Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pawsplay" data-source="post: 5441346" data-attributes="member: 15538">In case you hadn't heard, the playtest PDF is available. Download it!Let me preface my comments first by saying that, as has come to be expected from Paizo, the classes set forth with solid design principles and are pretty consistent with other designs. Thus, most of what I have to say is going to take the form of criticism. I don't feel the need to say, "Yeah, Paizo sure nailed another Cavalier Order" so I won't, but I don't want to give the impression my thoughts are intended as a slam.The Gunslinger: I'm a little perplexed where this one is going to fit into most campaigns, but it's an intriguing and useful idea if you do want one. "Grit" is a cute ability name, but "grit user" is one of those horrible phrases invented by RPG writers who don't spend enough time around humans. "Grit user," really? I have a huge complaint here. The writeup includes firearm rules that state they are there so you can play the gunslinger, but are final and not open to discussion. The problem is that those rules are pretty crappy. Firearms are treated as touch attacks within the first range increment, which is stupid, as that implies that bullets easily penetrate plate armor or the skin of a steel or stone construct. Another issue I have is that the rules define firearms as an Exotic Weapon Proficiency but then go on to state that they don't fuction as discrete proficiencies after all. Why not simply define a new category of weapons, firearm weapons, and say the gunslinger is proficient in all of them? Is there a reason members of other classes need proficiency with all of them for a feat? If they are intended to be so accessible, why do they have different proficiencies for the purpose of Weapon Focus, etc.? It's just a mishmash that while only slightly consequential, really offends my sensibilities as a GM and designer. Samurai: Dude, the variations are interesting, but hardly distinguish an Eastern cavalier from a western one, substantially. I don't see what you're getting beyond a new Cavalier order, plus a slight variation that gives fighter-like specialization abilities. The Cavalier is already a very top notch samurai!Ninja: The fact that "select any rogue talent" is even on the table lets me know this class is mostly rogue+. I was hoping for a class that is to the rogue what a magus is to the fighter. A "real" ninja class would combine stealth with elemental sorcery and demon powers. Asian weapons: This playtest repeats the completely misguided notion that the katana should be treated as a bastard sword. First of all, that could create the bizarre situation where a ninja can use bastard swords but not longswords. Second, it was, is, and will be incorrect. Yes, the majority of styles use the katana two-handed... just like the majority of historical longsword styles do! And there are plenty of styles, including Muashi's two sword style, that use a one-handed grip. Katanas are not especially heavy, far from it. A katana is just a basic variation on the longsword-type weapon, just a longsword with a twist of scimitar. It's neither long nor heavy enough to equivalent to a bastard sword, and there is no reason to suppose that hordes of Japanese Warriors all need to blow a feat on EWP (most common sword in feudal Japan).</blockquote>

Verification