Pathfinder: New Classes revealed!
I was waiting to make this post until *all* the new classes were revealed for the Pathfinder Advanced Player's Guide. My overwhelming response to all of classes is "This is better suited as a variant." Time to take a quick look!
Alchemist - This is the most interesting and valid concept of the new classes Paizo are adding. Although, as it exists now, the skill of alchemy is open to all classes, so again, I think to myself, if you feel that there is not enough alchemy in games, then come up with some new funky uses for the skill - new alchemical items that anyone can make, possibly based on low level spell effects? Or again, work on a variant of the wizard class who brews potions instead of studying books and scrolls. In 2nd Edition, every wizard was also an alchemist by default. I'm interested to see how this is going to be pulled off, but it is going to have to be something special to convince me that more uses for the skill wouldn't have been better.
Cavalier - Ah! We all knew this relic of D&D was going to get resurrected! And, coincidentally, I just picked up the Green Ronin Cavalier class book for $2.00 in the Paizo sale. This is another idea that I love, the cavalier is a real classic archetype. However, they are already represented by the paladin in many ways, and it is perfectly possible to play a cavalier using a number of different options from the 3rd edition, any version you like, rule set. So why does this need to be a new class? I'm going to forgive this Paizo this one, like any eccentric writer, there are certain things they love and this is one of them. But I really don't feel the need for a whole new class.
Oracle - Spontaneous divine caster! Ooh! While there is a mechanical opening for such a class, and I welcome that opening to be filled, I really think that a variant sorcerer or a variant cleric would be the best way to present this idea. Also, there doesn't seem to be any logical connection between the divine and these casters - why do they get divine powers? I'm open to the idea, but I'm not sold on what I see. It looks messy in the preview, and not at all like what you would associate with the word "oracle".
Summoner - The summoning spells are awesome fun, but does this really need to be a new class? A wizard or a sorcerer (or a druid, or a cleric) can easily call themselves a summoner and there are a lot of options open to these characters regarding summoning already. Again I find myself wondering why this needs to be a whole new class. Some new, optional extra rules, like more feats to pick extra powers for your summoned creatures, for example, would be much more welcome than a whole new class. And much easier to integrate, too. My wife plays a summoner, a sorcerer who specializes in summoning spells. Some new and interesting spells would be 100x more welcome to existing players, I'm sure, than a whole new class. E.g. We've had a lot of fun with some 3rd party spells, including one that lets you summon siege weapons. A couple of intelligence boosting spells later and the summoned badgers are helping load them - it's great fun! Or perhaps something like Astral Construct for magic users?
Inquisitor - The description sounds like a ranger variant. In every sense of the word. This really flies in the face of what we were first told by Paizo - everyone of these classes was supposed to fill a niche that was wide open in terms of the core classes. Guy who hunts things down? Check one - Paladin, check two - ranger, check three - rogue, check four - assassin PrC. That is without going into the broadness of the concept, i.e. there is no reason why a wizard can't also be a hunter of X. Plus it is another slap in the face of the XPH fans who now have to rename the Inquisitor feat.... I'm taking that one very personally! ;p
Witch - I loved the witch kit, back in AD&D - awesome! Although this sounds less like that idea, which is a shame as, with no warlock in Pathfinder, the 'making pacts' angle is something that is wide open! Ah well. Plus with the focus on a beefier familiar, isn't the witch going to start stepping on the toes of the new summoner class and their touted "one big familiar" angle. And again, I think that a witch/warlock is already in the rules, just needs some additional options to bring them fully into the game, e.g. lower level versions of spells like planar ally.
In summary? I'm not impressed. These ideas do not really warrant separate classes, as promised, but would be better represented by class variants.
But I don't want to be totally negative. My doctors say that that is really bad for me right now, so I'm going to try to type a little more, giving some hints as to the things that might win me back, with regard to these archetypes standing on their own as classes.
Alchemist - I suppose the way to win me back with this one is to make it dynamic. I'm thinking that the more like McGuyver the class is, the less wizardly and more unique the class will come out as. I like the idea of brewing up some potions each day, but also have some tubes on stand-by, like open spell slots on the wizard, that just need a little of that dungeon-moss from over there.... That would be fun.
Cavalier - The more cultural neutral this class is, the more I'm going to be into it. Defined by having a code of honor of some kind, and fighting mounted somehow, are the ingredients. From there I want a gladiatorial charioteer (obey the rules of the games, please the crowd as a form of code) to be just as possible as a noble-knight. That would make for a good class. Plus any mount-related abilities would also be welcome, like being able to get more out of your horse (granting them temporary HP would be nice).
Oracle - To win me back here, all it needs is decent flavor. There is a gap in rules that this class will be filling, but I need to see that backed up with some solid "real world" reasons for the class to exist. None of the woolly divine-mind/ardent crap!
Summoner - I really don't know how to sell me on this concept as I don't see a vacancy here. Solid mechanics would be a good starting point. Some sort of exploration of the relationship between the summoner and the summoned would also be welcome - can the summoner exchange being summoned themselves for even more power? That'd be cool. I guess I'd also be on board with summoning things that aid the summoner indirectly - like summoning a spirit into their sword briefly, "self buffs", I think is the term.
Inquisitor - When is a ranger not a ranger? I would like to see something decidedly un-ranger like here, to be sold on it. A 6-level divine spell progression and lots of knowledge skills would be a good start. Divine bard? I guess I'd also like to see some sort of "wards" mechanic, I thinking more Van-Helsing from the novel as opposed to the terrible modern action movie. Yeah, the more I think about that, the more okay with the idea I'd be. Setting up wards that his/her foes cannot cross, or do so at their peril, that'd be fun. Also another niche of the rules not currently explored too deeply. And that would be a real nasty turn when the dark-elf inquisitor turns up hunting the party, all prepared!
Witch - Link this one to the warlock and the idea of "powers at a price" and I'm sold. Please refer back to the AD&D witch kit for reference. Maybe the familiar is sent by those powers to watch on the witch?
Well that's about it from me for now. I'm going to debate posting this over on the Paizo boards. Do I care enough? Hmm....
EDIT: So I did post it over on the Paizo boards and regretted doing so within 8 minutes. I remember when it used to be such a friendly place to hang out. Why do I keep going back and doing this to myself! It's over Kevie! It's over now get over it! *slaps self*
Alchemist - This is the most interesting and valid concept of the new classes Paizo are adding. Although, as it exists now, the skill of alchemy is open to all classes, so again, I think to myself, if you feel that there is not enough alchemy in games, then come up with some new funky uses for the skill - new alchemical items that anyone can make, possibly based on low level spell effects? Or again, work on a variant of the wizard class who brews potions instead of studying books and scrolls. In 2nd Edition, every wizard was also an alchemist by default. I'm interested to see how this is going to be pulled off, but it is going to have to be something special to convince me that more uses for the skill wouldn't have been better.
Cavalier - Ah! We all knew this relic of D&D was going to get resurrected! And, coincidentally, I just picked up the Green Ronin Cavalier class book for $2.00 in the Paizo sale. This is another idea that I love, the cavalier is a real classic archetype. However, they are already represented by the paladin in many ways, and it is perfectly possible to play a cavalier using a number of different options from the 3rd edition, any version you like, rule set. So why does this need to be a new class? I'm going to forgive this Paizo this one, like any eccentric writer, there are certain things they love and this is one of them. But I really don't feel the need for a whole new class.
Oracle - Spontaneous divine caster! Ooh! While there is a mechanical opening for such a class, and I welcome that opening to be filled, I really think that a variant sorcerer or a variant cleric would be the best way to present this idea. Also, there doesn't seem to be any logical connection between the divine and these casters - why do they get divine powers? I'm open to the idea, but I'm not sold on what I see. It looks messy in the preview, and not at all like what you would associate with the word "oracle".
Summoner - The summoning spells are awesome fun, but does this really need to be a new class? A wizard or a sorcerer (or a druid, or a cleric) can easily call themselves a summoner and there are a lot of options open to these characters regarding summoning already. Again I find myself wondering why this needs to be a whole new class. Some new, optional extra rules, like more feats to pick extra powers for your summoned creatures, for example, would be much more welcome than a whole new class. And much easier to integrate, too. My wife plays a summoner, a sorcerer who specializes in summoning spells. Some new and interesting spells would be 100x more welcome to existing players, I'm sure, than a whole new class. E.g. We've had a lot of fun with some 3rd party spells, including one that lets you summon siege weapons. A couple of intelligence boosting spells later and the summoned badgers are helping load them - it's great fun! Or perhaps something like Astral Construct for magic users?
Inquisitor - The description sounds like a ranger variant. In every sense of the word. This really flies in the face of what we were first told by Paizo - everyone of these classes was supposed to fill a niche that was wide open in terms of the core classes. Guy who hunts things down? Check one - Paladin, check two - ranger, check three - rogue, check four - assassin PrC. That is without going into the broadness of the concept, i.e. there is no reason why a wizard can't also be a hunter of X. Plus it is another slap in the face of the XPH fans who now have to rename the Inquisitor feat.... I'm taking that one very personally! ;p
Witch - I loved the witch kit, back in AD&D - awesome! Although this sounds less like that idea, which is a shame as, with no warlock in Pathfinder, the 'making pacts' angle is something that is wide open! Ah well. Plus with the focus on a beefier familiar, isn't the witch going to start stepping on the toes of the new summoner class and their touted "one big familiar" angle. And again, I think that a witch/warlock is already in the rules, just needs some additional options to bring them fully into the game, e.g. lower level versions of spells like planar ally.
In summary? I'm not impressed. These ideas do not really warrant separate classes, as promised, but would be better represented by class variants.
But I don't want to be totally negative. My doctors say that that is really bad for me right now, so I'm going to try to type a little more, giving some hints as to the things that might win me back, with regard to these archetypes standing on their own as classes.
Alchemist - I suppose the way to win me back with this one is to make it dynamic. I'm thinking that the more like McGuyver the class is, the less wizardly and more unique the class will come out as. I like the idea of brewing up some potions each day, but also have some tubes on stand-by, like open spell slots on the wizard, that just need a little of that dungeon-moss from over there.... That would be fun.
Cavalier - The more cultural neutral this class is, the more I'm going to be into it. Defined by having a code of honor of some kind, and fighting mounted somehow, are the ingredients. From there I want a gladiatorial charioteer (obey the rules of the games, please the crowd as a form of code) to be just as possible as a noble-knight. That would make for a good class. Plus any mount-related abilities would also be welcome, like being able to get more out of your horse (granting them temporary HP would be nice).
Oracle - To win me back here, all it needs is decent flavor. There is a gap in rules that this class will be filling, but I need to see that backed up with some solid "real world" reasons for the class to exist. None of the woolly divine-mind/ardent crap!
Summoner - I really don't know how to sell me on this concept as I don't see a vacancy here. Solid mechanics would be a good starting point. Some sort of exploration of the relationship between the summoner and the summoned would also be welcome - can the summoner exchange being summoned themselves for even more power? That'd be cool. I guess I'd also be on board with summoning things that aid the summoner indirectly - like summoning a spirit into their sword briefly, "self buffs", I think is the term.
Inquisitor - When is a ranger not a ranger? I would like to see something decidedly un-ranger like here, to be sold on it. A 6-level divine spell progression and lots of knowledge skills would be a good start. Divine bard? I guess I'd also like to see some sort of "wards" mechanic, I thinking more Van-Helsing from the novel as opposed to the terrible modern action movie. Yeah, the more I think about that, the more okay with the idea I'd be. Setting up wards that his/her foes cannot cross, or do so at their peril, that'd be fun. Also another niche of the rules not currently explored too deeply. And that would be a real nasty turn when the dark-elf inquisitor turns up hunting the party, all prepared!
Witch - Link this one to the warlock and the idea of "powers at a price" and I'm sold. Please refer back to the AD&D witch kit for reference. Maybe the familiar is sent by those powers to watch on the witch?
Well that's about it from me for now. I'm going to debate posting this over on the Paizo boards. Do I care enough? Hmm....
EDIT: So I did post it over on the Paizo boards and regretted doing so within 8 minutes. I remember when it used to be such a friendly place to hang out. Why do I keep going back and doing this to myself! It's over Kevie! It's over now get over it! *slaps self*