Sneaky Maneuver
When you perform a combat maneuver against a target you could have sneak attacked you may add +1 to your CMD for every sneak attack die you are entitled to.
That should put disarm and dirty trick back in the rogue's arsenal.
Spring Attack is generally a terrible feat and redundant with its own prerequisites. If I wanted spring attack I'd go druid or synth and pick up flyby instead. I might well still go for dodge and mobility so no saved feats, but at least flyby is still a standard attack.
But even if you do want spring attack in spite of its flaws you want it for a mobile combat build and then along comes whirlwind which is for static combat.
And then there's combat expertise. Haven't we been taxed enough already?
It should be noted that if vital strike is the "solution" to full attacks it's not much of a solution for anyone but fighters. Nobody else can really afford the feats if they want to do anything else. It's not just fighters who lose effectiveness as they level. All the martials except beast totem barbarians above level 10 do.
You cannot compare sports (which are based off physical performance) to writing up a set of rules (which is based off mental factors), Ciretose. That's not even comparing apples to oranges. It's more like comparing apples to freaking grenades. Also, name some examples of those incompetent people shouting about their poorly planned out ideas instead of just stating something with nothing to back it up. Because really, I have seen people who do a better job than Paizo ever has and who never got paid for it (or have their works ignored because it's 3PP), Kirth being one of them, while you are here claiming these people are a myth.
And once again I say I can make a better fighter than the PF fighter because I don't have a deadline. However if I had to go up against SKR or Jason in a contest while creating a new class with a short deadline I am sure that at least 9 out 10 times my idea will not be chosen.
Precisely. It's not that the professionals are worse game designers, it's that the constraints imposed by publication are inherently bad for game design.
Yes, SKR and Jason could do better work if they weren't professionals. That's why the CRB, which drew heavily on house rules they had worked on as amateur* projects, is the least flawed rulebook Paizo has published.
They would be doing better work because amateurs can iterate their designs without concern for publication schedules and do not need to shovel half complete crap like some of the UM and UC optional rules to fill space. Essentially being a professional forces you to prefer quantity to quality. Amateurs are working for their own personal benefit or their ego and tend to prefer quality to quantity. Professionals also face a bias towards new content rather than fixing old content. Fixing the unbalanced or nonfunctional rules, unless it's done as part of a new edition, doesn't directly move a single unit of product. Even the worst splat will sell at least some copies.
* They may have previously been doing adventure writing and setting design professionally, but that's a different discipline and the house rules that eventually became Pathfinder were not originated under any publication constraints.
A lot of the times rules are argued from a the point of a player who wants to do something.
Remember the rules work the same for NPC's, and PC's, and ask yourself "is it ok/fair if the GM does this to me"?
If I'm going to fail a fortitude save against disintegrate I'd far rather it be for an item than my character. I think it takes a wish to raise the dead without a corpse and 2d6/level is a lot of damage. If I'm not going to fail the fortitude save disintegrate isn't going to destroy the armor of someone with PC wealth at the levels where it's likely to be seen. Weapons are more fragile, but a +1 metal or +2 hafted weapon will survive better than half the time, a +2 metal weapon will survive 7775 times in 7776, and a +3 weapon will always survive in shape to be repaired.
Creating a rule book is much more than creating rules. As an amateur you don't have to make the hard choices around space constraints, broad appeal and (crucially) deadlines.
This is precisely why amateurs often write better rules.
Publishing is not game design and the needs of publication, deadlines in particular, are contrary to the needs of good game design. Amateurs don't have deadlines. They can release when they're done. They can revise when they or their audience find problems. They can fix problems without worrying about word count preventing serious errors from getting locked in. Amateurs can iterate freely. Professionals have to get it right the first time, or at least get it wrong in a fashion that happens to use as much page space as getting it right would. Professional game designers aren't enough better than amateurs to overcome that limitation.
Wait...is this the Rules Question board or the Advice or Homebrew board?
If this is the Rules Questions forum we normally deal in RAW.
This means that the rules in this case do not support attacking the armor. Which means it cannot be done.
There is no RAW in this case.
Attended objects can be targeted. Attended objects use their owner's saves and SR unless their own saves are higher. These are RAW. Unattended objects have their own AC calculated according to their size and their dexterity of 0. This is also RAW. The best we can do for the AC of attended objects is extrapolate.
In conclusion, the rules are clear - a buckler arm has a “free hand” that is “carrying nothing” and “holding nothing”.
Nothing is ever clear. :-)
What is the meaning of "free" in "free hand"?
If it is identical to "holding nothing" (which I think is what is meant), then a buckler arm has a "free hand".
If it means "completely unhindered", then a buckler arm does not have a free hand --- the buckler arm gets penalties in some situations.
If it means "doesn't cost anything", then all characters have free hands (unless you're a construct or have grafts or something).
If it means "unburdened by legal constraints", then all characters have free hands (as long as you don't name your hand "Golarion" or something).
If it means "refusing to accept the armistice and continuing to fight", then you have some serious MPD issues.
If it means "completely unhindered" as you take it then there is no such thing as a free hand. The hand is always subject to constraints, eg. reach. Nothing is ever completely unhindered. Even information is subject to some physical laws, most notably Einstein's speed limit.
The buckler arm can be used for any action it could be used for if it did not have a buckler strapped to it. This contrasts with the light shield, which may be carrying nothing and holding nothing, but is restricted from certain actions, ie. wielding a weapon where wielding is a keyword distinct from holding.
The spell would make it too easy to destroy things and the game has rules on sunder. That makes me believe the RAI is to target the target not his equipment.
Since there are no rules for targeting worn equipment with spells unless the spell in question says you can, it seems to me that you can not.
That's a metaphysically absurd ruling that would only fly at very gamist tables. And I don't think it's necessary in any case.
Armor will never have a lower touch AC than its wielder and as an attended object has the exact same saves and SR. Any touch attack that can hit the armor could have hit the wearer and while the wearer generally has more HP energy attacks by default do half damage to objects.
Disintegrate does full damage to objects, but is quite high level and a sixth level spell should be powerful. Besides, if you wouldn't have killed the wearer you won't destroy the armor. Your odds of destroying a +1 chain shirt that passes its fortitude save (using the wearer's save, mind you) are 1 in 7776 and can never destroy +1 medium armor tougher than hide or nonmagical heavy armor. Disintegrate has significantly less than even odds of even imposing the damaged condition on a +1 breastplate and only even odds against nonmagical splint mail unless it would have dealt its full 2d6/level to the wearer if so targeted.
Scorching Ray might be ruled to do full damage against wooden shields and armor and cloth armor. Wooden armor is a rare niche item for marines. Wooden shields are for low levels or for druids whose items cannot be targeted in wildshape.
Acid Arrow is the only serious concern against metal equipment and a second level ranged touch attack maybe imposing the broken condition to an object after a delay of potentially several rounds does not compare favorably to Shatter even if it can target magic items and ignore SR. Even here, though, the GM may rule that a material takes full damage from an energy type. The examples given are fire against parchment and cloth and sonic against glass and crystal. If the player is trying to cheese sunder with acid the GM can shut that down just by using discretion explicitly given to him.
As an attended object the item uses the wearer's fortitude save unless its own is higher. It uses the wearer's SR. Those are clear rules. How you hit it isn't and you have no choice but to house rule to some extent.
You can't use CMB. CMB includes the strength mod and has a size bonus instead of penalty.
You can't use the wearer's touch AC either because the size category may be wrong.
I believe it would use the wearer's touch AC modifiers except the size bonus or penalty because it moves as the wearer moves and deflection bonuses add to everything, but it would use its own size category. Full body armor is the same size as the wearer. Breastplates, chain shirts, and any other torso only armor is going to be one size category smaller on a humanoid and probably similarly incomplete as barding.
Weapons would probably work similarly. Their size categories are discussed in the weapons chapter. IIRC two handed weapons are a size category smaller than the wielder, one handed two, and light three.
Shields are yet another complication. Tower shields must be the size of the wielder to give full cover. There is no scaling for shields other than Seelah's. She uses a heavy shield that I would call one size category smaller than her so I'm going to say light shields are probably another size category down. Since I don't know of any Paizo art that depicts a buckler being worn I have no idea whether it's two or three size categories smaller than the wielder.
First thing to drop if you have trouble hitting isn't TWF (assuming you have the improved version), it's rapid shot. Rapid shot will lose you one arrow rather than up to three. Nothing stops you from using manyshot in a full attack that doesn't use rapid shot.
And I fail to see how having a Cha penalty stops him from having skills out of combat.
For one, he doesn't actually have a Cha penalty (in the sense that he has less than 10 Cha), so it's already a moot point, and second there are very few skills based on Cha that actually matter more than 2.5% of the time. He doesn't have an Int penalty so he should have plenty of skills and can quite easily play up the Knowledge monkey role and still do Diplomacy and such just fine.
He's got a penalty to his casting stat. He's going to have to buy that to 15 or 16 so he winds up with 13 or 14. He has no bonus to his attack stat so he's going to need to buy that to 16 and wish he could afford 17 or 18. Because of either AC or damage issues he'll need to buy the other of strength and dex up to at least 12, likely 13 or 14. There goes intelligence.
A new player does not need a handicap and playing as bad a race/class combo as dwarf bard is like playing 10 point buy in a 15 point buy game.
The abilities from other classes are taken from prestige classes or the ninja alternate class that really shouldn't exist in the first place. No toes that matter are being stepped on there.
One should not introduce new players to the game with a pure buffbot. They're dull in combat and with a charisma penalty he's not going to have the skills to make up for it out of combat.
If I die first I want to be cremated and used as fertilizer in a victory garden. I hate the thought of being the cause of one of you becoming a ghoul. Ghouls are lame and pathetic and you're better than that.
You have a bonus in one secondary stat and a penalty in another, but your second bonus is in the closest thing a bard has to a dump stat.
This is a race/class combo for an experienced optimizer trying to challenge himself or a "true roleplayer" who wears failing miserably at everything he rolls dice for as a badge of honor. The latter are almost exclusively grognards and the former are generally not new players either.
I think it's better to be told the concept doesn't work up front before he builds a backstory and starts playing.
The invisible when stealthed with a guile pool is too much and conflicts with one of your talent chains. Being able to actually snipe functionally should be moved up instead, possibly halving the penalty at 14 and eliminating it at 18. It's a ridiculously huge penalty IIRC.
The shadow restriction on HiPS is unconsidered copypasta. The rogue lacks the shadowdancer's supernatural affinity for shadows and his version of HiPS should not have this condition. I would make it either unrestricted as an advanced talent or make it unrestricted and cost guile for something like a minute/level of functionality.
Actually, all of the abilities lifted from PrCs should have the references to those PrCs removed.
Cunning Ruse should use guile points instead of being a daily. So should Honor Among Thieves. And Thoughtful Reexamining.
Major Magic should cost more guile than Minor Magic. Possibly the pool should be larger to permit more cost granularity. Or, alternately Minor Magic could give unlimited use. It's not like unlimited cantrips are more broken in the hands of a rogue than a wizard.
Unseen Attacker should not reference the ninja.
Any Su ability that duplicates a spell effect should be an SLA.
How can you not be suspicious about a long rope bridge guarded by enemies with absurdly high dexterity? Yeah they dont hit as hard as human longbowmen, but that doesn't mean they tickle.
But for the OP, desperate times call for new characters. The fighter got away so it's not a TPK and you can bring in new characters and pick up where you all died. The Magus's player is going to have to do that anyways.
In my experience, and from crunching numbers, the lower your odds to hit, the worse power attack hurts you and reduces your mean DPR rather than increase it. Hence for a 3/4 BAB class it's rarely worth it to Power Attack. For a fighter with Power Attack, a two-handed weapon, and weapon training, it is almost always worth it.
I remember from somewhere that rangers not getting favored enemy should power attack on par CR opponents with average AC.
3/4 BAB classes that aren't rogues generally have accuracy boosters and with power attack scaling with BAB rather than level are less heavily impacted.
Notice that gap? That gap is never larger than Divine Favor until level 17 and never larger than Divine Power. It's never larger than Inspire Courage. It's only bigger than the bonus from a properly updated Mutagen at level 11. It's never bigger than the Justice judgement. While these classes gain less from power attack they also lose less accuracy in proportion.
Against any AC that a Ranger should power attack when it's not his favored enemy a buffed Bard, Cleric, Alchemist, or Inquisitor should also power attack given the same non-BAB attack bonuses.
The second is that there seems to be a surprisingly strong consensus of opinion on display in this thread so far. I was not expecting to discover nearly such strong overall agreement. Both in the numbers in each field, and also in the observation that the leaders in each category all have zero votes in the other category.
I agree. I think from this it seems that Paizo successfully nerfed CoDzilla in the opinion of many, as Clerics and Druids do not get as many overpowered votes. Wizards are still pretty strong, and Summoners are overpowered - specifically, their Eidolon is too flexible and powerful. In fact, flexibility seems to have more bearing on weak or strong than DPR, saves, or any other measure.
In terms of weak classes Rogue, Monk, and Fighter are definitely considered weak with little or no disagreement. Why they are weak is equally interesting:
Rogues are weak not because they cannot do what they do, but because other classes can do what they do just as well, and other stuff as well, and all without the rogues weaknesses. Rogues need to be not just better at what they do, but able to do a few other things better too, and plug a gap or two in their defences.
Fighters are similar. They are very good at what they do, but they have zero utility out of that, and what they do is very limited, and they still have weaknesses. Fighters do not need to be better at combat, but they do need to be better at a few other things, and stop up some holes in their defences.
The monk...well, unlike the other two he can't even do what he's meant to do. Also unlike the other two, though, he doesn't have so many glaring weaknesses in his defences. Monk's don't need to have better defences, but they do need something they can do that other classes cannot other than run fast - preferably something that makes them better offensively.
I think this is why Oracle is voted both ways. It, like the monk, doesn't do what it's meant to do. It's not functional as a spontaneous cleric because there are too many "for emergency use" spells on the list that you often need at first level they're available (eg. lesser restoration for CR 3 shadows and restoration for CR 7 spectres). On the other hand it's potentially better than the cleric at the cleric's secondary roles. If you think out of combat divine magic is important it's weak, but if you only care about fighting it's quite strong while offering the illusion of being a cleric substitute.
Not every archetype should be supported by every game. Conan doesn't belong in a Star Trek game. Wesley Crusher doesn't belong in Pathfinder. Mr. Mitzelplick doesn't belong in any game unless he's a powerful background NPC. And, frankly, Ash Ketchum doesn't belong in Pathfinder either. Unless you inappropriately use pokemon tournament rules limitations when fighting daemons he's really bad for time sharing in a turn based multiplayer game and bad for balance in one where action economy is an important consideration.
It's better for the game to tell the guy who wants to play an archetype not suited to the genre or setting to come up with a second choice than to compromise the setting or genre.
There's not really much need for a skill character in the fifth slot, though. You already have a ranger or bard or inquisitor for that job and rogues aren't particularly good at magic devices. If that's your planned role a bard (possibly even a second bard) or sorcerer or summoner or wizard or witch or magus or alchemist will do better because they'll have some spells or extracts of their own to supplement their devices. It's not like a UMD focused alchemist or wizard that isn't trying to do much else is any more MAD than a UMD focused rogue that isn't trying to do much else.
As fifth wheels go rogues aren't much. Redundant martials and casters make better fifth wheels. At least you can use the redundant inquisitor as a spare tire if something happens to your cleric or ranger. Or the spare witch if the wizard or cleric goes down. Or whatever.
188- the complete, unabridged works of Michael Moore with running commentary by Glen Beck...
I think we were looking for things that would be found in a library in Golarion during the epoch the APs are set in or in a world with a similar level of technology and magic, not something you'd find in a library in PF:modern.
Most, if not all, of Michael Moore's works cannot be viewed without a DVD player or VCR and television set and those are awfully thin on the ground in Golarion and similar fantasy universes even if such a work might fall through a dimensional rift.
Plus I'm pretty sure Glen Beck can't read.
OOOHHHHH! BURN!
The literacy rate among current and former news anchors not suffering from severe eye conditions is 100%. The only requirements for the position are looking decorative, not having a horrible voice, and being able to read a teleprompter.
188- the complete, unabridged works of Michael Moore with running commentary by Glen Beck...
I think we were looking for things that would be found in a library in Golarion during the epoch the APs are set in or in a world with a similar level of technology and magic, not something you'd find in a library in PF:modern.
Most, if not all, of Michael Moore's works cannot be viewed without a DVD player or VCR and television set and those are awfully thin on the ground in Golarion and similar fantasy universes even if such a work might fall through a dimensional rift.
How about Druid? A second really high perception score will help and druids can get some really good movement types. And in the mean time he'd be a medium BAB character with a pseud-bard friend, scimitar proficiency, and a big cat or small dinosaur.
The (too) good
Wizard: Familiars, especially wand users, break action economy. Bonded item wizards are fine as long as they don't use quicken metamagic rods or quicken with the spell mastery feat.
Magus: Spell combat breaks action economy.
Druid: Pets break action economy. Domain druids are fine. Except with lucky rolled stats or high point buy anyways.
Summoner: Eidolons break action economy. Synthesists break the polymorph rules. The spammable standard action summons of the Master Summoner break action economy. And that's to say nothing about the early entry spells.
Barbarian: AC, saves, and dispel magic with spell sunder are all potentially out of band and can all be out of band at the same time. And then there's rage cycling. The rage powers are horribly balanced against each other and in some cases horribly balanced in a vacuum. Bringing the fighter, ranger, cavalier, and samurai up to the barbarian's level might be better than nerfing the barbarian down, but one way or the other there's an imbalance, and I'm absolutely adamant that spell sunder adding a stat and CMB bonuses to dispel checks is completely unacceptable.
The bad
Fighter: The feat list is a mess of overlong chains and terrible prerequisites. Fighters are all about feats.
Monk: We're MAD as hell and we're not going to take it anymore. Sorry, had to be said. But, yeah, they have serious stat distribution, DC, and mobility issues. And a ki pool that a dwarf hamster couldn't drown in.
Rogue: They're not the best at their job. Their job is a job that makes the game in general worse just by existing. They're not much good at anything else.
The ugly
Paladin: The code is just terrible.
Oracle: Doesn't do the job it's supposed to do because of delayed spell access and spell known limits. Lame curse permits rage cycling.
Cavalier: They have a mount. No way to swap the mount out. Too many abilities that rely on them riding the mount. Mounted combat is broken. Which direction it's broken in varies with the environment, but it's always broken.
Samurai: Sword Saint is okay, but without it you're a mounted archer. Mounted archery on suitable terrain is just as hax in the game as in reality.
Gunslinger: The firearm rules contain a fumble rule. Fumble rules are never good. Fumble rules with no confirmation are even worse. Then there's the touch AC thing and the lack of firearms that don't have massively swingy criticals. Too much luck means fights will randomly be difficult or cakewalks and a balanced fight will be a vanishingly rare treasure and no amount of GM skill will change that unless the gunslinger is an NPC and he's fudging his rolls.
Have you considered using a cooldown mechanic? Having unlimited uses but a 1d4 round delay before you could use any similarly limited class abilities would avoid the insufficient per diem uses problem. It's not a completely unprecedented mechanic (dragon breath operates on the same principle).
Why would you ever want the guy who can go in and figure the place out ahead of you, clearing out the traps and helping everybody formulate a good plan of attack?
Because it's a cooperative game and I don't want to show up to Pathfinder night and not get to play because the rogue is trying to scout someplace and then have to go in blind anyways because there's a 38 point swing on opposed skill checks and he'll not only die like the waste of space he is but alert those he's supposed to be scouting.
I've said it before and I'll say it again. If you want ridiculous gestalt look no further than master summoner bard.
Let's look at a level 8 master summoner bard. Our feats are lingering performance, superior summoning, and who knows what. We have augment summoning as a free bonus feat.
We can summon 1d4+2 small earth elementals. With augment summoning they have 17 HP and attack with two slams at +8 dealing 1d6+6 damage. Inspire courage as a move action and those attacks are at +10 and deal 1d6+8, better than the medium elemental we'd normally only get one of. About half the durability, but we have at least 3. Since any HP they have left at the end of the fight is wasted that's a rather good deal. Even with augment summoning on the medium elemental for comparison the master summoner bard is still 2-3 times as powerful as the straight master summoner, which is one of the most broken archetypes in the game.
The balance issue may come down to the fact that this bonded items suddenly functions like a spellbook AND a device for getting one extra spell each day AND free magical upgrades, all in one item.
That's basically what wizards get. Spellbooks are chump change compared to the price of spells, which witches still have to pay for.
It's the familiar that's the balance issue. Either you take improved familiar and break the action economy or you run around with a spellbook you can't protect. Both are bad options for balance.
I have always seen Charisma as one's force of personality and sense of selfBut the will save is based on wisdom. It's not just about how one carries oneself superficially. Charisma is a lot deeper than that: it's a reflection of the character's sense of self and individuality.
A high Charisma means that the individual can affect the world around him to his personal advantage. It could be a trusting sense of self-assurednessNope, that's the Will save; personal magnetism; serene calm and a blinding smile; gregarous extraversion; etc.
A low Charisma indicates that the character has a hard time asserting himselfNope, this is will and therefore wisdom again. It could mean a speech impediment or stutternot with his diplomacy mod it's not; painful shynessAgain, not for a character using a different stat for diplomacy and intimidate; low self-esteem (or even self-loathing).
You can play low Charisma as a blissful unawareness of a negative personality trait-- such as steamrollering others in conversation; no sense of tactinvalid: wis to diplomacy and sense motive; poor personal hygenealso invalid for someone with wis to diplomacy. But these latter ways to play it are more superficial than what Charisma truly represents: A low Charisma means a lack of sense of selfNope. Sense of self is wisdom because will is wisdom, and a tendency to let others make decisions for youThat's a combo of int and wis: will power and recognizing who the best decision maker actually is.
In other words, a low-Charisma character is more likely to be a doormat who shuns the spotlight rather than a smelly obnoxious rube who picks his nose in public.
Of course, the latter is more fun to play!
Oh, and socially awkward people tend to be so because they have trouble reading people. That's sense motive, which is by default wisdom.
If rogues suck, why doesn't Paizo buff them? I thought the entire point of redesigning the core classes in pathfinder was to make sure there would be a reason to take every single one of them, and to get to level 20 rather than the crazy 3.5 multiclassing with PRCs.
Communication probably. Rogues did get boosted on paper, but none of the new rogue talents actually boost them in a way that compensates for tougher monsters. Fixing them now is practically impossible because of pagination constraints.
Charisma is simply too varied in effect to have meaning. It normally determines how scary you are, how personable you are (which would realistically be practically opposites), and how magical you are (but only for bards, sorcerers, oracles, paladins, summoners, and magic devices). It's a stupid legacy grab bag stat with no clear correspondence to a any real personality trait. It demonstrably doesn't represent what it claims to because if it did will saves would be based on it.
Roleplay your sense motive, diplomacy, bluff, intimidate, and knowledge skill modifiers, not your stats.
So let's get this straight. It is unacceptable to ban a class or archetype because it does not fit the setting, but it's perfectly acceptable to ban something because you think your players are too incompetent to put together a viable build.
Nobody has yet explained to me why a DM would ban the Geisha Bard archetype.
Because it gets free proficiency in an eastern weapon and it is possible to run the game in a setting that doesn't contain a generic east Asia knockoff continent or one in which the generic east Asia knockoff continent is culturally isolated from the generic western Europe knockoff continent where the adventure starts.
Ah, the usual BAWWWWWWing then, I see.
Carry on then.
Could you please use words instead of unintelligible onomatopoeia?
280) You are the gravedigger that digs the graves for the deserters who are shot by soup eating deserter-shooters when it's cold and there's a bite to the wind.
You don't. Your raw stats are not your character. If anything on your sheet can be said to be your character it's your skill bonuses.
Charisma and Wisdom are used and described in contradictory ways. Their descriptions are clearly flawed and the common concept of what charisma in particular means is actually described by your total skill modifiers.
Don't look at the stats, look at what your character can do. Your character is relatively observant and good at judging people (or possibly very good if he's put skill points in). Your character is not very convincing, but might be average if he's put skills in and they're class skills. If you use skill ranks to offset your poor charisma it no longer represents poor social skills. It represents that you'd make a lousy spontaneous arcane caster, oracle, or paladin.
Nobody has yet explained to me why a DM would ban the Geisha Bard archetype.
Because it gets free proficiency in an eastern weapon and it is possible to run the game in a setting that doesn't contain a generic east Asia knockoff continent or one in which the generic east Asia knockoff continent is culturally isolated from the generic western Europe knockoff continent where the adventure starts.
Go bard, and just assist the rogue with diplo. There are plenty other skills you can pick up, like all the knowledges and spellcraft. Make a sound striker archer and go arcane archer after lvl 10.
Arcane Archer on bard is terrible. You lose performance and don't have any good spells to use with imbue arrows.
This group doesn't need performance as much. You have plenty of melee brutes for the rogue and Druid to flank with. At lvl 10 the bard is doing 10d8 x cha mod anyway, and there is more to the AA than imbue arrows.
All AA offers besides imbue arrows is +1 weapon enhancements. With so many melee brutes better to have something multiplicative than AA's minor abilities. Especially since AA loses casting levels and you really desperately need all the casting the GM will let you have.
Go bard, and just assist the rogue with diplo. There are plenty other skills you can pick up, like all the knowledges and spellcraft. Make a sound striker archer and go arcane archer after lvl 10.
Arcane Archer on bard is terrible. You lose performance and don't have any good spells to use with imbue arrows.
The new classes are a mixed bag, just like the core classes. Surprise!
Alchemist: Could really do with not being shackled to the spells/day mess, but then again so could everyone else. It's often a poor thematic fit, but it's a mechanically workable and distinct class. I call it a win even if I'm not personally fond of it.
Cavalier: It's a bad mash up, but it's not terrible. I'd rather ditch the mount and mounted combat stuff for better unmounted combat or more generalship stuff, but it's still better than monk.
Inquisitor: The class appears to work. It excites me even less than the Alchemist, but I can see how others would like it so I'm going to say this is probably a good class.
Oracle: In many ways the sorcerer as it should be, but I think the curse is a bad mechanic. There's also the issue that the cleric list suffers more than any other list from "in case of emergency" spells that you can really suffer from the spontaneous caster availability delay and spells known limits with. There's a reason clerics know all their spells and wizards don't and it's not just for thematic reasons. I'm going to call this a broken class. It's supposed to be a spontaneous cleric and with delayed and limited spell access it doesn't do the job.
Summoner: Completely broken. Bad design with seemingly arbitrary exceptions to the UMR, excessive customization with inadequate balance, excessive early entry spell access, and broken action economy. The synthesist trades the broken action economy for 3.5 style broken polymorph and even more rules confusion. Just say no.
Witch: Another class that appears to work but doesn't excite me. Probably a good class.
Magus: Hello broken action economy. Hello obligatory crit fishing. It's not the summoner, but I still consider it a bad class.
Gunslinger: I don't like the firearm rules. I don't like the creation of a class designed to mitigate horrible flaws they shouldn't have had in the first place. At the same time grit is a good mechanic, the class has a good balance of in and out of combat capability for a martial, and really the guns are the only problem. With better (read nothing special) firearm rules and less obligation to hyperfocus on them this could be a great class. But it isn't. It makes me sad.
Antipaladin: Hate it too much thematically to analyze it with any objectivity. It'd be a lot more tolerable if it were lawful and focused against chaos. Less antimatter more antipope.
Ninja: Redundant and still has too many of the rogue's flaws. It doesn't even have the excuse of being important for retro-trap-fests. A poor class.
Samurai: Mount is bad. Resolve is good. At least there's an archetype that ditches the mount this time.
