Why do people hate / dislike Occult adventure?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 379 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

♫ Playas, they gonna play
And haters, they gonna hate ♪


yeah Taylor... clearly leading the conclusion with that title. he he he I'm lightning on my feet...

The book has 3 things going for it that have nothing to do with the occult title;
1) psychic spellcasting. HUGE.
2) a blaster based on CON and class abilities rather than spells lists. Yes, the kineticist.
3) skill expansions.


I was hesitant about them at first due to (in my opinion) the descriptions in OA presenting them as much more genre-dependent. My first real interaction with them was a player in my campaign wanting to play a medium, and I took a look through the book. Saw medium spirits being location-based and worried I'd have to sort out what kind of ghosts might be present at every single place, saw stuff like Detect Psychic Significance; does this mean the class will be not fully functional if I don't really have stuff of psychic significance in the campaign?, didn't want to figure out how to make all the occult skill unlocks relevant, etc. It took a bit of getting used to it as a GM and playing an occult class myself to realize that a lot of that stuff really didn't need to be relevant.

The feeling of genre-dependent-ness isn't really helped by my opinion of the theme. Modern pseudoscience in my medieval fantasy annoys me even more than robots and lightsabers in my medieval fantasy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My first impression of Occult Adventurers was the additional classes with yet another subsystem for casting. This puts additional load on a GM which (unless the adventure revolves around it) doesn't have a big payoff.

My second impression was when the local powergamers were extremely excited about a con-based caster.

Neither of these bode well.


Mekkis wrote:

My first impression of Occult Adventurers was the additional classes with yet another subsystem for casting. This puts additional load on a GM which (unless the adventure revolves around it) doesn't have a big payoff.

My second impression was when the local powergamers were extremely excited about a con-based caster.

Neither of these bode well.

"Caster" that doesn't have spells? Clearly, this is the big concern. I mean, there's certainly reason to be concerned about always-flying characters in the 5-6 range, but level 1 druids could always be flying via their animal companion and wizards/sorcs at level 9-10 (overland flight is a full day buff with Extend Spell), so I think that balances out.

As another poster put it, psychic casting is learning that there are two additional component types and that one of them is blocked by the existence of a dragon or an opponent with Dazzling Display, while the other prevents you from moving if you want to concentrate without a huge penalty. For the most part, this results in PCs that make fun of other PCs who have to wiggle their fingers.


Druids have been able to fly (better than a Kineticist) for 12 hours a day at level 6 since core. And they didn't have to make permanent investment of class features to do it.

They just be an air elemental, if they want to.


I'm part of the group that finds them to be a burden on the GM. I don't know the rules for them, and I'm concerned that some players with occult characters don't know the rules as well as they should.


Your welcome!


basically, it behooves a player to know the rules for his character, so he can manage it and save time and effort for the DM... of course, that depends on the DM's style, but if he wants to manage everything himself, he deserves what he gets.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

and requires the DM to trust the player not to take advantage of the fact he doesn't know how the class works.

That wouldn't be a problem for me, as I don't think my players would intentionally stretch the rules, they may accidentally but honestly I don't care that much. Also I know how the classes work so its a none issue. But I can imagine it would be an issue for some DMs depending on their player base.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
How dare they don't the rules! (J/K)

Thanks for the catch, I fixed my post.

Liberty's Edge

Honestly, only the Kineticist, the Occultist and (to a lesser degree) the Medium have rules that are especially complicated.

Spiritualist is a pet class, but has the simplest pet in the game in terms of stats, the Psychic is just a 9-level spontaneous caster with a pool of points...and thus a little more complicated than Sorcerer, but less than Wizard or Arcanist, and the Mesmerist isn't any more complicated than a Bard, IMO.

Yeah, there's the alternate component stuff, but that's just new, not actually complicated.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

and requires the DM to trust the player not to take advantage of the fact he doesn't know how the class works.

That wouldn't be a problem for me, as I don't think my players would intentionally stretch the rules, they may accidentally but honestly I don't care that much. Also I know how the classes work so its a none issue. But I can imagine it would be an issue for some DMs depending on their player base.

Yeah that would be the problem that would bother me but a player has to get up pretty early in the morning to beat me on a rules call.


Chromantic Durgon <3 wrote:

and requires the DM to trust the player not to take advantage of the fact he doesn't know how the class works.

That wouldn't be a problem for me, as I don't think my players would intentionally stretch the rules, they may accidentally but honestly I don't care that much. Also I know how the classes work so its a none issue. But I can imagine it would be an issue for some DMs depending on their player base.

Point to you, yes, I do assume that players and DM know each other well and play in good faith... that might be a problem with inexpert PFS GMs.


The original post was about pickup games on roll20, where trust can also be an issue. But also, most people don't understand how conservative Paizo is with balancing new classes. They pretty much always err on the side of making something too weak. Ever since the APG.


Melkiador wrote:
The original post was about pickup games on roll20, where trust can also be an issue. But also, most people don't understand how conservative Paizo is with balancing new classes. They pretty much always err on the side of making something too weak. Ever since the APG.

This is true and makes me sad for some archetypes.


Melkiador wrote:
A well-built archery fighter should crush the damage of a well built kineticist.

Probably, a single attack will lose out to many. Interestingly though a well built melee kineticist crushes the damage of an equivalently well built melee fighter. It loses out on the defence side to the fighter - but if you see someone waving a whip of fire around, run.


Personally I love this book.

The only classes I wouldn't play are the Occultist(not my play style) and the Medium(too complex). But at least I find every class flavorful and interesting unlike many from the ACG.


essentially it gives the GM more tools and systems to use as options. Options are a good thing.
PFS is different as it's organized play for fun and the publisher wants people to try out different parts of their game.

I agree that expertise in RAW has declined as applications make it easy to create things that the user doesn't understand. PF is a BIG system that needs interpretation from a wider perspective than one or two paragraphs. It's been that way since the game's inception back in 1977 or so.
On the flip side, more people have tried out things they weren't quite sure of because of the applications. Trying new things is good, you have to learn how it works.

Complexity - hmmm... certainly "new" classes are going to seem complex as new rules have to appear in the class. There will also be an explanation to clarify things and some curbing of corner cases and/or future proofing. Kineticist had to have everything in the class description and it works differently than other classes. Compare that to Wizards, with hundreds of spell descriptions and funneling down to a few spells. hmmm...
I'd point to Summoner and the eidolon rules... so many players got it just plain wrong or the rules allowed monsters to be created. Compound that with the mistakes in the spell lists (spell levels!!!). Thus Unchained Summoner.
In a game that uses power in roleplaying action as balance it is going to take some significant roleplay testing and min/max widgiting to see if a class is "balanced". I don't think that is going to happen in 1-2 months with a limited group of people.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I just really don't want to bother learning the ins and outs of the new classes. Plus the fact that these are new classes means they have benefited from the many years of experience in the system, so their options are more intuitively useful than some of the original entrees whose class features aren't always as effective as intended.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

7 people marked this as a favorite.

"Does not allow for a particular campaign" =\= "hate"

A GM can like or be fine with a class--and may allow them in some games and still not in others--and any of the reasons to or not include them as discussed above can be valid. For example, "I don't have time right now to read a new rulebook because I am caring for my infant child" does not equate out to a vitriolic dislike of something.

Having often run Pathfinder demos and some campaigns for newer players, I also have found allowing EVERY CLASS can create option paralysis and overwhelm in players. I ran a game once where the players ASKED ME largely to stick to core because they didn't want to have to read through a bunch of class options. (That group also actively avoided archetypes even though I allowed them.)

While a GM running an online game may not be in an exactly the same situation, they may simply be trying to keep character creation from being overwhelming, and restricting newer or harder to learn classes is an easy way to do that.

The challenge as always is finding a GM and group who plays at the speed you do, so to speak.


Dreikaiserbund wrote:
I can totally see a GM just saying 'sticking to Corebook + APG classes for the sake of my sanity'). Gods Above know I've been tempted to do that.

See, I've never bought that idea. A DM needs to know a number of classes equal to the number of PCs in his game. (Plus the material he's throwing at the, but a PC's class choice doesn't [need to] change that.)

I much prefer to learn four-ish classes per campaign in order to allow my players to try new things instead of limiting them to slight variants on old things. "I'm going to try a tripping build Fighter instead of the grappling build I did last time."

Shrug.


eakratz wrote:
I don’t hate them, but I don’t have time to learn new rules nor try and understand a class that needs 15 pages to explain it, so I just arbitrarily ban anything released after ACG. If a player were to talk me into letting them play occult, I would just treat it like regular magic (I have no idea if it’s different or not) so as not to deal with any “nun uh it’s psionics not magic” talk.

Just throwing this out there...

1} it is magic, not not-magic.
2} so is psionics (as opposed to psychic magic).

They're just different flavors, like arcane and divine. They work pretty much the same, only from different sources. A nice dispel magic spell works on arcane, divine, psychic, and even psionic magic.

The biggest difference with psychic magic is the components are different, which rarely matters. I mean, basically, you can't cast when you're frightened. That'll happen about as often as "you can't case in silence." Shrug.


1. It's complex. New complex rules are hard for people to judge rationally because they have to spend time and effort to have an informed opinion.

2. Bias against psychic anything.

3. Believing the crb rogue, fighter, and monk are playable. Since mediums can easily rogue and fighter better. Kineticist are better Martials, Occultist can be a dangerous all rounder, Spiritualist gives ppl summoner flash backs if they don't read the class, Psychic is a full caster and thus broken, and mesmerist are anti bards

4. Your can't tie up the casters or steal their spells books. Any one who thinks wizards are fine needs these strats to work at all times or they feel vulnerable.


I see a lot of I don’t understands/not buying that/I do it this ways/ or other judgemental things. If I could image post I’d find that meme that says “Well that’s your opinion, man.” The OP was wondering why these classes are banned and most of the response from us GMs that do ban them fall under the category I call “One more thing.” On it’s own, the occult rules may be not be difficult, but they are “one more thing” on top of the new intrigue stuff, driving, mass combat, unchained, haunts, conditions...etc. at some point, a GM just may, within their rights go, “okay, I’m stopping here.”

Anguish wrote:
eakratz wrote:
I don’t hate them, but I don’t have time to learn new rules nor try and understand a class that needs 15 pages to explain it, so I just arbitrarily ban anything released after ACG. If a player were to talk me into letting them play occult, I would just treat it like regular magic (I have no idea if it’s different or not) so as not to deal with any “nun uh it’s psionics not magic” talk.

Just throwing this out there...

1} it is magic, not not-magic.
2} so is psionics (as opposed to psychic magic).

They're just different flavors, like arcane and divine. They work pretty much the same, only from different sources. A nice dispel magic spell works on arcane, divine, psychic, and even psionic magic.

The biggest difference with psychic magic is the components are different, which rarely matters. I mean, basically, you can't cast when you're frightened. That'll happen about as often as "you can't case in silence." Shrug.

Up thread someone pointed that out, so luckily I forgot to disable my alarm today and woke up at five, then baby woke up a half our later which solidified the wakefulness so after said baby went back to sleep I had time to go downstairs, have a cup of coffee and check out the prd page on occult casting and vuala it’s not different. But there is no way for me to know that unless I find that page in the 300ish page book during the busiest years of my life. So maybe, because I was lucky enough to check out this thread while toddlers are napping, and some others were helpful enough to clarify some things, I’ll allow them in my next game which is years away.

Edit: and then I clicked on the Occult Rules page and holy cow I don’t have time for that, so back in the box you go occult rules.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Anguish wrote:
The biggest difference with psychic magic is the components are different, which rarely matters. I mean, basically, you can't cast when you're frightened. That'll happen about as often as "you can't case in silence." Shrug.

Not just fear, whenever you are under an emotion effect. Like Good Hope.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Anguish wrote:
The biggest difference with psychic magic is the components are different, which rarely matters. I mean, basically, you can't cast when you're frightened. That'll happen about as often as "you can't case in silence." Shrug.
Not just fear, whenever you are under an emotion effect. Like Good Hope.

Nope. "It is impossible to cast a spell with an emotion component while the spellcaster is under the influence of a non-harmless effect with the emotion or fear descriptors." Harmless effects, such as Good Hope is marked as, don't inhibit psychic casting.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Ah, thanks for picking that out for me. Things like Rage will still work, but I almost never see that spell used.


7 people marked this as a favorite.

Is this really about hating/disliking occult adventures or not allowing occult character options in non-occult games? They are two different topics.

Why do people hate/dislike occult adventures? Well, why do people hate/dislike mushrooms on pizza? De gustibus non est disputandum. People like what they like and don't like what they don't like.

Why do people disallow occult character options in non-occult games? Many reasons:

  • Because occult options might not be relevant in that particular game and would only hamper the player. (This is no different than saying "don't pick the undead slayer archetype, there aren't going to be a lot of undead in this campaign".)
  • Because occult options have their own rule sets that increase the research and design load on the GM, who may have designed the adventure with particular ideas of what is and is not possible.
  • Because occult options may not fit the flavor of the campaign. Maybe the campaign world simply doesn't have the metaphysical properties that are supposed to make psychic stuff work. Or maybe the particular game the GM had in mind just doesn't have that occult feel. Similarly, a Lovecraft-inspired character from Horror Adventures might simply not fit the flavor of a more upbeat Good Guys vs. Bad Guys game.

    Bottom line: The GM is under no obligation to allow every single thing Paizo publishes for a particular campaign. I've known GMs who don't allow crafting and some that ban all mechanisms for resurrecting the dead. The GM is empowered to make any adjustments, inclusions, or exclusions deemed necessary for the given game experience. The players are empowered to discuss and negotiate such things with their GM and ultimately decide whether that game is the sort of game they want to devote their time to.


  • TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Ah, thanks for picking that out for me. Things like Rage will still work, but I almost never see that spell used.

    Bane.


    Serisan wrote:
    TriOmegaZero wrote:
    Ah, thanks for picking that out for me. Things like Rage will still work, but I almost never see that spell used.
    Bane.

    Which takes that spell from "who casts that?" to "who cares, that's the target's best save".

    /okay, so I'm a bit hyperbolic today


    I actually like OA quite a bit. I love the Psychic class. I just can't wrap my head around the Kineticist, though. It seems very complicated to me.


    blahpers wrote:

    Is this really about hating/disliking occult adventures or not allowing occult character options in non-occult games? They are two different topics.

    Why do people hate/dislike occult adventures? Well, why do people hate/dislike mushrooms on pizza? De gustibus non est disputandum. People like what they like and don't like what they don't like.

    Why do people disallow occult character options in non-occult games? Many reasons:

  • Because occult options might not be relevant in that particular game and would only hamper the player. (This is no different than saying "don't pick the undead slayer archetype, there aren't going to be a lot of undead in this campaign".)
  • Because occult options have their own rule sets that increase the research and design load on the GM, who may have designed the adventure with particular ideas of what is and is not possible.
  • Because occult options may not fit the flavor of the campaign. Maybe the campaign world simply doesn't have the metaphysical properties that are supposed to make psychic stuff work. Or maybe the particular game the GM had in mind just doesn't have that occult feel. Similarly, a Lovecraft-inspired character from Horror Adventures might simply not fit the flavor of a more upbeat Good Guys vs. Bad Guys game.

    Bottom line: The GM is under no obligation to allow every single thing Paizo publishes for a particular campaign. I've known GMs who don't allow crafting and some that ban all mechanisms for resurrecting the dead. The GM is empowered to make any adjustments, inclusions, or exclusions deemed necessary for the given game experience. The players are empowered to discuss and negotiate such things with their GM and ultimately decide whether that game is the sort of game they want to devote their time to.

  • +1

    Well put.


    I just read through the book, after having the same hangups. My biggest hangup was thinking that all of the new classes were as mindlessly complicated as the Kineticist. It's presented at the front of the book, so it sets a bad tone. So, I set it aside. I'm glad that the "Fashion-mancer" (Silksworn) bridged the gap that brought me into the Occult fold.

    My 2cp:
    - Kineticist is simply unnecessarily complicated for what it does. If I have a player who wants to play one, I will point to the Warlock archetype and say "Play that; I don't want to have to audit your sheet every 20 minutes."
    - Occultist is also very complex, and I would allow it if an experienced player was willing to try it. I would steer new players away until they grasped basic concepts first.

    I'm the kind of DM that would rather ban races than ban classes. It's easier to fit a weird class into a world than magical robot people or flying owl people. Moreover, I found more issues power-wise in the disparity between ARG races and CRB races than I do the classes presented in either OA or even ACG compared to prior books.

    I stayed away because of the new-ness. I'm glad, though, that I finally read through OA. It's not a bad read (aside from the slog that is the Kineticist). I like the new take on magic. It's basically the same, but with some special rules that take up all of 1/2 a page to feel fresh. Now I have to convince another buddy of mine to adopt it. He still thinks Psychics work like 3.5 Psions lol.


    I've read through occultist a few times. I have tried building some. I can do this. But: it was some effort, and I only went to that effort because I was bored. I can't actually play an occultist, because I don't have the book and PFS cares. And having done some test-builds, I'm not actually excited enough about it to buy the book.

    I've tried to read through kineticist. I was excited, because I have watched Legend of Korra. I keep getting bogged down. I tried to read a guide to the class, but that did not help. I cannot, at this time, build a kineticist and I do not understand how they play. I do not believe that this is beyond me, but I do believe that it's not worth the effort at this time. Also, I am no longer excited.

    If I were GMing and allowed these (or the other) classes, I would need to know how they worked - not because I particularly worry about cheating, but because I worry about people not understanding rules. Also, I would have to know how to not accidentally build encounters that made these classes useless.

    That in mind then, I completely understand any GM saying "I am not prepared to do this extra work in order to enable these options. GMing is already enough work."

    Silver Crusade

    Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

    I understand the criticism that the Kineticist is complicated, because it does have a lot of moving interactive parts. But really it comes down to what element you prefer.

    During the first five levels you're basically going to be blasting or if you took elemental weapon smacking in melee. Focus on Dex/Con and then whatever role play stat you like.

    In play throw blasts, use utility talents where they're useful, only take burn when you feel it's important or assured. Once you have elemental defenses throw a point of burn into it, you'll get a small bonus to hit and damage if you have taken some burn with elemental overflow.

    I find it's useful to put abilities on cards to keep them in mind.

    At mid-levels you get a discount on burn costs thanks to infusion specialization, so infuse your blasts a bit more freely. Throw metakinesis on your blasts when your facing high hit-point foes, make sure to spend actions gathering power to mitigate burn if you do. If you're really wanting to bring the hurt throw a composite/empowered blast.

    Before resting each night, take enough burn to fill your internal buffer. It'll give you some "Free" uses of your class features the next day. Use the bonuses you get from Elemental Overflow to mitigate the hit point loss from burn by putting your Size bonuses into Constitution.

    At high level use Supercharge to mitigate burn and throw composite blasts and empowered blasts and even the odd maximized blast. Your utility wild talents will help determine what you're doing outside of combat, for the most part the elemental breakdown works mostly like this:

    Aether: Do rogue stuff or cleric stuff depending on talents chosen.
    Water: Do cleric stuff.
    Air: Do rogue stuff (mostly scouting)
    Fire: Do fighter stuff.
    Earth: Do fighter stuff, some rogue stuff.
    Wood: Do druid stuff.
    Void: Do evil cleric stuff.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    I do think the way the Kineticist is set out is intimidating, it kinda frustrates me really because in reality the class is pretty simple once you get it. Its like seeing the Matrix. Lol.

    Whilst it looks like there is a tone of info and abilities to pick from the reality is for the first 6 levels only a seventh are relevant to your element and then most of those you're too low level for. Nowadays I actually think there is a dearth of options for infusions and utility talents because pretty much every character of their chosen element is going to look exactly the same unless they decide to go melee.


    DungeonmasterCal wrote:
    I actually like OA quite a bit. I love the Psychic class. I just can't wrap my head around the Kineticist, though. It seems very complicated to me.

    Personally I find the long list of wild talents overwhelming. It would have been better to sort them by element first (similar to sorcerer bloodlines) and level second (which is usually not done at those books). While alphabetical order helps to find something you already know the name of, it's a pain in every other regard...

    Once you digged your way through the talents, the build isn't so complicated. It helps to know the spells emulated by talents, and a player new to kineticist should probably start at level 1.


    Once I made a Kineticist, they weren't all that hard to figure out.

    The Occultist on the other hand...


    I never found the kineticist to be that complicated but the occultist and especially the medium are a different story.


    dunno about the kineticist, from the PFSRD it looks a bit overwhelming, maybe studying the paper format would be easier and more pleasant.


    Dragon78 wrote:
    I never found the kineticist to be that complicated but the occultist and especially the medium are a different story.

    Medium isn't too hard, I actually print out separate character sheets for each spirit channeled, and usually as you nail down your favorite spirits whittle that down even more. :-)


    The kineticist isn't clearly written. I'm pretty sure the same content could have been put together without needing to be read several times to get the full meaning. Since the kineticist is also the occult class which the most people want to use, it's the class which the most people see. The unclear writing of the class hurts the reputation of the book as a whole there.


    The kineticist gives you complication spread out over many levels. If you just take it one level at a time, it's pretty simple. I do feel the burn mechanic would have been better off just being another pool of points though.


    I don't like them because they don't fit the "flavor" of a fantasy game. I feel the same about Numerian super-science. It ruins the campaign world's feel IMHO. I wouldn't add wizards to Traveller, dragons to Boot Hill, or clerics to Twilight 2000. On the other hand, the occult classes would fit in a modern fantasy game, where (unlike in the real world) psychic powers exist.


    Occultist isn't that complicated?

    They have spells.

    That have a pool.

    You invest that pool into other pools to fuel abilities and give passive effects.

    You have misc abilities that aren't all that important.

    You have 3/4ths BaB and marital weapon prof and you can wear armor while casting spells.

    You are int based so enjoy all those skill points.

    Kineticist on the other have is basically a whole new system of casting that is very text heavy.


    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    Being complicated is complicated. The warpriest has 6th level spell casting and 4 separate resource pools to manage. But no one seems to consider it complicated. Meanwhile, the kineticist just has one resource pool that just has a few abilities built around it, but it's considered complicated by many.

    Scarab Sages

    My players like to be murderhobos and kill things. They don't want to play anything in Occult Adventures, use combat diplomacy, or investigate. They want to get big numbers and kill. So we're not going to be using Occult, Horror, or Intrigue books. I got them to play through some of Carrion Crown, but when I took them on a side quest through Feast of Ravenmoore, rather than figure out the mystery one said "screw this I'm sick of these children of the corn" and started killing people during the festival...

    I'd love it, but I eventually found a Call of Cthulhu group to do that stuff with. We played 10 Candles last week which is an awesome game. But those aren't the types who will want to play math-finder either.

    Dark Archive

    1 person marked this as a favorite.

    If a group does the occult game no issues. Complex can be fun. But putting these complex characters into a PFS venue means the GM has to know this book to avoid the unknowing or intentionally deceptive from misusing powers.


    Scott Romanowski wrote:
    I don't like them because they don't fit the "flavor" of a fantasy game. I feel the same about Numerian super-science. It ruins the campaign world's feel IMHO. I wouldn't add wizards to Traveller, dragons to Boot Hill, or clerics to Twilight 2000. On the other hand, the occult classes would fit in a modern fantasy game, where (unlike in the real world) psychic powers exist.

    Which aspects of their flavour don't fit a fantasy game anymore than any other caster in the game?

    51 to 100 of 379 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
    Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why do people hate / dislike Occult adventure? All Messageboards