Reactions to the ACG classes after more than 6 months


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 233 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Well, I can't help but look at all those CORE threads and see a number of very happy GMs talking about them no longer having to deal with the ACG stuff.

My question would be, is it really that bad? Do they consistenly outperform other characters / break scenarios?

I know about the (real and perceived) problems with the Magus, Witch, Gunslinger, Summoner and a couple of other classes and archetypes. Can you enlighten me why the new stuff is so badly received ?

Disclaimer: :

I love the ACG classes and think that they are mechanically superior to the core classes, not more powerful, but better designed.
And example I like to mention is the ranger class and the damn favored enemy. It is too good when it applies, and worthless when it does not, that is until the ranger gets a number of spells from the ACG.

Rogues are rather hard to build well, and the number of people getting drawn into the clutches of two-weapon fighting are quite sad, especially when you are the GM having to deal with dissatisfied players. Sneak attack looks sexy, but usually under-performs vs a fighter, even if the rogue takes pain/risk to get into position.

The Slayer fixed the problems with those two classes, it is reliable in most scenarios, and never feels like it wasted a class ability. This is particularly relevant in PFS, since you can't really chose your favored enemies based on the campaign/the adventure path.

Of course the Slayer is a very solid class and pretty hard to break.

1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Some of the ACG classes are quite well balanced and some are broken and should be banned just like the gunslinger and summoner.

Liberty's Edge

I like them, mostly because my players in my online games like them. If they like it, I like it. If I dislike it, it doesn't exist.

The favorites are swashbucklers, warpriests, shamans and slayers.
The least favorites are brawlers, skalds, bloodragers and for some reason, hunters.

My players are really odd. I tried to explain to them the hunter class and the fact it has some neat abilities, but they were just like: why not play a ranger instead?

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

8 people marked this as a favorite.

The only complaint I have against the ACG is "Enough, already."

I don't care about balance, over-poweredness, or under-poweredness. I don't care about how seamless one class may be in any given situation vs another. I care about how much information is out there that I have to know.

The Advanced Player's Guide was one of the best RPG books I've ever seen. I loved it. I made constant use of it. My players were dealing with things they had never seen before, and the options it opened up seemed limitless.

Then the Ultimate books came out (don't recall which was first; don't care). That started to push the bounds of realistic expectations.

Then the Advanced Race Guide came out. I was pretty much done, but others were excited that they had a "race" option that filled the same niche the APG had previously filled for players. Okay.

Then Ultimate Equipment hit. I was out. I informed my home groups that books would be severely limited from this point on. In fact, I planned to adjust available rules based on the adventure path we were playing (nothing post-APG for Kingmaker, for instance). Add in all the options from Player Companions and Campaign Setting books, and things were just crazy. ArchivesofNethys.com was the website of choice for everyone I knew, and that just felt silly to me.

PFS GMs don't have the choices a home brew GM has. They must put up with whatever Paizo makes legal, and must take it with a smile. They don't get to "balance" things the way they see fit, and they don't get to punt rules they don't like. Likewise, they don't get to make use of some of the more oddball rules that they may, in fact, like (such as the Words of Power magic rules).

So, the Advanced Class Guide, followed rapid-fire by the playtest for the Next Big Thing (don't remember what; don't care), and I think there were a LOT of GM's who arrived at the point I was at with my home games a year ago:

Enough already.

1/5 **

snickersimba wrote:
My players are really odd. I tried to explain to them the hunter class and the fact it has some neat abilities, but they were just like: why not play a ranger instead?

I don't find that odd, actually. They really don't seem conceptually distinct to me.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
My question would be, is it really that bad? Do they consistently outperform other characters / break scenarios?

There's a few issues here.

Firstly, yes. Most of the ACG classes are straight up superior to the classes their based on. A Swashbuckler will kill a Fighter in a straight up fight, baring triplock shenanigans from the fighter. Skalds are better than Bards in nearly every way. Bloodragers are just another option for the two-handed combat monsters PFS players seem to love so much. Brawler loses 1 good save in exchange for full BaB, d10 HD, and the ability to wear armor. To say the ACG is hideously unbalanced is an understatement.

Secondly, it's the book itself. As Esquin said, the book is really, really sloppy. There are obvious typos, things are poorly formatted, it's just a mess. Paizo tried to do too much, too quickly (I'd be willing to bet Paizo rushed it out at Gencon so that they'd have something to compete with 5e), when the book really could have benefited from having half the content cut, and spending a bit more time in editing.

Lastly, it's rules fatigue. There are ten new classes in the book, the amount of content you have to process in order to GM for ACG parties is insane. In a homegame you can ban it, but PFS requires you to GM for the table, regardless of the party comp, so there's no way to avoid learning the mechanics.

Liberty's Edge

Correction, my players and I forgot the investigator existed.

Because that class is just odd. No one wants to play an investigator.

Also, they really don't seem to like the arcanist, but eeh. Arcanist is one of those aquired tastes, I can't figure out how they cast spells first of all.

5/5 5/55/55/5

I've been very disappointed by the swashbuckler: the class that needed the most help to actually make the concept work didn't get it. Its supposed to be mobile, the class has no movement abilities. Its supposed to be dex based, but the best builds with it are strength based. Pathfinder discourages multiclassing, but after 5 levels in the class its time to bail. Looking at the monster manual you'd think being immune to precision damage was rare but every other scenario there's a fight where it just shuts off. The city of golden death was just... I think my head impression is still in my desk.

It doesn't have the saves to survive as a front liner.

I've basically started the character over as a dervish dancing bard and it looks like it will work a lot better.

It makes a very good level 1 dip though...Which is what I see so far with a couple of the classes like brawler and investigator. Dip to get the level one goodies. Mind you, this is good for PFS where you need to take a variety of situations, but it does dilute your identity a bit.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Drogon wrote:

The only complaint I have against the ACG is "Enough, already."

I don't care about balance, over-poweredness, or under-poweredness. I don't care about how seamless one class may be in any given situation vs another. I care about how much information is out there that I have to know.

The Advanced Player's Guide was one of the best RPG books I've ever seen. I loved it. I made constant use of it. My players were dealing with things they had never seen before, and the options it opened up seemed limitless.

Then the Ultimate books came out (don't recall which was first; don't care). That started to push the bounds of realistic expectations.

Then the Advanced Race Guide came out. I was pretty much done, but others were excited that they had a "race" option that filled the same niche the APG had previously filled for players. Okay.

Then Ultimate Equipment hit. I was out. I informed my home groups that books would be severely limited from this point on. In fact, I planned to adjust available rules based on the adventure path we were playing (nothing post-APG for Kingmaker, for instance). Add in all the options from Player Companions and Campaign Setting books, and things were just crazy. ArchivesofNethys.com was the website of choice for everyone I knew, and that just felt silly to me.

PFS GMs don't have the choices a home brew GM has. They must put up with whatever Paizo makes legal, and must take it with a smile. They don't get to "balance" things the way they see fit, and they don't get to punt rules they don't like. Likewise, they don't get to make use of some of the more oddball rules that they may, in fact, like (such as the Words of Power magic rules).

So, the Advanced Class Guide, followed rapid-fire by the playtest for the Next Big Thing (don't remember what; don't care), and I think there were a LOT of GM's who arrived at the point I was at with my home games a year ago:

Enough already.

Since you are the owner of a number of gaming stores, I think it is fair to assume that you like and prefer to use physical books? It is not an accusation, I simply want to mention, that it is only one way that players and GMs can access the same information.

Personally I prefer to read a book - or these days pdf, since shipping and handling to Germany is a bit rough - and discover new material myself. Frankly I am pretty quick to mentally throw an option into the weak/incredibly circumstantial box, and only tend to remember options I actually like.

However, when I prepare for a scenario, or create a new character, programs like Herolab and websites like D20pfsrd/archives of nethis, make my life much easier. Those allow me to find the options I like, and ignore the ones, that do not appeal to me (which is the vast majority of material) back in the good/bad 3.5 days I still had the time to remember most of the material out there.
Of course that was a couple of years ago, and these days I am much busier, and considering the requirements of an organized play campaign.. I need to know my stuff.

Of course that is just me, and given the right setup working with physical books has tremendous advantages.

..

Regarding your feelings on the hardcover books, it seems that I have a very different point of view. I really like well made classes, tightly written descriptions, and material that works as advertised.

I mentioned the Ranger and Rogues classes above, and I have come to the personal conclusion, that those classes don't quite work as advertised. My opinion about Summoners is rather mixed, they allow for truly amazing RP opportunities, but their mechanical implementation is quite lacking (far to easy to be stupidly powerful).

In my home campaign, I have effectively removed a number of classes from the available roster including but not limited to ranger and rogue.

My innitial thoughts about the APG were quite similar, since it added a host of new options and classes to a system that - and let's be fair here - did a great job polishing existing classes, but with backwards compatibility their options were limited.

However, if you look at classes like the bard and ranger, you will notice that they became a lot stronger (either through archetypes and or spells), maybe you could argue, that a little bit of power adjustment was desirable, but it was definitely there.

While the Ultimate books do contain some great items, they do contain a lot of subsystems, alternative rules and well things you don't really need. It is great to find something that you have been searching for, but aside from that the complexity doesn't increase quite that much.

The Advanced Race Guide, while I own it, it doesn't get a whole lot of use, it offers options, nothing more, nothing less.

The same is true for Ultimate Equipment, while it did update and collect a lot of previous material, and reprints quite a lot from the CRB.

For a home campaign, I think it is entirely reasonable to require the chance to veto certain options or builds. That is entirely reasonable and healthy for the game. If a player takes his time and money to prepare a selection of options for his character, and presents those in a manner that is easier for the GM to check (printing the relevant pages...), well that should result in a fair environment for everybody.

Obviously, in PFS the situation is a little different, but players should be encouraged to have the relevant material on hand, if that includes printouts from the PRD, that is sufficient too (obviously they have to bring the sources, but it is easier to review it without having to use 3+ books at the same time).

I think that advanced class guide could have benefited from another round of proofreading/giving it to a couple of VC/VL/mechanically proficient gamers (obviously under NDA), and the timing of the Occult Adventures playtest could have been better. (Apparently a lot of people at paizo are into the whole occult theme, I don't really care, but we will get airbenders, waterbenders ... and that should be lovely. Of course some of those classes are a nightmare at the table).

The sentiment " I didn't yet have the time to familiarize myself with those classes" earns my sympathy, but every table has at least 2 other people (ignoring the GM and the player) who could help with those issues.
PFS already depends quite a lot on the honor system, and I think most GMs are simply unwilling to audit their players all the time. Why not police each other, and try to help the GM. Obviously GMs will always have to make judgement calls, but I like to think that the majority of players are amenable to fair compromise.

4/5 5/5 * Contributor

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Disk Elemental wrote:

There's a few issues here.

Firstly, yes. Most of the ACG classes are straight up superior to the classes their based on. A Swashbuckler will kill a Fighter in a straight up fight, baring triplock shenanigans from the fighter. Skalds are better than Bards in nearly every way. Bloodragers are just another option for the two-handed combat monsters PFS players seem to love so much. Brawler loses 1 good save in exchange for full BaB, d10 HD, and the ability to wear armor. To say the ACG is hideously unbalanced is an understatement.

Your points are only correct here if you're talking about raw damage output. Most of the Advanced Class Guide classes are one-trick ponies while the core classes (and even the base classes) are more general. A well-built fighter has a more diverse array of things that he can do compared to a swashbuckler. Inspire rage might be situationally more powerful than inspire courage, but the bard's other performances are better than all of the skald's other performances. Bloodragers also are more specialized than barbarians are.

Quote:
Secondly, it's the book itself. As Esquin said, the book is really, really sloppy. There are obvious typos, things are poorly formatted, it's just a mess. Paizo tried to do too much, too quickly (I'd be willing to bet Paizo rushed it out at Gencon so that they'd have something to compete with 5e), when the book really could have benefited from having half the content cut, and spending a bit more time in editing.

When you get right down to it, the Advanced Class Guide's scope is more focused on player options than any other book that Paizo's done. It has the least number of spells of any Core Rulebook product, it has the second-most number of classes (behind only the Core Rulebook itself) and feats (behind only Ultimate Combat), and the greatest number of archetypes for the most number of classes. Remember that Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat each left several classes out while the Advanced Class Guide tried to service them all. Meanwhile, Ultimate Combat and Ultimate Magic both have extensive rules systems that didn't add to player power while the Advanced Player's Guide had more equipment (both magical and mundane) as well as the section on races and the Additional Rules section. The Advanced Class Guide really only has the philosophy of class design section taking away from its crunch, and its really quite small.

Quote:
Lastly, it's rules fatigue. There are ten new classes in the book, the amount of content you have to process in order to GM for ACG parties is insane. In a homegame you can ban it, but PFS requires you to GM for the table, regardless of the party comp, so there's no way to avoid learning the mechanics.

Honestly, I don't think you really *need* to know every new class in order to GM for ACG parties. You only really need to know whatever shows up at your table. In short, what your describing is really more of a PFS problem than a universal problem with the book, and its a problem that repeats itself whenever a big rulebook is released.

Sovereign Court 5/5 RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8

Drogon wrote:


So, the Advanced Class Guide, followed rapid-fire by the playtest for the Next Big Thing (don't remember what; don't care), and I think there were a LOT of GM's who arrived at the point I was at with my home games a year ago:

Enough already.

I understand where you're coming from. While I like the Slayer (Basically what I tried to build multiclassing between fighter and rogue) the volume of options is hard to keep track of in organized play. Indeed, that's part of why I'm excited about core. Not only to lure new players in "One book, two if you want to play a summoning type." But because as a PFS GM I won't have as many 'what the hell' moments.

Grand Lodge 4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I have issues with the poor editing job of the ACG, as well as the introduction of Divine-Grace-in-a-can (thankfully banned in PFS) but I have no qualms other than that.

As for quantity of material? Well, I was used to playing 3.5 with pretty much all material available, so Paizo's still got a ways to go before I start to feel overwhelmed.

4/5 5/5 * Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's my thoughts on the new classes after seeing them in action and testing a few builds:

Arcanist: Didn't break the game. Turns out that having a witch's spell progression with no at-will powers and no bonus spells known is a great balancing factor after all.

Bloodrager: This is a freaking good class. I never thought bloodlines could be as useful as they are here. This went from being a, "What the heck is this? This is a dumb, unsupported concept," to, "Holy crap! This is AWESOME!" in my eyes.

Brawler: Flippin' fun, but I'm disappointed that there isn't more I can do with it. Many weapons that feel like brawler weapons are specifically excluded. We could use a feat or ability that allows a weapon to be treated as a monk weapon for the purpose of monk and brawler class abilities. (Monks / brawlers with katanas would be awesome, for example.)

Hunter: I ended up really liking this class as the spontaneous nature caster. I still think that its the most bland of the new classes, but I will attest that no animal companion is quite as powerful as a hunter's animal companion, especially when those characters are teaming up.

Investigator: I'm a big fan of this class, but I hate having to wait until 4th level for studied combat. I wish it came sooner, because that's essentially the crown jewel to the investigator's combat strategy.

Shaman: I haven't been as crazy about this class as I thought I was going to be. Part of it is that I could *really* use a familiar-less shaman archetype. Another problem is that my favorite archetype (animist) doesn't leave you with any hexes to customize your build with. It sort of feels like an oracle without an abundance of useful revelations.

Skald: Probably my favorite of the new classes. Its basically the battle bard. They lose a lot on their versatility compared to the bard, namely in the performance department. In my experience, the skald isn't as good of a team player as the bard is, either. That said, I do really like this class.

Slayer: I think the slayer could have used more class-unique talents. Almost everything it has it bums off of the rogue, which is disappointing. Investigator got TONS of unique stuff in addition to the rogue / alchemist abilities. Slayer ... not so much. Also, I'm really surprised that none of the freelancers made a slayer archetype that swapped out rogue / ranger for ninja / ranger. That's just common sense, in my opinion.

Swashbuckler: This is the class that I have the most experience with because I play it personally, and my opinions basically boil down to: Too much gunslinger, not enough fighter. The class has severe problems with when it gets abilities. For instance, my swashbuckler was almost entirely useless until he got precise strike; I've never had a character just randomly "turn on" like that before. Meanwhile, you get two defensive deeds at 1st level, for a total of three 1st-level deeds that all gobble up your panache. If I was designing the class, I would have put precise strike at 1st level and moved opportune parry and riposte to 3rd level. Second, while the evasive deed works for gunslingers, having all of those important melee abilities locked away until 11th level really hurts the swashbuckler. Finally, I have so much stuff tugging at my swift actions and my panache that most of those abilities don't get use. I'm officially a 5th level swashbuckler now, and I can honestly save that I've doubled my precise strike damage a total of one time, and that's mostly because of charmed life. In my personal opinion, the swashbuckler is the only ACG class that needs a true overhaul.

Warpriest: I honestly think that the warpriest, while not the most exciting of the classes, is the most balanced. Its the closest to being a hybrid in the same vein as the magus. Sure, its not as explosive, but every time I've seen it in action its been a solid, reliable class with plenty of fun tricks up its sleeve. The new blessing system has been a blast to see in action and some relatively poor cleric domains (Artifice) have awesome blessing equivalents, which is cool. If I had a complaint, I hate how alignment-based options are always carbon copies of one another.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

1 person marked this as a favorite.
snickersimba wrote:

Correction, my players and I forgot the investigator existed.

Because that class is just odd. No one wants to play an investigator.

Also, they really don't seem to like the arcanist, but eeh. Arcanist is one of those aquired tastes, I can't figure out how they cast spells first of all.

Yeah, investigators really need a player who is invested in the concept and has read the class a couple of times, certainly not an easy class to master.

Since me and most of my players dislike the traditional vancian style of spell preparation, the arcanist really hits the spot (it also happens to be very very similar to the spellcasters in the WOW rpg).

Disk Elemental wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
My question would be, is it really that bad? Do they consistently outperform other characters / break scenarios?

There's a few issues here.

Firstly, yes. Most of the ACG classes are straight up superior to the classes their based on. A Swashbuckler will kill a Fighter in a straight up fight, baring triplock shenanigans from the fighter. Skalds are better than Bards in nearly every way. Bloodragers are just another option for the two-handed combat monsters PFS players seem to love so much. Brawler loses 1 good save in exchange for full BaB, d10 HD, and the ability to wear armor. To say the ACG is hideously unbalanced is an understatement.

Secondly, it's the book itself. As Esquin said, the book is really, really sloppy. There are obvious typos, things are poorly formatted, it's just a mess. Paizo tried to do too much, too quickly (I'd be willing to bet Paizo rushed it out at Gencon so that they'd have something to compete with 5e), when the book really could have benefited from having half the content cut, and spending a bit more time in editing.

Lastly, it's rules fatigue. There are ten new classes in the book, the amount of content you have to process in order to GM for ACG parties is insane. In a homegame you can ban it, but PFS requires you to GM for the table, regardless of the party comp, so there's no way to avoid learning the mechanics.

Frankly, PVP really does not concern me, D20 never really did do class balance with that in mind, and most classes have sweet spots.

Also those classes are quite different, one has class abilities, that work all day, every day never getting better or worse, and never running out of steam. This makes fighters pretty hard to balance against spellcasters and other classes with limited ability pools. Adventure design has to compensate for that, that is the reason, why scenarios/adventures with only 1 fight per day, are rather rare. If spellcasting stamina never matters, they will always be better.
Swashbucklers are in an interesting situation with their recharging resource pool, if you assume, that the pool will always be full, obviously they are very good, but that assumption should not be realistic.
And of course the level is relevant, Swashbucklers are quite limited by weapon choice, and immunity to critical hits really lowers their damage potential. Ranged combat and two handed weapons are a bit tricky, and I really would not be surprised to learn that players are using opportune parry and riposte wrong.
You have to indicate that you want to use it, when the enemy announces a melee attack against you (before the roll is made), that alone already cost a point of panache and an attack of opportunity, and only if the parry roll works (remember the -2 per size category) you can make the riposte as an immediate action.
It is great against melee enemies with a limited number of attacks, it doesn't scale great once they attack several times per round, and if your enemy has greater reach than you... well that riposte isn't an option.
The Swashbuckler certainly does what he does rather well - in his niche - but the class has definite weak points... and let's not argue that all fighters are created equal (ignoring all existing archetypes would obviously be unfair).

Do you have some more specific examples from actual play, where a Swashbucker performed significantly better? I suspect, that once you play 7-11 scenarios, that the inability to deal precision damage to a number of enemies will be an issue. (Valley of Veiled Flame has a pretty nasty encounter for Swashbucklers).

Skalds get different class abilities, I suspect, that the level by level comparison has winners and losers, and obviously the Bard has a higher number of archetypes. What I have learned is that the rage performance can be pretty good in some groups, and a complete waste of time in others.

Well there is a reason that AMBARBARIAN is a Barbarian (and bloodragers lose the d12 for the d10 when it comes to HD) and some rage powers are really really good. Bloodragers are different, but I have seen no reason to believe, that they are strictly better (see below).

Brawlers are good at hitting people, not really that much more, but I think the comparison to the Monk is worth examining. Fact is that the monk gets a lot of class abilities, that you as a player, don't necessarily want. We have plenty of archetypes that replace them, and those seem to be pretty popular.
And it bears saying, that the monk is in a really weird situation at lower levels, without mage armor he can be quite vulnerable, with it, he often ends up being the character with the highest AC.

As mentioned above, if a class gets class abilities, that you don't particularly care for, and another class doesn't give you those balance is difficult to argue.
If the GM in your home campaign never uses traps, rogues and other classes with specific advantages against them, have will come to the conclusion that their class feature is wasted.

Regarding sloppy edition, as I mentioned above, I do agree in principle, but would argue about the scale of this problem.

Rules fatigue seems to be a real thing, but as I mentioned above, using the resources at the table - the other players - seems like a nice idea. One of my players has the job to deal with initiative using a Paizo combat pad, and it makes my job far easier.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I've been very disappointed by the swashbuckler: the class that needed the most help to actually make the concept work didn't get it. Its supposed to be mobile, the class has no movement abilities. Its supposed to be dex based, but the best builds with it are strength based. Pathfinder discourages multiclassing, but after 5 levels in the class its time to bail. Looking at the monster manual you'd think being immune to precision damage was rare but every other scenario there's a fight where it just shuts off. The city of golden death was just... I think my head impression is still in my desk.

It doesn't have the saves to survive as a front liner.

I've basically started the character over as a dervish dancing bard and it looks like it will work a lot better.

It makes a very good level 1 dip though...Which is what I see so far with a couple of the classes like brawler and investigator. Dip to get the level one goodies. Mind you, this is good for PFS where you need to take a variety of situations, but it does dilute your identity a bit.

Mobility is a difficult issue, but while I think that you aren't wrong in your assessment of the class, a full Swashbuckler is definitely viable. I had fun playing the pregen in a 7-11 scenario, and there are a number of builds that work quite well. Of course some of those involve dipping in other classes.

Of course we are talking about a class that gets evasion and some other toys, Iron Will might not be the worst choice for such a character. Maybe I will throw together a build or two.

Sovereign Court 5/5 Owner - Enchanted Grounds, President/Owner - Enchanted Grounds

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Since you are the owner of a number of gaming stores, I think it is fair to assume that you like and prefer to use physical books?

Not at all. I love archivesofnethys.com. When I make my own PFS characters (or a character for a home game, even) it is where I go first. I do various searches based on key words that come up in the abilities I am choosing to design around, and make sure to find the most synergetic items/feats/skills/whatever I can find. That site is a godsend for people like me (meaning: as a gamer, my opinions as a store owner don't really have a seat at the table). I then go out and make sure I own the books I need.

The only reason I can honestly say I prefer books is because I grew up playing RPGs (I started at age 7). I enjoy reading them for the stories they tell (even the gaming books). It feels weird to not have one in hand. But I can't imagine trying to design a character without the internet available to me.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
However, when I prepare for a scenario, or create a new character, programs like Herolab and websites like D20pfsrd/archives of nethis, make my life much easier.

I use the PRD on Paizo's site, but otherwise completely agree. I copy/paste stat blocks, reference current thoughts on rules interpretations, verify any FAQ that might be in place, etc. I may use the internet for designing a character, but I abuse it when prepping a scenario.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Regarding your feelings on the hardcover books, it seems that I have a very different point of view. I really like well made classes, tightly written descriptions, and material that works as advertised.

I mentioned the Ranger and Rogues classes above, and I have come to the personal conclusion, that those classes don't quite work as advertised. My opinion about Summoners is rather mixed, they allow for truly amazing RP opportunities, but their mechanical implementation is quite lacking (far to easy to be stupidly powerful).

In my home campaign, I have effectively removed a number of classes from the available roster including but not limited to ranger and rogue.

My innitial thoughts about the APG were quite similar, since it added a host of new options and classes to a system that - and let's be fair here - did a great job polishing existing classes, but with backwards compatibility their options were limited.

However, if you look at classes like the bard and ranger, you will notice that they became a lot stronger (either through archetypes and or spells), maybe you could argue, that a little bit of power adjustment was desirable, but it was definitely there.

While the Ultimate books do contain some great items, they do contain a lot of subsystems, alternative rules and well things you don't really need. It is great to find something that you have been searching for, but aside from that the complexity doesn't increase quite that much.

The Advanced Race Guide, while I own it, it doesn't get a whole lot of use, it offers options, nothing more, nothing less.

The same is true for Ultimate Equipment, while it did update and collect a lot of previous material, and reprints quite a lot from the CRB.

For a home campaign, I think it is entirely reasonable to require the chance to veto certain options or builds. That is entirely reasonable and healthy for the game. If a player takes his time and money to prepare a selection of options for his character, and presents those in a manner that is easier for the GM to check (printing the relevant pages...), well that should result in a fair environment for everybody.

Obviously, in PFS the situation is a little different, but players should be encouraged to have the relevant material on hand, if that includes printouts from the PRD, that is sufficient too (obviously they have to bring the sources, but it is easier to review it without having to use 3+ books at the same time).

I think that advanced class guide could have benefited from another round of proofreading/giving it to a couple of VC/VL/mechanically proficient gamers (obviously under NDA), and the timing of the Occult Adventures playtest could have been better. (Apparently a lot of people at paizo are into the whole occult theme, I don't really care, but we will get airbenders, waterbenders ... and that should be lovely. Of course some of those classes are a nightmare at the table).

The sentiment " I didn't yet have the time to familiarize myself with those classes" earns my sympathy, but every table has at least 2 other people (ignoring the GM and the player) who could help with those issues.
PFS already depends quite a lot on the honor system, and I think most GMs are simply unwilling to audit their players all the time. Why not police each other, and try to help the GM. Obviously GMs will always have to make judgement calls, but I like to think that the majority of players are amenable to fair compromise.

That's a lot of stuff in that last quote, but I think it can all be boiled down to this: you may be misunderstanding my position.

I am not at all concerned about balance in my home games. I've been doing this for 35 years; I know how to balance the games I run and provide a fun time for my players. It's so second nature to me that my players often don't even miss a beat when I adjust a rule on the fly or introduce something new.

But I'm not allowed to do that for PFS. "Run as written" is the law of the land, and one I enforce at my own store's game days with an iron fist. GMs do not get to make arbitrary decisions based on their own interpretation of what may or may not be going on at the table. They need to present a fair, fun, exciting game using the rules that Paizo wants them to use.

But "the rules that Paizo wants them to use," at this point, is a mountain of information so insurmountable to some that fatigue has become a common element with GMs I talk to. They have had enough, and they want things to get dialed back a bit. The Advanced Class Guide is simply the straw that broke the camel's back.

5th Edition D&D is immensely popular in my store, right now. The reason is because there is so little that has to be done to join the game. If the number of players and GMs I have clamoring for Core games is any indication, the same is true of the Core Campaign: people are excited because there is so little that needs to be brought to the table.

And, once again, don't get me wrong: the Classic PFS Campaign is alive and well in my store. I run, and will continue to run, 15 to 20 games of PFS per month. The only reason more aren't on my schedule is because there are stores all over this state that run games, as well, and because I have lots of other games I like to see played in my store.

But that doesn't mean I don't hear about "GM fatigue" like what I alluded to in my prior post. And, once again to be clear: the ACG and all its information simply made that fatigue a palpable thing.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Drogon wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Since you are the owner of a number of gaming stores, I think it is fair to assume that you like and prefer to use physical books?

Not at all. I love archivesofnethys.com. When I make my own PFS characters (or a character for a home game, even) it is where I go first. I do various searches based on key words that come up in the abilities I am choosing to design around, and make sure to find the most synergetic items/feats/skills/whatever I can find. That site is a godsend for people like me (meaning: as a gamer, my opinions as a store owner don't really have a seat at the table). I then go out and make sure I own the books I need.

The only reason I can honestly say I prefer books is because I grew up playing RPGs (I started at age 7). I enjoy reading them for the stories they tell (even the gaming books). It feels weird to not have one in hand. But I can't imagine trying to design a character without the internet available to me.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
However, when I prepare for a scenario, or create a new character, programs like Herolab and websites like D20pfsrd/archives of nethis, make my life much easier.

I use the PRD on Paizo's site, but otherwise completely agree. I copy/paste stat blocks, reference current thoughts on rules interpretations, verify any FAQ that might be in place, etc. I may use the internet for designing a character, but I abuse it when prepping a scenario.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

Regarding your feelings on the hardcover books, it seems that I have a very different point of view. I really like well made classes, tightly written descriptions, and material that works as advertised.

I mentioned the Ranger and Rogues classes above, and I have come to the personal conclusion, that those classes don't quite work as advertised. My opinion about Summoners is rather mixed, they allow for truly amazing RP opportunities, but their mechanical implementation is quite lacking (far to easy to be stupidly powerful).

...

I think, I understand your point about the rules fatigue. I suspect, that the exploding number of rather specific splat books has a little bit more to do with the situation, than the hardcovers releases (at least those get FAQs). And of course I can sympathize when a scenario gets beaten with an option that did not yet exist when the scenario was written.

However things like this will always happen, simply because even scenario writers and developers usually aren't aware of every single combination and rules interaction.

The "bring your damn source material" rule seems to be created to alleviate that situation, but PFS events are usually a bad place to start researching some of the more obscure topics.

The reason why I get a little bit defensive about people blaming the ACG (well unless they are talking about unclear abilities or some of the archetypes) is that the book manages to create classes that work in their special niche.
They used the minimum number of new abilities to give the players an experience that works - obviously some people have different expectations when it comes to the Swashbuckler.

Bloodrager - Barbarian with set rage powers based on a them/bloodline and very limited spellcasting. That is basically it, with some tweaks here and there. And that description might be enough for more GMs.

Hunter - A druid/hunter hybrid with 6. level spontaneous spell casting, no wild shape and teamwork feats they share with their animal companion. Also some limited swift action buffing (animal focus).

There is a simplicity in the design here, that I do appreciate quite a bit, and I am really not happy with the fact, that so many people seem to dislike it, just because it is the most recent rules heavy release.

5/5 5/55/55/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

What is the trick with using an investigator in combat? We have a few of them locally and it seems like they're supposed to do something when its time to smack things but I can't figure out WHAT

5/5 5/55/55/5

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Of course we are talking about a class that gets evasion and some other toys, Iron Will might not be the worst choice for such a character. Maybe I will throw together a build or two.

I think I'll be dipping a paladin level or three on mine. With the world wound and sovereigns court change from conceited nobles to noblesseoblige the "i need some saving throws here" has lent itself to a nice storyline. (roll and role play, ebony and ivory, milk and cookies..)

And oh yes, dear gods the swift action bottleneck...

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

BigNorseWolf wrote:
What is the trick with using an investigator in combat? We have a few of them locally and it seems like they're supposed to do something when its time to smack things but I can't figure out WHAT

I think it has something to do with studied strike, which doesn't come online until level 4. But you are a somewhat martial character with extracts of shield so a two handed grip on your weapon seems to be an option.

This should be an example, using studied combat and studied strike before it ends, you should be able to deal good damage, of course chances are that such a character wants to own a large number of wands:

Inspector Len-Li
Half-elf investigator 4 (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide 30)
NG Medium humanoid (elf, human)
Init +8; Senses low-light vision; Perception +9
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 12, touch 12, flat-footed 10 (+2 Dex)
hp 31 (4d8+8)
Fort +3, Ref +6, Will +4; +2 vs. enchantments, +2 bonus vs. poison, +2 trait bonus vs. charm and compulson
Defensive Abilities trap sense +1; Immune sleep; Resist poison resistance
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft.
Melee +1 katana +7 (1d8+5/18-20)
Special Attacks studied combat (+2, 3 rounds), studied strike +1d6
Investigator Extracts Prepared (CL 4th; concentration +7)
. . 2nd—aid, blood armor[ACG]
. . 1st—enlarge person (DC 14), shield, shield, shield
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 16, Wis 10, Cha 8
Base Atk +3; CMB +6; CMD 18
Feats Improved Initiative, Power Attack
Traits birthmark, reactionary
Skills Acrobatics +8, Bluff +4, Craft (alchemy) +12 (+16 to create alchemical items), Diplomacy +4, Knowledge (arcana) +8, Knowledge (dungeoneering) +8, Knowledge (engineering) +8, Knowledge (geography) +7, Knowledge (history) +7, Knowledge (local) +7, Knowledge (nature) +7, Knowledge (nobility) +7, Knowledge (planes) +7, Knowledge (religion) +7, Perception +9, Sense Motive +5, Spellcraft +8, Stealth +7, Survival +2, Swim +5, Use Magic Device +4; Racial Modifiers +2 Perception
Languages Common, Elven, Hon-la, Hwan, Tien
SQ alchemy (alchemy crafting +4), arcane training, elf blood, inspiration (5/day), investigator talent (infusion), keen recollection, poison lore, swift alchemy, trapfinding +2
Other Gear +1 chain shirt, +1 katana, masterwork backpack, masterwork tool, 50 gp
--------------------
Tracked Resources
--------------------
Inspiration (+1d6, 5/day) (Ex) - 0/5
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Alchemy +4 (Su) +4 to Craft (Alchemy) to create alchemical items, can Id potions by touch.
Arcane Training +1 CL for spell trigger/completion items for favored class, or use them as if 1st level.
Birthmark +2 save vs. charm & compulsion
Elf Blood Half-elves count as both elves and humans for any effect related to race.
Elven Immunities - Sleep You are immune to magic sleep effects.
Infusion When created an extract can be used by anyone, but takes up a slot until used.
Inspiration (+1d6, 5/day) (Ex) Use 1 point, +1d6 to trained skill or ability check. Use 2 points, to add to attack or save.
Low-Light Vision See twice as far as a human in low light, distinguishing color and detail.
Poison Lore (Ex) After 1 min can use Know to ID poisons, 1 min more to neutralize with Craft (alchemy).
Poison Resistance +2 (Ex) +2 to save vs. Poison.
Power Attack -1/+2 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Studied Combat (+2, 3 rounds) (Ex) As a move action, study foe to gain bonus to att & dam for duration or until use studied strike.
Studied Strike +1d6 (Ex) As a free action on a melee hit, end studied combat vs. foe to add precision dam.
Swift Alchemy (Ex) You can construct alchemical items in half the normal time.
Trap Sense +1 (Ex) +1 bonus on reflex saves and AC against traps.
Trapfinding +2 Gain a bonus to find or disable traps, including magical ones.

Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC®, and are used under license.

Sovereign Court 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I came into PFS at the introduction of the APG, which I think is the best PF book ever. I love all its classes save one (summoner).

I am excited about CORE but for me I wish the campaign included core, APG, and ISWG. If I could have those three I'd be in hog heaven.

Regarding ACG, I have a very powerful Hunter (the synergy of teamwork feats can be devastating. Also, something that doesn't get mentioned a lot, is with its animal focus ability you don't have to buy belts of Str/Dex/Con which frees up lots of cash for other purchases which makes you more powerful.) I also have a mid-level Combat Investigator that I am really excited about.

But with all that said, it is a bit much and some things just don't feel like they were thought out. This book probably could have benefited with 6 more months of work.

Grand Lodge 3/5

Alexander Augunas wrote:
Honestly, I don't think you really *need* to know every new class in order to GM for ACG parties. You only really need to know whatever shows up at your table. In short, what your describing is really more of a PFS problem than a universal problem with the book, and its a problem that repeats itself whenever a big rulebook is released.

I used to feel this way in general too, up until the ACG came out. Up to that point I was relatively confident that players knew the rules well enough to play the odd classes that I hadn't had time to learn yet and that they were doing things right. (well mayby not summoners, I had seen a lot of mistakes with those before)

When ACG caame out, I found a lot of time players were skimming the rules, getting excited about a character idea, building some monstrosity based on assumptions of how the class and/or gneral rules of the game worked, and coming to PFS and causing me headaches every game.

Things would seem broken so I would have to get them to show me the rules, about a third of the time they didn't even have the book, another third of the time They were assuming that the way THEY read it was right, but I wouldn't always agree with them on that, and sometimes I just shrugged and made my peace with the fact that this was going to be a boring cakewalk for the party.

The fact is that GMs get held to a much higher standard of rules as written than players do. I have no desire to audit every character in a scenario, or get players to explain all their modifiers every time. With the core rulebook and most classes in the APG (and by now mostly the ultimate books too) this isn't really a concern, I know them well enough that I can generally spot if someone is making big errors. WIth the ACG that's not the case, 10 new classes has been a lot to digest especially when I want to spend my time prepping scenarios rather than learning how characters that MIGHT show up to my table work. I can't really rely on the other players to know that much about characters they aren't playing either, why would I.

SO despite the fact that there might be some cool archtypes, or spells, or even a class that I would love to play in the ACG, I intend to NEVER buy it. I dislike it so much that I am soured on the entire thing and it's made me extremely sceptical about the upcoming occult book. I nearly quit GMing PFS because of this book. My hatred of this book burns with intense passion, and that's sad because it should have been something I loved.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

My experience isn't based on PFS, which makes a difference, but I did run an entire campaign where I limited both players and NPCs to ACG classes.

The result: It worked splendidly. Those ten classes can cover alot of ground in terms of concept. Two players were town guardsmen, one a Brawler, one a Slayer. Both were able to make sense as guards, while also retaining individuality and personality. Also in the party, a Shaman. Shaman felt like a Witch with more distinct hexes, so no big change.

One of the early villains was a former high ranking official in the kingdom who was now a vampire, and the Mastermind Investigator was a perfect fit. Building the villain showed me the potential of the Investigator, which I had previously dismissed.

These and other examples led me to consider using the ACG classes as the base classes in future games, rather than the classes in the core book. I would definitely include ACG material in Pathfinder games I run from this point forward.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What is the trick with using an investigator in combat? We have a few of them locally and it seems like they're supposed to do something when its time to smack things but I can't figure out WHAT
I think it has something to do with studied strike, which doesn't come online until level 4. But you are a somewhat martial character with extracts of shield so a two handed grip on your weapon seems to be an option.

Kinda. Investigator is in a really interesting spot, their damage isn't great, but their bonus to hit is quite a bit above average. I think the Strength build is slightly better, because who doesn't want to beat people to death with a cane? But Dex is almost as good.

The thing about investigator, is they're not designed to be combat focused, but with some clever build choices, they definitely pull their weight. If you want to be a combat investigator, grab the mutagen discovery as soon as possible, +2 to hit, damage, and AC for 10 minutes/level is a huge boost at early levels. Quick Study is also required, but you can't take it until 5th, so ignore it early on. Another thing you need to remember, is that investigators go off the Alchemist list, so they get Alchemical Allocation. A potion of stoneskin and a potion of heroism massively increase an investigator's combat utility. Once you start getting up to the higher levels, pick up an Inspired weapon, adding 2d8 to your damage is nothing to sneeze at, even at high levels.

If you want a little extra damage, take your first level in Inspired Blade, for parry/riposte, which allows you to turn your better than average bonus to hit into damage/AC, and access to Fencing Grace at first.

Here's a quick look at the damage my Swashbuckler/Investigator is outputting at 5th.

Melee +1 Adamantine Rapier +18 (1d6 + 13/18-20)
+4 Bab, +6 Dex, +1 weapon bonus, +2 Heroism, +2 Mutagen, +1 Weapon Focus, +2 Studied Combat.

You're not going to be out-damaging the Falchion-Barbarian, but you're not completely useless either. If you're willing to shell out for effortless lace, you can also stick Piranha Strike on there.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Alright, you're asking a whole lot of questions about Swashbuckler, and unfortunately, I only really have anecdotal evidence to back up what I'm saying, so take my response with a grain of salt.

First a little bit of background, I've been playing an Ifrit Swashbuckler in PFS since the playtest came out in November of last year. Marak is currently 9th level (been slow tracking for a while), and has taken his last three levels in Paladin, mostly for RP reasons, but so far, they haven't done much (other than buff his saves.)

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Swashbucklers are in an interesting situation with their recharging resource pool, if you assume, that the pool will always be full, obviously they are very good, but that assumption should not be realistic.

You're right, the panache pool won't always be full, but it doesn't have to be, you just need two to be at full effectiveness. In nine levels of play, I've been at two panache less than five times, and out of panache only once. In my experience, once you hit five and get the free improved crit, you're regaining panache far faster than you lose it.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
And of course the level is relevant, Swashbucklers are quite limited by weapon choice

Swashbucklers are limited to one-handed slashing weapons, daggers, and rapiers. That list includes some of the best weapons in the game.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


It is great against melee enemies with a limited number of attacks, it doesn't scale great once they attack several times per round, and if your enemy has greater reach than you... well that riposte isn't an option.

I see this argument a lot, and, with all due respect, I think you, and a lot of other people, are missing the point of parry/riposte at mid-high levels. It's not meant to be a "block every attack" thing, light armor/high dex characters generally have great AC, if you've built properly you shouldn't need the parry to save you. The point of the parry is to get a free attack out of turn, and/or block non-standard attacks. For example, you can parry touch attacks, Marak saved himself in 10-11 Cultist's Kiss by blocking a Harm spell cast by the BBEG. You can also parry combat maneuvers, since parry specifies "attack rolls" not "weapon attack rolls."

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


The Swashbuckler certainly does what he does rather well - in his niche - but the class has definite weak points... and let's not argue that all fighters are created equal (ignoring all existing archetypes would obviously be unfair).

Swashbucklers absolutely have weaknesses, but they're the same weaknesses that all martials share. Their saves suck, Charmed Life + Cape of Daring Deeds helps, but almost all martials have terrible saves. Being limited to a few specific weapons sucks, but PF is designed so that everyone has to pick one weapon and stick with it. In almost all circumstances, their damage is generally above most other melee martials. Their skill list is significantly better than most martials, which means they have some out of combat utility.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Do you have some more specific examples from actual play, where a Swashbucker performed significantly better? I suspect, that once you play 7-11 scenarios, that the inability to deal precision damage to a number of enemies will be an issue. (Valley of Veiled Flame has a pretty nasty encounter for Swashbucklers).

As I said earlier, I don't have much other than anecdotal evidence. Marak has run through Bonekeep 1 & 3, The Sealed Gate on hardmode, Cultist's Kiss, and several other 10-11s, and, despite being level nine, he's had no problems pulling his weight (and occasionally other peoples' weights too.)

I know which encounter you're talking about in Valley, and it was difficult (our DPS was 2 swashbucklers), but it was significantly easier because the two swashbucklers succeeded on all the social checks. Yay out of combat utility.

Maybe we haven't played the same scenarios, but I haven't seen an over abundance of creatures which are immune to precision/crits in PFS, even in 7-11s. I think you're overstating the problem.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Skalds get different class abilities, I suspect, that the level by level comparison has winners and losers, and obviously the Bard has a higher number of archetypes. What I have learned is that the rage performance can be pretty good in some groups, and a complete waste of time in others.

Rage is more situational, but if it works, and if you stack stuff like the spirit totem power on it, you're adding way more damage than a Bard, while getting to wear medium armor. The fact Skalds also get Spell Kenning just adds insult to injury.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
Rules fatigue seems to be a real thing, but as I mentioned above, using the resources at the table - the other players - seems like a nice idea. One of my players has the job to deal with initiative using a Paizo combat pad, and it makes my job far easier.

The problem is, you can't rely on the players totally understand what their class abilities do either, especially with content as rules-dense as the ACG. A few paragraphs ago you said most people are probably playing parry/riposte wrong. If you haven't read the rules in-depth, how do you know who you can trust?

Silver Crusade 2/5

For the most part, I really like the ACG classes. The warpriest is something that just couldn't be built right with fighter/cleric levels, just like the magus couldn't be build with fighter/wizard levels. For this reason, I'm not participating in CORE, as none of the classes I'm interested in are available in that mode.

Liberty's Edge 5/5

Starfinder Superscriber

I fully echo Drogon's "Enough Already", and the "OMG too much" sentiments many are saying.

Somebody (Sebastian?) mentioned that the "splatbooks" (by which I think he means the Campaign Setting and Player's Companion books) do more to increase the rules weight, but I disagree. Those really are primarily focused on setting material. Each one has really very little in the way of rules options for characters (even the rules-focused ones like Animal Archive), and even as a group they don't have nearly the impact that one of the Ultimate or Advanced books.

It's just all too much. I liked the ACG partly because I really love arcane characters, and the Arcanist works the way I wanted the Sorcerer/Wizard to work. The "memorize from your book, cast your memorized spells as many times up to your slots as you want" method has been used in other games. I saw it originally as a 1e house rule. The first time I saw it printed was the Magister in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. In fact, I think the best set of 3.5e classes I've ever seen is from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. There were just a "core rules" number of classes, but they had a nice span of abilities. Some of them were tied to the flavor of the game and the world, which is also nice, but also makes them a little bit less generally useful.

Were I writing Pathfinder/2e, and/or setting up a set of rules for my home game, I'd be tempted to limit the game to this set of classes: Arcanist, Alchemist, Bard, Brawler, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Magus, Oracle, Ranger, Rogue, Warpriest. Maybe replace the Rogue with Ninja, maybe add in one of Barbarian or Bloodrager (probably the latter, because the fluff of "pure martial savage" can be done with a Fighter). Maybe not include druid. That would keep the number of base classes down to a manageable number, but still span the range of types that I'm after. Then, allow archetypes, but only on a case-by-case basis. Only allow players to pick spells from the CRB by default, but I might throw in additional spells as things that they find-- which Clerics could then add to their retinue (divine inspiration or some such), and Arcanists could copy to their spellbook.

Or, get rid of classes altogether, and go play GURPS or FATE.

1/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
What is the trick with using an investigator in combat? We have a few of them locally and it seems like they're supposed to do something when its time to smack things but I can't figure out WHAT

I'm building my investigator to be a crit machine which I understand can be a hit or miss thing depending on the foes in some scenarios but that seems the best tradeoff for a pure dex/int build which is what I wanted. The same stat profile might work as an archer as well.

Sovereign Court 4/5

Bringing perhaps a slightly different perspective than most of those posting, I ran my first PFS game ever about two weeks after the ACG came out, and about 6 months after starting to play Pathfinder with any regularity. I'm on track to hit my second star within a month, I think.

Even without the ACG in the mix, the collection the CRB and everything with "Advanced" or "Ultimate" in the title was going to be way too much for me to learn cover to cover, which may not have been the case for those who were playing as each was introduced. I'm still not completely clear the Arcanist, but that's also true for the Alchemist and the Monk, among others. There's no way I'm putting together a Brawler anytime soon, but that's because the list of combat feats (even pre-ACG feats) is way too big for me to be truly comfortable with. I have to be comfortable with relying on other players to some degree, and ask to be shown the rule in question at least once per scenario.

Locally, we've seen Bloodragers, Slayers, Swashbucklers, and Warpriests more frequently than the rest of the new classes, though I think I've encountered all of them at least once. They certainly haven't overwhelmed CRB and APG classes. The types of builds that evoke so much ire online almost never show up locally, though.

I think the book offered a lot of interesting options, though, and on the whole I'm quite happy with it. The editing issues have been frustrating. In particular, the archetype section seems like it could have benefited from a few more eyes and a bit more time. Aside from that, the only real complaint I have so far is that the Swashbucklers I've seen so far tend to bore me, as I haven't seen anyone do much with them except spam Parry-Riposte and Bodyguard.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Alexander Augunas wrote:

Here's my thoughts on the new classes after seeing them in action and testing a few builds:

I agree, and flurry with a katana is a sweet idea, currently it just happens to require channel energy and a an unusual god, or a banned magic weapon. Oh well a temple sword really isn't that much worse.

Sovereign Court 1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

As someone who's been playing for a year and just recently started GMing in PFS, I still don't understand what all the ACG classes can do.

And then they dump MORE occult classes on top via a playtest with abilities like "when you manifest your tertiary spirit" etc. etc. etc. right after the book comes out. That whole thing reeks of someone's passion project that was going to get made regardless of whether the timing made any sense at all. (It doesn't)

Enough is enough.

Learning all the classes before a game is not feasible. Trying to Learn classes DURING a game... yeah that's not really conducive to a good time for all players - and that is mission one.

So glad core is here. I guess that's what they expect people without infinite free time to GM.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Of course we are talking about a class that gets evasion and some other toys, Iron Will might not be the worst choice for such a character. Maybe I will throw together a build or two.

I think I'll be dipping a paladin level or three on mine. With the world wound and sovereigns court change from conceited nobles to noblesseoblige the "i need some saving throws here" has lent itself to a nice storyline. (roll and role play, ebony and ivory, milk and cookies..)

And oh yes, dear gods the swift action bottleneck...

I'll put it in a spoiler, but this is my current plan for the half-orc pala swashbuckly monk thingy, it can flurry with a temple sword (even with a large one) in armor and while using a shield. I am currently still level 2 (Kata mater monk 1/Sacred Shield Pala 1) but I already love my character. She is a paladin of Shelyn, has tatoos all over her body and loves art, however she has a special place in her heart for strip clubs, since those girls rarely get the recognition they deserve. ( Playing with the Paladin assumptions is really fun, and I honestly didn't have that much fun roleplaying a character in the last ten years^^)

Futayo Honda:

[spoilFutayo Honda
Female half-orc brawler 2/monk (kata master) 1/paladin (sacred shield) 2 (Pathfinder RPG Advanced Class Guide 23, 104, Pathfinder RPG Ultimate Combat 65)
LG Medium humanoid (human, orc)
Init +2; Senses darkvision 60 ft.; Perception +7
--------------------
Defense
--------------------
AC 20, touch 12, flat-footed 18 (+6 armor, +2 Dex, +2 shield)
hp 44 (5 HD; 1d8+4d10+11)
Fort +15, Ref +12, Will +9
--------------------
Offense
--------------------
Speed 30 ft. (20 ft. in armor)
Melee mwk cold iron temple sword flurry of blows +7/+7 (1d8+3/19-20)
Special Attacks brawler's flurry, flurry of blows, martial flexibility 4/day, opportune parry and riposte
Paladin Spell-Like Abilities (CL 0th; concentration +3)
. . At will—detect evil
--------------------
Statistics
--------------------
Str 16, Dex 14, Con 14, Int 10, Wis 8, Cha 16
Base Atk +4; CMB +7; CMD 19
Feats Battle Cry[ACG], Bodyguard[APG], Combat Reflexes, Extra Panache[ACG], Improved Unarmed Strike, Power Attack
Traits arcane archivist, fate's favored
Skills Acrobatics +0 (-4 to jump), Diplomacy +7, Intimidate +9, Knowledge (religion) +4, Perception +7, Perform (oratory) +11, Perform (string instruments) +9, Use Magic Device +9; Racial Modifiers +2 Intimidate, derring-do
Languages Common, Orc
SQ bastion of good, brawler's cunning, lay on hands 4/day (1d6), martial training, orc blood, panache
Combat Gear oil (5); Other Gear breastplate, heavy steel shield, cold iron shuriken (50), glaive, mwk cold iron temple sword, mwk cold iron temple sword, backpack, bedroll, belt pouch, earplugs, earplugs, flint and steel, hemp rope (50 ft.), masterwork violin, mess kit, pot, scroll case, scroll case, scroll case, scroll case, smoked goggles, soap, sunrod (3), tattoo holy symbol of Shelyn, torch (10), trail rations (5), waterskin, wrist sheath, spring loaded (2), 1 gp
--------------------
Tracked Resources
--------------------
Bastion of Good (10 ft, 1/day) (Su) - 0/1
Battle Cry (3/day) - 0/3
cold iron shuriken - 0/50
Lay on Hands (1d6 hit points, 4/day) (Su) - 0/4
Martial Flexibility (move action, 4/day) (Ex) - 0/4
Panache Pool (5/day) - 0/5
Sunrod - 0/3
Torch - 0/10
Trail rations - 0/5
--------------------
Special Abilities
--------------------
Bastion of Good (10 ft, 1/day) (Su) One foe does ½ dam to allies in aura, full to self, +3 deflect to AC.
Battle Cry (3/day) Allies within 30' gain +1 mor bon to atk and +4 mor bon to saves vs fear for 1 min.
Bodyguard Use an AoO to use aid another to improve an ally's AC.
Brawler's Flurry +3/+3 (Ex) Can make full attack & gain two-wep fighting, but only with unarmed strike, close, or monk wep.
Combat Reflexes (3 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.
Darkvision (60 feet) You can see in the dark (black and white vision only).
Deed: Derring-Do (+2 extra dice) (Ex) Use 1 panache, +1d6 to Escape Artist, Fly, Ride, or Swim check. On a 6, roll another die.
Deed: Opportune Parry and Riposte (Ex) 1 panache and 1 AoO to attempt to parry a melee attack, then counterattack.
Detect Evil (At will) (Sp) You can use detect evil at will (as the spell).
Earplugs +2 save vs. hearing effects, -5 hearing-based Perception.
Earplugs +2 save vs. hearing effects, -5 hearing-based Perception.
Fate's Favored Increase luck bonuses by 1.
Flurry of Blows +3/+3 (Ex) As full-rd action, higher BAB and combo unarmed/monk wep as if two-weapon fighting.
Improved Unarmed Strike Unarmed strikes don't cause attacks of opportunity, and can be lethal.
Lay on Hands (1d6 hit points, 4/day) (Su) As a standard action (swift on self), touch channels positive energy and applies mercies.
Martial Flexibility (move action, 4/day) (Ex) As a Move action, gain a combat feat for 1 min. More gained for greater actions.
Orc Blood Half-orcs count as both humans and orcs for any effect related to race.
Panache (Ex) Gain panache, use unarmed/monk wep with certain deeds, and can spend ki for deeds.
Power Attack -2/+4 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
Smoked goggles +8 save vs. visual effects, -4 sight-based Perception and you treat all opponents as having 20% concealment.

Hero Lab and the Hero Lab logo are Registered Trademarks of LWD Technology, Inc. Free download at http://www.wolflair.com
Pathfinder® and associated marks and logos are trademarks of Paizo Publishing, LLC®, and are used under license.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Low Templar in SE Asia wrote:

I came into PFS at the introduction of the APG, which I think is the best PF book ever. I love all its classes save one (summoner).

I am excited about CORE but for me I wish the campaign included core, APG, and ISWG. If I could have those three I'd be in hog heaven.

Regarding ACG, I have a very powerful Hunter (the synergy of teamwork feats can be devastating. Also, something that doesn't get mentioned a lot, is with its animal focus ability you don't have to buy belts of Str/Dex/Con which frees up lots of cash for other purchases which makes you more powerful.) I also have a mid-level Combat Investigator that I am really excited about.

But with all that said, it is a bit much and some things just don't feel like they were thought out. This book probably could have benefited with 6 more months of work.

Funny thing, but I started PFS shortly after the introduction of the ACG, so I can understand where you are coming from. It is quite similar to Dr. Who, my first doctor was Matt Smith and he will always have a special place in my heart. The others are fine too, but well, you never forget your first ^^

Hunters are pretty good out of the box, and melee hunter is clearly better. Of course animal focus usually only comes into play during combat, thus a stat increasing belt will be strictly better (but I agree my 12 Con hunter will likely invest in a + 2 CON belt.)
The class is however harder to break (compared to something like a druid) and misses some nice spells in her spell list, and is quite dependent on buffs it makes a pretty huge difference, whether or not I can begin a combat buffed (happens very rarely, but that might just be my GM).
After consuming all of Elementary and Sherlock in less than a month, I have .. ideas for an Investigator (however this one really would need some GM credit).

ACG really feels like a great book, that is nonetheless burdened with a number of unfortunate choices and lackluster editing.

Grand Lodge 5/5

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

It's not enough.

It's never enough. As soon as it's enough, Pathfinder as a product dies, and you end up with a legacy product without official support.

I don't expect a GM to know all the class abilities. I don't expect a GM to learn what a class is/does during a game. I expect the player to know his class abilities, able to explain what they do, and to actually know the rules governing them, since a lot of "mistrust" I noticed comes from not applying the rules correctly or looking for corner cases/grey areas to exploit.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

dwayne germaine wrote:
Alexander Augunas wrote:
Honestly, I don't think you really *need* to know every new class in order to GM for ACG parties. You only really need to know whatever shows up at your table. In short, what your describing is really more of a PFS problem than a universal problem with the book, and its a problem that repeats itself whenever a big rulebook is released.

I used to feel this way in general too, up until the ACG came out. Up to that point I was relatively confident that players knew the rules well enough to play the odd classes that I hadn't had time to learn yet and that they were doing things right. (well mayby not summoners, I had seen a lot of mistakes with those before)

When ACG caame out, I found a lot of time players were skimming the rules, getting excited about a character idea, building some monstrosity based on assumptions of how the class and/or gneral rules of the game worked, and coming to PFS and causing me headaches every game.

Things would seem broken so I would have to get them to show me the rules, about a third of the time they didn't even have the book, another third of the time They were assuming that the way THEY read it was right, but I wouldn't always agree with them on that, and sometimes I just shrugged and made my peace with the fact that this was going to be a boring cakewalk for the party.

The fact is that GMs get held to a much higher standard of rules as written than players do. I have no desire to audit every character in a scenario, or get players to explain all their modifiers every time. With the core rulebook and most classes in the APG (and by now mostly the ultimate books too) this isn't really a concern, I know them well enough that I can generally spot if someone is making big errors. WIth the ACG that's not the case, 10 new classes has been a lot to digest especially when I want to spend my time prepping scenarios rather than learning how characters that MIGHT show up to my table work. I can't really rely on the other players to...

Usually with cases this I would argue "hate the player, not the game" but I doubt, that this argument really works right know.

I realize that GMs are somehow expected to be more rules savy that the players, I don't agree, that this is a reasonable standard, but this seems to be the way things work right know.

Preparing scenarios already can take a lot of time, and preparing a RP heavy scenario well can take even longer (of course depending on how much time you want to invest in the RP aspect), so expecting GMs to be knowledgeable of all the available player options seems pretty insane.

I assume, that even before the ACG came of players had different views of their abilities and how they interacted. The situation was just different, and GMs were not already at the point where their magnificient GM brains ( kidding^^) could not longer absorb new data.

The "boring cakewalk" argument is something I have heard a number of times already, and frankly while I think, that the ACG classes don't significantly contribute to the problem, they help removing it either.
Ideally I would prefer a hard mode, or optional encounter for every scenario, of maybe give the GM some sort of discretionary fund to improved encounters. While I can already hear complaints about the idea, we already do this, The Wounded Wisp has some pretty clear suggestions regarding new players and what challenges are appropriate for them.

...

And it bears repeating, while at this point I haven't GMed for a group of strangers in years, make 3/4 of all characters in concert with my players, I think that it is reasonable for players to introduce their characters mechanical quirks to a GM prior to play.

Like "I am playing a hunter without an animal companion, thus I have one of these buffs permanently active and can switch between them as a swift action. I can cast spells and uses a bow."
Or " I am playing a warpriest, I can cast spells as a cleric, buff myself several times per day as a swift action, and my weapon of choice better and I might be able to improve my armor and weapons a limited number of times per day (not unlike a paladin of magus)."

-------
I hope that you give the ACG a chance (once the errata is out) but since I have the exact the stance towards the Technology Guide (despite owning Iron Gods) I can't really blame you.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

Scythia wrote:

My experience isn't based on PFS, which makes a difference, but I did run an entire campaign where I limited both players and NPCs to ACG classes.

The result: It worked splendidly. Those ten classes can cover alot of ground in terms of concept. Two players were town guardsmen, one a Brawler, one a Slayer. Both were able to make sense as guards, while also retaining individuality and personality. Also in the party, a Shaman. Shaman felt like a Witch with more distinct hexes, so no big change.

One of the early villains was a former high ranking official in the kingdom who was now a vampire, and the Mastermind Investigator was a perfect fit. Building the villain showed me the potential of the Investigator, which I had previously dismissed.

These and other examples led me to consider using the ACG classes as the base classes in future games, rather than the classes in the core book. I would definitely include ACG material in Pathfinder games I run from this point forward.

Nice to hear some positive experiences (that mirror my own - confirmation bias FTW^^ )

Disk Elemental wrote:
Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
What is the trick with using an investigator in combat? We have a few of them locally and it seems like they're supposed to do something when its time to smack things but I can't figure out WHAT
I think it has something to do with studied strike, which doesn't come online until level 4. But you are a somewhat martial character with extracts of shield so a two handed grip on your weapon seems to be an option.

Kinda. Investigator is in a really interesting spot, their damage isn't great, but their bonus to hit is quite a bit above average. I think the Strength build is slightly better, because who doesn't want to beat people to death with a cane? But Dex is almost as good.

The thing about investigator, is they're not designed to be combat focused, but with some clever build choices, they definitely pull their weight. If you want to be a combat investigator, grab the mutagen discovery as soon as possible, +2 to hit, damage, and AC for 10 minutes/level is a huge boost at early levels. Quick Study is also required, but you can't take it until 5th, so ignore it early on. Another thing you need to remember, is that investigators go off the Alchemist list, so they get Alchemical Allocation. A potion of stoneskin and a potion of heroism massively increase an investigator's combat utility. Once you start getting up to the higher levels, pick up an Inspired weapon, adding 2d8 to your damage is nothing to sneeze at, even at high levels.

If you want a little extra damage, take your first level in Inspired Blade, for parry/riposte, which allows you to turn your better than average bonus to hit into damage/AC, and access to Fencing Grace at first.

Here's a quick look at the damage my...

I am making notes, an investigator is definitely in the works, once I am entirely happy with the concept for a future character. Things like this tend to stew quite well. ^^ However it seems fair to say, that due to dipping concerns, this class doesn't really start working until level 4.

Oh and they outright banned the effortless lace.

Disk Elemental wrote:

Alright, you're asking a whole lot of questions about Swashbuckler, and unfortunately, I only really have anecdotal evidence to back up what I'm saying, so take my response with a grain of salt.

First a little bit of background, I've been playing an Ifrit Swashbuckler in PFS since the playtest came out in November of last year. Marak is currently 9th level (been slow tracking for a while), and has taken his last three levels in Paladin, mostly for RP reasons, but so far, they haven't done much (other than buff his saves.)

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


Swashbucklers are in an interesting situation with their recharging resource pool, if you assume, that the pool will always be full, obviously they are very good, but that assumption should not be realistic.

You're right, the panache pool won't always be full, but it doesn't have to be, you just need two to be at full effectiveness. In nine levels of play, I've been at two panache less than five times, and out of panache only once. In my experience, once you hit five and get the free improved crit, you're regaining panache far faster than you lose it.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:
And of course the level is relevant, Swashbucklers are quite limited by weapon choice

Swashbucklers are limited to one-handed slashing weapons, daggers, and rapiers. That list includes some of the best weapons in the game.

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:


It is great against melee enemies with a limited number of attacks, it doesn't scale great once they attack several times per round, and if your enemy has greater reach than you... well that riposte isn't an option.
I see this argument a lot, and, with all due respect, I think you, and a lot of other people, are missing the point of parry/riposte at mid-high levels. It's not meant to be a "block every attack" thing, light armor/high dex characters generally have great AC, if you've built properly you shouldn't need the parry to save you. The point of the parry is to get a free attack out of...

Please forgive me for not properly formatting my response, but time constraints ... are unfortunately a thing.

I think that the designers intended Swashbucklers to vault of tables, swing with chandeliers and thus be highly mobile - thus getting a sink for their panache pool.
The fact, that most panache users isn't really a mechanical oddity, it seems like the core assumption, but I could be wrong about that one.

The only real limiting factor seems to be action economy based, your immediate and swift actions offer a sometimes hard choice between getting an extra attack (opportune parry an riposte), getting a 5 ft move (dodging panache is amazing) or increasing your precise strike damage in the next round. And of course menacing swordplay is a very attractive option for intimidating characters.

Of course improved crit and keen weapons are game changers.

While it is true that the Swashbuckler weapon choices include a number of truly great weapons ( and with slashing grace, adds the option to finesse a katana, which isn't that much better but enables some cool concepts) it does limit the choice of when it comes to using a weapon in two hands and using weapons with reach.

In my admittedly very short pathfinder career, I have been in a situation where our lovely swashbuckler pregen managed to parry the incorporeal touch attack of a shadow (7-11 scenaro) and in a high tier 1-5 scenario, where the final boss had 6 attacks per round ( and our GM could have been quite nasty with the creature as written).

Swashbucklers are one of those classes, that really suffers, if they lose their dex bonus to armor class and they get uncanny dodge rather late in her career.

Their damage output suffers from monsters that are immune to critical hits (and I would argue concealment, since it is precision damage, but that stance is a bit controversial).

I can't really give an accurate assessment of crit immune & resistant creatures in 7-11 scenarios (my sample size is far to small) but I heard that APs like Rise of the Runelords feature are fair number of them.

Skalds vs Bards is a comparison that will take some time, but I would venture the suggestion, that bards - not unlike monks - get a number of class abilities, most players really don't want/don't know how to use them properly or both.
Skalds work, and very little is wasted (the fact that Skalds can use shields is very welcome) and thus the class outperforms bards in a number of situations.
Since Bards have a number alternative performances, through archetypes, i really can't call this battle just yet. As written some groups will benefit more from a Bard.
I do appreciate having the choice, and wishing no insult to Lem, Hakon is usually more useful and would never consider hitting people with his flute.

As we have learned, some people have a rather lose grasp on the rules, and depending on your usual GM you might never have had to learn them (animal companion tricks, charge, summoners, casting defensively ....).

Considering the situation, that a new player with some limited 3.5 experience comes to your table and ask for help. The player is willing to purchase all relevant sources on the spot (either physical or digital) he gives you a rough character concept and asks you for a suggestion.
In quite a number of cases the new ACG classes work right out of the box with little to no mutliclassing required. In this wonderful situation (and feel free to replace "you" with asking here on the message board) the player only really has to familiarize herself with her chosen class.
I think it is reasonable to expect players to know their own class, but that might just be my elitism speaking.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/55/5 **** Venture-Captain, Germany—Bavaria

David Bowles wrote:
For the most part, I really like the ACG classes. The warpriest is something that just couldn't be built right with fighter/cleric levels, just like the magus couldn't be build with fighter/wizard levels. For this reason, I'm not participating in CORE, as none of the classes I'm interested in are available in that mode.

I appreciate the honesty, there is a difference between powerful and interesting, and while a lot of concepts in CORE are the former, after X years, they are just to familiar.

And some concepts just work smoother on a wide range of levels with a custom built class.

rknop wrote:

I fully echo Drogon's "Enough Already", and the "OMG too much" sentiments many are saying.

Somebody (Sebastian?) mentioned that the "splatbooks" (by which I think he means the Campaign Setting and Player's Companion books) do more to increase the rules weight, but I disagree. Those really are primarily focused on setting material. Each one has really very little in the way of rules options for characters (even the rules-focused ones like Animal Archive), and even as a group they don't have nearly the impact that one of the Ultimate or Advanced books.

It's just all too much. I liked the ACG partly because I really love arcane characters, and the Arcanist works the way I wanted the Sorcerer/Wizard to work. The "memorize from your book, cast your memorized spells as many times up to your slots as you want" method has been used in other games. I saw it originally as a 1e house rule. The first time I saw it printed was the Magister in Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. In fact, I think the best set of 3.5e classes I've ever seen is from Monte Cook's Arcana Unearthed. There were just a "core rules" number of classes, but they had a nice span of abilities. Some of them were tied to the flavor of the game and the world, which is also nice, but also makes them a little bit less generally useful.

Were I writing Pathfinder/2e, and/or setting up a set of rules for my home game, I'd be tempted to limit the game to this set of classes: Arcanist, Alchemist, Bard, Brawler, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Magus, Oracle, Ranger, Rogue, Warpriest. Maybe replace the Rogue with Ninja, maybe add in one of Barbarian or Bloodrager (probably the latter, because the fluff of "pure martial savage" can be done with a Fighter). Maybe not include druid. That would keep the number of base classes down to a manageable number, but still span the range of types that I'm after. Then, allow archetypes, but only on a case-by-case basis. Only allow players to pick spells from the...

I think a little bit of clarification is in order. When I talked about splat books, yes I was talking about the rather staggering number of releases outside the Pathfinder RPG line.

The volume of new material is not the problem, but rather that is material is sometimes scattered in several sources, and cross referencing becomes a problem (especially since GMs might not own a number of player companions). The fact that softcover books don't get FAQs (really quite salty about that one since I researched the white haired witch archetype) really does not help.

My PFS hunter only really uses a couple of sources, and would be perfectly viable with CRB,APG and ACG (even if I would miss my alchemical arrows).

I really like some of the advances they made in the ACG and yeah Arcanist pretty much replaced wizards/sorcerers in my game too. I would prefer never having to explain vancian "cast and forget" spellcasting ever again.

If I were to decide what to put in a hypothetical Pathfinder 2 CRB, I think those would make the cut:

(Arcanist spellcasting for every class)

Full casters:

Arcanist (maybe with 1-2 sorcerer/wizard themed archetypes)
Oracle/Cleric ( with 1-2 archetypes differentiating the cleric that is assumed part of an existing church hierarchy, and the unfettered oracle)
Nature spellcaster (one archetype with spellcasting only to 6/7th level like the hunter, and a druid themed archetype)

--

Half Casters:
Bards (with Skald and a archetype that focuses on self buffing like the ones we have right now)
Magus (magus, maybe with a divine archetype to cover Inquisitors)
Warrior of the light ( mix between Warpriest and Paladin, with the LG variant "Paladin" as an archetype)
Alchemist

--

Noncasters:
Slayer (with archetypes to replicate more of a Fighter/Ranger/Rogue focus)
Barbarian (with a bloodrager archetype)
Brawler ( with unarmored "monk" archetype).

I am pretty sure, that I am missing something, but that would be my choices. Something like Summoners really have to place in the CRB, they require quite extensive rules.

3/5

10 people marked this as a favorite.

Is it a big deal if you're hazy as a GM on how a new class works?

The Bloodrager player says he casts Enlarge Person. No problem, I don't need to know how he has access to it, I know what it does.

The Warpriest announces he's using "Blessings of I've Never Heard of That" to ignore the DR of the creature the party is fighting. Fine, I don't know that rule, but if the player says he ignores DR for the next 3 minutes, that's easy enough to adjudicate.

The Swashbuckler announces he hits AC 45 for 87 damage. Yikes, but whatever.

If anyone says "Oh, I get a once a day reroll from a trait", give them a reroll. I don't need to memorize 300 traits, I just need to believe my players.

If something seems hinky I'll make a note to audit the sheet after the game and/or look up the rule later. Gradually you'll learn all the rules that way. Mainly players are responsible for how their PCs work and if you suspect your players are lying to you and cheating then you've got problems the rulebooks can't solve for you.

My main focus is keeping the game moving and I trust my players to be honest. I'd much rather something go wrong once or twice until we catch it later than derail the session by pouring through the books for fifteen minutes while everyone else twiddles their thumbs.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

Sebastian Hirsch wrote:

As we have learned, some people have a rather lose grasp on the rules

...
I think it is reasonable to expect players to know their own class, but that might just be my elitism speaking.

You're right, players should know their class, but many of them don't. Which is why the GM needs to know classes as well.

Grand Lodge 4/5

9 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

Nah, I really don't. If I don't know how something works, I just roll with whatever sounds good and look it up later. Bogging the table down is worse than getting a rule wrong.

Shadow Lodge 3/5

When the APG came out, and the word "Advanced" came into use for the first time, looking over the classes made me notice a couple of classes were quite complicated (summoner, oracle, maybe inquisitor, maybe cavalier) and some were kind of easier to pick up (alchemist, witch).

When UC came out, I only really had eyes for the gunslinger, though the ninja looked kind of cool and was easy to pick up, and the samurai didn't feel interesting enough to me at all.

When UM came out, I couldn't for the life of me understand the magus. I kind of still don't.

These comparisons are important.

With the ACG, we have 10 new classes to pick up all at once. It's natural to start trying to pick up classes that interest me the most - but these are all notably "Advanced", even if the parent classes are core only.
- I feel like I understand the Arcanist similarly to how I learnt about the witch.
- The Investigator seems broken in a bad way for PFS; I don't know how he can be effective in combat.
- The Swashbuckler seems feels like a strangely made Gunslinger/Rogue, and while I feel like I could use him, I feel like you need the talents of a Swashbuckler to finesse your way through this class.
- The Shaman is a class I was primarily interested in when the ACG came out, but like my introduction to the Oracle (and maybe moreso), I don't know where to begin. I need to concentrate heavily just to wrap my head around its mechanics.
- The Bloodrager feels like a copout barbarian/sorcerer, and I've heard reports that he's overpowered (which sounds to me a little similar to a summoner). I don't know for sure, but if that's the case, we have an OP martial/spellcaster-hybrid - and that's frightening. We've had that before, and it was called a Synthesist Summoner.

Other classes (hunter, slayer, skald, brawler, warpriest) just don't grab me. I've already tried to pick up what I can on the first 5 classes, and there's only so many characters I can try to make. 6 months isn't enough to evaluate all of them.

It's been longer than that for the other books and I still can't completely wrap my head around the magus, or the oracle, or the cavalier, or the inquisitor, or the samurai, and I don't really care. Other players still play them, and that's fine - I don't dislike them.

I don't think people should feel like that they need to know everything about everything. Get rid of that idea, and you'll just have a whole lot of new options as your disposal - which is actually really fantastic.

Liberty's Edge 4/5 5/55/5 **

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
Steven Schopmeyer wrote:
Nah, I really don't. If I don't know how something works, I just roll with whatever sounds good and look it up later. Bogging the table down is worse than getting a rule wrong.

This is something I have started embracing more since the ACG came out. I have had a very little interest in the new classes, though I always love new feats and spells.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

If I know in my heart of hearts that the player is making a mistake, I will point it out. If they want to argue, I'll tell them "look it up while I move on to the next guy, and if you're wrong we'll adjust the result".

Otherwise, I just accept the player at his word, unless there is risk of character death because of it. I'm not going to drag out a battle with goblin mooks just to cleave exactly to the rules.

When I'm playing, I usually just keep my mouth shut, because the less time we argue rules, the more time we have to roleplay.

4/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

For me, it's the best thing to happen to Pathfinder since I started playing, marred by some especially egregious editing errors.

I love my Warpriest.
I love my Arcanist.
I LOVE my Investigator.
It's early going yet, but I think I may also love my Hunter.

The classes introduced allow me to make what I believe to be better Pathfinders. They're more flexible and better equipped to handle surprises. They hold their own in and out of combat without dominating tables.

I am annoyed by the plethora of errors and ambiguities. I sincerely hope Paizo will a) fix the errors with the upcoming errata and b) learn from the experience and take some more time polishing Occult Adventures and Unchained.

Unfortunately their track record with Ultimate Combat doesn't lend confidence to either of those.

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

The ACG brought gameplay options to roles other than "spellcaster" that make it possible to enjoy a martial class. Fighters are boring. Their options every round are A) move and swing a sharp thing and B) swing a sharp thing lots of times and don't move. A swashbuckler gets to parry and other fun tricks with deeds, a slayer gets to maneuver for sneak attack and get exciting feats earlier than usual without being weak like a rogue, etc.

Every class in the ACG makes the game more fun, and brings a wide range of excellent options that greatly enhance Pathfinder as a whole.

Horizon Hunters 4/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Indianapolis

Game Master wrote:

The ACG brought gameplay options to roles other than "spellcaster" that make it possible to enjoy a martial class. Fighters are boring. Their options every round are A) move and swing a sharp thing and B) swing a sharp thing lots of times and don't move. A swashbuckler gets to parry and other fun tricks with deeds, a slayer gets to maneuver for sneak attack and get exciting feats earlier than usual without being weak like a rogue, etc.

Every class in the ACG makes the game more fun, and brings a wide range of excellent options that greatly enhance Pathfinder as a whole.

I don't agree that fighters are boring. I understand that, on the surface, it appears that they just move, attack, or move and attack. But a fighter who is tactically insightful can be quite fun to play. Perhaps his standard attacks don't seem exciting, but combined with some tactical brilliance or strategy they can be more than effective.

To each his or her own, of course, but I don't agree with you about fighters.

4/5

Maybe it's simply because I haven't been with Pathfinder for all that long but I have a hard time seeing what's offensive about the ACG.

On it being sloppily written: I can't see much of a difference between the ACG and CRB. Honestly I was more confused reading the CRB than I was ACG. In my opinion the main difference is the CRB has been around long enough that Paizo has time to smooth out some of the edges and the intended interpretations of the vaguely written parts are well known enough that they seem intuitive to long time players.

On it being overpowered: Feels like a lot of people are comparing ACG classes to CRB classes and saying OMG. I don't know, I've been leaning more towards looking the difference in power within each book but not comparing directly to each other except to say 'why didn't they do this in the first place'. Not to say that I won't play any core classes but I do like that it seems they went the way of giving 'nice stuff' to everyone.

1 to 50 of 233 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Reactions to the ACG classes after more than 6 months All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.