Advanced Class Guide Playtest II [Archive] - Giant in the Playground Forums

Cambrian

2013-12-14, 08:12 PM

We were discussing teamwork feats so...

TW feats tend to be things only desirable for classes that can take advantage (Inquisitor, Cavalier, and soon the hunter). I don't think that's a bad thing since many feats are class specific so feats useable by 3 classes is fine.

Someone mentioned scaling feats (small bonus without a team mate; large with) and that definitely would have been a great direction to take them. It would also address the hunter's issue of impotence following the loss of his AC.

So what classes does everyone feel are basically ready to go?
Arcanist seems very useful and interesting-- ignoring possibility for abuse it seemed ready.

The Skald also seemed functional-- probably overall weaker than a bard but very useable and a better melee bard option.

Bloodrager seemed balanced but I'd like to see the bloodlines better balanced relative to each-other.

Slayer is functional but could use some better synergy between his abilities-- additional slayer talents should be able to accomplish this.

I haven't followed the Warpriest, Investigator, Brawler, Shaman, and Swashbuckler to comment.

Also worth mentioning: it seems that a Dex to damage feat could be coming in the future. That could do a lot to increase variety (less dervish dance) and reduce martial MAD issues for dextrous classes.

Vanitas

2013-12-14, 08:34 PM

Also worth mentioning: it seems that a Dex to damage feat could be coming in the future. That could do a lot to increase variety (less dervish dance) and reduce martial MAD issues for dextrous classes.

Really? Where did you see that? From what I saw, that is something they are positively not going to do.

Novawurmson

2013-12-14, 08:40 PM

Really? Where did you see that? From what I saw, that is something they are positively not going to do.

Could be getting confused with Deadly Agility from the Path of War, a Dreamscarred Press product.

Deadly Agility [Combat]
You have learned how to use your agility to greater
purpose in battle.
Prerequisites: Weapon Finesse, base attack bonus +1
Benefit: You may add your Dexterity modifier in place
of your Strength modifier when wielding a light weapon
or a weapon that gains the benefits of the Weapon
Finesse feat (such as the rapier) when determining additional
damage inflicted upon a successful attack. This
modifier to damage is not increased for two-handed
weapons, but is not reduced for off-hand weapons.

NightbringerGGZ

2013-12-14, 09:02 PM

Nope, in the Swashbuckler thread they mentioned that they were considering adding Dex to damage feats (a ton of pages back), but that they would probably work like Dervish Dance and only for a few specific weapons.

It might not happen though. The developer who posted that note really didn't seem to like the idea.

Snowbluff

2013-12-14, 09:25 PM

Cambrian

2013-12-14, 09:41 PM

Vanitas

2013-12-14, 10:10 PM

I agree the benefits are small. But for the Inquisitor it functions the way you suggest, the Cav can grant it to allies increasing the value, and the hunter automatically has an ally to use them with.

If you consider something that is only intended for those specific classes (like extra performance, or extra channel) then they are not bad.

Seize the Moment is a teamwork feat and it's a pretty good combo with Butterfly's Sting, so at least that one is useful even for characters of other classes.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-12-17, 12:57 PM

So, it's the last day of the playtest.

I dunno about you guys, but I'm burnt out. I haven't been able to bring myself to tredge through the books or through the playtest forum in nearly 2 days now.

schoklat

2013-12-17, 01:08 PM

TW feats bad? Really??
You just need to put a bit thought into it and they become damn awesome.

On my Archer Inquisitor, I started with Lookout; then L6/7 Enfilading Fire, turned that into Target of Opportunity L8 and retook EF at L9. (Plus I can switch them around based on the occasion for stuff like Stealth Synergy or Tribe Mentality.)
Then you either add in a fellow sneak, or an animal companion (Animal / subdomains) or familiar (Companion Figurine) that can also throw Alchemical Fire and the like, and spice it up with some Invisibility.
At L9 I could attack 5x per round (Many + Many + Rapid + BAB-5 + ToO) with all the humongous bonuses an Inquisitor gets (Bane!), and that starting in the surprise round and sitting on something like +10-14 Init without Improved...

So yes, they are damn good if you know how to use them. And there are similar lines that apply to melee, charging and some OOC skill stuff.
The nice thing about classes that get Solo Tactics is that they get the ball rolling, and other characters can then pick that up. For example out bomber alchemist just joined went for ToO as well after seeing what I got nuking, and because I already had the feats available he could just grab them easy.

Ninjaxenomorph

2013-12-17, 01:10 PM

Shield Wall can be fun with the right build. And by the 'right build', I mean 'legionnaires sporting tower shields'.

Kaje

2013-12-17, 01:13 PM

Downloaded the thing. Saw the part about multiclass restrictions. Promptly dumped it in the trash.

NightbringerGGZ

2013-12-17, 01:37 PM

So, it's the last day of the playtest.

I dunno about you guys, but I'm burnt out. I haven't been able to bring myself to tredge through the books or through the playtest forum in nearly 2 days now.

I think most of the play testing came to a halt over the weekend. I saw a few new reports posted and some new people posting, but nothing new from the dev team. Oh, make sure to update your survey reports before the day is done!

I'm a little worried, as there are classes that still need a lot of work. I suspect the Swashbuckler is going to wind being just like the Gunslinger, in that it only works with very specific (and eventually boring) builds. Shaman kinda needs an overhaul on the spirits and a unique spell list. Bloodrager needs bloodline balancing. Warpriest is far too MAD atm (you basically need every ability score at 10 or higher). Some of the classes I frankly find boring, with very little to them that distinguishes them from archetypes of the parent classes.

I'm just kinda surprised at what I'm seeing from this book, as frankly I think Paizo can do better than what we've been shown.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-12-17, 01:49 PM

So, it's the last day of the playtest.

I dunno about you guys, but I'm burnt out. I haven't been able to bring myself to tredge through the books or through the playtest forum in nearly 2 days now.Same for me. The classes have never particularly interested me. I think most of my interest, shadenfreude that I am, was how some of the classes were seemingly broken/incomplete on the most basic levels, when the classes first came out.

I can happily say that most of the classes work fine now. Unfortunately, they're all still kind of boring to me. I expected that going in, so I can't really be that disappointed.

Khosan

2013-12-17, 01:51 PM

schoklat

2013-12-17, 01:58 PM

That's not teamwork feats being good though, that's the Inquisitor being pretty solid on its own and happening to have a class feature that makes teamwork feats free and removes one of their biggest limitations (needing someone else with the same feat for it to work). Similar deal with Cavaliers and soon Hunters.

If you're not playing one of those classes (and even if you are in some cases), teamwork feats are some of the weakest feats in game. Particularly since they don't work unless someone else has the feat.

There are some damn good ones, and there are a bunch of crappy ones... just like on any other feat list. Yes, the "adjacent" ones often blow, but even they have some gems (Lookout).
And true, someone else needs to take them as well, but they profit from them as well. So they might not look that fancy in TO (outside generally good examples like mine above), but in practise, when you actually talk and plan with your fellow players, quite some of them become really good. But yea, communication...
I do like the concept, and giving a number of classes (and even more archetypes) Solo Tactics to become enablers was a really smart move by Paizo.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-12-17, 02:19 PM

Same for me. The classes have never particularly interested me. I think most of my interest, shadenfreude that I am, was how some of the classes were seemingly broken/incomplete on the most basic levels, when the classes first came out.

I can happily say that most of the classes work fine now. Unfortunately, they're all still kind of boring to me. I expected that going in, so I can't really be that disappointed.

IMO there's two main problems with how this playtest went.

- These classes received very little effort or internal scrutiny before being pushed out to the public, especially with the first document (apparently, the Arcanist was the last class to be worked on and it was hammered out in basically a few minutes before being shown to us, they expected everyone to hate it). That's something I'd expect from an internal first draft, but not in something you push out to playtesters so they can spend a month pointing out the problems you could have noticed in 5 minutes by just reading the damned thing. Given how the arcanist was (allegedly) designed, I wouldn't be surprised if scheduling problems were to blame here.

- These classes are just too married to the idea of being "hybrids" and the designers are too unwilling to allow them to diverge from their parent classes. The kinds of radical changes most of these classes need to make them compelling to me can't or won't happen because of this.

NightbringerGGZ

2013-12-17, 02:43 PM

IMO there's two main problems with how this playtest went.

- These classes received very little effort or internal scrutiny before being pushed out to the public, especially with the first document (apparently, the Arcanist was the last class to be worked on and it was hammered out in basically a few minutes before being shown to us, they expected everyone to hate it). That's something I'd expect from an internal first draft, but not in something you push out to playtesters so they can spend a month pointing out the problems you could have noticed in 5 minutes by just reading the damned thing. Given how the arcanist was (allegedly) designed, I wouldn't be surprised if scheduling problems were to blame here.

- These classes are just too married to the idea of being "hybrids" and the designers are too unwilling to allow them to diverge from their parent classes. The kinds of radical changes most of these classes need to make them compelling to me can't or won't happen because of this.

It's not a bad concept to work with, but the end results have some problems due to inconsistencies with implementation of this principle and poor decisions as to which classes to combo. I do agree that not enough time has been spent on this book, and one of my comments in the feed back surveys is that more testing time really was needed for the play test.

Oh well, does anybody know when the final book is expected to be released?

Pink

2013-12-17, 02:53 PM

It's not a bad concept to work with, but the end results have some problems due to inconsistencies with implementation of this principle and poor decisions as to which classes to combo. I do agree that not enough time has been spent on this book, and one of my comments in the feed back surveys is that more testing time really was needed for the play test.

Oh well, does anybody know when the final book is expected to be released?

I want to say It's their gen con release off instinct...Correction from someone who actually checked coming in 3...2...

Craft (Cheese)

2013-12-17, 02:54 PM

August 2014. That time won't change (except in the case of a dire emergency) because they've already gotten the final page count pinned down and have everything with the printers worked out.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-12-17, 05:17 PM

- These classes received very little effort or internal scrutiny before being pushed out to the public, especially with the first document (apparently, the Arcanist was the last class to be worked on and it was hammered out in basically a few minutes before being shown to us, they expected everyone to hate it). That's something I'd expect from an internal first draft, but not in something you push out to playtesters so they can spend a month pointing out the problems you could have noticed in 5 minutes by just reading the damned thing. Given how the arcanist was (allegedly) designed, I wouldn't be surprised if scheduling problems were to blame here.Yeah, if that's true, then it's the one thing they have to regret. Some classes came out in such terrible shape that at least the first week was probably wasted. Not all of them were bad, and most didn't even require massive rewrites to become interesting or functional. The Hunter and the Brawler (as much I don't want to play it) needed minor tweaks and boosts more than anything else.

The fact that the Warpriest came to the playtest without proper alignment rules, and without proficiency with it's deity's favored weapon (in both versions, no less), however, is absurd.

Psyren

2013-12-17, 05:20 PM

Really? Where did you see that? From what I saw, that is something they are positively not going to do.

What I heard is that dex-damage feats for more weapons (besides scimitars) may be added.

I for one am hoping for a light weapon so it can be dual-wielded and used with Pirahna Strike. Or at least a double-weapon.

Downloaded the thing. Saw the part about multiclass restrictions. Promptly dumped it in the trash.

Eh, it's no different than Ninja being unable to MC with Rogue or Cavalier with Samurai.

@ Teamwork feats: New ones are being added in this book so we may see some better choices.

I'd love for there to be new Style Feats as well.

Kudaku

2013-12-17, 05:25 PM

I'm currently trying to convince people in the Warpriest thread that a class that requires 5 decent to high ability scores is, in fact, MAD. :smallannoyed:

Kaje

2013-12-17, 05:37 PM

Eh, it's no different than Ninja being unable to MC with Rogue or Cavalier with Samurai.

Yes, and that's stupid too.

Snowbluff

2013-12-17, 05:41 PM

I'm currently trying to convince people in the Warpriest thread that a class that requires 5 decent to high ability scores is, in fact, MAD. :smallannoyed:

Well, some consider the Arcanist MAD. It's confounding.

NightbringerGGZ

2013-12-17, 06:01 PM

August 2014. That time won't change (except in the case of a dire emergency) because they've already gotten the final page count pinned down and have everything with the printers worked out.

Thanks Craft Cheese. Well, that gives them several months to tweak stuff before going to print. I'm just confused as to why we got the classes so early. The first couple of weeks of testing can't have been all that valuable...

Psyren

2013-12-17, 06:02 PM

Yes, and that's stupid too.

Why? They're the same class.

Not that I really care whether I convince you or not.

I'm currently trying to convince people in the Warpriest thread that a class that requires 5 decent to high ability scores is, in fact, MAD. :smallannoyed:

You have my sword.

Renegade Paladin

2013-12-17, 07:20 PM

Downloaded the thing. Saw the part about multiclass restrictions. Promptly dumped it in the trash.
You realize that the entire point is to make multiclass archetypes better, right? You don't need to multiclass the same classes twice (or with themselves) any more than you get to have the same class on both sides of a gestalt build. :smallconfused:

NightbringerGGZ

2013-12-17, 07:42 PM

So SKR is adding posts letting people know what changes they're planning on implementing after the latest round of play testing. Some of them are pretty interesting.

Brawler, for instance, gets to ignore the 13 Int requirement for maneuver feats, can scale up weapon damage (at a reduced rate to unarmed strike) and gains Knockout at a much earlier level.

I'm hoping there will be similar posts for the classes he wasn't heavily involved in.

Renegade Paladin

2013-12-17, 08:19 PM

Apparently not, or at least not that we'll get to read. The playtest is closed and the forums for it are now blanked.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-12-17, 08:36 PM

Well, then I guess we wait until August.

So what was everyone's favorite class/couple of classes?

Psyren

2013-12-17, 08:43 PM

Well, then I guess we wait until August.

So what was everyone's favorite class/couple of classes?

Investigator, though if they make the Hunter a spontaneous ranger/druid caster as SKR was considering that will be a close second. Warpriest is third in line if they fix the MAD issues.

Eldonauran

2013-12-17, 08:53 PM

Well, then I guess we wait until August.

So what was everyone's favorite class/couple of classes?

I'm partial to the hunter and shaman.

Ninjaxenomorph

2013-12-17, 09:19 PM

Slayer, Bloodrager, Arcanist, and Warpriest. I've generally had little problem with MAD classes in the past.

Psyren

2013-12-17, 09:27 PM

A MAD caster I can deal with, but MAD gishes are practically unplayable except at high point buy.

NightbringerGGZ

2013-12-17, 10:04 PM

Investigator is my favorite, I already have 2 or 3 character concepts in mind. I'm interesting in Warpriest and may play one in a PBP (15 point buy, but I get to custom build my race). I'll play a Shaman if it gets cleaned up more. The other GMs in my group are considering banning Arcanist, so I doubt I'll get to play one until after I let somebody run one when it's my turn to GM again.

Lord_Gareth

2013-12-17, 10:36 PM

Why in the unholy hell did they scrub the forum?

Psyren

2013-12-17, 10:38 PM

NightbringerGGZ

2013-12-17, 11:45 PM

JB said they'll be combing through it for the next few hours, so it's likely that they just took it down from being public-facing.

It's too bad though, I did want to read up on some of the thoughts on the classes I didn't have time to really look at like the Slayer and Skald.

Slayer is getting more options for Talents, including custom ones. They're also looking into some kind of interaction between Sneak Attack and Favored Target.

Skald is getting at least one more type of performance, they're tweaking the class skills and probably giving it extra skills per level. They're going to do more testing regarding how Rage Powers work when dropped on the party. Also if a Rage Power calls for a specific stat or attribute score it'll probably use the Skald's instead of each players.

Oh, and playtest archive: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/olderProducts/playtests/advancedClassGuide

Psyren

2013-12-18, 12:08 AM

Oh, and playtest archive: http://paizo.com/paizo/messageboards/paizoPublishing/olderProducts/playtests/advancedClassGuide

Nice! They didn't blank it after all, they simply filed it away. Great find!

Craft (Cheese)

2013-12-18, 02:29 AM

Well, then I guess we wait until August.

So what was everyone's favorite class/couple of classes?

Favorite in terms of concept, or favorite in terms of execution?

Favorite concepts: Warpriest, Bloodrager, Shaman (I want to make homebrew that fixes these and just don't care about the others)

Favorite executions: Warpriest and Shaman, not so much in that I was particularly excited by what the classes were doing so much as they were the classes that disappointed me the least. And given how broken and filled with copy-pasta the Shaman is that's really saying something.

Kaje

2013-12-18, 04:01 AM

You realize that the entire point is to make multiclass archetypes better, right? You don't need to multiclass the same classes twice (or with themselves) any more than you get to have the same class on both sides of a gestalt build. :smallconfused:

I'm basically against anything that discourages multiclassing.

Kudaku

2013-12-18, 04:05 AM

You have my sword.

Much appreciated :smallcool:

So what was everyone's favorite class/couple of classes?

I went through a weird hate-love-meh relationship rollercoaster with the Warpriest. When it was first released it was a complete mess and I participated heavily in the WP thread to improve it, then I fell in love with the updated version, then after actually playtesting the update I started to notice the little things that get on your nerves (toenail clippings by the bed, horrible laugh, a penchant for tickling etc) - the lack of skill ranks, the MAD aspect, the underwhelming spell list, the horrible scaling of channel energy and fervor healing...

I think there is potential for a truly great class there, but it still needs some work. Come to think of it, I wonder if the fighter aspect might be holding it back at the moment. Any hybrid class that uses the fighter as a benchmark is going to have some issues.

Pink

2013-12-18, 04:12 AM

I'm basically against anything that discourages multiclassing.

Ummm... You say that as though multi-classing is inherently a good thing. Honestly, in a class system, if designers can design routes that let a player have the concept they want without needing to dip from multiple sources, that should be a decent design goal. And in general, this seems to be what pathfinder design philosophy supports, a single path advancement. This is what a class system should do well. Now, whether or not they met those goals is clearly open for debate. However, presuming that say, the Bloodrager, accurately represents a mix of Barbarian and Sorceror, then there shouldn't even be a reason to want to multi-class into either of those classes, and the restriction is fine.

Customizeability should be the goal of point-buy character creation systems like Gurps and shadowrun and all those others.

avr

2013-12-18, 05:04 AM

I like at least a bit of magic, tho' not necessarily tier 1 magic.

The bloodrager and shaman interested me. I thought the bloodrager just needs polishing and a health advisory saying "do not cast the attack spells", but the shaman has too much content for a short playtest to pick up all the weirdness and still looks kludged together. Definitely interesting though.

The investigator looked interesting but embarrassingly weak in combat, at least at first. The Arcanist still lacks enough flavour to grab me; that could easily change by the final version. The warpriest could stand to be wiped and redesigned from scratch IMO.

schoklat

2013-12-18, 05:04 AM

People need to realise that multiclassing is nothing inherently good / bad. It's simply a tool to let you play the character you envisioned (and sometimes it's also a toy for us TOs).
If Paizo now publishes a blending of two common archetypes, that's a good thing and its totally within their right to outright forbid multiclassing with the base classes... If the final classes are good or not is a whole different story though and absolutely worthy of debate.

Kaje

2013-12-18, 05:10 AM

Even if a class is a solid blending of two classes, forbidding them to multiclass freely is still limiting options, and IMO limiting options is basically always a bad thing.

schoklat

2013-12-18, 05:17 AM

Even if a class is a solid blending of two classes, forbidding them to multiclass freely is still limiting options, and IMO limiting options is basically always a bad thing.

You are simply wrong. It isn't.
Any feat pre-req is limiting options. Hell classes itself are limiting options, because you are limited in what your character can do. So unless you want a system of "cherry pick 11 plus one superpowers", it is not inherently a bad thing but a design choice... a design choice that is the foundation of any version of D&D.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-12-18, 05:22 AM

I agree on the multiclassing restriction being dumb, but for different reasons: I think these hybrid classes should be patterned off the Magus. The Magus can multiclass with the Fighter and Wizard with no problems. This multiclassing rule is by analogy with alternate classes, but for alternate classes it sorta makes sense as an alternate class has many class features in common with its parent class: Many of the hybrid classes do have many class features in common with their parent classes, but this is a bug, not a feature. Ideally all the hybrids would be unique enough that you could multiclass with their parent classes with no design weirdness.

I went through a weird hate-love-meh relationship rollercoaster with the Warpriest. When it was first released it was a complete mess and I participated heavily in the WP thread to improve it, then I fell in love with the updated version, then after actually playtesting the update I started to notice the little things that get on your nerves (toenail clippings by the bed, horrible laugh, a penchant for tickling etc) - the lack of skill ranks, the MAD aspect, the underwhelming spell list, the horrible scaling of channel energy and fervor healing...

I think there is potential for a truly great class there, but it still needs some work. Come to think of it, I wonder if the fighter aspect might be holding it back at the moment. Any hybrid class that uses the fighter as a benchmark is going to have some issues.

Wait wait wait, people actually use Fervor to heal!?

The fighter aspect is definitely holding it back, but less so, I think, than the other hybrid classes that have a martial class as its base. It's not as bad off as, say, the Brawler and Swashbuckler are.

Also what's wrong with tickling? D:

schoklat

2013-12-18, 05:30 AM

I agree on the multiclassing restriction being dumb, but for different reasons: I think these hybrid classes should be patterned off the Magus. The Magus can multiclass with the Fighter and Wizard with no problems.[/COLOR]

The problem is (for Magus or any other case)... the very most of the time it's a trap. In the rare case its not it often brakes something.

But why would you want to Magus MC Fighter anyway? To make a bit for Fighter-y Fighter/Wizard? That's what you have feats and arcana and archetypes and whatnot for (and similar for most other dual-classes). So outside "I want to can" I don't see actual reason for being able to.

RedWarlock

2013-12-18, 05:46 AM

Renegade Paladin

2013-12-18, 05:48 AM

I'm basically against anything that discourages multiclassing.
So Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter1/etc for ALL the bonus feats is just peachy? :smalltongue:

Kudaku

2013-12-18, 06:07 AM

Wait wait wait, people actually use Fervor to heal!?

The fighter aspect is definitely holding it back, but less so, I think, than the other hybrid classes that have a martial class as its base. It's not as bad off as, say, the Brawler and Swashbuckler are.

Also what's wrong with tickling? D:

Depending on how you read the fervor swift spellcasting ability, you may not be able to use it with spontaneously cast healing spells. So you either have to actually prepare CXW to do swift action healing with spells, or use the incredibly underwhelming Fervor mini-lay on hands.

Specifically it's these two sections of text that interact poorly:

Fervor: As a swift action, a warpriest can expend one use of this ability to cast any one warpriest spell he has prepared.
Spontaneous Casting: A good warpriest (or a neutral warpriest of a good deity) can channel stored spell energy into healing spells that he did not prepare ahead of time. The warpriest can expend any prepared spell that isn’t an orison in order to cast any cure spell of the same spell level or lower. A cure spell is any spell with “cure” in its name.

At the moment it's unclear if this is an intended drawback for the Warpriest (which provides incentive for using the Lay on Hands version) or if it's an unforeseen side affect from copy/pasting the cleric wording without considering how it interacts with Fervor, though considering they forgot to add proficiency with the favored weapon (twice) I'm hoping this'll be an accident and cleared up by the time the class is released.

And I agree that the Brawler and the Swashbuckler need help as well :smallfrown:. This playtest has gone past so fast I haven't really been able to playtest either though - shame it was scheduled for the middle of the exams month.

Kudaku

2013-12-18, 06:13 AM

So Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter 1/Fighter1/etc for ALL the bonus feats is just peachy? :smalltongue:

Personally I'm a big fan of the Ranger 1/Ranger 2/Ranger 2/Ranger 2 build, take ALL the combat style feats with no prerequisites!

avr

2013-12-18, 06:13 AM

Except where they stated the base concept of these classes were to create functional midways between their parent classes, and NOT unique stand-alone class concepts. You're arguing against what they've stated the goal of the whole project to be.
That might have been the original idea, but they didn't stick with it. The most obvious example is that a swashbuckler is in no way a concept midway between heavily-armored-fighter and gunslinger. I'm not sure the investigator or shaman really fit that pattern either.

Anyway, multiclassing is a means not an end. It covers certain concepts well (I am a street urchin who will grow up to become a mighty wizard) and some others are better covered by specific classes (magus as the guy who combines spell and sword for example) or retraining rules.

Also I imagine the restriction will be eased in at least some cases once people have thought it through. In actual games if not in the developers rules.

Drachasor

2013-12-18, 06:14 AM

I like the Arcanist, but that might just be because it combines the ease of the Sorcerer with the knowing of everything of the Wizard. Has some crappy exploits, but a lot of really powerful ones. Honestly, I'm worried it is too good.

Hmm. Can't say I'm that excited about any of the other options.

Psyren

2013-12-18, 10:40 AM

I went through a weird hate-love-meh relationship rollercoaster with the Warpriest. When it was first released it was a complete mess and I participated heavily in the WP thread to improve it, then I fell in love with the updated version, then after actually playtesting the update I started to notice the little things that get on your nerves (toenail clippings by the bed, horrible laugh, a penchant for tickling etc) - the lack of skill ranks, the MAD aspect, the underwhelming spell list, the horrible scaling of channel energy and fervor healing...

This made me lol :smallbiggrin:

You are simply wrong. It isn't.
Any feat pre-req is limiting options. Hell classes itself are limiting options, because you are limited in what your character can do. So unless you want a system of "cherry pick 11 plus one superpowers", it is not inherently a bad thing but a design choice... a design choice that is the foundation of any version of D&D.

Yep, that.

I like the Arcanist, but that might just be because it combines the ease of the Sorcerer with the knowing of everything of the Wizard. Has some crappy exploits, but a lot of really powerful ones. Honestly, I'm worried it is too good.

Hmm. Can't say I'm that excited about any of the other options.

It will probably be a little better than the wizard and sorcerer in practice. Many tables don't have enough encounters/day to make their low slots be a meaningful limitation, and the fact that they can still prepare an odd situational spell and simply not use it without wasting that slot or being locked into it will be quite a boon. Combine that with the anti-caster toys it gets and I foresee complaints hitting the boards.

But it's going to be a great class for newer players who hate having to guess how much of something they'll need or whether a certain spell is really good enough to commit it to their repertoire for their character's lifetime. And I think experienced players can get as much if not more mileage out of the wizard and sorcerer.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-12-18, 03:58 PM

Corollary to the my previous question: What do you guys think would be some cool archetype concepts for these classes?

To answer my own question and actually participate in the conversation. I... honestly don't find any of these classes all that stimulating. I would probably say the Hunter would be the class most likely for me to play. The idea that you have a built in teammate to use teamwork feats with is pretty cool.

The Warpriest is probably one of the better executed concepts at this point, but it still holds little interest to me. It's just kind of ageneric/also-ran idea. I'd personally rather play a Paladin (maybe even a pompous, stuff one) or a righteous Inquisitor because there is a bit more fluff built into those classes. Considering it's the one that is likely to have the hardest time finding a niche (there are already 4 classes capable of divine gish), watering down a cleric with the blandest class in the game (fighter) is probably the wrong way to go about finding it.

Pink

2013-12-18, 04:12 PM

Corollary to the first question: What do you guys think would be some cool archetype concepts for these classes?

This is where I think several of the classes show weakness. Those that borrow heavily into the abilities and role of their parent classes will mostly be rehashes of the archetype abilities of the parent archetypes.

Perhaps however, these hybrid classes are meant to be archetype light, like the Antipaladin, Ninja, Samurai, and to a certain degree the Gunslinger.

Psyren

2013-12-18, 04:20 PM

Eldaran

2013-12-18, 05:36 PM

But it's going to be a great class for newer players who hate having to guess how much of something they'll need or whether a certain spell is really good enough to commit it to their repertoire for their character's lifetime. And I think experienced players can get as much if not more mileage out of the wizard and sorcerer.

This is why I think the Arcanist is ok. Any group that bans tier 1 classes is going to ban the Arcanist too of course, but there are many groups out there that regard the Wizard as a weak class. It happens all the time on these forums, someone posts a thread saying "my DM thinks fighters are stronger than wizards." And in those sorts of groups, the Arcanist fits in very well, solving the "problems" of the Sorcerer and Wizard.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-12-18, 05:44 PM

This is where I think several of the classes show weakness. Those that borrow heavily into the abilities and role of their parent classes will mostly be rehashes of the archetype abilities of the parent archetypes.

There's like, what, 5 different archetypes/PrCs for making a swashbuckler-like character?

As for archetypes, I want an Investigator archetype that trades Studied Strike for literally anything else.

Eldonauran

2013-12-19, 11:29 AM

I would want a more melee-focused Hunter. Maybe one that gains a form of wildshape or lycanthropy in exchange for the spells. And she would also gain an ability similar to the Beastbonded witch that lets her survive inside her animal if she would get killed.

I would like to see this.

I'd like to see something like the Reincarnated Druid, where you get a free reincarnate, though the form would be identical to your animal companion. You can reclaim your body and use the temporary reincarnated form to fuel your resurrection. The negative levels from the reincarnation would carry over to your existing body (you don't get pinged twice).

Kudaku

2013-12-19, 01:13 PM

I would want a more melee-focused Hunter. Maybe one that gains a form of wildshape or lycanthropy in exchange for the spells. And she would also gain an ability similar to the Beastbonded witch that lets her survive inside her animal if she would get killed.

For the Warpriest I would expect racial archetypes, particularly for the Dwarf and Elf.

For Investigator I would expect a very social archetype that gives up Studied Strike. One that could be used in a mystery campaign or that could model the Doctor moreso than Sherlock.

I'd like all of these. I'd also like a Warpriest variant that cast through charisma instead of Wisdom to help fill that paladin void for those who really really want to play charismatic knight without the LG/CE limitations.

A brawler that specialized in improvised and/or thrown weapons?

A Swashbuckler archetype who specializes in spearwielding!

Psyren

2013-12-19, 01:17 PM

I'd like all of these. I'd also like a Warpriest variant that cast through charisma instead of Wisdom to help fill that paladin void for those who really really want to play charismatic knight without the LG/CE limitations.

A brawler that specialized in improvised and/or thrown weapons?

A Swashbuckler archetype who specializes in spearwielding!

These are all fantastic ideas. I especially like the improvised weapon Brawler. ("Barfighter!")

Khosan

2013-12-19, 04:16 PM

There's like, what, 5 different archetypes/PrCs for making a swashbuckler-like character?

Bit more than that I think. Bards, Fighters and Rogues have two or three archetypes each that could fit vaguely into the idea, then there's the Duelist and Aldori Swordlord PrCs.

Swashbuckler really could have been a Gunslinger archetype that just doesn't use guns. It's not even that huge of a jump when you compare them side by side.

Drachasor

2013-12-19, 04:27 PM

This is why I think the Arcanist is ok. Any group that bans tier 1 classes is going to ban the Arcanist too of course, but there are many groups out there that regard the Wizard as a weak class. It happens all the time on these forums, someone posts a thread saying "my DM thinks fighters are stronger than wizards." And in those sorts of groups, the Arcanist fits in very well, solving the "problems" of the Sorcerer and Wizard.

One of my main concerns with the Arcanist is the ease of their ability to increase spell DC. Normally one AR point for +1 DC. With one exploit it becomes +2 DC. So that's +4 DC total with Spell Focus feats. Probably a bit too good, imho.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-12-19, 04:32 PM

Bit more than that I think. Bards, Fighters and Rogues have two or three archetypes each that could fit vaguely into the idea, then there's the Duelist and Aldori Swordlord PrCs.

Swashbuckler really could have been a Gunslinger archetype that just doesn't use guns. It's not even that huge of a jump when you compare them side by side.

Apparently the swashbuckler got made because it's James Jacobs' favorite character archetype. (And if that's true, I'd be willing to bet the reason all of those other archetypes and PrCs got made is the same.) We've been warned to expect the iconic swash to hit several fetish notes...

Squirrel_Dude

2013-12-19, 06:17 PM

Apparently the swashbuckler got made because it's James Jacobs' favorite character archetype. (And if that's true, I'd be willing to bet the reason all of those other archetypes and PrCs got made is the same.) We've been warned to expect the iconic swash to hit several fetish notes...It's not a bad thing that he's trying to find a way to make the dex-based mundane fighter work. It's long been a difficult to execute concept in 3.X games.

Another closing thought on the classes: These would all be far more interesting concepts without the presence of Archetypes.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-12-19, 07:14 PM

It's not a bad thing that he's trying to find a way to make the dex-based mundane fighter work. It's long been a difficult to execute concept in 3.X games.

Yeah, the depressing part is after over a dozen dedicated attempts to make it work have been published, there's still no way to do it with only first-party pathfinder material.

Psyren

2013-12-19, 07:28 PM

That depends on your definition of "work." If you mean "take on CR-appropriate challenges using PC WBL" then of course it's possible.

Renegade Paladin

2013-12-19, 07:43 PM

Yeah, the depressing part is after over a dozen dedicated attempts to make it work have been published, there's still no way to do it with only first-party pathfinder material.
The really sad part is it wouldn't even really be all that hard; you just need to approach the problem backwards. Rather than "I have these mechanics, wonder if they work to get the result I want?" the approach needs to be "I want this result, what mechanics do I need to make it work?" In the case of a Dexterity-based melee fighter, on the assumption that you want to make it as effective as a Strength-based heavy armor melee fighter (after all, if you're defining "viable" as "competitive with full casters" when discussing making a mundane fighter work you've already failed at your design goal), that means some way to keep the damage output, survivability, and maneuver prowess competitive with some jerk in full plate with a greatsword. :smallwink:

If you want your swashbuckler to keep up with that, you need DEX to damage, bonus damage of some variety, or both (after all, two-handing is thematically bad for the concept). If you want him to keep up in AC, he needs some form of armor steroid that's competitive with the straight up +9 you get from putting on a suit of full plate. (This doesn't mean adding +9 AC into the class at third level, necessarily; remember being Dex-based will make up for that to some degree, but a higher Dex modifier with an extra +1 every four or five levels does not cut it.) Baking Agile Maneuvers into the class somewhere wouldn't go too far astray either; how many of the great swashbuckling sword fights in the movies involve tripping, bull rush, disarm, or dirty tricks? Actually, something similar to Combat Style where you pick one or two of those and get the relevant feats without prereqs might be cool. And because it's a Dexterity-based fighter, we should expect mobility. You don't beat the guy in plate with a rapier by standing still and trading body blows with him (believe me, I know); the swashbuckler has a different role than that, able to get around the battlefield with near-impunity.

A player of mine actually did this in 3.5, but his build was incredibly convoluted and included a third-party swashbuckler base class rebuild that I allowed (Otto the Bugbear's if anyone remembers it, though his site's long gone now). Being able to do something similar to that (but not quite so overtuned; AC in the high 50s by the high-mid levels is getting kind of silly) in a single class without dipping Carmendine Monk, Warblade, bloodline levels, and three different PrCs would absolutely make my day.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-12-19, 07:57 PM

Baking Agile Maneuvers into the class somewhere wouldn't go too far astray either; how many of the great swashbuckling sword fights in the movies involve tripping, bull rush, disarm, or dirty tricks? Random comment, as I agree with most points, but weapon finesse already allows you to apply dex to attack on CMB checks in the case of trip and disarm as they are attacks made with your weapon, per a FAQ ruling (http://paizo.com/products/btpy88yj/faq?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Core-Rulebook#v5748eaic9ojt)

Actually, something similar to Combat Style where you pick one or two of those and get the relevant feats without prereqs might be cool. And because it's a Dexterity-based fighter, we should expect mobility. You don't beat the guy in plate with a rapier by standing still and trading body blows with him (believe me, I know); the swashbuckler has a different role than that, able to get around the battlefield with near-impunity.The problem in PF and 3.5 isn't that getting around the battlefield is hard (tumble/acrobatics checks can handle this, less so in PF, w/e). The problem is that it's kind of useless and unhelpful past the moment you get haste or some other way to make multiple attacks each round. Less so if you have multiple melee combatants who can gain a +2 to attack (Woo...) from flanking, but even then less so. You can either run around to get one attack with a +10% bonus, or no bonus at all, or you can stay where you are and take two or more attacks.

In short: It's more than moving around the battlefield easily that's a challenge for monks/swashbucklers/rogues, it's making that movement worthwhile.

Perhaps one way to do this would be giving them the step-up line of feats as a built in feature? So that they can do all the 5-ft. stepping they want?

Renegade Paladin

2013-12-19, 10:00 PM

Well yes, that should go without saying. Unfortunately, mainstream d20 design in general is allergic to giving full attacks and movement in combination. If they could figure a way to get something at least thematically similar to the Bounding Assault feat line out of PHB2 (preferably with better mechanics, which would both make it worthwhile and avoid direct copying non-OGL material) that would be something.

Squirrel_Dude

2013-12-19, 10:37 PM

What would be great was if there was a line of feats that allowed you to lots extra damage on a single attack. Then you would take that and allow the it to be used at the end of a charge or with spring attack.

That would be a cool thing to exist instead of useless vital strike.

Craft (Cheese)

2013-12-19, 10:46 PM

T.G. Oskar

2013-12-19, 11:20 PM

Houserule: All attacks are now full attacks (that is, whenever you're entitled to an attack, you get to make all of your iterative attacks). The penalty on iterative attacks is not cumulative, but you do get the same number of iteratives as before. Iterative attacks are made with only a -2 penalty. So a 20th-level fighter attacks at +20/+18/+18/+18. In addition, combat maneuvers never provoke an AoO.

I usually go with the houserule of allowing iteratives in your attack action at their normal penalties (Fighter 20 gets a +20/+15/+10/+5 "attack action"), while their full attack action grants them all attacks at their highest BAB (thus, Fighter 20 gets +20/+20/+20/+20). This allows both mobility, but it preserves the purity of full attack.

On topic: read the mammoth of the 1st thread, and couldn't really manage to post anything, but I'm kinda sad that the Swashbuckler and the Brawler aren't taken seriously. Perhaps it's because they represent a very mundane profession tacked into a very magic-heavy world, but by higher levels they should pull off some impressive moves. Even 3.5 has problems with a pure Swashbuckler build, so much that the best working build is tying it with Rogue for Daring Outlaw; with all the Archetypes and the time running around, and with a golden chance from Panache and their own "deeds" applying as their defining aspect, that there's still problems in working a class from it turns to be disheartening. They, more than the Investigator, should have had a SA-esque ability (not progressing at the same rate, part of the chassis and not as part of moves that require spending Panache; note that the Duelist's Precise Strike pulls off exactly that, but not at the best rate), one of the aspects the Swashbuckler concept presents is their reliance on accurate and deadly strikes. Swashbuckler should have gone with Fighter/Rogue/Gunslinger in mind.

Brawler, on the other hand...haven't read much about it, but it really feels like a build passing as a class, almost exactly as the 3.5 CW Samurai. Hopefully this isn't the case, but if it's exactly this, it's a bit unexcusable, given the baggage and the fact that they've pulled off fully-fleshed classes, so relying on a tactic from the early 3.5 to build off a class doesn't really cut it.

Investigator, on the other hand...I saw the intended classes to merge, and I couldn't find a tie between them. Specifically, how you can tie Alchemist's Discoveries into what seems to be a fluff-heavy class. However, this is more a clashing fluff prerogative than anything else, particularly as it feels like a slot they could have given to another combination.

MeeposFire

2013-12-20, 01:26 AM

The idea I came up with but have yet to be able to try was +1d6 to damage for every point of BAB above 5 on an attack action (and similar type attacks). The idea was to get enough extra damage so that movement plus attack action is viable but not enough that a full attack is generally better if you could get it. I went with d6s rather than additional weapon dice since I think the size rules make it too easy to boost weapon dice size to crazy levels.

Greenish

2013-12-20, 02:32 AM

A Swashbuckler archetype who specializes in spearwielding!Yes. Give it Poison Use and Finesse with longspears, call it The Red Viper. :smalltongue:

Vanitas

2013-12-20, 09:31 AM

Yes. Give it Poison Use and Finesse with longspears, call it The Red Viper. :smalltongue:

OMG PLEASE

Psyren

2013-12-20, 10:32 AM

A nice compromise is to give Vital Strike for free. So if you have to move and attack you do less damage but still a decent amount, whereas if you stand still you can really put some meat behind each of those attacks.

Yes. Give it Poison Use and Finesse with longspears, call it The Red Viper. :smalltongue:

of Dorne, I assume?

schoklat

2013-12-20, 10:54 AM

Can you define what you mean be dextrous "competitive" "Fighter" ?
Competitive to bear the usual range of CR encounters ? What else ?
Fighter as class, or any full BAB class, or even any martial class, or ... ?

I mean there are already a lot of ingredients out there:
* Weapon Finesse + Agile Weapons / Dervish Dance
* stacking +dmg mods with TWF extra
*** to get your full attack try Quickrunner's Shirt (just add extra uses/day), Wordcaster Haste, Oracle dipping, simply using a mount, polymorphing, etc etc
* use your Dex for other advantages (initiative, stealth, etc)

I mean right out of the book there are already three straight Fighter archetypes that could help you (at least to a certain extend): Two-Weapon Warrior (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/two-weapon-warrior) and also Dawnflower Dervish (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/dawnflower-dervish) / Mobile Fighter (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/fighter/archetypes/paizo---fighter-archetypes/mobile-fighter)

If you are a bit more specific in what you want, there probably is a low- / no-caster solution available.

Kudaku

2013-12-20, 12:41 PM

By dexterous and on the topic of the Swashbuckler, I assume he means something akin to the classic musketeer hero, fighting with a single light one-handed blade, no shield, wearing light or no armor.

High Dexterity Dervish Dance is a decent alternative, though it will get out-damaged by anyone with an equal amount of strength and a two-handed weapon, who will most likely also have better armor class. It's also limited to scimitars, which sucks if you want to use oh, any other weapon out there. Finally, it costs two feats and doesn't come online till level 3 unless you dip bard.

There's also the Aldori Swordlord options but again you're investing a lot of time and feats for a build that ultimately will still struggle to keep up with a default THF+power attack character.

Agile is not bad for TWFing, though it kind of headbutts into the biggest problem with TWF over THF - you're already spending double the cash to enchant two weapons instead of one and Agile is a +1 tax on top of whatever else you want. The price (8300 gp times two for two +1 Agile weapons) also limits it to about 7th level and up. In the meantime the THFer is laughing all the way to the bank with a shiny +3 weapon and a free feat slot.

Vanitas

2013-12-20, 01:01 PM

Doesn't a Swashbuckler with Dervish Dance cover basically all those concerns?

Kudaku

2013-12-20, 01:35 PM

I don't know actually, I haven't paid that much attention to the revised Swashbuckler. Wouldn't he still be limited to Dervish Dance or Agile weapons (limiting him to weapon finesse weapons)?

One of the things that were rumored during the playtest but that I never actually saw a quote on was that they're finally allowing "dexterity to damage" feats into the core books. I'm hoping something like Dervish Dance but that comes online at level 1 and doesn't limit your weapon selection.

Vanitas

2013-12-20, 01:45 PM

I don't know actually, I haven't paid that much attention to the revised Swashbuckler. Wouldn't he still be limited to Dervish Dance or Agile weapons (limiting him to weapon finesse weapons)?
One-handed piercing weapons (or slashing with a feat). Dervish Dance only works with scimitar, obviously.

One of the things that were rumored during the playtest but that I never actually saw a quote on was that they're finally allowing "dexterity to damage" feats into the core books. I'm hoping something like Dervish Dance but that comes online at level 1 and doesn't limit your weapon selection.
Don't hold your breath.

Kudaku

2013-12-20, 01:54 PM

One-handed piercing weapons (or slashing with a feat). Dervish Dance only works with scimitar, obviously.

I meant for adding Dexterity to damage. So... Still Agile or Dervish Dance then?

Vanitas

2013-12-20, 02:22 PM

I meant for adding Dexterity to damage. So... Still Agile or Dervish Dance then?

Yes. A Swashbuckler adds class level to damage with swashbuckler weapons, though (and Dex + level with Dervish Dance).

Squirrel_Dude

2013-12-20, 02:32 PM

One-handed piercing weapons (or slashing with a feat). Dervish Dance only works with scimitar, obviously. Dervish dance only works with the scimitar, but that scimitar is (with the feat) treated as a one-handed piercing weapon for all feats and class abilities.[link] (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/dervish-dance-combat)

Also, just to correct a previous claim about it's drawbacks. It can also be taken at level 2 with a dip in/as a fighter as it is considered a combat feat so it is applicable to be taken with the fighter's bonus feat at that level.

Psyren

2013-12-20, 03:28 PM

I doubt dex to damage will be available at level 1 but anything is possible.

I'm more curious about which weapons the feats will be for, and what prereqs those feats may have.

Greenish

2013-12-20, 03:36 PM

I doubt dex to damage will be available at level 1 but anything is possible.

I'm more curious about which weapons the feats will be for, and what prereqs those feats may have.I'd like at least some of them have the Dervish Dance-style effect of making normally non-finessable weapons finessable. Longspear, katana, scythe, any kind of double weapon…

Kudaku

2013-12-20, 04:18 PM

Also, just to correct a previous claim about it's drawbacks. It can also be taken at level 2 with a dip in/as a fighter as it is considered a combat feat so it is applicable to be taken with the fighter's bonus feat at that level.

I stand corrected - I thought it required 3 ranks in Perform for some reason.

Adding on to the things I'd like to see in the ACG:

I'd love to see a feat or an archetype that allowed Double Weapons to work with Weapon Finesse, and/or focused on double weapons over simply TWFing.

I'd love to see a Fighter archetype that picks up Martial Maneuvers - this is an ability the Fighter should have had from day one, and I'm seriously considering homebrewing this into the Fighter already.

I'd love to see an archetype that moves the swashbuckler towards the gunslinger, encouraging TWFing and seamlessly switching between a light blade and a pistol.

I'd love to see a Slayer or Hunter archetype that actually makes crossbows really really viable without feeling like an Archer knockoff. Something like the difference between a Fighter Archer and the Zen Archer - both work well but in very different ways.

I'd love to see a Skald concept that I can't make better by playing a bard instead :smallcool: