classes. Execution... varies, to say the least, though we haven't seen the end product yet to know much.
I have to agree on this point. The ACG playtest didn't show any classes that completely broke the mold the way some of the 3.5 expansions did. Pretty much everything in the ACG is stuff we've seen before, just in a slightly different arrangement and with a few different details.
Honestly, since they took away the restriction of multiclassing, I feel like the Arcanist is going to make the most rediculous blaster caster... You can go 1 Crossblooded Dragon/Orc then go Arcanist with the Arcane bloodline to pump up DCs and abuse the Arcanists strength at meta-magic.
no way. Someone playing 3.5 could pick up the advanced class guide and run the classes. Tomb of battle was an entirely new combat system.
This is just factually untrue. TOB worked JUST like magic only with different reset timers. It was no more something that a 3.5 player couldn't immediately understand than clerics and druids picking a time of day to refresh their spells while wizards and sorcerers need 8 hours of rest.
Otherwise, it was just combat themed magic with more abilities that were useful to people who wanted to hit things with swords than blow things up with fireballs.
The ACG, however, is not as focused a product as the BO9S was. I think fake healer is right, the ACG shows where pathfinder game design is headed. Lots more hybrids, lots more classes with fiddly lit bits and pools and expend X to do one of these Y things type abilities.
I pretty much expect for Paizo to make a "big" pathfinder announcement either at GEN CON or before Christmas. While I no longer think that they would want to risk putting out a "2E" I think that the hard back release next year will be a "changes everything when used" type book.
I pretty much expect for Paizo to make a "big" pathfinder announcement either at GEN CON or before Christmas. While I no longer think that they would want to risk putting out a "2E" I think that the hard back release next year will be a "changes everything when used" type book.
Ultimate Core Rule Book
Includes:-one fully tabled out archetype for each class
-new set of optional rules for every aspect of the game
-new skills that overlap without other skill but are based on different scores (like having both Jump and Acrobatics in the game)
-variant magic system based on power points. New fundamental spells that scale to greater effect with spending additional power points. Sorcerers know learn less spells per level and have increased difficultly for studying new spells, but have a greater poor of points.
-No repeated rules (all the invisibility rules are in the invisibility section, that way you don't see a +20 in perception, stealth, and the spell)
-balanced crafting rules(you know have to roll the spellcraft check and can't take 10)
Ultimate Core Rule Book
IF its not called "Ultimate Mythic Advanced Core Rulebook" I am not buying it. :)
|
no way. Someone playing 3.5 could pick up the advanced class guide and run the classes. Tomb of battle was an entirely new combat system.This is just factually untrue. TOB worked JUST like magic only with different reset timers. It was no more something that a 3.5 player couldn't immediately understand than clerics and druids picking a time of day to refresh their spells while wizards and sorcerers need 8 hours of rest.
Otherwise, it was just combat themed magic with more abilities that were useful to people who wanted to hit things with swords than blow things up with fireballs.
The ACG, however, is not as focused a product as the BO9S was. I think fake healer is right, the ACG shows where pathfinder game design is headed. Lots more hybrids, lots more classes with fiddly lit bits and pools and expend X to do one of these Y things type abilities.
I pretty much expect for Paizo to make a "big" pathfinder announcement either at GEN CON or before Christmas. While I no longer think that they would want to risk putting out a "2E" I think that the hard back release next year will be a "changes everything when used" type book.
That's what I was getting at. I think it is a primer for an upcoming announcement.
Also I know a lot of people tout the Bo9S as a perfect "fix" for martials in 3.5 but I hated it. It made them less martial to me and made them more magical, mystical, and almost cartoony in their application. I know some people liked the whole idea but I didn't and especially hated it in action. A 5th level whisper-gnome swordsage/something else mix tunneling through solid rock with his bare hands that overcame hardness is just one odd example I remember.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Also I know a lot of people tout the Bo9S as a perfect "fix" for martials in 3.5 but I hated it. It made them less martial to me and made them more magical, mystical, and almost cartoony in their application. I know some people liked the whole idea but I didn't and especially hated it in action. A 5th level whisper-gnome swordsage/something else mix tunneling through solid rock with his bare hands that overcame hardness is just one odd example I remember.
Yeah, calling it mystical or magical and weaboo fightan' magic is the go to insult for people who don't read it.
IF its not called "Ultimate Mythic Advanced Core Rulebook" I am not buying it. :)
Ultimate Core Rule Book
I'm open to both, Ultimate Core rulebook and Ultimate Mythic Core Rulebook, hm
|
|
Except that I did read it and looked into it heavily and played several classes in-game and had several people in our game play classes also. And after a year of that our group came to a decision to no longer use it. Don't insult my intelligence MrSin or pretend that I am some knee-jerk hater who never even read it. I gave my opinion on how I felt about the book. I didn't say fans of it were wrong, I said I didn't like it and gave the reasons for my thoughts along with one minor example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Except that I did read it and looked into it heavily and played several classes in-game and had several people in our game play classes also. And after a year of that our group came to a decision to no longer use it. Don't insult my intelligence MrSin or pretend that I am some knee-jerk hater who never even read it. I gave my opinion on how I felt about the book. I didn't say fans of it were wrong, I said I didn't like it and gave the reasons for my thoughts along with one minor example.
Did I say you called it weaboo fightan' magic or something? Nope! Just said people usually do when they don't read it, and you didn't actually say that. Personally I thought the disciplines the warblade had access too didn't seem very mystical at all and I thought shrugging off conditions or smashing through DR were actually very martial. Swordsage's abilities were mystical, but to be fair they are marked with SU and not very subtle about it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Except that I did read it and looked into it heavily and played several classes in-game and had several people in our game play classes also. And after a year of that our group came to a decision to no longer use it. Don't insult my intelligence MrSin or pretend that I am some knee-jerk hater who never even read it. I gave my opinion on how I felt about the book. I didn't say fans of it were wrong, I said I didn't like it and gave the reasons for my thoughts along with one minor example.
The thing is, almost nothing introduced in ToB was something martials couldn't already do. I'll admit, White Raven Tactics and Iron Heart Surge were kinda silly. But:
- Brogar swings his blade mightily, hitting two enemies at once. Did he use Cleave or Steel Wind?
- Brother Amun takes a step and reappears hundreds of feet away. Is he a Monk using his Dimension Door SLA, or a Swordsage that initiated Shadow Jump?
- Nila the Man-Eater screams as she leaps upon her enemy, axes swinging wildly. Did she use Leap Attack, or a Tiger Claw maneuver?
Even seemingly silly stuff like Mountain Hammer isn't actually new; you can make your unarmed strikes into adamantine with a minimum of effort, or burn feats (and a lot of effort) to do it if you don't like magical items. The thing that makes ToB "look" magic is the breakdown of power levels, which seems...silly, to object to, to me.
|
|
Did I say you called it weaboo fightan' magic or something? Nope! Just said people usually do when they don't read it, and you didn't actually say that.
me- "It made them less martial to me and made them more magical, mystical, "
you after quoting me-"Yeah, calling it mystical or magical and weaboo fightan' magic is the go to insult for people who don't read it. "Don't pretend at innocence. You gain more respect when you own up to your actions instead of making pretend excuses for them or denying the intent that is clearly displayed.
Bron runs fast leaving a trail of fire. Did he use weeaboo or put flint and steel on his feet?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bron runs fast leaving a trail of fire. Did he use weeaboo or put flint and steel on his feet?
It's almost like swordsages are the magic-enabled class, sorta like how Monk is. Sorta like how Monk can do that with a bit of investment.
But do try again.
Bron runs fast leaving a trail of fire. Did he use weeaboo or put flint and steel on his feet?
He used a supernatural ability or really needs to put out a fire ASAP...
Anyways, this isn't about the ACG anymore is it? Big thing about the ACG is I don't see any big changes incoming for the system, still full attacks and vancian casting. Paizo hasn't been big on adding systems so much as staying with the same plan since core.
Short term: Plenty of new classed characters
Long term: Mixed in with the rest
Yes I'm part of that
|
|
Though, since we're talking about impact on the game, longer term, I think its safe to say that pretty much all rangers (even more so than now) will use Hunter's Bond on the party, rather than an animal companion. If you want a strong animal companion, hunter or druid is a much better choice.
Though the latter might be true, the first part is completely false.
Because if I want to play a Ranger, I will have a look at the options available and the animal companion feature is so much better that there is no way I would not choose it.
But they don't have at-will orisons!!!Can we get a Warrior/Adept hybrid?That would be too broken, so no. Full BAB and 5th level spells? Ranger and Paladin only get 4th!
In my games they do. I got tired of the weird casting progression beginning at 1st level spells, so in my campaigns Paladins and Rangers begin with 0-level spells at 1st level and pick up their first 1st level spells as normal at 4th level (their progression actually suggests this should have been the norm).