|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to say the reaction was pretty strong at first and then dissipated. I think it was the combination of the playtest versions having to be adjusted to book versions (I heard a lot of now my Warpriest is illegal since having a full BAB on a 6th level caster isn't actually a thing, but it was in the playtest) with the playtest of Occult Adventures about a month later. Those playtest occult classes have caused ten times the headache that the ACG has. I have no idea how any of them work, and it seems like people only understand the one they chose to play and not the other five.
In PFS I have seen Bloodragers, Brawlers, Investigators, Shamans, Hunters, Slayers, and Warpriests but mostly Swashbucklers. I have yet to see an Arcanist or Skald.
Most of this is at very low level tables, but I have seen a few investigators and swashbucklers at the mid levels though.
Most of it is the same as other classes, the Swashbuckler and Investigator stand out to me. Swashbucklers are like effective fighters. They can do a respectable amount of damage with a respectable defense (saves, AC and Opportune Parry) while still contributing outside of combat. Investigators on the other hand are notoriously useless. One is so ineffective that he has no appreciable offense at level 7. The other is useful because he has a nice wand collection and a high UMD, but anyone could do that and investigator just seems like a bad alchemist to me.
|
|
Investigators on the other hand are notoriously useless. One is so ineffective that he has no appreciable offense at level 7. The other is useful because he has a nice wand collection and a high UMD, but anyone could do that and investigator just seems like a bad alchemist to me.
Oddly enough, I have local players who are disappointed when I don't play my investigator. She doesn't do a ton of damage (@L8: +19/19/14 1d6+8*, moderately buffed) but she can single-handedly cover Diplomacy, all the Knowledges, and any traps or locks we might encounter. She could be a lot more effective in combat if I'd built for melee instead of ranged.
I do agree that an Alchemist is probably a more effective class pound for pound, but that's to be expected since the Investigator is diluted with Rogue.
*plus target is sickened for 1 round if damaged
|
Okay, in short, the issue I am having is not that the ACG classes are bad, but that, as a GM, I need to know more about them in order to be able to properly adjudicate them.
Heck, even other classes, older classes, can prove that both a knowledgeable player (who is also a GM) and the GM can be incorrect easily. I have a local player, running a Winter Witch, who uses that cold boost ability on Ray of Frost. According to some fairly cogent discussion in the Rules forum, it appears that that wouldn't, or shouldn't, work. At this point, I am not sure if it would work, but not working would reduce the issues that that PC brings to the table.
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
If I know in my heart of hearts that the player is making a mistake, I will point it out. If they want to argue, I'll tell them "look it up while I move on to the next guy, and if you're wrong we'll adjust the result".
Otherwise, I just accept the player at his word, unless there is risk of character death because of it. I'm not going to drag out a battle with goblin mooks just to cleave exactly to the rules.
When I'm playing, I usually just keep my mouth shut, because the less time we argue rules, the more time we have to roleplay.
Interdependent of the ACG and rules fatigue issue, I really like that stance, and hope that most GMs out there can use it (I haven't GMed PFS for characters outside my home group yet, so in a ways I have been embracing this for years ^^ :P )
Of course I realize that once a GM has outright caught people cheating, that trust has to be re-earned.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Okay, in short, the issue I am having is not that the ACG classes are bad, but that, as a GM, I need to know more about them in order to be able to properly adjudicate them.
Heck, even other classes, older classes, can prove that both a knowledgeable player (who is also a GM) and the GM can be incorrect easily. I have a local player, running a Winter Witch, who uses that cold boost ability on Ray of Frost. According to some fairly cogent discussion in the Rules forum, it appears that that wouldn't, or shouldn't, work. At this point, I am not sure if it would work, but not working would reduce the issues that that PC brings to the table.
Well since it intrigued me and I already looked it up, I would say, that it does not work. The name of the ability
Whenever the winter witch casts a touch spell, she can infuse the magic with cold as a swift action. This grants the spell the cold descriptor, and adds 1d4 points of cold damage to the spell’s effect. If the touch spell allows a saving throw, a successful save negates this additional cold damage.
assumes physically touching a target.... of course adding the word "range" after touch would help.
However it should work with Spectral Hand in combination with a number of spells from the witch spell list. It costs a feat (more if you assume the investment in precise shot), and takes a standard action, the character could have used to use a proper hex.
And it scales pretty badly, so I would be inclined not to bother forcing the issue.
If the player is having fun, and not spamming evil eye, misfortune and slumber .. well that is a kind of win^^
|
|
This is my opinion on the book, almost every class has an obvious build and if you don't take the obvious route you are severely punished in outcome of your character. Also, almost every class has a much better archetype in book gives up relatively little. Also, there are moments of lazy design throughout the book, but generally a decent resource.
Arcanist: Momentarily the caster of choice around here. Not really much better than either a wizard or a sorcerer, but probably a bit more flexible with options like quick study.
Bloodrager: Good class. Bloodlines can be great. Not my personal favorite but not because of class design. If you are looking at a barbarian, bloodrager is at least worth a look.
Brawler: Amazing class when done right, but generally the build is fairly obvious, basically replaces Lore Warden Fighter or specializes to a single combat manuever like the Tetori Monk. (Can't tell you how tired I am of grapple builds right now)
Hunter: Actually, pretty good. Would be hard pressed to choose this over druid, but it does have some interesting stuff going for it.
Investigator: Worst. Class. In. The. Book. No matter what it never seems to work the way people want. I want it to be good, but it just generally disappoints
Shaman: Maybe the least used class (in my experience), but then again it combines to less used classes (Oracle and Witch). Also, the most difficult class to wrap my head around (coming from playing Oracles). Not sure I've seen enough to form a coherent opinion.
Skald: For the purposes of PFS you are straight up better served with a bard. At first glance this looks amazing, but honestly it is highly dependent on party composition (to actually provide buffs that aren't declined ad nausuem), much better in a home campaign/AP
Slayer: Actually, pretty good class.
Swashbuckler: For some reason I've seen this class mentioned in the list of most over-powered, but it is also the easiest to shut down. Generally punishing if you go away from rapier+fencing grace, and has terrible saves. An archetype that barely gives up anything makes this class even more ridiculous. Well built they are very powerful, but not in the way the class title suggests. (Honestly the whole class is a better version of the Aldori Swordlord (Duelist)) Also, not sure it feels like either of it's component classes are really represented well.
Warpriest: This is the class that has piqued my interest lately. One archetype is incredibly OP, but overall a fairly balanced class. Mechanically, it feels like a battle cleric with progression in both cleric and fighter being behind doing one or the other.
|
|
I have an Awesome Investigator, and he doesn't even have studied strike yet. But his combat presence is good and he's great at skills. If you have too high an Int on Investigator's they are going to feel lame. But if you go with a lot of combat stats and some int then they are awesome. Dex/Str and con then int. Use mutagens at 3, studied combat and alchemical allocation lv4 and you're rocking combats.
|
|
I have an Awesome Investigator, and he doesn't even have studied strike yet. But his combat presence is good and he's great at skills. If you have too high an Int on Investigator's they are going to feel lame. But if you go with a lot of combat stats and some int then they are awesome. Dex/Str and con then int. Use mutagens at 3, studied combat and alchemical allocation lv4 and you're rocking combats.
Ok, so here's my question. What is the advantage/reason for choosing Investigator over other classes? It sounds like your build could be made effectively with say just an Alchemist (maybe with an archetype). I ask because I've tried to build Investigator a couple of times and always switched to something else that I felt worked better for me.
|
I feel the need to voice out my opinion also on this subject.
I am not exactly a fan of ACG myself, in fact, I believe it undermines CRB classes completely, but then again, same could be said for APG in reflection to CRB classes. Most APG classes generally work better then some CRB classes, so which book should we compare it with? It's difficult to say. Regardless of all these issues, it doesn't affect my judgement as PFS GM, but it does make it harder so here is view notes which people already mentioned summed up and view of my personal opinions:
- ACG contains more "errors" in print then other books. Entire content of book on side, I predict that there will be more rule conflicts and talks during the game, making it harder to finish scenario in designated time.
- ACG won't undermine CRB classes in general. I believe that people will still play CRB classes as often as now. New players are often limited to CRB only material.
- ACG classes are more complex. Both players and GMs will make more rules-based mistakes then with other books.
One last thing that slightly bothers me is saturation of options. I generally agree that having more options is good. It grants both financial increase in the pocket and makes customers happy. But I also believe that if there is too much new books coming up that I might personally and even other people, get lost in all of it. There was an interesting TED talk that I once heard on this similar topic The paradox of choice. It discusses a simple fact that having too much choice might not be good for you essentially.
Adam
|
|
The ACG brought gameplay options to roles other than "spellcaster" that make it possible to enjoy a martial class. Fighters are boring. Their options every round are A) move and swing a sharp thing and B) swing a sharp thing lots of times and don't move. A swashbuckler gets to parry and other fun tricks with deeds, a slayer gets to maneuver for sneak attack and get exciting feats earlier than usual without being weak like a rogue, etc.
Every class in the ACG makes the game more fun, and brings a wide range of excellent options that greatly enhance Pathfinder as a whole.
I don't agree that fighters are boring. I understand that, on the surface, it appears that they just move, attack, or move and attack. But a fighter who is tactically insightful can be quite fun to play. Perhaps his standard attacks don't seem exciting, but combined with some tactical brilliance or strategy they can be more than effective.
To each his or her own, of course, but I don't agree with you about fighters.
Yes, an inventive player can turn the boring, flavorless statblock that is the fighter into something that can be enjoyed. However, a swashbuckler or a slayer fills precisely the same role with significantly greater selection of fun options.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne
|
What is the trick with using an investigator in combat? We have a few of them locally and it seems like they're supposed to do something when its time to smack things but I can't figure out WHAT
Investigators get all the same buff spells as an Alchemist and can pick up Mutagen at 3rd level, so the whole Mr. Hyde alchemist build works for them and they can combine it with studied strike and inspiration, possibly making them even more broken than an Alchemist doing this.
Outside of that, it can be rough until they get to higher level using Studied Strike and stacking on various combat discoveries.
The part that I like the least is that, unlike the Rogue and Alchemist classes they are a synergy of, they really don't have any good ranged options as they don't get the bombs of an Alchemist and can only use Studied Strike in melee.
|
|
I have an Awesome Investigator, and he doesn't even have studied strike yet. But his combat presence is good and he's great at skills. If you have too high an Int on Investigator's they are going to feel lame. But if you go with a lot of combat stats and some int then they are awesome. Dex/Str and con then int. Use mutagens at 3, studied combat and alchemical allocation lv4 and you're rocking combats.Ok, so here's my question. What is the advantage/reason for choosing Investigator over other classes? It sounds like your build could be made effectively with say just an Alchemist (maybe with an archetype). I ask because I've tried to build Investigator a couple of times and always switched to something else that I felt worked better for me.
The inspiration rolls for skills was the main draw. I wanted a skills guy, and the Investigator gets 2 more skills than the alchemist, and has the inspiration that will boost his skills, and being able to add it after the fact is nice for when I need something to succeed. Also I went Empiricist and student of philosophy trait so that like ALL the useful skills are based off of just int, helping free up Stats for combat and still have awesome skills.
I plan on getting combat inspiration with an inspired weapon, that mean adding 1d6+2(half-elf bonus) to attack rolls that matter, and 2d6+4 to damage to those rolls. When quick study comes on that's another free attack boost and damage against everyone I fight.
Also I wanted some fun out of alchemical allocation.
I didn't go alchemist because I didn't want the bombs or discoveries as much as I wanted the investigator stuff. And the alchemist can't get all the skills to just int, or bonuses to the skills. And I didn't feel like playing a caster for this character. Bard was a close one, but I felt his skills didn't ramp up as fast as the investigator, and the bards personal combat options are limited. (no mutagen and needing spells for buffs rather than studied combat.)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
When ACG first came out, my provisional opinion was:
We get classes that are essentially an X/Y multiclass? Well, what's the point, we could already multiclass X and Y. If they're no better than the multiclass, the book is a waste of money. If the gestalt hybrid is better than the multiclass, then we've got bloat. The book's very premise is a lose/lose proposition.
6+ months on, my opinion has become:
There's a few neat ideas, sure. IMO those gems would have been put to better use in a rebooted CRB. As it is, ACG is just another example of rules bloat.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
When ACG first came out, my provisional opinion was:
We get classes that are essentially an X/Y multiclass? Well, what's the point, we could already multiclass X and Y. If they're no better than the multiclass, the book is a waste of money. If the gestalt hybrid is better than the multiclass, then we've got bloat. The book's very premise is a lose/lose proposition.
6+ months on, my opinion has become:
There's a few neat ideas, sure. IMO those gems would have been put to better use in a rebooted CRB. As it is, ACG is just another example of rules bloat.
Rebooting the CRB - outside of a PF2, to clear up some of those old sacred cows and assumptions - doesn't seem to be a great idea, since so much would have to be reprinted.
The good thing about those new classes, is that they work.
Player wants to be a battle priest - just hand them the warpriest.
And of course GMs outside of PFS are empowered to remove any number of options from their game.
Before the ACG was published, the shopping experience was something like this:
Customer: Hi, I would like to kick and headbutt people and get some of those funky shurikens.
Sales Clerk: Well we have this wonderful Monk package right over there, it comes with kicking, some funky weapons and the ability to wade naked into combat, also you get spiritual power, the ability to stun people, become immune to alcohol .... (this continues for quite some time)
Customer: What.. what? Why would I even want all that, I only want to kick people until my my foot imprint replaces their memory of their mothers face... I don't really want all the mystical stuff.
Sales Clerk: I am sorry but we only have the one bundle, however we as a store pride our self on customer satisfaction.
Well let me tell you about the number of archetypes we offer, I am entirely confident, after perusing the available number of options, we should be able to find a solution, or at the very least a legal combination of options that ..... (this continues for several minutes)
Customer:.....
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.
If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.
If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.
Considering that the base versions of those CRB classes are at this point over 12 years old, I think it is hardly a stretch to come to the conclusion, that game design has advanced in that time frame - and that game designers have gotten better at giving their customers what they desire.
|
|
Considering that the base versions of those CRB classes are at this point over 12 years old, I think it is hardly a stretch to come to the conclusion, that game design has advanced in that time frame - and that game designers have gotten better at giving their customers what they desire.My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.
If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.
12 years old, going on 30 for some. It wouldn't be so painful if there wasn't a paper-over archetype to keep the CRB classes relevant in every book, especially the wizard. I'm still not sure why the wizard gets everyone's toys, but it seems to be more and more blatant with every release. If Occult Adventures comes out and there's a wizard archetype that gives them psychic magic in place of arcane or gives them an iconic ability from one of the new classes, then my fears will be confirmed again.
I understand the appeal of the Core campaign in this light: it strips away all of the stuff that's built up around the "old school" and allows for relatively simple play and GM experiences. I'm all for simple play and GM experiences, but I have no such attachment to the "old school" part. This is why I want the old classes gone and replaced with something more modern and current to "RPG technology." The ACG classes just scratched a particular itch for me in that regard.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
Generally, my experience has been positive. However, I too am starting to feel rules fatigue. I shamefully admit that I did not manage to fully read the occult playtest document. I just couldn't summon the energy to make heads or tails of it.
- Arcanist - mine is currently in the doghouse because he's been just too damn effective, but a wizard would've done just the same OP stuff. As far as I can tell those two are quite closely matched. I do think arcanists leave sorcerers in the dust; nearly as much spells, much more flexibility. Also, int-based so you don't suck at skills.
I've seen other people play them; we did Destiny of the Sands with 3 arcanists in the party, and all three of us had markedly different shticks.
- Bloodrager - I've seen surprisingly few of these. The abyssal bloodrager that I did play alongside was absolutely awesome. In general though, the class seems to play quite similar to the barbarian, just a bit more high-fantasy. A smaller HD and being a bit more MAD does a bit to balance them I suppose. But they really do strike me as being basically just a variation on the normal barbarian.
- Brawler - haven't seen these much. I'm curious to see one in action in the hands of a cunning player that really shows you what Martial Versatility can do.
- Hunter - I've heard local talk about them being powerful, but not as annoyingly as summoners can be. I do play a Huntsmaster Inquisitor and I think the pet teamwork aspect is really cool.
- Investigator - I absolutely love it. Mine is a Strength/Dex/Combat Reflexes reach/melee build that works quite well. Lots of Mr. Hyde options. I thought the trek to level 4 would be dreary but so far it's been just fine at level 2-3. Extracts of Shield, Enlarge Person and now a mutagen, are enough to be a full melee warrior.
The cherry on the cake: you get an even better set of skills than the alchemist. Your class abilities help you stay on par in combat, and your class skills help you do lots of stuff outside of combat.
- Shaman - I don't understand the shaman, don't understand the spell list. I have no idea what they're supposed to do and if they're good at it. Haven't seen any in action either.
- Skald - The inspired rage isn't as widely applicable as inspire courage, and it shows. I haven't seen much skald activity. I like the general design, but I think it's neither fish nor fowl; it's not the best generalist, not the best combat specialist, not the best spellcaster, not the best skill monkey..
I think the class is good if you know you'll have a regular party that uses inspired rage, or if you have a really small party where being melee-ready even as a skill monkey is more important.
- Slayer - I quite like the design of this class. It's made to put the rogue out of its misery. I've seen the level 4 pregen in action during Carrion Hill and he quite managed to pull his weight, too. It's a decent dirty fighter without all the hangups of the rogue. Lots of feats, lots of to-hit accuracy. I haven't seen a lot played in PFS though.
- Swashbuckler - One of the more common new classes in our PFS scene. They seem to be doing adequately, not exceptionally.
- Warpriest - Despite all the ugly things you hear on the forums about them being weak, there's quite a lot of people playing them and having a good time.
All in all the impact of the ACG on our scene (The Netherlands, by the way) has been pervasive but it hasn't really pushed out any classes that were doing well before. You still see people making just about any of the previous classes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For the most part, I really like the ACG classes. The warpriest is something that just couldn't be built right with fighter/cleric levels, just like the magus couldn't be build with fighter/wizard levels. For this reason, I'm not participating in CORE, as none of the classes I'm interested in are available in that mode.
Interesting. Personally, I've always seen the cleric as a "war-priest" out-of-the-box; They already have a martial bent. In my ideal world, I think Clerics would be six level casters, and there would be a separate pure divine caster class ("the priest?").
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.
If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.
I disagree with this 100%.
|
|
Brawler - haven't seen these much. I'm curious to see one in action in the hands of a cunning player that really shows you what Martial Versatility can do.
I'm eager to play one, getting all the prerequisite feats for all the major feats chains in order to be an adaptive monster, but it'll be a while untill I can afford to play a new character...;-)
Shaman - I don't understand the shaman, don't understand the spell list. I have no idea what they're supposed to do and if they're good at it. Haven't seen any in action either.
I'd be happy to show you what ridiculous things my shaman is capable of. 9th lvl spellcaster + revelations in the form of hexes + a new bonus spell list every day... walking around in fullplate is just icing on the cake. Last time I played I decided on the fly wanted to cast fireball that session, so I did. The time before that, I figured it might be handy to have some identify with us we didn't have a PC with skill points in spellcraft. The list goes on. They don't really need their spell list considering how much flexibility wandering spirit / hex gives them.
|
|
Most of the CRB classes are fairly decent and if anything Paizo seems to have proven that they can`t really improve upon bards just give them a different niche to fill. But the way I see it monks, rogues and fighters got the upgrades that they sorely needed, in multiple forms at that. I appreciate the ACG for that if nothing else.
|
|
I disagree with this 100%.My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.
If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.
Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious as to your rationale.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
For the most part, I really like the ACG classes. The warpriest is something that just couldn't be built right with fighter/cleric levels, just like the magus couldn't be build with fighter/wizard levels. For this reason, I'm not participating in CORE, as none of the classes I'm interested in are available in that mode.Interesting. Personally, I've always seen the cleric as a "war-priest" out-of-the-box; They already have a martial bent. In my ideal world, I think Clerics would be six level casters, and there would be a separate pure divine caster class ("the priest?").
I have had two separate players throw away to cleric class since they never had the time to buff themselves to be decent melee combatants. Of course, the fact that combat in pathfinder quite rarely runs longer than 3-4 rounds is a factor.
And considering your suggestion, just rename change the names ^^ I have not taken a good hard look at that unarmored cleric from ACG, but some people like the concept.. so ^^
|
|
Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious as to your rationale.I disagree with this 100%.My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.
If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.
I know you weren't addressing me but I have to ask what you find difficult about his position? Even if the Arcanist edges them out Wizards and Sorcerers remain among the most powerful classes in the game. While Shamans are interesting the difference in spell lists means that they play completely differently from Witches as you aren't completely focused on hexes. Druids remain one of the best options for a versatile melee/caster even if Hunters do get better animal companions. As I stated before through archetypes and alternate classes it really seems impossible for Paizo to improve upon Bards, the best they can do is offer something different but equally good. Barbarians are still a great option for a martial character with no magic and while the role of Rangers may be somewhat diminished they're still a great class to play. Clerics are still one of the best options for combat healers and they still have options open to them to be interesting in other ways. And really nothing in the ACG seems all that comparable to Paladins.
So really what's so wrong with the CRB classes that you'd want to eliminate them completely.
|
If the player is having fun, and not spamming evil eye, misfortune and slumber .. well that is a kind of win^^
Objection! Some of who play a witch only want to support the party. Not all support witches use those hexes, I use slumber because of the fact it will be hilarious to use it out of combat on random people.
Shame krieghton is immune, I have an intense desire to cause as much harm to him as possible because hes so strange.
|
|
If the player is having fun, and not spamming evil eye, misfortune and slumber .. well that is a kind of win^^Objection! Some of who play a witch only want to support the party. Not all support witches use those hexes, I use slumber because of the fact it will be hilarious to use it out of combat on random people.
Shame krieghton is immune, I have an intense desire to cause as much harm to him as possible because hes so strange.
Pot. Kettle? :)
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious as to your rationale.I disagree with this 100%.My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.
If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.
I know you weren't addressing me but I have to ask what you find difficult about his position? Even if the Arcanist edges them out Wizards and Sorcerers remain among the most powerful classes in the game. While Shamans are interesting the difference in spell lists means that they play completely differently from Witches as you aren't completely focused on hexes. Druids remain one of the best options for a versatile melee/caster even if Hunters do get better animal companions. As I stated before through archetypes and alternate classes it really seems impossible for Paizo to improve upon Bards, the best they can do is offer something different but equally good. Barbarians are still a great option for a martial character with no magic and while the role of Rangers may be somewhat diminished they're still a great class to play. Clerics are still one of the best options for combat healers and they still have options open to them to be interesting in other ways. And really nothing in the ACG seems all that comparable to Paladins.
So really what's so wrong with the CRB classes that you'd want to eliminate them completely.
My second post expanded on this, but the short version is this:
1. The CRB classes are extremely old and significant advances have been made in "RPG technology" (SKR's term, which I think is a good descriptor) that have shown that...
2. The CRB classes are very patchy, requiring additional bandaids with each release that steal features from new classes to stay relevant.
__________________________________________________________________
When we look at the Arcanist, the first and most relevant complaint was that their ENTIRE CORE CLASS MECHANIC was lifted by the Exploiter Wizard archetype. Yes, they cast differently, but what distinguishes the Arcanist from the Wizard or Sorceror was the inclusion of the Arcane Exploits. Think about that from a design perspective and ask yourself honestly what that means. It's one of two things:
Either (A) the Wizard is intended to be the premier Arcane caster, bar none, and Sorcerors/Arcanists are always meant to be second fiddle, even with the Arcanist being introduced in the same book or (B) the Wizard class has significant problems remaining relevant as a stand-alone class whenever new mechanics enter the field.
(A) is a design choice to specifically make obsolete all further designs in the same field (sacred cow problem). (B) is a terminal mechanical issue. Neither is healthy for the game. (A) is more likely.
__________________________________________________________________
I'm not saying that the CRB classes are badwrongfun. What I'm saying here is that they've run their course. It's actually better for the game to move on to different ideas. Yes, the Cleric and Druid are great basic classes, the Barbarian does its role well, etc. There's a reason, though, that a number of classes are being completely rewritten with Pathfinder Unchained. I think that the admission of the problem was kind of an understatement, though.
The ACG offers a relatively fresh start with classes that are more balanced to the current meta of the system.
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 8
|
Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious as to your rationale.I disagree with this 100%.My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.
If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.
I disagree that the CRB classes are poorly designed "compared to the more modern classes". I disagree that they should be discarded, "Toss 'em right in the trash". And if you think that six years is "ancient" then I just don't know what to say about that.
The ACG classes are bright, shiny, and new but that doesn't make them better designed. I am personally not a fan of certain classes (I would much rather play a rogue than a ninja or slayer, for example).
I'm also not sure what "glaring imbalances" you are talking about. Imbalances between the different CRB classes, or imbalances between the CRB and ACG classes?
I look forward to seeing how the CRB classes are revitalized in Pathfinder Unchained, but IMO they should be updated, not discarded. I can't imagine a version of Pathfinder/D&D where I wouldn't want to play a fighter (CRB fighter rocks IMO) or cleric. There is almost no CRB class that I wouldn't, and haven't, played (though ranger and druid are perhaps my least favorite for no really rational reason).
|
|
I can see where you`re coming from, Serisan. There have been enough times where I`ve been flipping through a Paizo product and wished that they were brave enough to say screw you to backwards compatibility and simply gut some of the aspects of the old game that either made no sense or didn`t work. On the other side of that though, I`m not sure if I`d be happy if in doing that they ended up getting rid of the old options that were fun and interesting.
And Michael, as far tossing things in the trash goes it`s rather hard for me not to see the ACG as somewhat of a death knell for the monk. On the one hand over the past 12 years a lot has come out for monks to improve the class but on the other the Sacred Fist and Pummeling Style seems to do in an archetype and a feat what couldn`t be done in dozens of books. Blessings, access to Bull`s Strength and possibly most important Resist Energy. It finally seems like there`s a viable option out there to play a character that can punch almost any enemy to death without getting themselves killed. Not to say that I still don`t hold a fair bit of affection for the Monk class but in comparison now more than ever it feels like a class that you build to overcome it`s shortcomings as opposed to one that just send into battle to punch and kick their way through things.
|
|
Pot. Kettle? :)
If the player is having fun, and not spamming evil eye, misfortune and slumber .. well that is a kind of win^^Objection! Some of who play a witch only want to support the party. Not all support witches use those hexes, I use slumber because of the fact it will be hilarious to use it out of combat on random people.
Shame krieghton is immune, I have an intense desire to cause as much harm to him as possible because hes so strange.
My form of bizzareness is at the very least, not elven bizarness.
so no, two different things.
Im actually a completely different person in the real world, the forums are nice to talk to people on.
PS: golarion is racist.
|
|
Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious as to your rationale.I disagree with this 100%.My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.
If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.
I disagree that the CRB classes are poorly designed "compared to the more modern classes". I disagree that they should be discarded, "Toss 'em right in the trash". And if you think that six years is "ancient" then I just don't know what to say about that.
The ACG classes are bright, shiny, and new but that doesn't make them better designed. I am personally not a fan of certain classes (I would much rather play a rogue than a ninja or slayer, for example).
I'm also not sure what "glaring imbalances" you are talking about. Imbalances between the different CRB classes, or imbalances between the CRB and ACG classes?
I look forward to seeing how the CRB classes are revitalized in Pathfinder Unchained, but IMO they should be updated, not discarded. I can't imagine a version of Pathfinder/D&D where I wouldn't want to play a fighter (CRB fighter rocks IMO) or cleric. There is almost no CRB class that I wouldn't, and haven't, played (though ranger and druid are perhaps my least favorite for no really rational reason).
Insofar as the CRB classes are modified versions of the 3.5 classes, which weren't that far removed from the 3.0 equivalents, that puts these classes at 12-15 years in age. Sans archetypes, these classes generally fail to meet the expectations of most players, which is a reflection of the game's evolving meta.
I think the CRB classes are great in Core, with the assumptions that are made in Core content. I don't think they fit, make, or break the mold of the current meta, though, and that's the basis of my complaint. If the game is a reflection of the people who play it, particularly in organized play, then the CRB classes have worn out their welcome. The content is not designed around them.
I think there's a fair debate to be had about this topic and I'm sure that Mike, John, and co. have hashed it out at some point. I think the existence of the Core Campaign is clear evidence for this - not just a back to basics campaign, but a conservative one, as well. Honestly, I think that is great. It's an admission that there are varied playstyles and a desire to accommodate that within the structure of organized play. I've even got a Core character because I don't think it would hack it in the standard campaign. There are things you can do there that you can't effectively do in a more open meta.
What I think you're going to find, though, is that the willingness of the contributors and developers to break and remake the mold over the years is going to bear out on the way that Core plays out, which is a direct reflection of the outmoded design concepts utilized in the CRB classes. As it relates to the ACG classes and the original topic, I found them to be bold re-imaginings. Again, I think that's great. It's good for the game to shake out the cobwebs from time to time.
|
Reactions:
Everybody except me in non-pfs play: OMG, THESE ARE SO OP, U CAN'T UZE THEM IN ME CAMPANE
Me: They're pretty cool. Still too many errors in the document, though.
Classes:
Arcanist: Spontaneous Prepped spells? Really Paizo? Really?
Blood Rager: P-cool I guess.
*Brawler: Monk.
*Investigator: Detectives on drugs. Hi sherlock holmes!
Shaman: Takes forever to get good, but worth the wait. Kinda like webcomics.
*Skald: ACDC in a nutshell.
Slayer: It's a rouge, guys.
*Swashbuckler: WE LOVE WEAPON FINESSE
Warpriest: Monk/Warpriest, Weapon Focus (Shurkiken).
Hunter: Oh look, another tree huger.
The one complaint I have is that 4/10 (The ones marked with a *) were already archetypes for other classes.
|
Venture-Lieutenant, Netherlands—Leiden
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me go a bit into detail on the ACG classes that I like the most: the Investigator and the Slayer. The pair of them are a proper solution for "the Rogue Problem".
The Investigator
I'm "obviously" talking about the Empiricist archetype because it's just brilliant. I'd say it's insanely good except it actually reduces MADness.
- Compared to the rogue, much better in melee combat. Alchemical self-buffing as well as studied combat means your to-hit accuracy is much higher, and your damage isn't far behind that of a rogue having a good day. But you're not nearly as reliant on flanking partners for that.
Outside of combat, alchemy also gives you a variety of options the rogue lacks, such as shapeshifting and invisibility. Inspiration and a long class skill list, and incentives to pump Intelligence, mean you can easily rival the rogue as a skill monkey.
Oh, and you've got Trapfinding going off Int if you like. And a good Will save.
- Compared to inquisitors, it's mostly a matter of theme: you're beholden to no god. Your power is your own. Otherwise, eerily comparable.
- Compared to alchemists, your melee comes online slower and your ranged attacks will never be as good. However, when they studied combat comes online, your melee eventually outpaces the alchemist. Shapeshifting extracts compensate for the lack of Feral Mutagen.
But the real gem is in the skills. Alchemists already have a sweet skill list, but it's missing some things, like Dungeoneering (the Ooze knowledge) and importantly, social skills.
Oh, and again a good Will save, though you do kinda miss the Fortitude save. But then, few classes get all-good saves.
- Compared to bards, again, theme. It's hard to shake the "frivolity" of bards. Also, some people may (due to introversion) be uncomfortable with the performance aspect of playing a bard, especially if others start pressing the player to perform.
Your powers are also more selfish, by default. However, Infusion allows you to share the wealth. Bards have a natural lead in this.
With regard to skills, it's about even; Bardic Knowledge and Versatile Performance give Inspiration a run for its money.
Combat-wise, I think the extracts give stronger buffs than the bard list.
The Slayer
- People who wanted a spell-less ranger now have their wish granted, though sans animal companion. The slayer is a lot stronger than the Skirmisher Ranger.
- Continuing comparison with the ranger: the slayer is basically the urban ranger, if you look at its skillset.
- Compared to the fighter, between rogue talents and ranger styles, you're not really falling behind in bonus feats. But while you're doing that, you get many more skill points and class skills as well as a second good saving throw.
- Compared to the rogue, you're still a dirty fighter, for those that want that. Ranger styles give you 2WF without ridiculously high Dexterity. Your to-hit is way better, and you don't have to wait until level 3 to start taking feats that require BAB +1. You don't get as much Sneak Attack but the chance that you'll actually land a hit is much higher, so that's something.
- In general, the ranger is an excellent nonmagical class that's versatile, that can easily be built into many different types of warrior.
- You don't get a good Will save, but then almost no melee class does.
Nobody seems to be complaining that these classes are too strong compared to the majority of the classes (only against the monk, rogue and fighter). But they work, they're fun to play and they're effective. I think these are among the best-designed in the ACG.
|
|
Are people really complaining that the ACG outshines monks, rogues and fighters though. Personally, I`m pretty happy that I can play monk and rogue flavour without having to put much thought into how to overcome the weaknesses of the classes. Okay, I`m moderately disappointed on the monk front because it looked like they were taking some steps in the right direction for monks and going Sacred Fist does mean missing out on one or two nice class features for monks. But I`m willing to take a massive improvement when I see one rather than sitting back and waiting for perfection.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
If the player is having fun, and not spamming evil eye, misfortune and slumber .. well that is a kind of win^^Objection! Some of who play a witch only want to support the party. Not all support witches use those hexes, I use slumber because of the fact it will be hilarious to use it out of combat on random people.
Shame krieghton is immune, I have an intense desire to cause as much harm to him as possible because hes so strange.
Spamming kinda implies using it as a "solve every problem" item. Responsible use of ... in this case I guess we could call it narcotics... is a different issue altogether.
/straw man argument
Once you give someone a hammer, most things look like nails.
/end straw man argument.
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Would you mind expanding on that? I'm curious as to your rationale.I disagree with this 100%.My 6 months in opinion? Replace the CRB classes with the ACG classes. Really, just get rid of the Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorceror and Wizard. Toss 'em right in the trash. They're poorly designed compared to the more modern classes with glaring imbalances. The design philosophy is ancient in the CRB. Honestly, when people talk about sacred cows, I assume they're talking about the entire CRB until they clarify otherwise.
If Paizo would do a revamped version of the CRB that did this, I would be surprisingly happy.
I disagree that the CRB classes are poorly designed "compared to the more modern classes". I disagree that they should be discarded, "Toss 'em right in the trash". And if you think that six years is "ancient" then I just don't know what to say about that.
The ACG classes are bright, shiny, and new but that doesn't make them better designed. I am personally not a fan of certain classes (I would much rather play a rogue than a ninja or slayer, for example).
I'm also not sure what "glaring imbalances" you are talking about. Imbalances between the different CRB classes, or imbalances between the CRB and ACG classes?
I look forward to seeing how the CRB classes are revitalized in Pathfinder Unchained, but IMO they should be updated, not discarded. I can't imagine a version of Pathfinder/D&D where I wouldn't want to play a fighter (CRB fighter rocks IMO) or cleric. There is almost no CRB class that I wouldn't, and haven't, played (though ranger and druid are perhaps my least favorite for no really rational reason).
Several points, the name you give to a class and the attached class features - are not the same thing.
And when people complain about bad CRB design, they talk about things like favored enemy ( this calls feature might be relevant in an archetype or for a set campaign), but as written it is either too good or irrelevant.
Or the Monk class that gets burdened with class features of questionable validity. Just take a look at the archetypes that allow players to change the class a fair bit (sohei allows the use of light armor and removes the tiresome necessity for mage armor; the quigong archetype would be added whole cloth to the CRB class description).
And lets be frank, even if the classes got a little update in the CRB, things like Fighers and their paltry number of skill points - and thus lack of out of combat options - is a pretty old complaint.
I drive a car from 1994 and while I think it is a pretty decent car, I am aware that newer cars have pretty nice features and are in some cases far safer. It is not a complaint against the people who have designed my car, especially since the very same people claim responsibility for the new ones.
And fresh designer talent like Mark Seifter (really liked how he handled the recent playtest, the pregens and some other issues) is likely to make new stuff even better.
This is hardly a new concept, some players like to play niche concepts, and it usually takes some time and published products until a RPG can support those with adequate mechanics.
Oh and some of the core classes have some assumptions baked into them, like the presence of traps. Rogues other classes perform significantly worse in an environment that lacks those encounters.
|
|
Well fighters are the go to dip class. I suppose giving monks proficiency in monk weapons directly would be a little too easy. It does work well for the character history of my character who started out a soldier in Jalmeray but always dreamed of becoming a monk. Also considering a fighter dip for my cleric for both heavy armor and tower shields. So to answer your question, yes fighters only seem to exist for tower shields with one or two corner case exceptions.
|
|
If obsolete classes are going to be in the same environment with classes that rendered them obsolete, perhaps what might be a good idea is to tier them. We're already doing it with PC and NPC classes. There's a new tier being created in practice between PC classes and NPC classes. A sort of Obsolete PC tier, but obviously it should be given something more rosy of a name. Maybe PC classes/Advanced NPC classes/Basic NPC classes.
Well, it'd be cleaner/easier to just reboot the entire rules engine, but I'm assuming that's not on the table..
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let me go a bit into detail on the ACG classes that I like the most: the Investigator and the Slayer. The pair of them are a proper solution for "the Rogue Problem".
Thank you for that very insightful post.
Well, that depends on the sanity and local law enforcement and regulations about assault with hammers in the area Mr. Hirsch.
If Germany is incredibly lax about beating people to death with hammers and hammer vandalisim, then that is one hell of a place.
Your straw man argument fails explicitly.
Well, I guess in the US and a number of other countries you would have to change it to:
If you give someone a tank/drone, chances are he will use it when you tell them to get groceries/bring out the trash ^^
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
If obsolete classes are going to be in the same environment with classes that rendered them obsolete, perhaps what might be a good idea is to tier them. We're already doing it with PC and NPC classes. There's a new tier being created in practice between PC classes and NPC classes. A sort of Obsolete PC tier, but obviously it should be given something more rosy of a name. Maybe PC classes/Advanced NPC classes/Basic NPC classes.
Well, it'd be cleaner/easier to just reboot the entire rules engine, but I'm assuming that's not on the table..
Give it some time, let them test the waters with Pathfinder Unchained first.. then maybe a year long playtest ...
|
Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria
|
Can I ask an off topic question really quick? Because I am still stumped to why the fighter even exists. They kinda are just....THERE for the tower shields and not much else.
Well there are Fighter archetypes ^^, and you might want to abuse weapon training at some point.
Since fighter bring outside of combat to little to the table, they really aren't very attractive to a large number of players.