You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 03, 2016, 07:55:58 PM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: Pathfinder RPG  (Read 13611 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #50 on: November 14, 2009, 08:43:21 AM »
I know people running Original DnD at the local game shop, 1st Edition is still popular as is 2nd Edition. 3.X oddly went out of favor after they pulled the 3.5 version on us and we felt ripped off.

2nd Edition is a great example several players were in the playtest groups for that, they playtested it for two years with gaming groups trying it and making recommendations. In fact they saved the Bard when people wanted it. Now do they playtest the new rules with gaming groups for two years asking US what WE WANT to see in the DnD game? No.

Pathfinder RPG is in my view what 4th Edition should have been fixing the earlier rules and having a well tested final edition of the game.

My take on 4e was that Hasbro wanted a money cow that made the money that Wizard earned on 3e's first release. MASSIVE numbers were what convinced Hasbro to buy Wizards only to realize you didn't make that much EVERY YEAR.  So 3.5 got rolled out a while before it should have.

4e came out as a way to completely resell everything in the system. I very much doubt that anyone wanted Wizards to put out anything remotely backwards compatible, and what they did about the d20 logo/license made that even more clear. Basically it was ' you can put out for 3e or 4e but not both'.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #51 on: November 14, 2009, 10:05:47 AM »
My take on 4e was that Hasbro wanted a money cow that made the money that Wizard earned on 3e's first release. MASSIVE numbers were what convinced Hasbro to buy Wizards only to realize you didn't make that much EVERY YEAR.  So 3.5 got rolled out a while before it should have.

4e came out as a way to completely resell everything in the system. I very much doubt that anyone wanted Wizards to put out anything remotely backwards compatible, and what they did about the d20 logo/license made that even more clear. Basically it was ' you can put out for 3e or 4e but not both'.

Of course it was.  It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that WoTC's customer surveys and their very own forum boards had a common thread of complaints and suggestions (Namely the lack of Fighter Utility and Magic Overpowering everything), coupled with the need to make money to stay in operation.  Oh no.  It's all a greedy corporate money grab.

And yet when Paizo effectively reprints the 3.x SRD and adds some ill thought out changes, instead of people pointing out that it's also a money grab from the disgruntled 3.x fans, they suddenly become the saviors of D&D.

One of the suggested reasons that WoTC wanted the 4e License to be more restrictive, well it seems apparent that most of you missed the early years of the OGL (Probably trying to cling to the last vestiges of 2e for a year or two) but the amount of outright garbage that came out by people using was staggering.  Anyone who had an idea decided to put on paper and try to sell it.  And sadly, there was more crap than good.  WoTC wants to change that.  After all, as Paizo proves, being a bad game designer is easy, but a good one takes a lot more skill.

But never mind me, I'll be over there happily playing with Dragon Warrior (A reprinted game from 1986, that's been out of circulation for about 10 years, and that I missed the first time round.)

Enjoy your game, I shall enjoy mine.

And Myr?  No vitriol here.  Just as I see it.  I could of course be wrong, but there's a lot of things that don't add up.

Either way:  Happy Gaming. :)

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #52 on: November 14, 2009, 08:14:49 PM »
Of course it was.  It had absolutely nothing to do with the fact that WoTC's customer surveys and their very own forum boards had a common thread of complaints and suggestions (Namely the lack of Fighter Utility and Magic Overpowering everything), coupled with the need to make money to stay in operation.  Oh no.  It's all a greedy corporate money grab.

And yet when Paizo effectively reprints the 3.x SRD and adds some ill thought out changes, instead of people pointing out that it's also a money grab from the disgruntled 3.x fans, they suddenly become the saviors of D&D.

One of the suggested reasons that WoTC wanted the 4e License to be more restrictive, well it seems apparent that most of you missed the early years of the OGL (Probably trying to cling to the last vestiges of 2e for a year or two) but the amount of outright garbage that came out by people using was staggering.  Anyone who had an idea decided to put on paper and try to sell it.  And sadly, there was more crap than good.  WoTC wants to change that.  After all, as Paizo proves, being a bad game designer is easy, but a good one takes a lot more skill.

But never mind me, I'll be over there happily playing with Dragon Warrior (A reprinted game from 1986, that's been out of circulation for about 10 years, and that I missed the first time round.)

Enjoy your game, I shall enjoy mine.

And Myr?  No vitriol here.  Just as I see it.  I could of course be wrong, but there's a lot of things that don't add up.

Either way:  Happy Gaming. :)

WoW I feel talked down to.

I bought some of the orignal stuff  and some of the orignal d20 stuff is crap.

Still, have fun and fyi.. I have talked to a LOT of fellow service members and most of them HATED the change over (only like 2 out of the 40 or so I know who game). Of course most of the guys dropped wizard after their 'no pdf sales period' tantrum.

And as for forum output.. I notice any harsh (but polite and well written) criticism on wizards site tends to get dropped quick.
« Last Edit: November 14, 2009, 08:18:42 PM by Callie Del Noire »

Offline Brandon

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #53 on: November 14, 2009, 09:32:02 PM »
I'm not going to get into the conspiracy theories and all that but here is my take on the evolution of D&D from my point of view and why I support Pathfinder. It started, not with 3.5 and 4th edition but way back in 2nd and 3.0 edition. Like many others, I didn't touch the 3.0 rules for 2 or 3 years after their release because I felt comfortable with 2nd edition. Back then I wanted fixes to the current rules I was using, not an entirely new system that I had to learn and master. Eventually one of my players, who would always go on about 3.0, finally said "Just try it and if you hate it I'll never mention it again" so I tried it and I found that liked it.

Luckily I learned about the coming 3.5 before I bought any books so I waited, got the 3.5 books and began a new library like my 2nd edition books (which I still use to this day for inspiration). When I first heard about the canceling of Dungeon and Dragon magazine I felt pretty disappointed because I had looked forward to Paizo's publishings for around 7 years by that time. Paizo's response was perfect to the situation with the reveal of Pathfinder adventure paths. However at the time 4th edition had not yet been announced either. WotC's response was very bad. A lot of us wanted, and others demanded information on its new "digital initiative". All we got was Gleemax.com (I think that was the name) and silence. It was bad business decisions (made by WotC) vs good business decisions (made by Paizo) those decisions being to inform your fan base on what was going on.

Then 4th edition was revealed and I felt the same when 3.0 had come out. With such a familiar feeling I was ready to hang up my D&D books for good because I felt that WotC didn't realize they were alienating their own fan base yet again. Then I heard of pathfinder coming out, not as a bunch of adventure paths but as a fix to our old game. For me it was a messiah, exactly what I wanted with 2ed when 3.0 came out. Someone did what I wanted them to do, which was fix the problems with old system instead of a complete redesign. I supported pathfinder from the first minute because of that premise

Things got even more complicated when I gave 4th edition a chance and actually played it. The first problem that I had was it felt like I was playing an MMORPG rather then a table top RPG. At that point I had already played Everquest for 4 years and quit World of Warcraft about a year earlier. I did not want the feeling of another MMORPG in my D&D game. That feeling made me hate 4th edition and all that came with it. I despised it with all my heart and soul and still do. The edition, IMO, is beyond redemption and will forever be worthless to me. That said, if YOU enjoy 4th edition then by all means play it and have fun with it, I'm not going to burst into a 4th edition party and demand to be accommodated.

Pathfinders alpha and beta testing were things that I was heavily involved in and I have to say that a lot of things were listened to, not all of them (especially when it came to the sorcerer class) but a lot were listened to and implemented as it grew into a gaming system. During that testing I remember seeing many vocal minorities proposing unbalanced or overly complicated changes to certain classes, spells, and mechanics but those minorities died down and seemed to disappear overtime.

Overall Paizo's response to everything that happened in this time frame was wonderful. They made a lot of great business decisions by listening to the majority of their players. On the flip side WotC made a lot of bad decisions by alienating their fan base just like they had done 8 years prior and then staying silent when we asked for information.

Is pathfinder perfect? Hell no but IMO its much better then any fantasy based table top RPG out today. If YOU enjoy other editions of D&D, Palladium Fantasy, Swords and sorcery, or whatever else for your fantasy table top gaming then please play that and have fun with it but don't come to Pathfinder players and demand to be accommodated either

That all said, can we give the Old/New D&D vs pathfinder arguments a rest? Were starting to sound like a large group of fan boys and that disturbs me...


Online Myrleena

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #54 on: November 15, 2009, 04:19:14 AM »
That all said, can we give the Old/New D&D vs pathfinder arguments a rest? Were starting to sound like a large group of fan boys and that disturbs me...

Hear, hear!

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #55 on: November 15, 2009, 10:13:57 AM »
I'm fine with that. I started this in hopes that folks who WERE playing the game would comment about what they were doing with it. :D

Online Myrleena

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #56 on: November 15, 2009, 04:59:46 PM »
Well, thus far I've run through the first two parts of Rise of the Runelords using the Beta, and then the 3rd module of it using the Core Rules.  Last night we started on part 4, Fortress of the Stone Giants, and lost 2 PCs in it.  I have 7 players normally, but one couldn't make it, and the other...I wonder why he even plays D&D/Pathfinder, considering that he does his best to ignore equipment.  His 8th level monk took on 3 stone giants on his own.  With an AC of 20, he died in the first combat round.  Then the dwarf Fighter 9, the only other PC to follow the monk, took on the giants himself.  He killed 1 of them before being knocked unconscious, stabilized because the giants were looking for greedy individuals, and everyone knows dwarves are greedy...

Anyway, the rest of the party was in the southern part of town, where a pair of stone giants and three dire bears were invading.  We nearly lost two more party members there, but they managed since the rogue had a ring of invisibility and a healing item and the cleric was still up.  There were still another eight stone giants raiding the town, as well as a Juvenile Red Dragon giving fire support, but they only managed to get rid of the leader of the raid before the remaining stone giant raiders left town, but with a couple of important NPCs as captives.  As expected, the party couldn't deal with everything at once.  But overall, everyone loves the system.

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #57 on: November 15, 2009, 05:27:22 PM »
I can one great thing about Pathfinder, at least you never have to consider taking a fraking Prestige Class now a fighter is scary, bards powered up and other classes impressive. That was the weak spot in DnD 3.X most of time one had to take a prestige class if you were an adventurer. Its not I hate them in Forgotten Realms many are key for certain options like be A Red Wizard but no one should feel they have to take one just to meet some power level they feel pressured to be at.

I do play it four days a month and have a fighter finding the class very strong on its own.

Offline Chris Brady

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #58 on: November 15, 2009, 06:17:03 PM »
I like the changes to the Paladin class.  A fight/encounter long Smite on the same enemy?  About time.  Sucked to blow your only Smite on a miss...

Offline Brandon

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #59 on: November 15, 2009, 06:53:17 PM »
I wholeheartedly agree with Ruby on this one. In Pathfinder Prestige classes are more about a certain flavor of your main class then the idea of being more effective overall. Although the fighter and sorcerer could both use some more buffs they are light years ahead of what they used to be and IMO Sorcerer is more about roleplaying flavor then ever due to the bloodline abilities

In my table top game Ive been running a Planescape themed game (using the 2nd edition planar landscape plus a few of my custom planes added in) and the characters are more or less planar explorers under the employment of the Guvner's faction. The game is more about survival then anything else because the planes are extremely dangerous for the uninformed. The biggest thing that's saved their butts has been the "no cross class skills rules" in pathfinder.

The sorcerer of the group has focused on Intimidation, diplomacy, bluff, and Linguistics skills and when combined with her naturally high charisma shes become a silver tongued glass cannon and that same silver tongue has gotten them out of a lot of trouble. Parallel to that is the fact that the groups fighter who's focused in survival and knowledge planes/geography/local skills so he makes sure they almost never get lost, and never want for shelter (and sometimes food and water). Our cleric, whos a philosopher but he might as well call his philosophy Wee-Jas, is our trapsmith.

Its an interesting mish mash of skills that a normal 3.5 group wouldnt have with those classes (or at least wouldnt be nearly as effective in). This is one of my favorite things about Pathfinder skill choices no longer pigeon hole you. You can be diverse and make something different without being penalized for it


Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #60 on: November 15, 2009, 07:38:47 PM »
Channelling is so awesome for clerics now..

Area heals. No problem

Area nuking of undead? NOOOO problem.

Palidins get smite and Channel at later levels.. nasty.. add in the differnt effects they can dispel with LOH.. nice teeth

Sorcerers.. bloodlines make them nice again.

Offline Brandon

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #61 on: November 15, 2009, 09:02:34 PM »
Bloodlines were always flavorful and interesting. The problem in 3.5 was people expected you to take them as feats and they were really only good when you had a lot of bloodline feats. Of course you had to sacrifice metamagic capabilties for them which really sucked later on

Online Callie Del NoireTopic starter

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #62 on: November 15, 2009, 09:39:08 PM »
Bloodlines were always flavorful and interesting. The problem in 3.5 was people expected you to take them as feats and they were really only good when you had a lot of bloodline feats. Of course you had to sacrifice metamagic capabilties for them which really sucked later on

Yeah, but they generally screwed sorcerers from the get go. They should have let them have metamagic without the casting time penalty.

Sad thing is all this talk makes me want to play Pathfinder. :D
« Last Edit: November 15, 2009, 10:06:38 PM by Callie Del Noire »

Online Myrleena

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #63 on: November 15, 2009, 10:37:56 PM »
Yeah...I hated sorcerers in 3.5, and wouldn't play them.  With all the splatbooks, it just wasn't worth the handful of spells known.  But I'm actually running one in a game online in Pathfinder, and somewhat to my surprise I'm having fun with it.

As for wanting to play...well...that's what got me into GMing in the first place. >_>

Offline Brandon

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #64 on: November 16, 2009, 12:00:43 AM »
I found the old thread here: http://elliquiy.com/forums/index.php?topic=17344.0

That thread was made during the Alpha testing but it has several interesting insights in it that people might find interesting

Offline RubySlippers

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #65 on: November 16, 2009, 01:55:25 PM »
And Sorcerors don't exactly have to have a Bloodline, in my local gaming group the Sorceror made a classic pact with a powerful Outsider for power. In her case she has to do some jobs and promote the goals of the patron and in return gets bonus spells based on the patron and a improved familiar free. The down side she is the bitch of a Pit Fiend and has witch hunters as a threat, those that go after bad spellcasters. Oddly she is neutral not evil just was stupid and made a bad deal.  ;)

Makes the roleplaying kind of interesting to say the least and with a bit of creativity the Sorceror gains some flexibility.

Offline Brandon

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #66 on: December 06, 2009, 10:42:52 PM »
Ya know I had a thought a little while ago. Elliquiy has a decent sized Pathfinder sub-community in it so to our sub-community I ask, what would everyone think of making a colaberated world made by the Elliquiy community to support our pathfinder games within the community? Sort of a fantasy world, based around the pathfinder game but also having general sexiness as a theme.

Thoughts?

Offline Scribbles

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #67 on: December 08, 2009, 11:54:22 AM »
Is there anywhere I can read up on “Pathfinder”? It seems to be a prerequisite of most of the more interesting RPs.

Offline Brandon

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #68 on: December 08, 2009, 06:21:46 PM »
The pathfinder SRD is right here: http://paizo.com/pathfinderRPG/prd/

That should give you all the info you need. Pathfinder is more or less Dungeons and Dragons under a different name. This version was made to improve the 3.5 version and I think that its very good but still has some problems

Offline Scribbles

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #69 on: December 08, 2009, 06:27:47 PM »
Lol, wow, I can print a book with this. xD

Thanks Waiting under the Mistletoe! ^_^

Offline Mnemaxa

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #70 on: December 13, 2009, 02:57:27 AM »
I noted a lot of people saying Pathfinder didn't fix the problems of 3.5.

I believe they are wrong.  Most of the caster problems in 3.5 (casters do everything that other classes do, but better) does not exist in Pathfinder. Knock spells do not open locks better than a 7th level rogue can.  It can't.  Find Traps spell for clerics is actually worse than a 2nd level rogue, because at 2nd level a rogue can get a roll to find traps by being within 30' of one, if they so desire - it's a rogue ability choice, one that crops up at every other level.  Power Attack SEEMS nerfed, until you consider that no fighter in their right mind is ever going to sacrifice more than a -5 to their attack bonus anyways, and in Pathfinder it nets them double that in damage (and there is a feat that lets them do this at range using Deadly Aim) and it is a swift action that affects all their attacks - including attacks of opportunity - until the beginning of their next round; since it scales up as the character goes up in level, at 20th level a fighter sacrifices a mere -6 to deal +12 in damage, +18 if he's using a 2 handed weapon, and if he's a critical-based fighter at 20th level...well, with a falchion as his specialized and focused weapon the absolute minimum damage he'll be doing with a normal weapon and no magical strength bonuses is +31....and he'll be tripling (not doubling, due to a 20th level class ability fighters get) that every fourth hit or so.  Far more importantly, with the vast number of feats and their class abilities, they now have multiple combat options available, and are not restricted to one single build or one specific weapon to compete with casters; the attack-of-opportunity trip-fighter can now also use power attack and deadly aim to be a threat to anything nearby and with a melee weapon and with a bow or spears, and might be able to make his own magic weapons and armor to boot.

The wildshape/polymorph spells can help a druid or caster to fight well, but they cannot take the place of a fighter using those spells.  Clerics cannot outfight a fighter - the two spells that made it possible are now using the same bonuses and don't grant either a strength bonus or fighter attack bonus.  Even the one that does grant a strength bonus to them doesn't increase their BAB and the fighter bonuses from just their class abilities matches it without taking feats into account.  And the most important part, is that if you follow the largely common-sense conversion rules, you really can add other spells and classes from 3.5 into the game - just give the spells that take the place of another class ability a serious limitation like they did with Knock and Find Traps, and it works out fine. 

The grappling rules work very well; now a monk can truly shine, because they can use stunning fist (and the class based augmentations to it) to seriously incapacitate enemies just as well - and sometimes better - than casters of equal levels, and they use fighter base attack bonuses for their maneuvers and flurry of blows (which makes them no longer the dreaded 'flurry of misses').  They gain a large number of bonus feats that augment their combat ability that they do not have to have prerequisites for and don't have to spend their precious personal feats on.  Even a bard can be combat effective - with a whip and a few feats, they can trip attack almost as well as a monk or a fighter, while still giving all the other character in their party buffs with their performances after 7th level (something that was impossible in 3.5).  Paladins received potent abilities for healing, and their smite evil ability isn't a one shot deal now - it lasts until he rests and regains his smites, or his opponent is defeated....meaning if the opponent runs away and comes back an hour later, he's still going to be smote hard by that paladin.

Finally, there is no longer a 'caster dependence' on magic items or on healing after 7th level.  The Master Craftsman feat allows any character class to create Wondrous Items or Magic Arms and Armor.  If a player chooses to, their fighter can craft his own magical armor and swords, even with special abilities.  A rogue can create magical tools and protective items if he so desires.  And the fact that Use Magic Device can be used by any class, means that wands are freely usable by any class that takes the ranks in the skill, and after 10th level they are pretty much guaranteed to be successful in using said wand - which means Cure Serious Wounds, Neutralize Poison, Cure Disease, Remove Curse, and Restoration spells can be supplied by anyone who takes enough ranks in Use Magic Device and spends the gold to buy the wands in question.  You are no longer doomed if you don't have a cleric or a healing-bard.  But more importantly, this does not remove the playability of clerics or druids; it helps, but cannot replace them, any more than those two classes can replace the fighter or the rogues.

Since anyone can take any skill (non-class skills do not get a +3 bonus, as the only penalty), anyone can take Perception (a combination of search, spot, and listen, as well as adding taste and touch), anyone can take Gather Information, and anyone can take Disable Device.  Sure, if it's a class skill you'll be better, and if it's a skill your class is exceptional at you'll get massive bonuses (rogues gain half their level as a bonus to Perception and disable Device concerning traps, and bards gain half their level as a bonus to any knowledge skill, which they may use even without having ranks in the skills), but all in all, out-of-combat skill use is no longer limited to rogues and bards. 

Playing a character concept returned to the game, without the necessity of must-have character types - anyone can take enough ranks and spend a feat or two to disable device and search for traps, but the rogue will do it better; anyone can actually use magical devices or craft wondrous items and make a cut-rate healer out of themselves, and clerics and wizards can manage to fight well, but they can't outfight a fighter, barbarian, or a ranger.  Even the instant-win spells of the past are now massive damage spells that can't really replace a barbarian or fighter in damage capacity; the few spells that can instantly win a fight are going to fail a quarter of the time at very best, and that's at very high levels anyways, when the fighter and monk and barbarian can also start to instantly win fights with their class abilities or feats. 

As far as the silly things such as the infamous "Pun-Pun", infinite quarterstaves, and Locate City Nuke, those things were only possible with the assumption of a stupidly permissive GM.  Any system has that level of brokenness if you presume absolute GM permissiveness, including 4e.

Most importantly, it gives the game back to the idea of fluff being as important as mechanics.  Sorcerers and wizards gain all the nifty abilities they used to have to take a half dozen different prestige classes for.  What seems like a silly idea (Swimming Rage, gain a bonus equal to your level to your swim checks!) becomes incredibly effective (Swimming, Climbing, and Acrobatic rage - you're not a barbarian, you're a Viking or Pirate, able to swim through the stormiest sea, causing havoc in the rigging, and chopping down the masts) and they turned the two least useful races - half-elves and half-orcs - into races that are competitive with humans (Thrag the Bard, who will chop you to pieces with his falchion if you don't like his playing - he even has a bonus to charisma).  And Bards really can make you die from laughter or cry your eyes into blindness.

Yes, I like Pathfinder, and I'm ranting because most people who say it doesn't fix the reality breaking aspects of casters have really irked me.  It fixes the stupidly broken things from 3.5, and makes each class competitive without making any of them obsolete due to the existence of another class.  It keeps the 3.5 games alive, with support and growth.  4e is fun, don't get me wrong....I am not saying it's a bad game and to me there is no 'edition wars', just people who are opinionated.  Having looked through the rules changes in Pathfinder, they are more common sense and planned out better than 3.5 rules were (a cat can still kill a commoner, but chances are slim; a commoner CAN die from a normal poisonous snake bite now).  They might be house rules, but they're house rules that are comprehensive, all in one book (no separation between players book and DM's book), and didn't require the GM to do all the damn work to fix it (we're lazy bastards).

Excuse the rant.

Offline Brandon

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #71 on: December 19, 2009, 10:14:46 PM »
So Im wondering if anyones had a chance to try out the new classes Paizo released to test for Pathfinder? Ive only tried out the Witch and Alchemist so far (both vs my players) and they seem pretty balanced. I havnt had the chance to try out the cavalier, oracle, summoner, or inquisitor yet though

Offline Mnemaxa

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #72 on: December 20, 2009, 11:08:39 PM »
So Im wondering if anyones had a chance to try out the new classes Paizo released to test for Pathfinder? Ive only tried out the Witch and Alchemist so far (both vs my players) and they seem pretty balanced. I havnt had the chance to try out the cavalier, oracle, summoner, or inquisitor yet though

I've play tested all six. 

Alchemists suffer from the 3.5 bard's problem - they can do some terrifically neat things, but not well enough.  They also suffer serious problems when trying to use their abilities in that they are forced to use 2 rounds to do something that should really take them only one (preparing and throwing a bomb does not mean they get the catalyst vial out as well yet, so that's an extra move action unless they are in motion already - quick draw specifically doesn't work with alchemical items).  That said, they are a new take on a class - a totally self buffing class, with the ability to take one of three paths of growth that lead to interestign powers.  they may need a bit more work, but for a start, it is all right.  The combination of finess fighter and poisons, along with their potential to self-buff makes them an alternative to spellcasting buff/debuffers, and their bombs soften the enemy up nicely.  They can make a fair cut-rate rogue, given their skill selections as well.

Inquisitors are an unusual case as well.  They too are largely self buffers, but their abilities are designed to make them a threat to specific tasrgets.  their Tactical Feats, since they can use them solo, are useful, while making other classes who work with them or have them in conjuction with others fearsomely potent.  Their bonuses are both circumstantial and also determined by the player, so they can be incredibly versatile in how they cope with combat.  They suffer the 'fiddlybits problem', meaning you have to have a general idea of what you want, and there are a huge number of options for a play.  They are definitely not for novice players.  On the other hand, an inquisitor makes an excellent front line warrior despite their lowered BAB; their many ways to get multiple bonuses and the particular selection of divine spells mean they can cope with almost anything, and a rogue who has tactical feats (which they can gain as regular feats or through the combat training ability) or any fighter-type with such feats turns them into a deadly flanking/opportunist attack comrade.

Summoners are unusual as well.  At first glance you seem to be playing a monster who has a character nearby - the eidolon is a monster the summoner uses as a weapon.  It changes and evolves as he grows in levels, and it is definitely a pokemon style situation, so the jokes are inevitable.  They summoner is another buff heavy caster, but their buffs are clearly intended for self-and monster use.  The obvious style of play is to have the summoner act as combat support for their eidolon, but the eidolon is capable of taking skills and feats as well, which means a clever summoner can turn his eidolon into a skilled creature, disabling devices, finding traps, having lore and knowledge skills etc.  The summoner himself can make a good second tier combatant as well, like the bard and upcoming oracle, especially with a choice selection of buff spells.  The bad part is that it can easily make it seem as though the summoner is not the main character, if he concentrates too much on his eidolon.  The link between eidolon and summoner is strong, and while it is difficult to kill both, if the eidolon is dispelled, the summoner cannot summon it back for 24 hours, and is relagated to using his summon monster abilities (a spell like ability that gets stronger as they go up in levels) and their spells to help them survive combat.

The Oracle is an interesting take on a spontaneous divine caster.  Unlike the overpowered Favored Soul of 3.5 the oracle is strictly another divine spellcaster who has the potential for effective combat (a favored soul had all good saves and access to the severely broken clerical spells from 3.5 making them better at fighting than any other class including clerics!).  The lack of domains is replaced by the choice of an elemental, battle or life/death focus, from which they gain a few extra spells and spell like abilities, as well as some potent gifts they may choose from.  The oracle is always cursed, which has a penalty and some benefits, making roleplaying them interesting and flavorful.  Of the classes, the oracle is the most play capable right out of the box.  They're a good second tier combatant as well, and a first tier combatant if they choose the battle-focus.

Witches were interesting.  They have limited spell lists that take from both arcane and divine lists, but the list is pervasive enough that they can be effective healers and utility casters along with a few control spells and transformations both offensive and defensive.   They are similar in casting style to wizards, but they gain their spells through communion with their familiar, who serves as a repository for the witches spells.  In addition, their hexes can be incredibly useful in and out of combat, though currently there is one with a fairly large exploit in it - the Evil eye, combined with Cackle, can eventually reduce all the opponents capabilities (as it does not state you cannot use the Evil Eye more than once on the same person - just not more than once on the same ability because the penalties won't stack), and even if they make their save the cackle can keep it going until she fails to use a move action to cackle.  The bad is that if the familiar dies, the witch loses access to all her spells (there is no experience loss though) until she obtains a new familiar, who only has the most basic of spell lists - any extra spells the witch taught the familiar are lost unless she spends the money to get her dead familiar raised.  They are a good addition to the casters, a debuffer and a cross between cleric and wizard.

The Cavalier is a sturdy class, which suffers the fiddlybit problem.  Their challenge ability is useful, but the player must take care to use it very judiciously - because a challenge directed at the wrong foe means you cannot use it against nay other foes during that encounter, and if the main badguy shows up late to the encounter you could be in trouble.  Unlike previous cavaliers, the Pathfinder cavalier's mount is treated as a druid's animal companion, thus making it more of an ally and more durable than most other mounts would be.  Because of the oaths, a cavalier can gain many bonuses not normally available, and some of them can stack with others, allowing them to chose the style of fight that is most effective for them.  The ability to have an Order and gain abilities means you have many options, and no alignment restriction makes them usable in a variety of roles.  They do not suffer mount reliance as they have in the past, which is good - it can be problematic on dungeon delves, but no more so than the druid or ranger's animal companion is when it is large (a fact many people seem to forget).  Though they have a precision attack ability, the fact it only comes into play against a single target once per encounter means they cannot really outclass a fighter - their bonuses are fairly useful, but are circumstantial, so even at their best they can equal a basic (not heavily optimized) fighter. 

All in all, they are more complex - which is not bad considering it is an Advanced Player's Guide - but some of them still need work, most notably the Alchemist.  I would not hesitate to allow an Oracle in my games as stands, and would consider the Summoner and the Cavalier without too much hesitation, and the poor Alchemist needs some benefits before he'd be playworthy, while the Witch needs some better power defining and might do with a little more protection for her familiar.  Inquisitors, I still need to look at with some care, as the spell-casting choices my players made were not optimal, and thus possibly could tilt the inquisitor from 'effective' to 'overpowered'.

Offline Brandon

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #73 on: January 23, 2010, 12:20:44 AM »
I thought some pathfinder fans might like this wallpaper I saw today, but beyond that its a shameless bump to get some conversation about our game of choice again. So check it out


Offline Mnemaxa

Re: Pathfinder RPG
« Reply #74 on: January 23, 2010, 03:56:30 AM »
For those who are interested, we have verification of variant paladins being in the Advanced Players guide - but not evil ones. 

That slot will be taken up by the 20-level Blackguard class instead.  A preliminary view of one is to be had HERE.