Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Greg K" data-source="post: 6222600" data-attributes="member: 5038">Before I talk about the advanced classes, here is some background: I am coming from this as someone that does not play Pathfinder, but looks to it for things to steal. My biggest gripe with Pathfinder has been the classes themselves. With the exception of the Wizards bonded item and Rogue Talents, the changes/additions to other core classes in the core book did nothing for me while others turned me off to the classes themselves- most notably the  Barbarian, Cleric, and Sorcerer.      Since then, there have been some things in various book that have greatly improved a few of the core classes for my tastes:- Advanced Player Guide: Bard Archetypes, Druid Terrain variants, Fighter Variants, Monk Variants, Ranger Variants, Rogue Variants and new Rogue Talents- Ultimate Combat: Bard Archetypes, Fighter Archetypes, Ranger Archetypes, Rogue Archetypes and new Rogue Talents- Ultimate Magic: Bard Archetypes, Cleric cloistered cleric archetype and new channeling optionsAs for new Base classes,Oracle: I want to like it, but something doesn't sit rightWitch: For my tastes, tt pales in comparison to Steve Kenson's Witch from Green Ronin's Witch's Handbook(End Background)So, as I approach the Advanced Class Guide classes. I already have a strong dislike for the default Pathfinder classes. However, I find some are improved greatly with supplements and a few are either sitting on the edge of like and dislike or fall short in comparison to specific 3e versions.As for the playtest classes, at first glance, the only two that I like are the Slayer and the Swashbuckler. The Shaman is the one that I was most interested in going into the playtest. I dislike the Druid Totem variant archetypes so I was hoping for something here that I would like. I found it lackluster- even more so, if I  compare it to Steve Kenson's Shaman class from Green Ronin's Shaman's Handbook.  To date for 3e, Steve's Shaman has been the only Shaman for 3e or Pathfinder that I have liked.The Archivist I need to take a closer look. Right now, I don't see the point of the class.The Bloodrager: I don't see the point of the class. It is also not appropriate for any campaign that I would run.The Brawler, conceptually, this is something that I think has been needed for some time. The name of the class and the mechanics do nothing for me. Not a class, I would make room for  in a game and I would look elsewhere for something elseThe Investigator: Conceptually, this does not fit my campaigns.  I'll stick with the Rogue Archetype.The Skald: The class abilities fall short for me. Granting rage is cool, but spell kenning and dirge of doom do nothing for me and granting rage and lessening the penalties with exprerience is not enough for me.Warpriest. I don't see the point of the class.  The cleric with 3/4 BAB and Medium armor is already pretty much a warrior priest.  A Holy Warrior class along the lines of Green Ronin's Holy Warrrior or a Priest (non armored and 1/2 BAB divine class (maybe a sorcerer/cleric hybrid) would have been more interesting to me and filled necessary design .</blockquote>

Verification