Have you stopped caring about new classes?


Pathfinder Society

101 to 150 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As a con class capable of mitigating the cost with actions, the burn mechanic isn't really as bad as people believe it is.

A character can choose to specialize in one element or spread their power across multiple elements. If damage is what you want you have great damage with a fire/earth kineticist. If utility is what you want Aether and Water are good choices. If you want to hybridize you get a decent mix of both.

The out-damaged by longbows argument is so played out that I'm not even going to begin to get into it. Suffice to say, it's a disingenuous argument. That ignores a lot of what the kineticist can do.

As far as monuments go, I wouldn't dedicate it to failure until you play one for a few levels. My telekineticist is a good boy, and I'm proud of him for being able to lift such heavy things.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

The kineticst is a "martial" character space, thus yes it's OOC utility is low. It wasn't meant to be one, but it has more than the barb often will.

Burn mechanic works fine, your good blasts are usable all day with your gather power, burn lets you go really big sometimes when needed.

I'm not sure what you mean about half the blasts are unusable.

The class doesn't need itemization support, it doesn't need a patch to make it do it's thing. Not being "mandated" to buy something like the gloves of dueling is a plus not a minus.

longbows out damage everything, So not the most meaningful of statements. The kineticist dishes out good DPR, way enough to contribute as a useful member for games flowing the assumed game difficulty. If you have every fight as a CR +6 fight then sure it can't keep up as well as a paladin but then again most classes can't either.

Now I'm not saying it's not their biggest failure to you or that you shouldn't think that way. Just that your accusations for why it's bad don't seem like actual things that hold up for a normal game.


Vidmaster7 wrote:
UnArcaneElection wrote:

I like some of the new classes and archetypes, but I'd also like to see class and archetype compression at the same time as new ones come out. Figure out what different classes can be streamlined into archetypes of one class, and what different archetypes (including those from class streamlining) can be streamlined into one archetype, in both cases by making different choices into class talents. Do this simultaneously with releasing new choices. That way, you can get more choices into a smaller space. Of course, I wouldn't at all mind a teamup between Paizo and Green Ronin to make an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds . . . .

Heh I'm actually kind of working on that.

Mnm 2e? I love Mnm 2e! Close to Pathfinder, but no "stronger you are the better you are at fighting".

Scarab Sages 3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:


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.

This is the only one you're really wrong in, the Spiritualist brings some fun stuff and is only bad if played like a Summoner.

Incorporeal for one is awesome because the Phantom is not a fighting pet, it is a support pet. Lust makes it a tank, Despair makes it a debuffer - if you go for damage then you're going to have a bad time.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
As a con class capable of mitigating the cost with actions, the burn mechanic isn't really as bad as people believe it is.

-1 Con Modifier hurts no matter how high your Con is.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
A character can choose to specialize in one element or spread their power across multiple elements.

At level 7.

You get your second element at level 7. Until then, you're stuck with one blast, from one element. Which means whatever blast you pick at first level must be generally useful, lest you're rolling the dice and praying you don't run into a scary enemy that's immune to your only form of attack. It's a bad mechanic that feels as if it's been designed to trick players into shooting themselves in the foot.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
The out-damaged by longbows argument is so played out that I'm not even going to begin to get into it. Suffice to say, it's a disingenuous argument. That ignores a lot of what the kineticist can do.

Kineticist's out of combat utility is so situational it's hardly worth mentioning. The class is primarily a martial one, therefore I don't feel it's "disingenuous" to compare the Kineticist to other ranged martials, and expect it to be able to perform on a similar level.

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
As far as monuments go, I wouldn't dedicate it to failure until you play one for a few levels.

I played one until tenth level. I've seen one played up until fifteenth. I'm sick of the constant refrain from Kineticist apologists "Oh you just need to play the class", as if anyone who has a different assessment of the class than them must be ignorant. It's tiring, and more than a little insulting.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Angel Hunter D wrote:
Incorporeal for one is awesome because the Phantom is not a fighting pet, it is a support pet. Lust makes it a tank, Despair makes it a debuffer - if you go for damage then you're going to have a bad time.

The Eidolon can support far better than the Phantom can, and the Summoner has a vastly superior spell list to boot. When comparing the two, there's no contest.

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

Disk Elemental wrote:

I played one until tenth level. I've seen one played up until fifteenth. I'm sick of the constant refrain from Kineticist apologists "Oh you just need to play the class", as if anyone who has a different assessment of the class than them must be ignorant. It's tiring, and more than a little insulting.

I mean your major complaint is one that most classes have issues with.

Quote:

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.

Save vs suck isn't the main gimmick. It is a gimmick of the class but its completely disingenuous to say that it is the main.

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

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

That still requires you to know the class well enough to know when something is fishy.

1/5

Bill Baldwin wrote:
Thomas Hutchins wrote:
You don't need to know beforehand, if they do something that smells fishy ask to see their source to read how it works.
That still requires you to know the class well enough to know when something is fishy.

You don't need to know a class if something smells odd. If someone at lv1 is doing +10 for 1d12+15 damage that should be pretty clearly fishy as it's really high numbers for a lv1. (though this is legal it's an example of something fishy) But this example doesn't even require you to know which class is being played to have a feeling that something is off.

If what they are doing seems reasonable and normal then even if they are wrong it's not really disruptive and not the worst if it doesn't get caught immediately. So you can let a GM or other player that does know the class to review the character after the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm sort of split. In many cases i enjoy individual mechanics (Hunter animal focus, Occultist resonance, Medium Haunt Channeler), and often i like the concepts new classes present, but all too often I don't feel like much was added.

The vigilante especially. I WANT to like it. My only contribution to pathfinder homebrew has been a vigilante archetype. But i cant help but feel a separate progression of social talents, sort of like Mythic Ranks, would have worked better.

I do like the kintecist. Being able to blast all day is fun, and i appreciate it even more now that I've come to see it as a preview for Starfinder. I'm still hoping they'll turn out an archetype or alternate class that lets me play a "passively buff all day" that was the 3.5 dragon shaman.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

2 people marked this as a favorite.

If you were playing in the right home game, you could make a shifter shifter shifter. Race from Eberron, base class from Pathfinder, prestige class from 3rd.

Last book I learned the classes from was ACG. Brawler might by favorite class, despite only having made one. Occult, Intrigue, and Wilderness I haven't read through completely and the class mechanics are relatively unknown. I just don't have the time anymore between keeping up with PFS, home games, and now Starfinder. Pathfinder is one of my favorite hobbies, but it's not my only hobby. I'll read through a class and build one when it interests me--these newest ones haven't.

Silver Crusade 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

What makes Pathfinder great is the wide array of content and options but it is also something that takes away from the game in a number of ways.

I don't ever feel the need to understand how every character class or character option works. Players are expected to understand how their character works. If something seems off or feels funny to me then I inquire. Same goes for things that are totally stomping a scenario that I thought would be challenging. If the player can't provide me the rules so that I can read them and see how things work together I don't allow it to be used until those rules can be provided for me. If things check out, I get over it and continue to run the scenario to the best of my ability while following what the scenario calls for in tactics as written. If it doesn't check out then I let them know. If there is a disagreement I defer to the VC or VL and let them make a call.

With the excepting of deferring to a VC or VL, I operate this way in home games as well. I don't know to know how everything works ahead of time, I just need a general idea of how what I am doing/running works. The rest will sort itself out.

My biggest complain with other systems is the lack of options to be honest. Bloat gets old but feeling restricted in what I can do at all annoys me enough to turn down an experience/game all together. This is one of my complaints with the current edition of D&D. I feel like it doesn't offer nearly enough options and out of those options nearly all of them are traditional high fantasy/classic D&D troupes. I don't like that concept restriction enough that I don't play D&D which is a shame because they way they handle a few things is really nice and balanced.

Its also why I don't like game systems like savage worlds (on top of others). Savage worlds has just enough options to trick you into thinking there are a lot of options but not enough to actually give you options outside of a handful of stereotypical troupes.

Silver Crusade 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So it occurs to me that I've been following this thread, and even commented on something that someone else said, but never gave my own full answer to the original question. My answer is that I've always had trouble keeping up with the new classes.

When I first started playing Pathfinder (after a 20ish year hiatus from table top RPGs), it was season 3 of PFS, and Ultimate Combat was the most recent hardcover. I bought the Core Rulebook and was a little overwhelmed just learning the basic game and core classes.

I picked up the Advanced Players Guide almost immediately, as everyone I knew considered that the "other core book" that everyone should have. To me, Core and APG are the defining books of the game. If the PFS Core Campaign had included APG, I'd be all over it. As is, it's severely lacking in essential elements of the game, IMHO. But even though my early characters used stuff from the APG (Raging Vitality feat and rage powers on my barbarian, a subdomain for my cleric, a couple of spells for the bard and cleric), they were Core classes, and I didn't get around to reading the APG class descriptions for quite some time.

I eventually read the magus description when I GMed a PFS adventure that had one as the BBEG (you all know which one). Same with the alchemist. I still don't think I've ever read the gunslinger or samurai description, or the summoner, for that matter. Mostly, I read class descriptions when I become curious enough about them to consider making one as my next PC. And at this point, I have PCs using most of the Core and APG classes, but very few others.

When I started GMing a Rise of the Runelords campaign for people who were experienced RPGers, but new to Pathfinder specifically, we stuck to Core and APG, only adding little bits and pieces of things from other books very rarely. And there was about a year and a half there when I stopped playing PFS and focused only on that campaign. That's when ACG, Unchained, and Occult Adventures were published.

Upon my return, I went to Gen Con, then volunteered to GM an adventure locally that I'd played there (7-01 Between the Lines). That adventure actually asks the GM to change things based on the party make up (counting how many divine casters, arcane casters, full BAB classes, etc), and with that first group I GMed for, I literally didn't know what 5 of the 6 PCs at my table were in that regard. I had no idea what type of caster a shaman is, or what the investigator or kineticist counted as for those categories. For that matter, I still don't know those three classes well enough to answer that. If I hadn't already signed up to GM the same adventure again at a small local convention a week later, and felt bad backing out at the last minute, I would have never GMed for PFS again. But my second time GMing it went much better, with most of the PCs being older classes that I knew, so I realized my one tough table was a fluke.

I still only read class descriptions (and buy books, for that matter) when something catches my eye that I'd like to try out on a PC. I have a warpriest and hunter in PFS, and I think I've read most of the other ACG classes once, but I didn't fully absorb and remember most of them. From the occult book, I have a medium and occultist in PFS (actually two mediums, but one's just a single level dip), and again, I skimmed the other classes, but haven't fully groked them yet. I have yet to even look at the books containing the vigilante or shifter, let alone read the full class descriptions.

TL;DR: I only read up on a new class when I'm looking to make a new PC and that class sounds interesting. I don't get excited about all the new classes, but I don't dismiss them out of hand, either. But I do get annoyed having to GM for them all in PFS, since I have no idea how people's PCs work sometimes.

Silver Crusade 4/5

6 people marked this as a favorite.

Bruno Breakbone, a handsome and beautiful tetori, cares about all new classes.

Bruno care so much that he give them all welcoming hug.

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

Fromper wrote:

Upon my return, I went to Gen Con, then volunteered to GM an adventure locally that I'd played there (7-01 Between the Lines). That adventure actually asks the GM to change things based on the party make up (counting how many divine casters, arcane casters, full BAB classes, etc), and with that first group I GMed for, I literally didn't know what 5 of the 6 PCs at my table were in that regard. I had no idea what type of caster a shaman is, or what the investigator or kineticist counted as for those categories. For that matter, I still don't know those three classes well enough to answer that. If I hadn't already signed up to GM the same adventure again at a small local convention a week later, and felt bad backing out at the last minute, I would have never GMed for PFS again. But my second time GMing it went much better, with most of the PCs being older classes that I knew, so I realized my one tough table was a fluke.

Wait how is it that something that takes all of five minutes to do caused that much of a problem? Like I can see that being an issue in another scenario but that one goes beyond classes.


Some classes need a LOT more than 5 minutes to figure out. Magus Spell Combat and Spellstrike need a whole miniguide to them; the Shaman and especially Kineticist practically require you to have a Ph. D. in Pathfinder, and the other Occult classes are pretty hairy too.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I didn't find the shaman that difficult. now the occultist yikes.

1/5 5/5

Kineticist wasn't too bad.

Occultist/Magus/Alchemist/Wizard/Druid/Inquisitor/Cavalier/Summoner(either version)/Hunter/Monk(either version) have always kind of sat there in this 'yeah, that's too complicated for what I want to play'.

As I've played a bit more I've softened a bit but still, there's too many bells and whistles on some.

'Pet classes' drive me buggy because it's effectively playing two characters to get full effectiveness out of the class.

...and it's kind of sad that I may have to start playing a 'pet class' (Druid) to get the functionality of form-shifting I was expecting from a newer class (Shifter)...


Magus and cavalier don't bother me. I don't care much for animal companions igther. Seems like to much to keep track of fortunately most classes have alternatives (druid can get domain rangers teamwork stuff etc.). If I did a summoner it would probably be the synthesis one.

1/5 5/5

Vidmaster7 wrote:
If I did a summoner it would probably be the synthesis one.

...which is explicitly and unequivocally BANNED in PFS play.

For clearly and perfectly understandable reasons, but it's the only Summoner I'd play, unless I was stuck at a convention at a table and didn't have any of my characters with me and the only pregen the VO/GM had was a Summoner.


Eh I don't do PFS.

1/5 5/5

...you do realize that this is a Pathfinder Society Roleplaying Guild thread, right?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I did once I saw the stars on people names. To be fair though I don't see how the question is just related to PFS.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Because the question isn't exactly the same for PFS as it is for home games, who should get their own topic/debate. PFS exclusive it is because of where the topic is.

1/5 5/5

Fair enough.

I can see where you're coming from.


Philippe Lam wrote:
Because the question isn't exactly the same for PFS as it is for home games, who should get their own topic/debate. PFS exclusive it is because of where the topic is.

So its more of a new classes to PFS then just pathfinder as a whole? so I know some archetypes aren't in PFS are all the classes not in PFS?


No, I don't think there are enough classes since there are still niches and concepts yet unexplored by the available classes. So I still care. It is just a matter of finding those niches and machanically constructing a class to fit them.

Shadow Lodge 1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Hythlodeus wrote:
No, I don't think there are enough classes since there are still niches and concepts yet unexplored by the available classes. So I still care. It is just a matter of finding those niches and machanically constructing a class to fit them.

I disagree with this. I think too many classes cover the same ground.

Take the concept of a swashbuckler. To make one you can use the swashbuckler class. Or make a duelist or a Cavilier or figher or rogue with some kind of archetypes combos and come up with the same thing concept wise.

You can make members of classes that play totally differently. For example, I have two old school Summoners (one retired). The first is the Combat Eidolon Type which got the class hated. The other, the Summoner counts on summons and when it's suggested the 12 int Eidolon should be fighting (she's very much a skilldolon) his reaction is "and endanger my wife and the mother of my children."

I have a lotus geisha bard who worships Kurgess and is Golarion's first cheerleader. And she is not Tien and neither is my kitsume. I had a Vigilante before there were Vigilantes.

So the idea that we need a million more classes to support new ideas is not one I agree with at all. And I think yes, there are probably too many. Skald is pointless. Spiritualist could be a Summoner/unchained archetype. Swashbuckler sucks and can be done already and I could definitely keep going, but the fact is, you can create pretty much anything you want.

And if you're not new to the game, it's not my fault you don't use all your options or have bought into the mentality that what I just described is somehow reskinning.

So yes, I don't usually pay more than passing attention to the newer classes.

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

Kerney wrote:
Hythlodeus wrote:
No, I don't think there are enough classes since there are still niches and concepts yet unexplored by the available classes. So I still care. It is just a matter of finding those niches and machanically constructing a class to fit them.

I disagree with this. I think too many classes cover the same ground.

Take the concept of a swashbuckler. To make one you can use the swashbuckler class. Or make a duelist or a Cavilier or figher or rogue with some kind of archetypes combos and come up with the same thing concept wise.

So your solution is a mediocre prestige class, a class whose central gimmick is heavy mounted combat, the mediocre fighter, and a rogue. Only one of those is really viable. Sure the swashbuckler is bad but your options aren't better.

Shadow Lodge 1/5

There is a Cavilier archetype that works better as a swashbuckler than the swashbuckler and I'm sure there are a million people who can name it. But right now it's Sunday morning and I was up til 4am, (and I'm probably a little b#++@y, sorry) so I'll let someone else look it up.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The Courser archetype for Swashbuckler looks really fun.

Silver Crusade 4/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
MadScientistWorking wrote:
Fromper wrote:

Upon my return, I went to Gen Con, then volunteered to GM an adventure locally that I'd played there (7-01 Between the Lines). That adventure actually asks the GM to change things based on the party make up (counting how many divine casters, arcane casters, full BAB classes, etc), and with that first group I GMed for, I literally didn't know what 5 of the 6 PCs at my table were in that regard. I had no idea what type of caster a shaman is, or what the investigator or kineticist counted as for those categories. For that matter, I still don't know those three classes well enough to answer that. If I hadn't already signed up to GM the same adventure again at a small local convention a week later, and felt bad backing out at the last minute, I would have never GMed for PFS again. But my second time GMing it went much better, with most of the PCs being older classes that I knew, so I realized my one tough table was a fluke.

Wait how is it that something that takes all of five minutes to do caused that much of a problem? Like I can see that being an issue in another scenario but that one goes beyond classes.

To put this in context, I was GMing PFS for the first time in about a year, for a local group that I didn't know very well, since I'd only gone to that store once or twice before. Stopping the adventure in the middle of the game to admit that I had no clue what anybody's PCs were or how they worked didn't seem like a great way to instill confidence in my GMing skills for people who were mostly strangers. I was overwhelmed, and ready to give up on PFS GMing right then and there to avoid ever being in that situation again.

Liberty's Edge

As someone who almost exclusively plays home games, I find most of the newer classes much more appealing and enjoyable than the core ones.

...but from my few forays into PFS, I can easily see how its pacing and culture are at odds with the pace of expansion in Pathfinder right now.

Grand Lodge 4/5

5 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Philippe Lam wrote:
Because the question isn't exactly the same for PFS as it is for home games, who should get their own topic/debate. PFS exclusive it is because of where the topic is.
So its more of a new classes to PFS then just pathfinder as a whole? so I know some archetypes aren't in PFS are all the classes not in PFS?

I think it is a matter of PFS GMs not being able to avoid the new classes like they can in home games. Their option is to run the table for whoever shows up, or tell the group "sorry, I can't run this". Which is a whole different social issue to deal with.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rysky wrote:
The Courser archetype for Swashbuckler looks really fun.

It has really cool flavor but you trade out opportune parry and riposte to run on walls at a level where flying starts to become an expected part of the game.

2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The Courser archetype for Swashbuckler looks really fun.

It has really cool flavor but you trade out opportune parry and riposte to run on walls at a level where flying starts to become an expected part of the game.

Combo courser up with Spring-heeled Style and the spring attack feats from Ultimate Wilderness (assuming it gets added to the AR and you get as close as I think is possible to the true mobile combatant.

Silver Crusade

technarken wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Rysky wrote:
The Courser archetype for Swashbuckler looks really fun.

It has really cool flavor but you trade out opportune parry and riposte to run on walls at a level where flying starts to become an expected part of the game.

Combo courser up with Spring-heeled Style and the spring attack feats from Ultimate Wilderness (assuming it gets added to the AR and you get as close as I think is possible to the true mobile combatant.

Gonna Pulverizing Pinball some poor m+*$&$%%&%@%s.

5/5 5/55/55/5

technarken wrote:


Combo courser up with Spring-heeled Style and the spring attack feats from Ultimate Wilderness (assuming it gets added to the AR and you get as close as I think is possible to the true mobile combatant.

Why not just do it as a regular swashbuckler taking the feats?

Silver Crusade

BigNorseWolf wrote:
technarken wrote:


Combo courser up with Spring-heeled Style and the spring attack feats from Ultimate Wilderness (assuming it gets added to the AR and you get as close as I think is possible to the true mobile combatant.

Why not just do it as a regular swashbuckler taking the feats?

The Courser can Parkour.

2/5

11th level Courser can add another target to the list of people getting spring attacked. With this, Spring-heeled Reaping, and Improved Spring Attack you effectively get a double move and full attack +1 (though the attacks all have to target different creatures), 3 at full bonus, 1 at -5.


Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Vidmaster7 wrote:
Philippe Lam wrote:
Because the question isn't exactly the same for PFS as it is for home games, who should get their own topic/debate. PFS exclusive it is because of where the topic is.
So its more of a new classes to PFS then just pathfinder as a whole? so I know some archetypes aren't in PFS are all the classes not in PFS?
I think it is a matter of PFS GMs not being able to avoid the new classes like they can in home games. Their option is to run the table for whoever shows up, or tell the group "sorry, I can't run this". Which is a whole different social issue to deal with.

Ah I see that makes sense. thanks.

3/5 *

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Just my two cents.

To address a couple of points, the first being the complaint that GMs have "To much to keep track of", I've never had that problem in PFS. The scenarios tend to be very good at giving all the information you need, and if your not going in to GM completely blind (Which to be fair, I've done before) you should have plenty of time to read over a NPC trait or feature so that you at least have passing familiarity with how it works. It's not like you need to know the class like the back of your hand, just enough to fulfill the tactics listed in the mission.

The second point is the "But players have options and classes I don't understand" I feel like there isn't enough trust in PFS between GMs and players that they know what their doing. It's not my job to police that they're doing their class right, it's my job to run the badguys. If no one at the table notices something being played wrong, and it's not so egregious that you don't immediately go "You can do what?! Can I see the book?!" then it's usually something that can be corrected at a later time when someone (Usually another player who's played the same class) catches the mistake.

As for if I'm burned out on new classes, no way! I love taking classes and making them do things I want, even if it's not the "Optimal" way to take the class. Heck, I've got an AP that I'm in right now where I'm focusing on playing a long distance wood kineticist. I've also got a magical child vigilante, a ratfolk occultist, and I'm eyeballing the shifter. So long as the class presents something fairly unique, I don't care if it fulfills the same "Role" as another class, I just want it to feel different doing so. Will some classes out DPS another, or just be better mathematically? Sure. But if I get to use unique mechanics, flavor, or combination of those to do something interesting then what do I care if I'm "objectively worse" than someone specializing in something else? I think people get to caught up in "Winning" Pfs rather than enjoying the ride.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Minnesota

6 people marked this as a favorite.

GM Starson makes some excellent points. I am thinking that what we really need is a discussion in here called, "I have WHAT at my table? How to GM for Crazy Character Builds." I do think there is an art for GMing for new classes, or for builds that may use feats you have not seen before.

Huh. Maybe I'll start that later today!

Hmm

Dark Archive 4/5 5/55/5

Since it's the internet and pithiness matters, I'm leaning towards the technomancer, mechanic, and solarian being my stopping point. I enjoyed the Starfinder scenarios I've played (4 all pregens), but for the moment despite the initial interest I'm just not motivated to really learn those rules.

On a more serious tone, is the question really interested in what is objectively too much? Or is it becoming an excuse to complain about options you don't like. I was fairly intimidated by the amount to get familiar with as a GM, but there is a lot to be said about playing enough to get an idea of what 'normal' play looks like and just go with it. "How did you pull that off is one of my favorite questions?". In short I second Starson's post.

Silver Crusade 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As I said, my tipping point was the adventure that required the GM to know every class in the game, and didn't warn us up front that it might require more system knowledge than the average scenario. If a scenario literally expects the GM to know about every PC at the table, then it needs to come with a flashing pink neon sign on the product page warning you not to buy the adventure if you haven't read every class description in every book. Not to mention that it shouldn't have debuted the exact same day as a book that added 6 new classes to the game (the first day of Gen Con when Occult Adventures was published).

Also, assuming that the player should know their own PC sounds good in theory, but in my experience, that really only works for maybe half the players at any table.

Just last week, I was playing with a skald who was proud of being able to help the whole party by buffing us. But asking what type of bonus it is, so we'd know if it stacked with our own bonuses that we already have, the game came to a screeching halt. He first had to remember where to even look up his archetype that nobody else at the table knew anything about before we could get a straight answer to the question.

That's the real issue with too many classes and archetypes. Too much for everyone to know, and the fact that at least half of all players aren't rules lawyery enough to know every detail, even on their own PC.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fromper wrote:
As I said, my tipping point was the adventure that required the GM to know every class in the game,

.....what?

EDIT: I think I've figured out what you're grotesquely exaggerating here. That just required knowing a very basic idea of what a class does, to pick from a menu of a handful of minor effects. Which you can just ask the player of any unfamiliar class for.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I'm guessing Between the Lines, which is an exaggeration, but still a fair point.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
I'm guessing Between the Lines, which is an exaggeration, but still a fair point.

No, not a fair point at all. All you need to know is if a class has full BAB, casts arcane, casts divine, or does precision damage, and then maybe decide which modifier to use if more than one (or none). This can be figured out in maybe 2 minutes if every player at the table has an unfamiliar class.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Yeah, I misspoke on that. If you don't determine what each PC counts as for the purposes of the scenario by the point you need it, you're not paying attention to what the players are doing.

Silver Crusade 4/5

I already said earlier in the thread that I was talking about Between the Lines. And as I mentioned earlier:

Fromper wrote:
To put this in context, I was GMing PFS for the first time in about a year, for a local group that I didn't know very well, since I'd only gone to that store once or twice before. Stopping the adventure in the middle of the game to admit that I had no clue what anybody's PCs were or how they worked didn't seem like a great way to instill confidence in my GMing skills for people who were mostly strangers. I was overwhelmed

As for making assumptions based on what people had been doing so far that game:

1. I knew the paladin was full BAB.
2. The kineticist kept blasting things, so I was assuming arcane caster (which was wrong).
3. The shaman was using hexes and casting spells that seemed closer to cleric/oracle than the normal arcane stuff. But I also know witches are arcane, and bards get a lot of buffs, too, so I wasn't sure if he was arcane or divine.
4. The investigator was mostly a skill monkey and useless in a fight, so he didn't seem to fit any of the categories given.
5. I knew the gunslinger was martial focused, but I didn't know the class well enough to know if they're full BAB. I treated him as such, so my assumption in that case was correct.
6. I don't remember what the 6th player was. I think it was another occult class, which isn't even taken into account in the adventure at all. But whatever I assumed at the time based on earlier behavior that session turned out to be wrong.

So that's one that I knew, one that I guessed correctly, two that I guessed wrong, and two that I don't even remember what I guessed.

Clearly, GMing that adventure after the ACG and Occult Adventures came out in the previous year, and I hadn't seen them yet, was a mistake. My point is that a warning on the product page of the adventure to let GMs know that this adventure requires more knowledge of the game than most would have prevented that mistake. I've said that on these forums in the past.

Most adventures aren't that bad, but I've still run into situations here and there where I have to learn a whole new class just to GM an adventure, and it's annoying. In the case of From the Tome of the Righteous Repose, I chose which of the variable storylines to use based on avoiding having to learn an ACG class. Sometimes, they're not that easy to avoid.

In fact, I have two friends, a married couple who are both 3 star GMs in PFS, who quit Pathfinder altogether and switched to 5e D&D after buying School of Spirits, and realizing they'd have to learn a whole new class from a book they didn't own (and wasn't on the prd yet) in order to GM it. As it turns out, those situations are avoidable if you just avoid specific adventures here and there, but they were assuming it was becoming more common, and it scared them away.

And no, "This adventure uses content from this recently published hardback book" isn't a good enough warning. Half the time, that just means it's a basic mechanic for tracking influence or something like that, which is easily explained in the adventure. The other half the time, it means learning something big and complex like a new class. In the case of Between the Lines, it carries that warning about the Occult Adventures book, but part of my problem was not knowing the classes from the ACG. A vague disclaimer is nobody's friend.

101 to 150 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.