YOU'RE JUST PART OF THE CONSPIRACY, MAN!!!!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have nothing to add that I have not already mentioned in the other bloat threads, or that someone here has not already said so I will do this--> <waves to everyone> smurf
I do wish people wouldnt get so into semantics and pedantics!
The essence of what I'm saying is that it feels that the ACG was a real tipping point in PF bloat..... it is the first time I can remember that classes appeared that actually put other classes almost into retirement. Up until that additional classes filled holes.... I really dont think many of the ACG classes served much purpose.
The arcanist took a real bite out of the wizard and IMO virtually puts the Sorceror into retirement.
Bloodrager puts Barbarian in the shade
The Shaman... a complete farce IMO.... just when I thought the Oracle was OP with Divine Protection and add to Charisma to everything.... then along comes the Shaman! Single handedly it has almost put the Oracle, Witch, Cleric and Druid out of business entirely!! What is a real joke was that the Druid had a whole load of Shaman archetypes years before the ACG!!!! I mean... why even bother?!?!!?
And the Swashbuckler has put the cat amongst the pigeons too!
Currently playing a Shaman, it looked like it was more powerful than the Oracle, Witch, Cleric and such but now that I've played it for a bit I'm finding where balances. The hexes are much weaker in that you have no major or grand hexes. The next thing I notices is while you have 9th level spell access you gain spells later. For example you get heal as level 7 spell instead of 6th, a lot spells are like that. The Shaman has Jack of All Trades spell list great for covering all the bases or supplementing an area but not great for specializing in. I'm finding it no more powerful than the any of the other Full Casters.
Another class I played was the Slayer. Found it weaker than a Ranger and stronger than the rogue and stronger the the fighter except for when it came to AC. Have blood rage ready to play, look pretty much like a twist on a barbarian but no better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Have blood rage ready to play, look pretty much like a twist on a barbarian but no better.
I had a Bloodrager character in a game recently, and I really enjoyed her, but for character reasons rather than mechanical ones.
She was an undead bloodline Spell Eater Dhampir. For her, raging represented unleashing the power of her undead heritage, and gaining fast heal is very vampire like. She also had Eldritch Heritage: Sanguine (not FAQ legal, but that doesn't mean much in my games) so she could feed on the blood of the fallen. The class allowed for a great fit for her concept.
I do wish people wouldnt get so into semantics and pedantics!
The essence of what I'm saying is that it feels that the ACG was a real tipping point in PF bloat..... it is the first time I can remember that classes appeared that actually put other classes almost into retirement. Up until that additional classes filled holes.... I really dont think many of the ACG classes served much purpose.
The arcanist took a real bite out of the wizard and IMO virtually puts the Sorceror into retirement.
Bloodrager puts Barbarian in the shade
The Shaman... a complete farce IMO.... just when I thought the Oracle was OP with Divine Protection and add to Charisma to everything.... then along comes the Shaman! Single handedly it has almost put the Oracle, Witch, Cleric and Druid out of business entirely!! What is a real joke was that the Druid had a whole load of Shaman archetypes years before the ACG!!!! I mean... why even bother?!?!!?
And the Swashbuckler has put the cat amongst the pigeons too!
Currently playing a Shaman, it looked like it was more powerful than the Oracle, Witch, Cleric and such but now that I've played it for a bit I'm finding where balances. The hexes are much weaker in that you have no major or grand hexes. The next thing I notices is while you have 9th level spell access you gain spells later. For example you get heal as level 7 spell instead of 6th, a lot spells are like that. The Shaman has Jack of All Trades spell list great for covering all the bases or supplementing an area but not great for specializing in. I'm finding it no more powerful than the any of the other Full Casters.
Another class I played was the Slayer. Found it weaker than a Ranger and stronger than the rogue and stronger the the fighter except for when it came to AC. Have blood rage ready to play, look pretty much like a twist on a barbarian but no better.
Are you making proper use of Wandering Hex/Spirit Talker + Arcane Enlightenment for instant access to level to level Sorcerer/Wizard spells? Are you making use of the Human/Half-Elf/Half-Orc Favored Class bonus to hack the best spells from the Cleric/Oracle list also at the same level, though admittedly a spell level late? If so, you should be mentioning the overwhelming diversity that the Shaman has access to from day to day. Not to mention how superior it's hexes are to the Witch versions of them. Non-mind-affecting Misfortune works on literally anything that isn't in an Antimagic Field. Also the Witch lags behind in HD, BAB and spells per day and doesn't have any class features outside of Hexes, while the Shaman gets two sets of class abilities one of which is flexible. Additionally it only gets slightly more Hexes, however unlike the Shaman none of them are again flexible.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you making proper use of Wandering Hex/Spirit Talker + Arcane Enlightenment for...
The Shaman IMO is OP... although Arcane Enlightenment isnt quite as good as people make out....
Arcane Enlightenment (Su): The shaman's native intelligence grants her the ability to tap into arcane lore. The shaman can add a number of spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 1) to the list of shaman spells she can prepare. To cast these spells she must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell's level, but the saving throw DCs of these spells are based on her Wisdom rather than Intelligence. When she casts these spells, they are treated as divine rather than arcane. Each time the shaman gains a level after taking this hex, she can choose to replace one of these spells for a new spell on the wizard/sorcerer spell list.
So the Shaman is a WIS based caster (Min 18 - esp considering arcane spells are based on this)-(requiring point investment)
Taking the above requires a reasonable good CHA (16 = 3 spells) (requiring point investment)
To cast these spells requires a reasonably good INT investment (16 = level 6 spells) (requiring point investment)
Unless youre are in a 25 point game AND with loads of money floating around , the above is going to be a pretty tall order...
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Are you making proper use of Wandering Hex/Spirit Talker + Arcane Enlightenment for...
The Shaman IMO is OP... although Arcane Enlightenment isnt quite as good as people make out....
Arcane Enlightenment (Su): The shaman's native intelligence grants her the ability to tap into arcane lore. The shaman can add a number of spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 1) to the list of shaman spells she can prepare. To cast these spells she must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell's level, but the saving throw DCs of these spells are based on her Wisdom rather than Intelligence. When she casts these spells, they are treated as divine rather than arcane. Each time the shaman gains a level after taking this hex, she can choose to replace one of these spells for a new spell on the wizard/sorcerer spell list.
So the Shaman is a WIS based caster (Min 18 - esp considering arcane spells are based on this)-(requiring point investment)
Taking the above requires a reasonable good CHA (16 = 3 spells) (requiring point investment)
To cast these spells requires a reasonably good INT investment (16 = level 6 spells) (requiring point investment)
Unless youre are in a 25 point game AND with loads of money floating around , the above is going to be a pretty tall order...
The class is OP, or certain builds are OP?
If the class is OP it would be likely to disrupt most games even without optimization. A build being OP is another thing altogether since someone with good system mastery can give certain GM's headaches.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Are you making proper use of Wandering Hex/Spirit Talker + Arcane Enlightenment for...
Just so you know, the normal Witch misfortune hex isn't mind-effecting either.
That favored class bonus is pretty neat. Sort of wish other caster classes had something like that, though I suppose until recently there weren't as many other spell lists to pick stuff from.
The class is OP, or certain builds are OP?If the class is OP it would be likely to disrupt most games even without optimization. A build being OP is another thing altogether since someone with good system mastery can give certain GM's headaches.
The class is OP... but not for the reasons some people think (ie Arcane Enlightenment) which requires a very specific game set up and forces you to become V.MAD
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Is this still about the Ecclesitheurge not being the unarmored cleric you wanted?
Because it looks like it's the subject of 8 of the 9 topics you've made.
Is this still about the Ecclesitheurge not being the unarmored cleric you wanted?
Because it looks like it's the subject of 8 of the 9 topics you've made.
I'm flattered (in a thanks creepy person kind of way) that you've been following me whoever you are... maybe I should set up some kind of Twitter?!?!
.... But no... this is a general criticism of the ACG and the issue of character creation for the sake of character creation.
Kind of ironic since one of the criticisms of 3.5 was that things were spiralling out of control...
Are you making proper use of Wandering Hex/Spirit Talker + Arcane Enlightenment for...
The Shaman IMO is OP... although Arcane Enlightenment isnt quite as good as people make out....
Arcane Enlightenment (Su): The shaman's native intelligence grants her the ability to tap into arcane lore. The shaman can add a number of spells from the sorcerer/wizard spell list equal to her Charisma modifier (minimum 1) to the list of shaman spells she can prepare. To cast these spells she must have an Intelligence score equal to at least 10 + the spell's level, but the saving throw DCs of these spells are based on her Wisdom rather than Intelligence. When she casts these spells, they are treated as divine rather than arcane. Each time the shaman gains a level after taking this hex, she can choose to replace one of these spells for a new spell on the wizard/sorcerer spell list.
So the Shaman is a WIS based caster (Min 18 - esp considering arcane spells are based on this)-(requiring point investment)
Taking the above requires a reasonable good CHA (16 = 3 spells) (requiring point investment)
To cast these spells requires a reasonably good INT investment (16 = level 6 spells) (requiring point investment)
Unless youre are in a 25 point game AND with loads of money floating around , the above is going to be a pretty tall order...
You just need a Headband of Mental Superiority and not dumped INT and CHA to make good use of it. You can get by easily with 13 INT and 10 CHA. Once your get get your +2 Headband that is any one level appropriate Wizard spell you want. Of course you can combine this with say Eagle's Splendor to get an additional spell if you need one. And by the time you get your +6 Headband you'll be taking any 3 Wizard spells you want daily, which is super potent.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is this still about the Ecclesitheurge not being the unarmored cleric you wanted?
Because it looks like it's the subject of 8 of the 9 topics you've made.
I'm flattered (in a thanks creepy person kind of way) that you've been following me whoever you are... maybe I should set up some kind of Twitter?!?!
.... But no... this is a general criticism of the ACG and the issue of character creation for the sake of character creation.
Kind of ironic since one of the criticisms of 3.5 was that things were spiralling out of control...
By this time in 3.5's history, there were 51 base classes, 617 prestige classes, and well over 60 (closer to 70) hardbound books, and nearly 15,000 pages of text. Only 3 (now six) of those hardbound books where SRD material.
Pathfinder, on the other hand, has 32 base classes (including Alternate Classes), a little over 50 Prestige Classes, 288 Archetypes, little under 12,000 pages in its entire library, 22 books hardbound books, and 19 of those books are in the PRD.
So, yeah - pretty much nowhere close to 3.5, and will take a while to catch up to 3.5.
Tell me, are you the kind of person who feels a little bump in a plane and immediately runs for the parachute? Because you seem it.
Now kindly make like a tree and be quiet.
Your topics are very loud and focused on a particular subject, it'd be hard not to notice.
Anyway, I disagree with your premise. The ACG has a lot of great options without outclassing anything that wasn't too weak in the first place. Slashing Grace could've been more intuitive though (working with light weapons as well as one-handed).
3.x spiraled out of control because it added so many front loaded PrCs that building your character became about making all of the right dips.
I think clerics are better at being fighty, none of the shamans things seemed to contribute to being a reach warrior
I Think the Hair hex offers a good option there but it May not be that great in numbers exept reducing MAD.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The arcanist took a real bite out of the wizard and IMO virtually puts the Sorceror into retirement.
Bloodrager puts Barbarian in the shade
The Shaman... a complete farce IMO.... just when I thought the Oracle was OP with Divine Protection and add to Charisma to everything.... then along comes the Shaman! Single handedly it has almost put the Oracle, Witch, Cleric and Druid out of business entirely!! What is a real joke was that the Druid had a whole load of Shaman archetypes years before the ACG!!!! I mean... why even bother?!?!!?
The group we started a couple of weeks ago involves a Witch, a Barbarian (Titan Mauler), a Fighter and a ranged Fighter. Half of these are classes you claim the ACG put "out of business entirely!!" Of course, we are about building the characters we want to play, not just min-maxing. Sounds more like you are having local issues with your game. I wish people would quit trying to force their problems on the entire game and the company.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Don't like it, don't buy it, don't use it, don't allow it.
Problem solved. You can take your Tinfoil Hat of Paranoia +1 off now.
When you stop and think about each non-core book as an optional third-party supplement that coincidentally was made by the company that made the core rulebook, suddenly every new book doesn't seem like the end of the game as we know it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My current group consists of a fighter, barbarian, slayer, oracle, and witch. I allow all Paizo and Rogue Genius Games products with a sprinkling of other 3pp stuff. I still constantly see fighters and rogues in my games. The only reason we are seeing the slayer instead of a rogue is because the player has a certain concept in mind that the rogue won't work for. My players look at concepts and go from there.
I think that the biggest problem isn't the new classes. It's people working hard to break the system. Sure, there are certainly some things that are broken (too powerful or not powerful enough) but most of those are actually group specific. Not all, but most.
The game isn't going to fall apart from too many books. It will fall apart when people stop having fun and move on to other systems. Paizo will know when that's coming. Sales will tell them what they need to know.
If you, as a player, think that a class doesn't match what you want it to do then don't play it. If you, as a GM, think that a class is disruptive to your game then don't allow it. Only you know how your group functions. It's not Paizo's responsibility to tell you which options should be allowed at your personal gaming table.
What concept does a Rogue fill that the Slayer doesn't, exactly?
What does it matter?
"My players look at concept and go from there" + the reason one player is playing a Slayer is because he has "a certain concept Rogue won't work for".
They fill all the exact same concepts. Both classes are identical flavor-wise.
So I'm curious as to what his player thought a Rogue couldn't fill but a Slayer could in concept.
The argument works for some classes. Not these two.
Now kindly make like a tree and be quiet.
Naaaah..... I think I will carry on.... cheers for your input though.
I have to say it will be very interesting to see what Unchained brings us....
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Is it wrong that I rush into each thread about bloat/paladins/whatever that is liable to go nowhere and still read everything? I swear I'm addicted to these threads...
Bloat don't exist, but ridiculously low quality that makes me skeptical of future products definitely does.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
FINALLY! Someone understands what's really happening.
All you need to do is open your eyes and look up at the effing SKY!!!!
So I'm curious as to what his player thought a Rogue couldn't fill but a Slayer could in concept.Oh, so you transposed the class names. That's what had me confused.
Huh. Guess I did.
Then again. the statement works either way as near as I can tell. =)
What concept does a Rogue fill that the Slayer doesn't, exactly?
The way he wanted to build his character worked better with slayer than rogue. Rogue didn't have what he wanted. Ranger also didn't have what he wanted. This class did. It's not my character so I didn't worry about his reasons. He felt that it worked better this way.
That's a mechanical consideration, not a concept one.
|
Let's not forget that Paizo has jumped the shark tank into the coming apocalypse with every single product that they have ever released. Ever. All of them. Especially that one. Yes, that one. You know the one with some trivial something that I don't like so the whole thing is not fit to be toilet paper. Let's be honest, 9/10ths of the "THIS SUXOR!!!! IS OP!!!!!!!1!! is only a "problem" because it's not how the complainer wanted "whatever" done. Or it is a knee-jerk reaction to something new that the complainer doesn't want/can't use; nevermind all the other people who play the game.
Sometimes these boards remind me of middle school with all of the drama. Some people would whine about not having something to whine about if there was nothing to whine about.
If everything sucks so bad then why do you continue playing the game or supporting Paizo? Is this some kind of S&M relationship with Paizo being the sadist inflicting sweet pain on the masochists who continue to demand even more of what they hate?
The real problem is that non-trivial issues get lost in all of the background noise of wailing and gnashing teeth that rise to a cacophony every time Paizo does anything. Ever.
SM
The mechanics need to work for the concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've made no bones that I thought several of the classes released in the ACG were poorly thought out and were very OP to the extent that a few of the core/base classes have now almost been made redundant.
Character concepts could have been far more easily achieved with simply providing more archetypes and tweaks through feats.... with the added benefit that classes were enriched rather than eradicated.
The question is.... in the future will we look back on the ACG as the point at which PF started on a downward spiral? Did character creation for the sake of character creation and profit hunger win out over common sense?
The point where Pathfinder began its downwards spiral was the CRB.
*Cue canned studio laughter*
If I may throw in on the Slayer vs. Rogue, I feel that the "Slayer" better embodies a "Killer" where as a Rogue better embodies a "Thief". Both in concept and mechanics, the Slayer has more martial capability, where the rogue has more general utility.
If I may throw in on the Slayer vs. Rogue, I feel that the "Slayer" better embodies a "Killer" where as a Rogue better embodies a "Thief". Both in concept and mechanics, the Slayer has more martial capability, where the rogue has more general utility.
The only difference is their skills per level An extra 2 skills does not a significant amount of general utility make.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Plus, Studied Target makes Slayers better pickpockets than rogues are, since a bonus to attack rolls increases you CMB too, and CMB is used for the steal maneuver.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If I may throw in on the Slayer vs. Rogue, I feel that the "Slayer" better embodies a "Killer" where as a Rogue better embodies a "Thief". Both in concept and mechanics, the Slayer has more martial capability, where the rogue has more general utility.
He wanted a hunter (not the class) but didn't want the animal companion, favored enemy, favored terrain, or spells so ranger didn't work. He also wanted sneak attack and to deal with traps (making and disabling them) and he liked some of the rogue talents. Could he have done it differently? Sure. This was the way that he found worked best for him.
If I may throw in on the Slayer vs. Rogue, I feel that the "Slayer" better embodies a "Killer" where as a Rogue better embodies a "Thief". Both in concept and mechanics, the Slayer has more martial capability, where the rogue has more general utility.He wanted a hunter (not the class) but didn't want the animal companion, favored enemy, favored terrain, or spells so ranger didn't work. He also wanted sneak attack and to deal with traps (making and disabling them) and he liked some of the rogue talents. Could he have done it differently? Sure. This was the way that he found worked best for him.
Well, the Slayer is the best mechanical option for any Rogue concept. Which is why I was a bit confused as to what concept he thought one could fill that the other couldn't.
I can think of a few niche ones (the Carnivalist does a good Circus Performer with a trained monkey who steals for him act), but not a bunch of common ones.