Pathfinders's new preview classes are pretty good

[Starbuck_II]

I kinda like the new pathfinder classes they are previewing.

Summoner is basically FF 10 summoner (same name for the summons). You build it like an astral Construct (points to build it). It lasts till destroyed but can only be summoned 1/day (so try not to let it die)

You get up to 6th level spells, a familiar, and cast spontaneously (but wear armor like Bard).

http://paizo.com/paizo/blog

[Nero24200]

I'll be honest, the new classes don't seem too bad, it's just...well..I expect more. The cavalier comes across as a PHB2 Knight with some Ultimate Knight thrown in without much thought, the oracle is just...well...a favoured soul with domains, the witch is just a hexblade less focused on the curses and made into a casting class and the summoner is just well...

As I said, nothing not bad, but I'd expect a little more from the people who claim to have made "3.5 Thrive". A newbie homebrewer could make more distinct and interesting classes.

[Mauril Everleaf]

My response to the charge of "well, I'm not overly impressed" is "good". It's a comment I heard a lot about 4e classes (which I played before switching to a Pathfinder group). Base classes should be over all not overly impressive. They should feel exactly the same as a similar PHB class. I need a bit more time to look over the preview to get a real opinion, but constantly needing to have base classes "wow" the audience is what leads to power creep.

[Saph]

Have to say, I love the idea of a FF X summoner. How is it implemented?

[SilverSheriff]

man, I was hoping for some of my favourites to make their triumphant return....

[Nero24200]

Base classes should be over all not overly impressive.

True, but there should be something about them that makes them...interesting. Theres nothing that really makes me that interested to play a Cavalier or Oracle, especially when theres already classes which function just like them. Besides, even outwith that, paizo implied they mgiht be better. They implied, for instance, that the summoner would have rules for summoning demons or celestials, not a blanket "one size fits all" creature.

How is it implemented?

Well...basically, you get summoning spells as SLA. In addition, you gain a creature which you have to summon each day (requiring ten minutes of preperation). Unlike other summoned creatures, this one can bypass Protection From spells, waits until it's deep into negative hit points before disapearing, and as the caster gains more levels the caster gains other benifits, such as being able to see/hear what the creature sees/hears. However, the creature loses hitpoints by going further from the caster.

[Ravens_cry]

I like the looks of the witch. Buffer and debuffer, with A good selection of healing and arcane spells.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

My response to the charge of "well, I'm not overly impressed" is "good". It's a comment I heard a lot about 4e classes (which I played before switching to a Pathfinder group). Base classes should be over all not overly impressive. They should feel exactly the same as a similar PHB class. I need a bit more time to look over the preview to get a real opinion, but constantly needing to have base classes "wow" the audience is what leads to power creep.

At least for me, the non-impressive-ness of the classes isn't relative to the Pathfinder PHB base classes, but rather in a general design sense. They essentially combine elements of classes that came before--and do it worse than several homebrew takes around here--and don't have a particular schtick to make them stand out. Yes, they add things to a Pathfinder game over and above the Pathfinder PHB, but there's nothing there that makes me think "Gee, I couldn't have made that up myself, converted a 3e class, or used something off the 'net."

[Starbuck_II]

Have to say, I love the idea of a FF X summoner. How is it implemented?

You could just click the link and download it.
But, basically you start with a base edoilon. You get three choices: serpentine, bipedal, and quadrapedal.
Each base form has a basic part, statistics, and bad save that is different between them (you get 2 good saves): Well speed is different too (serpentine has 20 ft speed)
Serpentine has bite, climb, tail and tail slap (meaning it has 2 attacks).
Quadrapedal has legs x2 (4 legs) and bite.
Biped has legs, arms, and claws (they could use a weapon if you handed them one)

You start with 3 evolution points to spend (not the best name for it, but eh). You can change point spread used each level, but until then they are set (basically each level you can just respend all points instead of just adding more if you wish).

Points can be made to buy armor proficiencies (base 1 for light, 2 for med and heavy), (1 for all simple, 2 for all martial) weapons, etc.
Lots of options.

Sadly, only quadrapeds can take pounce (but at 1st level at least). Improved damage option should stack with Improved Natural attack since they get feats.
You can increase reach by 5 feet for 1 point as well.
It can cast any arcane spell for a point as well (1 a day or 3/day if instead spend 2 points).

Flight (good manuverability) is an option at 1st (cost 2 points).
Immunity to an energy type is also available as is Energy attacks.

You could build Ifrit, Shiva, etc easily.

So many options it will take time to sort through them to find best ones to emulate them (Ifrit, etc).

At 1st, For Ifrit I guess Immunity fire makes sense, but energy attacks (fire) makes better sense since he is more offensive. Leaving 1 point to further improve it.
Augment summons would improve the summons of the Summoner (since Edoilon is a summon that means it should qualify). I'm not sure if that is intent, but it says it is a summon.

[Mauril Everleaf]

At least for me, the non-impressive-ness of the classes isn't relative to the Pathfinder PHB base classes, but rather in a general design sense. They essentially combine elements of classes that came before--and do it worse than several homebrew takes around here--and don't have a particular schtick to make them stand out. Yes, they add things to a Pathfinder game over and above the Pathfinder PHB, but there's nothing there that makes me think "Gee, I couldn't have made that up myself, converted a 3e class, or used something off the 'net."

Keep in mind that Pathfinder can't take any of the non-OGL classes, so they can't just convert a PHB II or Complete Divine class. They can, however, build something based on the same concept. As far as "I could have made that myself", congratulations. Not all of us are excellent homebrewers. As to "someone else could have made that online"....they did. Paizo. It's free online in .pdf form, and soon (when the playtest is over) it'll be up on their PRD.

[Ravens_cry]

Well, if this is a play test, then a trouble I see, newbie here mind, that the Witch, will have a hard time getting into the fray for in-combat debuffs, what with no armour and only d6. Other then that, I like the look of it. I am not saying they should be quite as beefy as 3.5 clerics, but a little more standing power would help them fulfil an important part of their, to me anyway, function. Still, the flavour is nice. It breaks completely the divine=healing paradigm though, even more then bards.

[Akal Saris]

The Summoner: I definitely like what I see here. The summoner is actually surprisingly beefy with its 3/4 BAB and d8 HPs, so a summoner who fights as a mounted charger is probably a feasible build (and the class has ride as a class skill too!)

It's not what I expected at all, since I was picturing a class more like the beguiler or warmage, with very little customization. But the eidolon mechanics look like fun to play around with, which I like. My gut tells me that humanoid will be the best form as long as you spend money on decent equipment, but quadrepedal will probably be the best after a high BAB grants extra attacks with pounce.

I'm also a fan of the Summon Monster as a SLA with a minutes/level duration with 3+Cha uses/day - it frees up the spell list nicely and moves a lot of the focus away from the eidolon.

Even though the casting is on par with the bard's, look at the spell placement - half the spells are lower level than on the wizard list! Haste and Slow are 2nd level (so the summoner gains them one level before the wizard), and most others are gained at the same level as the wizard. With a strong mix of summoning, utility, and BC spells, the summoner list is actually quite strong too.

Edit: Minor nitpick: it's a cha-based class, but with no social skills like bluff or diplomacy :( On the upside, it gets UMD for some reason!

The Witch

After the summoner, the witch let me down a bit, just because it doesn't have any innovative mechanics compared with the summoner. The hexes are definitely flavorful though (I like the Endless Slumber one especially), and given that most can be used at will, make the witch a bit like a warlock, only stronger.

I like how the familiar is closely tied into the class, much like the sha'ir from Dragon Magazine. It's going to be another crazy strong full caster though, and the pig familiar will let you go Clericzilla, so hey, it looks like fun to me. Like the druid, it seems to have a very versatile spell list, which is good.

Overall, both classes seemed more well designed than the cavalier and oracle, which is a good sign to me. Hopefully the book will include PrCs, spells, and feats to support the new classes as well - some sort of Hex Focus for higher DCs, for example.

[Mongoose87]

So far, a pattern is appearing - one new class I like (Oracle, Summoner), one new class I don't (Cavalier, Witch).

[Zeta Kai]

You could just click the link and download it.
But, basically you start with a base eidolon...

Oh, good; it's nothing like my FFX summoner. Whew!

[PairO'Dice Lost]

Keep in mind that Pathfinder can't take any of the non-OGL classes, so they can't just convert a PHB II or Complete Divine class. They can, however, build something based on the same concept.

The same concept, yes, retreading the same ground yet again. Have you seen the number of variant paladins, knights, summoners, "I curse you" classes, and so on that are online somewhere? I don't know about you, but uf I were to eventually pay for the classes after they're refined by the playtests, I would want something closer to ToM or UA the like rather than Paladin Variation 72.

As far as "I could have made that myself", congratulations. Not all of us are excellent homebrewers.

Hence my point that it already exists here and elsewhere. Heck, like Nero said, the classes look like they're taking ideas from the homebrew out here!

As to "someone else could have made that online"....they did. Paizo. It's free online in .pdf form, and soon (when the playtest is over) it'll be up on their PRD.

But why? I mean, really, how many variations on a theme do we need here? Why go to all the effort to do the same old themes when they could branch out a different direction and really make themselves stand out, give themselves something to show that you can't really get in base 3e?

[Starbuck_II]

One unique fact of Witch: the only save or die that uses 3.5 mechanics.
What Pathfiner did for most save or dies is make them damage spells (10/level or something like that) if fail save instead of actually killing you outright. The damage might kill you, but not as a sure thing.

Forced Reincarnate outright kills you on failed save, but it then revives you as par reincarnate (so that likely means you still get negative level).
That means besides negative level, you still have fact that you might turn into a goblin or something.

Oh, good; it's nothing like my FFX summoner. Whew!

Nah, your Summoner is a huge change. A d20 game not exactly D&D since you have MP.

[imperialspectre]

I'm really ambivalent about the new Pathfinder classes. On the one hand, the concepts are ones that often didn't work very well with existing PRPG classes, and some of them are cool enough to get me excited about playing them.

On the other hand, from a design perspective, I'm not impressed. Three of the four classes so far represent pretty significant power creep compared to their core counterparts - and while it's a good thing to make a melee combatant class that's more powerful, it's probably a bad thing to make a "best CoDzilla ever, and also better than sorcerers" class, and it's a really bad thing to make a class that's decidedly more powerful than a PRPG wizard.

The Witch class combines a strong class chassis with Int-based casting, 9th-level arcane spell progression, a splash of good cleric spells in with most of the best wizard spells, and then a bunch of free, at-will (Su) abilities. That's basically a long list of "best things in D&D" that this class gets.

The Summoner class is the only class of the four that's relatively balanced compared to existing material - sure, the eidolon is probably as good as any given beatstick class, but casters are already way better than beatsticks, and Jason at least had the sense to keep the summoner at Bard casting.

[Mauril Everleaf]

But why? I mean, really, how many variations on a theme do we need here? Why go to all the effort to do the same old themes when they could branch out a different direction and really make themselves stand out, give themselves something to show that you can't really get in base 3e?

The reason why, as far as I can see, is to that it is hard coded into an actual system somewhere. The number of homebrews on a similar theme show that people like a certain theme. So, in order to make sure that their adventure paths, expanded sourcebooks, spells lists and feat selections can include those themes they have to make the class actually exist in their system.

They can't make a feat/spell/item on the assumption that people are working with a certain homebrew class that they found on the internet. You yourself said that there are hundreds of knight/summoner/curse classes, so how could they make sure the one you happened to have googled up is balanced compared to their base classes or from some other homebrew on a similar theme that they googled up for "research".

These classes exist because people like them. They will appear similar to classes on the same theme by design. This is necessary. [/threadjack]

More on the subject, I really like the summoner. Well, I should be more direct. I really like the eidolon. I've been messing with building 1st level eidolons for the past hour or so, comparing them to level 1 druid companions.

In every instance, the eidolon is slightly better or almost dead equal. This is just as it should be. Druids are a full caster, and the summoner is focused on his pet. I'm going to start work on comparing level 5, 10, 15 and 20 animal companions to (comparably built) eidolons.

[imperialspectre]

More on the subject, I really like the summoner. Well, I should be more direct. I really like the eidolon. I've been messing with building 1st level eidolons for the past hour or so, comparing them to level 1 druid companions.

In every instance, the eidolon is slightly better or almost dead equal. This is just as it should be. Druids are a full caster, and the summoner is focused on his pet. I'm going to start work on comparing level 5, 10, 15 and 20 animal companions to (comparably built) eidolons.

At later levels (that's 2+), the eidolon pulls pretty far ahead. This is particularly true because you don't get to pick feats for higher-level (that is, better) animal companions, while you can build your eidolon without Track and with lots of Improved Natural Attack.

The short version is that you get all of the good things about an animal companion, plus a lot more customization. More options generally leads to more power, and the eidolon is no exception.

[Mauril Everleaf]

At later levels (that's 2+), the eidolon pulls pretty far ahead. This is particularly true because you don't get to pick feats for higher-level (that is, better) animal companions, while you can build your eidolon without Track and with lots of Improved Natural Attack.

The short version is that you get all of the good things about an animal companion, plus a lot more customization. More options generally leads to more power, and the eidolon is no exception.

That's good. With bard casting and a unique spell list, they need something to make them better than the druid.

[Zeta Kai]

Nah, your Summoner is a huge change. A d20 game not exactly D&D since you have MP.

Uh, I guess you don't play psionics... or the spell point variant. It's a shame, they are both mechanically superior to Vancian casting, IMO. YMMV.

[Asbestos]

I'm not getting this summoner thing. It sounds like the player is basically playing an extension of the character rather than the character. Also, 10 minute summons? Waaaay too long to be practical

[Mauril Everleaf]

You aren't playing an extension of the character and not the character if you decide to play a druid/ranger/paladin. This is just a customizable companion. With the smaller spell list, this companion is better. Sure, you have to spend some time "building" it rather than just grabbing it from the bestiary. Essentially (from what I can tell) is that the Summoner brings in his eidolon and plays a support role to both it and the party. It's kind of like a druid/bard hybrid. Which is kind of awesome, in my opinion.

[Mongoose87]

I'm not getting this summoner thing. It sounds like the player is basically playing an extension of the character rather than the character. Also, 10 minute summons? Waaaay too long to be practical

What I see, when I read the summoner, is a mount that can slaughter all my enemies while I cast spells from its back.

[Hunter Noventa]

On the other hand, from a design perspective, I'm not impressed. Three of the four classes so far represent pretty significant power creep compared to their core counterparts - and while it's a good thing to make a melee combatant class that's more powerful, it's probably a bad thing to make a "best CoDzilla ever, and also better than sorcerers" class, and it's a really bad thing to make a class that's decidedly more powerful than a PRPG wizard.

The Witch class combines a strong class chassis with Int-based casting, 9th-level arcane spell progression, a splash of good cleric spells in with most of the best wizard spells, and then a bunch of free, at-will (Su) abilities. That's basically a long list of "best things in D&D" that this class gets.

Remember that this is also an Alpha, it will liekly be changed to be a bit more on par, like the at-will abilities having been removed from thefull-casters in PF Core.

[Nero24200]

Remember that this is also an Alpha, it will liekly be changed to be a bit more on par, like the at-will abilities having been removed from thefull-casters in PF Core.

I'll be honest though, when I saw the Alpha 1 (Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard), I thought the same "Well, theres things I don't like...but it's only the Alpha, they'll sort the problems out". They didn't though, on the contrary the problems I had seemed to be the main things they kept.

Remember that Paizo aren't asking groups of homebrewers or forums like this or Brilliant Gameologists for opinions, it's their own forum, which is chalk full of fanboys. Which is quite a shame, since it's meant that some good ideas have been thrown out while poorer ones kept in.

[Starbuck_II]

Uh, I guess you don't play psionics... or the spell point variant. It's a shame, they are both mechanically superior to Vancian casting, IMO. YMMV.

I agree on Psionics, but I doubt Pathfinder would do something like that is what I meant.
Their fanbase seems leary on non-vancian usually.

[Person_Man]

Summoner: d8 hit die, 3/4 BAB, Strong Will Save, 2 Skill points per level from an odd list (includes UMD), simple weapons, light armor, spontaneous spells from a limited but useful list with slightly better then Bard-ish progression, Summon Monster as a spell-like ability 3 + Cha mod times per day (which scales up as if you were a Wizard casting it) for 1 minute per level, and a bunch of meh supernatural abilities, most of which can be duplicated with Wizard spells.

Unique-ish abilities: Starting at 1st level you get an Eidolon (basically a pimped out arcane Animal Companion), which you can summon once per day, and it stays with you until it dies or you dismiss it. The Eidolon improves as you gain levels. Notably, it is not tied to your caster level and does not officially count as a Special Mount or Animal Companion, which means that if you multi-class or enter a PrC, your Eidolon will quickly become useless. So Summoner 20 is pretty much your only viable Summoner build. You can also sacrifice hit points to keep your Eidolon alive (and vice verses at 14th level), which makes tanking a viable option.

My opinion: Meh. They should have called this class "Strong Animal Companion Guy with weak spells." But I guess that didn't have the same ring to it. You'll have a great action advantage from controlling 2 characters and Summoning. But none of you are particularly potent, useful, or unique. The inability to multiclass or PrC bugs me a lot.

Reading the other classes now.

[Starbuck_II]

True it is a summon not a animal companion so no Prc will improve it.
Augment summoning will, but that only adds +4 Str/Con.

The spell list is pretty good (many higher level spells lowered in level).
1st level spell Daze monster (usually a higher level),
2nd level: Haste, and slow.
3rd level: Black Tentacles, Charm Monster, Dimension Door, G. Invis, and Wall of Fire/Ice.
4th: Baleful polymorph, Ability Bonus Mass (Bull, Bear, Eagle, etc), Faithful Hound, Teleport, and Magic Jar.
5th: Simulcrum, G. Dispel Magic, Invis mass, G. Teleport, Planeshift
6th: Charm Monster mass, Dominate Monster, Maze, Incendiary Cloud

So they have level appropriate spells at every level of the class even if they get lower level spells to cast them.

[Akal Saris]

Nero24200: Well, it's an open forum - anybody from here can post there, after all. I know I read all 3 forums regularly. And you can pretty much see the same range of opinions on the board for discussing the new classes - a split between "Yaaay! New classes! Go go Paizo!" and "Um, I think XYZ is too powerful..." Besides, I wouldn't really appreciate Paizo hijacking the OoTS forums for its own uses when they have their own forums for this sort of thing...

I agree that it would be cool if the new classes were more unique, rather like the classes in the ToM (OK, more like the Binder ) or ToB for 3.5, but I don't think that can be attributed to a possible lack of homebrewers on the site, since its likely that a sizable percentage of their fanboys are in fact homebrewers.

What's really noticeable on their forum is that the Summoner has gotten much, much more attention over there, since it actually brings a relatively unusual concept and mechanic to the table. In contrast, the Witch is almost certainly the stronger class (about on par with the other full casters IMO - weak class features but a strong spell list), but it just isn't particularly compelling, so it hasn't gotten much attention. Ironically, people there seem to be more concerned that the summoner is too powerful, not the witch.