Have you stopped caring about new classes?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

2 people marked this as a favorite.
lucklesshero wrote:


But looking back at the History of D&D...it seems to me bigger doesn't always equal better or in TSR's case...even profitable. I know Mrs. Stevens is all to familiar with the not too distance past. Still, the state/bloat of our current game sometimes make me nervous.

I like this game...don't want it or the people who create it to go away. But sometimes the way forward...may be to take a few steps back.
Just a thought..

That's not the right history. TSR's problems primarily resulted from it just being ineptly run just like WoTC early on. Only lesson that can be learned is that just because you made something popular doesn't mean you can run a company.

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Spacelard wrote:
As a player it is really a non-issue. All you need to know is exactly how your class works inside and out...let's have more!

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that all players take the time to learn how their classes work "inside and out," and with ever more options, they have less time to focus on any specific class or build.

I want to be clear that I'm not tossing out a blanket generalization about all or most players. However, I seem to encounter this sort of thing enough that it feels like a problem to me.


MadScientistWorking wrote:
lucklesshero wrote:


But looking back at the History of D&D...it seems to me bigger doesn't always equal better or in TSR's case...even profitable. I know Mrs. Stevens is all to familiar with the not too distance past. Still, the state/bloat of our current game sometimes make me nervous.

I like this game...don't want it or the people who create it to go away. But sometimes the way forward...may be to take a few steps back.
Just a thought..

That's not the right history. TSR's problems primarily resulted from it just being ineptly run just like WoTC early on. Only lesson that can be learned is that just because you made something popular doesn't mean you can run a company.

True. I do think however that the history of TSR does show that rules bloat isn't necessary to make an RPG profitable.

Or at least wasn't. The marketplace may well be too different today to draw any real lessons from the first decades of RPGs.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

I mostly play Occult classes and Vigilante now. They fit my playstyle better than the older classes for the most part. There are a few things I go back to old classes for- mostly getting certain stuff on a full caster, or using a new archetype that does makes a huge change to a class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

The Occult classes have a great feel to them as does the Vigilante. And they allow for PCs that feel different than high fantasy. So those are good!

2/5

my gm only allows core items( spells,classes and items)
so they have never really interested me


ronkay wrote:

my gm only allows core items( spells,classes and items)

so they have never really interested me

That's just sad, so sorry!

The Exchange 5/5

captain yesterday wrote:
ronkay wrote:

my gm only allows core items( spells,classes and items)

so they have never really interested me
That's just sad, so sorry!

and here I was wondering if they might have room in that group for me... "only allows core" sounds so appealing!

5/5 5/55/55/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.

megapost:
Phase II: 50% like/dislike

Alchemist : Lots of fun, great flavor, about the right power. Ability to hand out self only buffs is kinda neat.

Cavalier: Horses. No thanks

Gunslinger: ick. Guns are not a flavor i like, and the mechanics using touch attacks made them overpowered. Active dislike for the class.

Inquisitor: Very fun roguey clerics with some interesting niche builds.

Magus: A neccesary way to combine casting and melee which wasn't really possible before. I'll probably like them more now that the cookie cutter factory of dex magi with scimatars has been broken up.

Oracle: The mysteries are thematically and mechanically awesome, the new cooler cleric.

Summoner: Nice concept, original execution was weird.

Witch: Hexes take away the only limitation on a save or die wizard. Pass. Talk if they ban the slumber and ice tomb hexes.

Phase III: Unchained: 50 50.

Unchained Rogue: Like the dex to damage giving you a reason to have dex. The skill unlocks needed some pizzaz.

Unchained monk: Monkpounce! Its nice that they're strong, its just that there's only one real build: dragonstyle and monkpounce.

Unchained barbarian: No change really, you're just worse with a 2 handed weapon which.. in all honesty makes you just worse.

Unchained summoner: Not as customizable and more thematic. I think build a bear could have been reigned in without being nuked from orbit. maybe.

Phase III: Hybrid classes. 60% interest.

Arcanist: I love some of the whacky rule breaking they can do. Lots of fun tactical options (its elecric slliiIIIIIIiiide)

Bloodrager: interesting concept but i think you op'd the barbarian replacement.

Brawler: Love the ability to make a fighter that can use those weird combat feats "Noogie purple dragon!" wouldn't see play nearly as often without them.

Hunter: Its a druid slash ranger when the ranger is already a fighter slash druid so its a fighter slash druid slash druid?

Investigator: I don't play them but i love the concept.

Shaman: ... does anyone know how these work? I have a spirit if it's in the 1/4 phase of the moon over sagitar.. never seen one in play. Pass.

Skald: You're a bard. Just admit it. Bards could always be badass. You just weren't man enough to wear a neck ruff.

Slayer: New rogue. Like where it's at.

Swashbuckler: I want to like this class. I really do. But as a dip or a dunk is the only way to play it. Fails to meet its design objectives as a dexterous , charismatic fast moving mobile fighter when it has no mobility features and the best build is a high strength no charisma brute with the extra penache feat (because a 5 and 12 charisma gives you the same penache pool)

Warpriest: I can make a character based around hitting you with a beer mug and doing greatsword damage. Awesome.

Phase IV: occult classes: 14% like.

Kineticist: It shoots it kills. Boring.

Medium: another spellcaster. Whats different?

Mesmerist: Now we're talking. The spells are the same, but i can also put unique buffs on my party members. I hypnotize them so that anyone messing with their minds has to go through me, or make shadowy images of people pop out of nowhere.

Occultist: It SOUNDS cool but i really don't know how to build an adventurer out of this.

Psycic: another caster:

Spiritualist.: Lets have a spellcaster with a pet that can walk through walls at level 1. Thats not going to cause any problems...

So i really didn't like most of the occult classes, the vigilante or the shifter. But the shifter and vig came out independently and since i don't usually like more than 50% , getting heads on the coin toss doesn't say much because the sample size is too small. So i don't know if there's a trend or not.

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Horses. No thanks

O.O

5/5 5/55/55/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Horses. No thanks
O.O

erm.. horses being forced into tiny cramped living spaces outside of their natural habitat against their will...

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Horses. No thanks
O.O
erm.. horses being forced into tiny cramped living spaces outside of their natural habitat against their will...

Ah!

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
captain yesterday wrote:
ronkay wrote:

my gm only allows core items( spells,classes and items)

so they have never really interested me
That's just sad, so sorry!

i enojoy it more than the pfs at my local game store.

most of the games there have tables full of over optimized and broken characters.

i saw a table of all ninjas ( and then my poor wizard) it was not a fun game


I never liked new classes. I always liked new archetypes.

The work put into new classes should have been put into fixing the old ones.

5/5 5/55/55/5

ronkay wrote:


i saw a table of all ninjas ( and then my poor wizard) it was not a fun game

by definition they were not ninjas then...


ronkay wrote:
captain yesterday wrote:
ronkay wrote:

my gm only allows core items( spells,classes and items)

so they have never really interested me
That's just sad, so sorry!

i enojoy it more than the pfs at my local game store.

most of the games there have tables full of over optimized and broken characters.

i saw a table of all ninjas ( and then my poor wizard) it was not a fun game

ugh. Ninjas.


Pathfinder LO Special Edition, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I tend to view classes and archetypes as templates for character concepts. So I like to know what Paizo thinks are viable (more or less) templates, so that if I come up with a concepts, I can see where it might fit. However, there are so many archetypes now that keeping track of them all is a PITA. I much prefer the Harnmaster approach: everything is a skill; you can (in theory) learn any skill; every skill has a skill base (SB) computed from basic attributes (STR, etc.); every skill can be improved up to 100+SB and no further; the higher the current skill level, the harder it gets to raise it. Archetypes exist, as "occupations" - knight, assassin, pilot, priest, mage, whatever. But you can devise your own archetype or class or multiclass equivalent just by mixing and matching skills - assuming your character can find someone to teach him what he wants to know.

OTOH, Harnmaster is perhaps less "high fantasy" than Pathfinder. :-)

Grand Lodge 5/5

ronkay wrote:
i saw a table of all ninjas ( and then my poor wizard) it was not a fun game

Guys I heard ninjas are OP and wizards are super weak....

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sorla Blakros wrote:
ronkay wrote:
i saw a table of all ninjas ( and then my poor wizard) it was not a fun game
Guys I heard ninjas are OP and wizards are super weak....

How do you know they weren't a wizard pretending to be a ninja in order to throw attention off?


My interest has been declining as more and more classes have gotten published. There are specific classes I've been interested in for most books (with the possible exception of Occult classes - none of which really grab me much), but overall, I spend a lot less time contemplating what I could do with them than the core classes.

Silver Crusade 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rysky wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Horses. No thanks
O.O
erm.. horses being forced into tiny cramped living spaces outside of their natural habitat against their will...

This is why I keep saying I want to do a small sized cavalier on a riding dog. You'd think after 30 PCs in PFS, I would have gotten around to actually making that PC by now, but it just hasn't happened yet.

4/5

TOZ wrote:
lucklesshero wrote:
If not when did you check out?
Unchained.

Same here.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/5

The longer I get to play I find myself checking in more. In general I do not like pet classes, generally because it takes awhile just to master the nuances of newer classes, but then again I haven't played a rogue, since they were merely thieves.

Aside:
The Panther style Monk is very viable compared to the Dragon style monk the flexibility for positioning and mobility really alters normal tactics. It is especially fun to play around with vital strike for awhile on that build before the flying kick comes fully on-line.

1/5 5/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Obviously, a table of all Ninja has forgotten the Very Important Rule of Ninja Interactions.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

thejeff wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
lucklesshero wrote:


But looking back at the History of D&D...it seems to me bigger doesn't always equal better or in TSR's case...even profitable. I know Mrs. Stevens is all to familiar with the not too distance past. Still, the state/bloat of our current game sometimes make me nervous.

I like this game...don't want it or the people who create it to go away. But sometimes the way forward...may be to take a few steps back.
Just a thought..

That's not the right history. TSR's problems primarily resulted from it just being ineptly run just like WoTC early on. Only lesson that can be learned is that just because you made something popular doesn't mean you can run a company.

True. I do think however that the history of TSR does show that rules bloat isn't necessary to make an RPG profitable.

Or at least wasn't. The marketplace may well be too different today to draw any real lessons from the first decades of RPGs.

I'm not sure you remember that era correctly because the rules for at least the most popular edition in existence got kind of absurd in a way I wish most editions followed.


MadScientistWorking wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
lucklesshero wrote:


But looking back at the History of D&D...it seems to me bigger doesn't always equal better or in TSR's case...even profitable. I know Mrs. Stevens is all to familiar with the not too distance past. Still, the state/bloat of our current game sometimes make me nervous.

I like this game...don't want it or the people who create it to go away. But sometimes the way forward...may be to take a few steps back.
Just a thought..

That's not the right history. TSR's problems primarily resulted from it just being ineptly run just like WoTC early on. Only lesson that can be learned is that just because you made something popular doesn't mean you can run a company.

True. I do think however that the history of TSR does show that rules bloat isn't necessary to make an RPG profitable.

Or at least wasn't. The marketplace may well be too different today to draw any real lessons from the first decades of RPGs.

I'm not sure you remember that era correctly because the rules for at least the most popular edition in existence got kind of absurd in a way I wish most editions followed.

I remember the bloat starting somewhere in 2E and I wasn't paying much attention by about midway through its lifespan. First edition really didn't have nearly the absurdity that came later.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Starfinder Charter Superscriber

New material, including classes, is the only thing keeping me playing this game. If the RPG police came by tomorrow and told me I could only play core from now on, I'd throw my books in the trash.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

My ability to generate new character ideas and builds has long since surpassed my ability to play and level those characters, so I've been paying less attention to new classes than I used to.

I still haven't fully grokked all of the Occult Adventures classes. I mean, I could probably build an occultist or a kineticist if I needed to, but I'd have to do a pretty deep dive into the rules to figure it out.

The PFS playtest period for Medium and Vigilante helped get me interested in those classes. (But then, the Hunter-casting Zealot and the Medium both got rewritten, so that expertise didn't get me very far.)

I... sort of skimmed Shifter and wasn't very impressed. I hope they have plans for a bunch of archetypes, but I'm not holding my breath.

One or two new classes every year might be the sweet spot for now. I'm not sure we need another ACG or Occult Adventures.

The post-ACG design philosophy of locking down classes more and more into predefined roles (rather than allowing greater flexibility in playstyle) has been a bit of a turn-off.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

ACG, but when that came out I was just starting PFS and had only infrequent home games. So I had most the core classes to try in this shiny new campaign.

A few years later now and I've enjoyed playing most the core classes. Now I'm interested in all the new classes and am challenging myself to build interesting characters from these new books.

Early on in PFS I challenged myself not to make the same class or the same mechanical concept twice. I feel like i'm running out of general mechanical concepts but I still have many classes left to play and I'm excited to keep trying them out.

The Exchange 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

After having read this thread, I need to admit that I was unaware that a "new class" had been introduced recently. The "Shifter"? ah, well. I'm sure I'll get to see some of them around the table in the months to come. In a year or so there will be enough people who actually know how they work to "correct" the players who tend to only read about half the text on abilities and ... get creative with what their PC can do.

When did I stop caring about new classes? After the APG I think... At times, some of the Archetypes for the older classes have got my interest 0 but mostly I just stick to the older classes, played in ways that most people find novel or unique...


For Me, Core Rulebook + Advanced Player's Guide + Pathfinder Unchained + Inner Sea World Guide is perfect.

Pathfinder unchained just to replace the 4 clases it covers - not because the optional rules aren't good but for a new GM like me, it's easier to stick to the rules that all the published material assumes.

I feel like the Advanced Class Guide doesn't have even a single class that fills a new conceptual niche - they are just mechanical varients of existing concepts.

Occult looks seriously cool but they are very complex classes, I think it would be great to play an all occult campaign, in terms of pcs, enemies & themes. But I wouldn't throw them in a vanilla game because of complexity overload.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

On a related note - does no-one use the themed expansion books to run themed campaigns ?

The Core + 1 idea ?

Like you would run a horror campaign using just Horror adventures & Core (or maybe APG), with the themed archetypes, some of the optional rules, the right blend of monsters etc.

Or you would do a wilderness campaign, using the new shifter, new archetypes & weather rules etc ?

There seems to be this default assumption that every new book is just thrown into a giant blender with ALL the existing material, preferably via an online rules resource that strips it completely of any context & then if it comes up short mechanically, derided ?

I understand that organised play kind of encourages this but outside of that, is it a even a sensible or intended way to use new material ?

Dark Archive 4/5 5/5

Yep. I only really got heavy into Pathfinder, um, a bit after ACG, I think? I should note I'm a fan of wierd stuff, but not overly complicated things, and that I mostly play PFS
Occult Adventures had a bunch of over-complicated classes with point based mechanics, and while only one of them was really out and out bad, they didn't really offer much new.

Occult Adventures:
Kineticists, Last Airbender styled 3.5 warlocks, burn is dumb and overly complicated

Medium, I have never seen anyone play a medium, and my feeble attempts at figuring out how I would play one amounted to nothing. A bit like the 3.5 chameleon prestige class, but spoopy and with another stupid point based mechanic. It isn't as good as the classes it imitates, and it's abilities are a huge hassle in organized play.

Mesmerist, cool thematic abilities, but unlimited use (single target) no save -2 to will saves that builds up from there is a bit too good, I think.

Occultist, pretty fun, a nice way to make a magic using gish type that isn't Dex based, another point based mechanic which the GM will have to hope you aren't lying to him about.

Psychic, eh, basically a variant sorcerer, probably the best enchantment specialist in the game, another point based mechanic

Spiritualist, spoopy ghost summoner, except it's an outsider because it can't be undead, not a whole lot of options, but not terrible, and certainly the simplest class in the book


Ultimate Intrigue had the vigilante, which is pretty decent, and has the most options of any class in the game, but if you play PFS you have to ignore half of the class.

The shifter sounded cool in theory, but so did the kineticist, the medium, the metamorph alchemist, and a bunch of things in player companions that ended up disappointing me. I came in expecting to be disappointed, and unfortunately my expectations were met. Play the shifter if you want to be better at melee than a druid who focuses on it, until they hit lv 6 (not taking into account the druid's easy access to buffs and a flanking buddy).

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

pjrogers wrote:
Spacelard wrote:
As a player it is really a non-issue. All you need to know is exactly how your class works inside and out...let's have more!

Unfortunately, I'm not sure that all players take the time to learn how their classes work "inside and out," and with ever more options, they have less time to focus on any specific class or build.

I want to be clear that I'm not tossing out a blanket generalization about all or most players. However, I seem to encounter this sort of thing enough that it feels like a problem to me.

Ditto. I find far too many players who simply do not understand how their character works. And many of the broken characters I see come from this. I am not sure of the percentage, as they tend to stand out more than those that do know, but I think it is enough of a problem that I cannot, as a GM, trust the players to know how their characters work. Thus I have to, and the more classes come out the more work my job becomes. I definitely reached class glut with the Occult Adventures. I haven't even bothered to look at anything past that.

Quite frankly, I am tired of the rules glut and ready for a reboot. I have recently lost a great deal of interest if PFS in favor of SFS.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

You don't need to know beforehand, if they do something that smells fishy ask to see their source to read how it works.

Sovereign Court 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Reminds me of a old joke....

Guard at the border stops a car says to the driver:

"Papers!" and hold his hand out.

After glancing at the documents for a few minutes he looks up and says...

"Arrest this man! His papers are in order!"

Clearly anyone who has no mistakes in his paperwork CAN'T be honest...


I think that, in general, the further you get from the core rulebook, the more 'niche' the classes become. That of course doesn't mean weirder or less interesting, but they are likely to appeal to fewer people, or often those looking for a much more specific type of character.

Grand Lodge 3/5

Honestly- YES. At this point, I have 18 PFS characters- one Core, one Emerald Spire, and three "level 1's". There are builds i want to try out, but any more new classes just muddle what i could possibly do.

from here on, it'll be hard for Paizo Dev's to come up with new classes that don't already exist, or have an archetype equivalent; or could be considered a hybrid of two core/base classes.

I wish they'd make archetypes for the Samurai and Ninja... those two have been near forgotten since Ultimate Combat.

3/5 **** Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro

thejeff wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
thejeff wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
lucklesshero wrote:


But looking back at the History of D&D...it seems to me bigger doesn't always equal better or in TSR's case...even profitable. I know Mrs. Stevens is all to familiar with the not too distance past. Still, the state/bloat of our current game sometimes make me nervous.

I like this game...don't want it or the people who create it to go away. But sometimes the way forward...may be to take a few steps back.
Just a thought..

That's not the right history. TSR's problems primarily resulted from it just being ineptly run just like WoTC early on. Only lesson that can be learned is that just because you made something popular doesn't mean you can run a company.

True. I do think however that the history of TSR does show that rules bloat isn't necessary to make an RPG profitable.

Or at least wasn't. The marketplace may well be too different today to draw any real lessons from the first decades of RPGs.

I'm not sure you remember that era correctly because the rules for at least the most popular edition in existence got kind of absurd in a way I wish most editions followed.
I remember the bloat starting somewhere in 2E and I wasn't paying much attention by about midway through its lifespan. First edition really didn't have nearly the absurdity that came later.

No it started a bit earlier than that. A lot of weird interoffice politics and stuff resulted in someone just effectively having free reign to an entire edition of D&D for a good while and it was amazing. Mechanically it was a mess (ie. Classes that start at -48,000 XP) but conceptually Paizo still kind of fails in comparison to early D&D.

EDIT:
Another fun example. Early D&D had five shaman classes...

5/5 5/55/55/5

Ninja has a couple of archetypes. They started cropping up after the unchained rogue put doubt on ninjas taking rogue archetypes.

Scarab Sages 4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Ninja has a couple of archetypes. They started cropping up after the unchained rogue put doubt on ninjas taking rogue archetypes.

Samurai also got the Yojimbo sometime since ACG came out.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Everyone knows that wizards are all actually ninjas.

Think about it. They can fly, walk on water, turn invisible, create clouds of smoke...

Anyone who uses the ninja class to try and play a ninja are doing it wrong.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The APG Summoner still exists.

Some house-ruling is going to be required if you want both the pre-Unchained and Unchained Summoner without having the former overpower the latter (not so much a problem of having the former overpower everything else). Something like use the Unchained Summoner chassis and spell list, and allow both the pre-Unchained and Unchained Summoner Eidolons, but using Unchained Summoner Evolution costs (this has also been recommended elsewhere on these Messageboards, although I don't remember how to find the thread).

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

But now if you’re like me and want to build an Angel Summoner who actually summons an angel, instead of a vaguely angel-shaped ball of protoplasm the you have the Unchained Summoner.

{. . .}
You can even make a tentacled aberration if you like.

Only if you are Non-Lawful and Non-Good.

Haywire build generator wrote:
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I, for one, have NOT stopped caring about new classes. MOAR!

Experiment more! More weirdness! Break molds! Step back from this long trend of increasing rigidity in both concept and mechanics! Stop kowtowing to the cheesemongers and whining-enthusiasts, and be CREATIVE again!

I agree, except for one thing: I love me some good cheese, provided it doesn't stink up the place so much nobody else can enjoy it.

I don't need cheese to stink up the place . . . .

BigNorseWolf wrote:
{Megapost}

Okay, I'll do my own, but also including the equivalent of Phase I, which gets a split rating depending upon how attached you are to sacred cows.

Core Classes (CRB) (6.5/11 = 59% good, or 8.5/11 = 77% good if sacred cows must be worshipped)

Barbarian: Quite good off the bat except for the potential drop dead upon KO problem, and the Totem Barbarian mess. A hit overall.
Bard: Quite good off the bat, except for the irritating dead level at 4th level. Loads of decent archetypes. A hit.
Cleric: Powerful but boring, and using the D&D 3.5 design without major overhaul really limited the design space for even the best-intentioned archetypes. A miss (but hit if sacred cows must be worshipped).
Druid: Reasonably easy to make something both capable and interesting. A hit.
Fighter: Initially hard to get this to do its job and still be able to do any side jobs. And what's up with 2 skill points per level?! On the other hand, it was a major improvement over D&D 3.5. Half a hit.
Monk: Initially really hard to get this to its job, although archetypes have made it workable; the concept really fits a prestige class, not a base class. A miss, even if required to worship sacred cows.
Paladin: Should have taken the opportunity to make this a set of prestige classes (the concept REALLY doesn't fit a base class) for various alignments, rather than continuing to worship the sacred cow of only Lawful Good and Chaotic Evil. A miss (but hit if sacred cows must be worshipped).
Ranger: Overall a good idea, although needs so rebalancing of the various Combat Styles (some of them just plain have more options than others). A hit
Rogue: Really hard to get this to do its job. A miss.
Sorcerer: Great idea, but the Bloodline (especially Wildblooded Bloodline) organization and internal balance is a total mess -- really need a Sorcerer Unchained, not so much to fix the class itself as to fix the Bloodlines. Overall a hit.
Wizard: Powerful but with a bit of tendency to be boring. Most archetypes were terrible until fairly recently, at which point some pretty good ones have appeared. Overall a hit.

Base Classes (APG + UM) (6/8 = 75% good)

Alchemist: Cool concept and pretty good execution, although dangerous to the user; good archetypes. A hit.
Cavalier: Seems like this should have been a Fighter archetype. Needs an Unchained version. Got a few decent archetypes. Half a hit.
Gunslinger: Dip bait, but otherwise powerful but boring. A miss.
Inquisitor: Good chassis (and good archetypes), but conceptually should have been a prestige class (but save the chassis for something else). Half a hit.
Magus: Good chassis, good concept, and good archetypes (with a few notable exceptions). A hit.
Oracle: You can make SO MUCH stuff with this. A hit.
Summoner: Cool idea, although with some weirdness in the execution that required later adjustment. A hit.
Witch: You can make a lot out of this too. A hit.

Alternate Classes (APG + UC) (0/3 = 0% good)

Antipaladin: See Paladin under Core Classes. A miss.
Ninja: See Rogue under Core Classes, although not quite as bad (but on the other hand, almost no archetype support). A miss.
Samurai: See Cavalier under Base Classes, but almost no archetype support. A miss.

Hybrid Classes (ACG + ACO) (6.5/10 = 65% good)

Arcanist: Now THIS is what a Wizard should have been! A hit.
Bloodrager: A good alternative to the Magus (see Base Classes) if you want to shift the focus to the Martial. A hit.
Brawler: Seems rather lacking, and lacking in support, even though conceptually decent. A miss.
Hunter: Overall a decent concept, despite some serious bugs at initial release. A hit.
Investigator: You want somebody that can do the Rogue's job and do nearly all of it better? Right here. A hit.
Shaman: I shouldn't need to spend weeks on the operating manual to figure this thing out. A miss.
Skald: See Bard under Core. And it even has that irritating bald spot at 4th level filled in. A hit.
Slayer: You want somebody that can do the Rogue's job without needing to be a spellcaster and do it better? Right here. A bit bland, and has a couple of annoying bugs, but a hit overall.
Swashbuckler: Dip bait, but otherwise powerful -- er, no, weak -- but boring. A miss.
Warpriest: Good idea, part of what the Cleric should have been, with some Inquisitor chassis mixed in. Unfortunately gets its toes stepped on by the Cleric and Inquisitor. Half a hit.

Overhauled Classes (Unchained + Weapon Master's Handbook + Armor Master's Handbook) (3/5 = 60% good)

Stealth-Unchained Fighter (Weapon Master's Handbook + Armor Master's Handbook): Now the Fighter works, and is not too shabby, although a lot of old archetypes should have been updated for this but weren't. A hit.
Unchained Barbarian: Mostly a sidegrade, but noticeably nerfed, and what's up with Stances on a Rager?! Gets half-credit for fixing the KO drop-dead problem. Half a hit.
Unchained Monk: See Monk under Core (including needing to be a prestige class instead of a base class), but gets credit for being competent without needing an archetype, but then gets demerits for not being compatible with any of the old archetypes, and for having a bad Will Save. Half a hit.
Unchained Rogue: Tried to rescue the Rogue, but you have to really know what you're doing to pull this through. Part of knowing what you're doing: If you DON'T have a party that will support a Rogue, either use the Eldritch Scoundrel archetype (which is actually from after Unchained) or use this as dip bait and go Arcane Trickster (which, however, has other attractive dip baits). A miss.
Unchained Summoner: Made some needed adjustments to the Summoner, but went too far in nerfing it and in limiting options, and for having imbalance within the Eidolon options. Half a hit.

Occult Classes (3.5/6 = 58% good)

Kineticist: Cool idea, but clunky execution, and the instruction manual is WAY too long. Half a hit.
Medium: Cool idea, but clunky execution. Hey, where's our Harrowed Medium?! Half a hit.
Mesmerist: Sort of an anti-Bard. Bold Stare seems overpowered (you don't even get to realize it is on you, with no save?), but overall a hit.
Occultist: Seems to me like the instruction manual is too long. Half a hit.
Psychic: Some cool ideas, but the instruction manual is too long. Half a hit.
Spiritualist: Sort of like a pre-Unchained Summoner, but with a worse set of options and a longer instruction manual for what you get, except that the Eidolon-equivalent can go through stuff. Half a hit.

Intrigue Classes (Ultimate Intrigue) (0.5/1 = 50% good)

Vigilante: Here's another class that can do the Rogue's job better than the Rogue, and do a fair number of other jobs. On the other hand, while Vigilante Specialization was a cool idea for making multiple classes in one, the idea got dropped for almost all of the archetypes and hasn't been seen since. Also gets demerits for coming out of the box with one of the worst archetypes ever, the Brute. Half a hit.

Wild classes (Ultimate Wilderness) (Rating Deferred)

Shifter: Have yet to see this -- will have to rate it later.

So overall, the good hit ratio hasn't changed greatly, although for a while it looked like it was getting worse simply due to the massive amount of errors in the Advanced Class Guide before it finally got errata'd -- it is now more or less in the middle of the pack.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, Texas—Houston

I tuned out midway through Occult Adventures. I have multiple kineticists, mediums, and pyschics in PFS, but my eyes still glaze over every time I try to figure out occultist focus powers. Never bothered with the spiritualist either.

Silver Crusade 2/5 RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I will never... Ever give up on new classes and archetypes and other options. The most fun part of the game for me is making new characters with new mechanics, and so any new class is just nothing but excitement for me. Shifter is a great example... While seemingly everyone else has been complaining about the shifter, I've been busy making my first character with it. She's gonna be awesome. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Disclaimer: I’ve only ever dabbled in PFS games officially, but those rules have been convenient for character generation and such for a few games even outside of the organized play campaign.

I’m the sort of person who, if I were a Pathfinder character myself and had the ability scores for it, would definitely be a wizard, just for the sheer wonder of thinking about all the wacky things magic can do. By extension, that includes imagining all the different sorts of ways narrower specializations might turn out: I like the idea that a laser focus on enchantment might produce particular skills (a mesmerist rather than an enchanter wizard), or blending magic and swordplay (a magus rather than an eldritch knight), and so on.

In my ideal world, that would actually probably work out to an all but classless system with various special abilities available to be bolted onto the chassis of 4/6/9 –level casters, all of them with some sort of at-will powers like the witch class’ hexes. (Perversely, I haven’t actually tried a witch yet because I’m too fond of the wizard spell list. Whither my excellent prismatic spray?) That’s not the sort of game Pathfinder is, though, so I don’t mind an ever-expanding array of classes and archetypes. (I’m still looking for my ideal sneaky warpriest.)

That said, mainly (I think) because I’m only in a couple of ongoing games at an easy pace, part of the fun of the hobby, for me, is tinkering with other characters I might want to play someday. I can imagine how draining it would be to try to keep up with quite everything because one’s a GM for an open table in real life who might have to cope with whatever this week’s group brings to the game, compared to, say, play-by-post games or campaign-mode for sanctioned adventure paths with a regular group.

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Qunnessaa wrote:
(Perversely, I haven’t actually tried a witch yet because I’m too fond of the wizard spell list. Whither my excellent prismatic spray?)

The aurora patron has you covered, as it happens. It's even PFS-legal. ^_^

Shadow Lodge 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Occult classes are simply a mess. I love occult flavor and despise the "x-man" feel of psionics and its descendants; but Occult simply failed. Poor editing, outright ignoring playtest data, and lack of identity plagued the classes. Mesmerist and Occultist, and an archetype or two, are the only worthwhile additions from the book; even if the the Occultist is the only one whose design reaches the realm of "good."

I had 0 interest in Ultimate Intrigue, mainly because the flavor didn't interest me initially, but the Vigilante has honestly won me over by being a solid martial class, that can contribute out of combat. I've taken to affectionately calling it the Unchained Fighter, and stand by the assertion that Vigilante is what Fighter should have been all along.

Horror Adventures and Adventurer's Guide had no new base classes, but both greatly disappointed me in their lack of usable content, and over reliance on reprints.

Which brings us to Ultimate Wilderness. I had high hopes for the Shifter, which have since been dashed by what is, quite possibly, the worst class since Samurai. Supported by more reprints, and only a smattering of usable content.

I loved Ultimate Intrigue, and was excited in the direction Paizo seemed to be going in. But the last three books have effectively killed all interest I had in new Pathfinder content from Paizo.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Disk Elemental wrote:

Occult classes are simply a mess. I love occult flavor and despise the "x-man" feel of psionics and its descendants; but Occult simply failed. Poor editing, outright ignoring playtest data, and lack of identity plagued the classes. Mesmerist and Occultist, and an archetype or two, are the only worthwhile additions from the book; even if the the Occultist is the only one whose design reaches the realm of "good."

I <3 Kineticist, I <3 its flavour, and I <3 its execution. Haters can hate, but the Kineticist was a triumph of design. I disagreed with Burn quite a bit, but playing a Kineticist I found that it's a fun balancing mechanic that really carries that feel of actual exertion, and Gathering Power is always a dramatic way to open a battle.

I think the Spiritualist is really fun, and its archetypes are great.

My players in Jade Regent love the Kami medium. I like the Medium quite a bit, and while I wish we could see the Harrowed Medium in print, I'm very aware that the print footprint of such a class made it untenable for final publication.

I think the Psychic is derivative of the Sorcerer, but that's hardly a sin.

Occultist has tricky mechanics to learn, but is a solid class.

Mesmerist is fantastic mind-controller, a far more flavorful conversion of 3.5's beguiler.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I <3 Kineticist, I <3 its flavour, and I <3 its execution. Haters can hate, but the Kineticist was a triumph of design. I disagreed with Burn quite a bit, but playing a Kineticist I found that it's a fun balancing mechanic that really carries that feel of actual exertion, and Gathering Power is always a dramatic way to open a battle.

Kineticist was gifted top notch flavor by AtLA and similar shows, then proceeded to fail to apply it to create a fun and effective class.

Less than half the blasts are usable for an adventurer in a varied campaign.
The Burn mechanic is overly punitive.
The class lacks out of combat utility from the majority of elements.
The class has no itemization support.
The class is out damaged by longbows.
Kineticist is a monument to failure, and is, by far, the biggest disappointment Paizo has ever printed. I'm just glad N.Jolly's content exists, so that the kineticist can live up to its promise in home games.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I think the Spiritualist is really fun, and its archetypes are great.

Spiritualist is Summoner, but worse. I too like the flavor, as I said, all the Occult classes have good flavor, but this class has no reason to exist, and brings nothing new to the table. It's the class I most often forget exists until I'm reminded of it, and then I inevitably forget it after finishing the conversation.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I like the Medium quite a bit, and while I wish we could see the Harrowed Medium in print, I'm very aware that the print footprint of such a class made it untenable for final publication.

Medium was a victim of its own ambition. The class tried to do everything, and had an actual plan to do it, but flew too close to the sun. What came crashing down to earth is a majorly unfocused class, that lacks the features required to allow it to make the most use of its potential. It's telling when a class prided on versatility's sole redeeming build is merely another flavor of bonus-stacking machine gun archer. I'd love to see a Harrow Medium at some point, but the current medium is merely a reminder of the squandered potential.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
I think the Psychic is derivative of the Sorcerer, but that's hardly a sin.

That's a sin when we're asked to pay money for a cheap reskin. I enjoy playing my Psychic, but I've found little difference between her and an equivalent level Sorcerer.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Mesmerist is fantastic mind-controller, a far more flavorful conversion of 3.5's beguier

Personally, I find save-or-suck casting to be the least interesting type of casting, and Mesmerist has done nothing to really elevate the art or make it more dynamic. The tricks and touch treatment are neat, but don't particularly tie into the main gimmick of the class; which is hoping your enemy rolls low. Had the Mesmerist chasis been tied to a better spell list, it may have stood next to Occultist, as is, it's merely passable.

51 to 100 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Have you stopped caring about new classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.