And why the heck do we get Extra channel and extra Hex from the APG in this book?Because they wanted to modify those feats to accommodate special cases introduced by the Shaman and Warpriest classes.
Eh. They have not modified the feat.
I was wondering about that myself. There are a handful of reprints for some odd reason.And why the heck do we get Extra channel and extra Hex from the APG in this book?
My guess would be that they just want to make sure that all the pieces you need to play the new classes are located with them right in the book. That way, if you own the ACG but not the APG, you've still got the most relevant feats.
IT's a little weird considering the existence of the PRD, but... It also makes sense for players who maybe don't internets as much.
It's for Society play, I think, since you have to own the material you want to use.
|
It's for Society play, I think, since you have to own the material you want to use.I was wondering about that myself. There are a handful of reprints for some odd reason.And why the heck do we get Extra channel and extra Hex from the APG in this book?
My guess would be that they just want to make sure that all the pieces you need to play the new classes are located with them right in the book. That way, if you own the ACG but not the APG, you've still got the most relevant feats.
IT's a little weird considering the existence of the PRD, but... It also makes sense for players who maybe don't internets as much.
That does actually make sense.
Agreed, I'm probably using House Rules to make Charmed Life actually really good to make them more viable.
What were you going to do with charmed life? I think it needs to change, but I am not sure how (more uses? No action to use, rather than immediate action? Replace with flat "add Charisma bonus to saves"?).
I believe there will be far fewer swashbucklers than cavalier swasbucklers.
Which is unfortunate because I liked the swashbuckler.
Agreed, I'm probably using House Rules to make Charmed Life actually really good to make them more viable.
Actually this is wrong. They keep medium armor proficiency and are also proficient with bucklers.Whoops. That'll show me to post when not actually looking at the Archetype. Though I'll note that I said nothing about shield proficiencies one way or the other. And, as Ssalarn notes, I think my basic point stands.
Honestly that is terrible planning, considering that they left out parts of classes such as the cleric archetype in order to reprint material that already exists.
|
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Agreed, I'm probably using House Rules to make Charmed Life actually really good to make them more viable.What were you going to do with charmed life? I think it needs to change, but I am not sure how (more uses? No action to use, rather than immediate action? Replace with flat "add Charisma bonus to saves"?).
At 2nd level, and again every four levels thereafter, Charmed life will permanently add your Charisma modifier to one of the following options, your choice:
Fortitude Save.
Reflex Save.
Will Save.
Initiative.
All Acrobatics, Climb, Escape Artist, and Swim checks.
One type of combat maneuver checks (Disarm, for example) and CMD to defend against that maneuver.
I'll probably add one or two more options, but I'm still considering what they might be. Favored Class options that currently add +1/4 of a use of Charmed Life will add +1/6 of a new instance of Charmed Life.
I'm pretty happy with that conceptually (though I'll need to reword it, and as note add a few more options), it makes Swashbucklers actually really good at things they should be good at, doesn't just copy Divine Grace, and is modular, which is always fun.
|
|
I believe there will be far fewer swashbucklers than cavalier swasbucklers.
Which is unfortunate because I liked the swashbuckler.
Agreed, I'm probably using House Rules to make Charmed Life actually really good to make them more viable.
Actually this is wrong. They keep medium armor proficiency and are also proficient with bucklers.Whoops. That'll show me to post when not actually looking at the Archetype. Though I'll note that I said nothing about shield proficiencies one way or the other. And, as Ssalarn notes, I think my basic point stands.Honestly that is terrible planning, considering that they left out parts of classes such as the cleric archetype in order to reprint material that already exists.
The planning is great. It's the execution that included taking a hacksaw to the archetype without double-checking whether or not the things they were cutting off were important which was terrible.
I suspect something similar happened with Feral Hunter, which is absolutely terrible.
GUYS WHY DIDNT ANYONE TELL ME ABOUT WILDCAT MONKS
GHHRHRRHRHRHRHHRHRHRHRHR
ITS LIKE A MONK
BUT YOU BASH PEOPLE ON THE HEAD WITH STUFF
AND AND AND DIRTY TRICKS AND COMBAT MANEUVERS AND BASICALLY LORE WARDEN MONK GGGZGG
Eh. They have not modified the feat.And why the heck do we get Extra channel and extra Hex from the APG in this book?Because they wanted to modify those feats to accommodate special cases introduced by the Shaman and Warpriest classes.
Yes they have. Look at the text of the feat itself, not just at the table.
Eh. They have not modified the feat.And why the heck do we get Extra channel and extra Hex from the APG in this book?Because they wanted to modify those feats to accommodate special cases introduced by the Shaman and Warpriest classes.Yes they have. Look at the text of the feat itself, not just at the table.
Ah true. I still think it is a waste of space and I also think the move is a bad one.
They have actually nerfed the feat for paladins and changes to feats in the core book should be fixed in the Core book. The thing about the Warpriest, should be handled with a FAQ or text in the class section.
Changing feats in the core book by republish them in a splat book is bad.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Eh. They have not modified the feat.And why the heck do we get Extra channel and extra Hex from the APG in this book?Because they wanted to modify those feats to accommodate special cases introduced by the Shaman and Warpriest classes.Yes they have. Look at the text of the feat itself, not just at the table.
Ah true. I still think it is a waste of space and I also think the move is a bad one.
They have actually nerfed the feat for paladins and changes to feats in the core book should be fixed in the Core book. The thing about the Warpriest, should be handled with a FAQ or text in the class section.
Changing feats in the core book by republish them in a splat book is bad.
Yeah, that's actually Paizo's policy and excuse as to why they won't modify stuff in other books. Every time someone asks for some buffing for Rogue or something, they say they won't change the Rogue in a later book because it invalidates the earlier books.
So why they would modify a feat in the ACG which invalidates the feat as printed in a different book is beyond me. Probably a mistake on their part or something.
BTW, I was so happy when I heard about the Bard Flame Dancer (Archetype). My mistake.
At level 8 he adds burning hands, flaming sphere, and fireball to his list of bard spells known (as 1st-, 2nd-, and 3rd-level spells, respectively). This ability replaces dirge of doom.
First: Flaming sphere pretty much suck, especially at level 8.
Second: Burning hands is a nice utility spells at lower levels, and even up to level 5, but at level 8 it’s pretty much obsolete.
And getting fire ball at level 8? Wizards get it at level 5 and Sorcerers get it at level 6.
Eh. They have not modified the feat.And why the heck do we get Extra channel and extra Hex from the APG in this book?Because they wanted to modify those feats to accommodate special cases introduced by the Shaman and Warpriest classes.Yes they have. Look at the text of the feat itself, not just at the table.
Ah true. I still think it is a waste of space and I also think the move is a bad one.
They have actually nerfed the feat for paladins and changes to feats in the core book should be fixed in the Core book. The thing about the Warpriest, should be handled with a FAQ or text in the class section.
Changing feats in the core book by republish them in a splat book is bad.
Yeah, that's actually Paizo's policy and excuse as to why they won't modify stuff in other books. Every time someone asks for some buffing for Rogue or something, they say they won't change the Rogue in a later book because it invalidates the earlier books.
So why they would modify a feat in the ACG which invalidates the feat as printed in a different book is beyond me. Probably a mistake on their part or something.
Agree. Considering Paizo's policy it doesn't make.
It sad for me to say this, but the more I read this book the more irritated and disappointed I get.edit:
Some stuff like the Slayer, the bloodrager and Investigator are very nice, even though I have some minor issues with both classes. Other stuff like the Swashbuckler and lack of support to some of the core classes are just beyond me. Bards not being able to get Spell kenning as a feat blows my mind.
|
|
Eh. They have not modified the feat.And why the heck do we get Extra channel and extra Hex from the APG in this book?Because they wanted to modify those feats to accommodate special cases introduced by the Shaman and Warpriest classes.Yes they have. Look at the text of the feat itself, not just at the table.
Ah true. I still think it is a waste of space and I also think the move is a bad one.
They have actually nerfed the feat for paladins and changes to feats in the core book should be fixed in the Core book. The thing about the Warpriest, should be handled with a FAQ or text in the class section.
Changing feats in the core book by republish them in a splat book is bad.
Paizo doesn't consider the ACG a "splatbook" they consider it part of their core product line. Just like they "fixed" brass knuckles in Ultimate Equipment before updating the entries elsewhere.
There's also the possibility that they now have two valid versions of the feat in circulation, the one in the ACG and the one in the CRB, with neither overriding the other.
Though they did break the rules of archetypes fairly often. They explained why Lore Warden was a Bad archetype, yet they did it again with Exploiter Wizards, the Rage Power Bloodrager, Fated Champ Skald, the Cavalier into super Swashbuckler, Mutagen Fighter, and more.
What was so bad about the Lore Warden? It was one of the few fighter archetypes worth investing in.
|
|
Though they did break the rules of archetypes fairly often. They explained why Lore Warden was a Bad archetype, yet they did it again with Exploiter Wizards, the Rage Power Bloodrager, Fated Champ Skald, the Cavalier into super Swashbuckler, Mutagen Fighter, and more.
I don't think the Cavalier is a good example; I'd probably hazard to state that all of the mounted abilities he's giving up are easily equivalent to what he gains back in Daring Champion, though the DC abilities are less subject to being arbitrarily screwed over by the GM.
In theory, the Exploiter Wizard is also a fair trade. The problem is that the Arcanist's class features are just so much better than the Wizard core features that it looks wrong. Remember though that the Wizard is giving up a spell slot of every level and the potential benefits of an arcane bond item for 1/2 as many exploits as the Arcanist. I'm not saying it came out balanced in practice, but it wasn't actually breaking the normal archetype rules. If Arcanist exploits were balanced to schools and bloodlines, it would have been fine.
Mutation Warrior breaks the same rules as Lore Warden, but to be fair, the Fighter needed it. It's basically an established fact that if you do an equivalent trade with the Fighter you'll still come out behind, because the whole chassis is short-changed.
Fated Champion is another one of those archetypes that technically follows the rules but just comes out more powerful in practice anyways.
What was so bad about the Lore Warden? It was one of the few fighter archetypes worth investing in.
Lore Warden was noted by SKR and others to be a technically bad archetype because every single item it traded was traded for something more powerful. It basically breaks almost every rule from the RPG Superstar design guidelines. There was very little give, and a lot of take in the archetype. That being said, I've noted before that the base Fighter chassis is so deficient that it's pretty much impossible to make an archetype that is both good, and follows the RPG Superstar archetype design rules.
What was so bad about the Lore Warden? It was one of the few fighter archetypes worth investing in.
From what I gather, it is mostly the trade-off of Armor Training (a relatively low-power defensive ability) for Maneuver Mastery (a high-power offensive and defensive ability) that most consider overpowered.
What was so bad about the Lore Warden? It was one of the few fighter archetypes worth investing in.
It replaces defensive abilities with more offensive ones which stack with the baseline offensive abilities the Fighter already gets.
Imagine, if you will, a there were a 'Genocidal Rager' archetype for the Barbarian that replaces Uncanny Dodge, Improved Uncanny Dodge and Trap Sense for the option to select a Favored Enemy that scales, and at some point, a second Favored Enemy, and that while you are fighting your Favored Enemy, your rounds spent raging don't count towards your total rage rounds.
That would be a strictly superior combat option to the Barbarian, and would be a 'bad' archetype in that the trades it makes aren't balanced.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What was so bad about the Lore Warden? It was one of the few fighter archetypes worth investing in.I think he means in the sense that the archetype may very well replace the baseline variant of the class. As the other archetypes he mentions, such as the Daring Champion, are being considered better than the main class they emulate.
If that's the case, then I'm not seeing it. Lore Warden gives up the fighter's armor proficiencies (a big deal!) in return for knowledge skills and better combat maneuvers. That hardly invalidates the core fighter.
What was so bad about the Lore Warden? It was one of the few fighter archetypes worth investing in.I think he means in the sense that the archetype may very well replace the baseline variant of the class. As the other archetypes he mentions, such as the Daring Champion, are being considered better than the main class they emulate.
Totem Barbarian, Qinggong Monk, ect.
We already have archetypes that are basically mandatory when playing the class.
If that's the case, then I'm not seeing it. Lore Warden gives up the fighter's armor proficiencies (a big deal!) in return for knowledge skills and better combat maneuvers. That hardly invalidates the core fighter.What was so bad about the Lore Warden? It was one of the few fighter archetypes worth investing in.I think he means in the sense that the archetype may very well replace the baseline variant of the class. As the other archetypes he mentions, such as the Daring Champion, are being considered better than the main class they emulate.
+1
What did they change in extra channel and how did that hurt the paladins?
Fated champion only makes positive trades.
Trade +4 to saves vs sonic effects for half my level to initiative?
Be better at using spell kenning for dinination in return for being worse at blasting with it? YES, who uses spell kenning for fireball anyway?
Trade Dirge of Doom for immunity to fear and giving allies a huge bonus? Please!
Get a worse capstone. Oh no! Never hit 20 anyway.
As Torbyne said some of the archetypes just do what they're emulating, but better. Darring Champ>Swash for example.
Or the Arcanist archetype who gets a bloodline that is arguably better than Sorceror.
My overall point is that Paizo has consistently broken a lot of design "rules" that they have often expoused. Especially the ones they deride Lore Warden for.
What did they change in extra channel and how did that hurt the paladins?The version of extra channel printed in the ACG doesn't contain the clause the CRB one does about how Paladins instead gain 4 uses of LoH.
That's... weird...
I am going to attribute that to an editing error.
What did they change in extra channel and how did that hurt the paladins?The version of extra channel printed in the ACG doesn't contain the clause the CRB one does about how Paladins instead gain 4 uses of LoH.
But it does contain that clause. The only difference from the CRB version is the addition of a sentence about how the warpriest uses this feat (extra uses of Fervor that can only be used to channel).
What did they change in extra channel and how did that hurt the paladins?The version of extra channel printed in the ACG doesn't contain the clause the CRB one does about how Paladins instead gain 4 uses of LoH.But it does contain that clause. The only difference from the CRB version is the addition of a sentence about how the warpriest uses this feat (extra uses of Fervor that can only be used to channel).
Oops. I never noticed that. I’d say that only make it worse.
Rewrite a feat just to explain how a new class interacts with the old feat. As pointed out by Tels “that's actually Paizo's policy” not to mess with stuff in old books.Take this as an example:
Edit for easy to read:
Oracle: Can I use my Charisma modifier for cleric spells and effects that use Wisdom, such as spiritual weapon?As written, those effects say "Wisdom" (because they were written before the idea of the oracle class as a Charisma-based caster), so an oracle has to use her Wisdom modifier.
However, it is a perfectly reasonable house rule to allow an oracle to use her Charisma modifier (or bonus) for cleric spells that refer to the caster's Wisdom modifier (or bonus)
|
|
What did they change in extra channel and how did that hurt the paladins?The version of extra channel printed in the ACG doesn't contain the clause the CRB one does about how Paladins instead gain 4 uses of LoH.But it does contain that clause. The only difference from the CRB version is the addition of a sentence about how the warpriest uses this feat (extra uses of Fervor that can only be used to channel).
Oh, good catch, I lost it on the page break. Okay then, I'm really not sure what people are complaining about.
Oh, good catch, I lost it on the page break. Okay then, I'm really not sure what people are complaining about.
Reprinting stuff in a new book?
See above for an example.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, good catch, I lost it on the page break. Okay then, I'm really not sure what people are complaining about.
Reprinting stuff in a new book?
See above for an example.
I actually appreciate that they didn't do something stupid like they did with spiritual weapon and ensured that all of the new classes could properly use the relevant feats and abilities.
Is it a little frustrating that they ate up word count on those and then accidentally shaved relevant information out of things like the Ecclesitheurge? Yeah, little bit. But rather than leaving the classes improperly supported I'd probably have preferred that they not do 8 consecutive pages in the class design section of 1/2 and 1/4 page art.
I have to ask, does an exploiter wizard gains exploits at the same rate (1st, 3rd, 5th etc) as the arcanist?
I have to ask, does an exploiter wizard gains exploits at the same rate (1st, 3rd, 5th etc) as the arcanist?No. 1st, 4th, and every 4 levels thereafter.
Good, and he can't take greater exploits, correct?
His arcane reservoir works the same as the arcanist's, correct?|
|
I have to ask, does an exploiter wizard gains exploits at the same rate (1st, 3rd, 5th etc) as the arcanist?No. 1st, 4th, and every 4 levels thereafter.Good, and he can't take greater exploits, correct?
His arcane reservoir works the same as the arcanist's, correct?
Resevoir works exactly the same, using his wizard level as his arcanist level, and he does not gain the Greater Exploits class feature.
It's good, and probably better for a skilled player than most schools or bonds, but it's not quite as insane as it's been made out to be.
...and then accidentally shaved relevant information out of things like the Ecclesitheurge
I recently created a Ecclesitheurge without any apparent trouble. What relevant information is missing exactly?
The "Blessing of the Faithful" ability referred to be Ecclesitheurge's Vow is totally absent. Presumably it was supposed to make up for the massive defensive weaknesses not being able to use armor gives a cleric.
...and then accidentally shaved relevant information out of things like the EcclesitheurgeI recently created a Ecclesitheurge without any apparent trouble. What relevant information is missing exactly?
The Code they have... It says they lose access to an ability called Blessings of the Fiathful if they wear armor... but that ability does not exist.
At 1st level, an ecclesitheurge makes a vow to his deity to be protected solely by his faith, not by armor or shields. An ecclesitheurge who wears prohibited armor or uses a prohibited shield is unable to use his blessing of the faithful ability, use cleric domain powers, or cast cleric spells.
Apperantly:
The ability Blessing of the Faithful was in fact removed in Development, I believe to make space for all the rules necessary for the Divine Bonded Object and the example necessary for Domain Mastery. I know this because I wrote the archetype.
I think that is what is being referred to...
it was discussed in this thread right here
The idea of taking away abilities from archetypes to save print space is really making me wince.
It also makes me wonder if some of the archetypes that have obvious holes in them (feral hunter not giving up bonus tricks, bolt ace still having gunsmithing) might be because of similar issues.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I found the Slayer class a much more precise and economical way to get the sort of character-concept I had going with the character as a Two-Weapon fighter. Between having some skill points and the ability to reduce a pre-req. score, it made for a much more enjoyable and team-supporting character rather than a one-trick combat pony.
Oh, good catch, I lost it on the page break. Okay then, I'm really not sure what people are complaining about.
Reprinting stuff in a new book?
See above for an example.
I actually appreciate that they didn't do something stupid like they did with spiritual weapon and ensured that all of the new classes could properly use the relevant feats and abilities.
Is it a little frustrating that they ate up word count on those and then accidentally shaved relevant information out of things like the Ecclesitheurge? Yeah, little bit. But rather than leaving the classes improperly supported I'd probably have preferred that they not do 8 consecutive pages in the class design section of 1/2 and 1/4 page art.
I actually agree. I just don’t like how it was done and I find it strangely inconsistent that they didn’t support Oracle.
The word count would be less if they just had added one or two liners in the class’s Class Features section. This solution would also help casters like the oracle. Instead of reprinting every core book spell that is designed like spiritual weapon, they could just have added a line in the Oracle’s Class Features section that it would use Charisma instead of Wisdom when casting spells like spiritual weapon. In the end I agree with you, I rather have Paizo support the new classes instead of not.
BTW, what relevant information has been shaved out of things like the Ecclesitheurge? I haven’t gone thru the whole book yet and it is easy to miss things.
I finally picked up the ACG- it will be a day before I have time to read through all of it, but some of the racial favored class bonuses are ridiculously good. I'm assuming the elf arcanist fcb is a misprint, but humans and half-elves can add a spell from the cleric list to their shaman spell list (max one level lower than the highest they can cast). This gives a half-elf or human shaman access to summon monster spells and a lot of great spells that aren't on their spell list.
When I read about the Elf arcanist fcb I just went was WHAT. I just have to assume it is a misprint.
As for humans, half-elves and Half-Orcs being able to add a spell from the cleric list to their shaman spell list? It is very nice and pretty much fix the class for me and it seriously isn’t broken.
Edit:
Removed stuff that was wrong.
Halflings FCB to Shaman on the other hand is silly good. Not broken, but far better than the bonus humans, half-elves and Half-Orcs gets.
BTW, one of the things that really annoyed me was the lack of mage armor on the Shaman spell list. How are you going to keep the Pet alive?
True, but the human fcb for the shaman it is still not broken, IMHO.
BTW, Does the Wandering Spirit block access to you spells granted by your Spirit Animal or do you get access to both set of Spirit spells?
I assume these "Spirit spells" are treated as domain spells, so you can’t cast them using your normal slots. Or I’m I wrong?
One thing I like is the Draconic Bloodrager's ability to turn into a large dragon at level 16. Seriously considering a Half-Orc Bloodrager for a character at some point; he just gradually takes on a more draconic shape as he gets more powerful until bam! Dragon to the face!