|Paizo Pathfinder® Paizo Games|
|About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ|
(Vanilla) Monks make everything confusing, though. They are as MAD as possible, but they're a sad, sad class...
Every martial class has good DPR on a full attack.
However, Fighters have terrible mobility, terrible saves and terrible tools to deal with anything other than AC.
That's not being good at fighting, that's being good at standing still and full attacking, and at best, being mediocre at fighting.
Well... That's nice and all, but the amount of effort and resources invested to get a okay bonus for 1 attack makes sure AA is still pretty much useless 99% of the time.
Benevolent is an enhancement I'd never use on add to any weapon, and I sure as hell wouldn't spend a ring slot with a Ring of Tactical precision.
IMHO, if your character has nothing better to do, then someone made some grievous mistake in their character build and/or combat tactics.
Aid Another is one of those mechanics that are good in theory, but got neutered by their implementation.
Marroar Gellantara wrote:
Considering how I refuse to play those classes now that would make me a munchkin too :P
According to some posters here, yeah.
Apparently, if you see any problem with any class, even it has glaring flaws, you're a munchkin who only cares about DPR (they cleverly ignore the fact that Fighters have nothing but DPR and AC going for them)
Ranger is still very useful, and overall, actually more powerful than Slayers.
Fighter has always been underwhelming and Rogue were made obsolete before you even reached their chapter in the CRB.
Fighters get DR 5/- as well. And they make better switch-hitters... That's about it. (Although an Urban Barbarian with an adaptable longbow comes pretty close).
When it comes AC, remember Ghost Rager adds you Superstition bonus to touch AC, which is generally far more valuable than flat-footed AC by mid/high levels.
Buy, hey, Fighters can do it all daylong! Barbarians only have those bonuses for... Uh... At least 42 rounds... So probably twice as much as they will ever need...
Well... The Fighter's bonuses are still in place even out-of-combat! Oh, right...
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Also, they need to take it multiple times, while Ranger get it for free and can use Terrain Bond to treat any terrain as their favored one.
Because it doesn't make sense thematically. A knight isnt going to be sneaking around in the shadows, and a proud warrior isn't going to train for skills that favor assassination and "dishonorable" conduct, he's going to learn to fight fair and skilled. It isn't about what abilities are needed, it's about what abilities MAKE SENSE. When would a soldier who fights in formation have time to learn sneak attack? Why would a gladiator want to make less of a spectacle?
Then take different skills and act more honorably. Take a few Combat Performance feats. Cool thing about skills and feats: your class doesn't force you to pick any one you don't want.
And honestly, what warrior would not learn to focus their attacks on vital spots?
Here, let me give you a couple examples...
And let's not forget the countless characters who are sneaky rogues (concept) without ever taking a single level in Rogue (class).
This class has a different theme than a fighter. Classes aren't about power they are about different play styles and character archetypes. A soldier, knight, or proud warrior isn't going to be a slayer, they are going to be fighters, cavaliers, and similar classes.
Character classes are just mechanical constructs, not role-play restrictions.
Class is not concept, concept is not class.
What is stopping anyone from using a Slayer (class) to create and role play a soldier, knight or proud warrior (character concept)?
Quoting just because everyone should read this at least 3 times! (Especially game designers!)
Well... I actually tried compiling a list, but I kept remembering more and more names and it still felt like I was leaving someone out. So I'll cheat and just say there are too many posters whose opinion I learned to value even when I disagree with them.
Fortunately, I witnessed very few instances where disagreement and dislike escalated into something bigger and more personal than a discussion about mechanics. It happens, of course, but at least IME, personal grudges seem pretty rare around here.
There are posters with whom I completely disagree on pretty much everything rules-related, but still had no problem with the posters themselves.
There are some I don't like, of course... Mostly those who display a holier-than-thou attitude and behave and speak as if their gaming experience was more "right" than that of everyone else. Luckily, they seem to be a minority in here.
So... That's it. If you want to feel good about the forum, remember that most heated discussions here involve debating rules and game design, not holding grudges and making personal attacks.
Because "Increasing Int" is a Fighter class feature, right? No other class can do it. And Fighter get such amazing benefits from Int. Really impressive synergy there!
It doesn't matter what they are.
If Beowulf is a demigod with CR 15, then a 15th level Fighter should theoretically be just as powerful as Beowulf, since they have the same CR.
And your books simply star low-level characters. So what?
Warriors Are a Perfectly Viable Class!:
Warren The Warrior Male Human (Taldan) Warrior 10
CN Medium humanoid (human)
Init +5; Senses Perception +11
AC 22, touch 11, flat-footed 21 (+11 armor, +1 Dex)
hp 95 (10d10+40)
Fort +13, Ref +9, Will +10
Speed 20 ft.
Melee +1 silversheen greatsword +19/+14 (2d6+10/17-20) and
. . +3 silversheen greatsword +21/+16 (2d6+12/17-20)
Ranged +1 adaptive composite longbow +15/+10 (1d8+7/×3)
Str 22, Dex 16, Con 16, Int 12, Wis 12, Cha 7
Base Atk +10; CMB +17; CMD 29
Feats Combat Reflexes, Furious Focus[APG], Improved Critical (greatsword), Iron Will, Power Attack, Weapon Focus (greatsword)
Traits auspicious tattoo (shoanti), reactionary
Skills Climb +19, Intimidate +11, Perception +11, Swim +19
Languages Common, Draconic
Other Gear +2 full plate, +1 adaptive composite longbow, +1 silversheen greatsword, +3 silversheen greatsword, belt of physical perfection +2, cloak of resistance +3, cracked pale green prism ioun stone (attack), 1,950 gp
Combat Reflexes (4 AoO/round) Can make extra attacks of opportunity/rd, and even when flat-footed.
Furious Focus If you are wielding a weapon in two hands, ignore the penalty for your first attack of each turn.
Power Attack -3/+6 You can subtract from your attack roll to add to your damage.
DPR (Power Attack): 54.88
I mean, who cares if they are easily outperformed by every other class in the game?
They are obviously balanced, because "balanced" means "anything other than (literally) completely useless". Same logic applies to Fighters, Rogues and vanilla Monks, of course.
In fact... What kind of dirty power-gaming roll-playing munchkin plays a Fighter? Real role-players play Warriors! Fighter players only care about power!
Seems like a rather pointless nerf to a bunch classes that don't need it, including Bard and Inquisitor, which are the best balanced classes in the game.
It also doesn't affect full arcane casters, which are already more powerful than most other classes.
Sneak Attack is not good enough to make Rogues good at combat even when they have iterative attacks, without it, they are even more useless.
So, all in all... A pointless nerf that will just annoy the players of 3/4 BAB classes, not add anything to game's flavor and make the game less balanced.
Martials won't be more fun to play just because all 3/4 BAB classes can't make full attacks.
Both, but martials need a buff far more desperately.
Casters, or more specifically, some of their spells could use some toning down, but it won't matter if martials don't get some very needed buffs. Mobility, in-combat versatility and out-of-combat usefulness are the main problem.
Save for specific exceptions, martials can't even move 10ft without suffering a huge drop in effectiveness. If they want to be better than "pretty much insignificant" after taking a few steps, they need to pay a feat tax, of course, and even then, they aren't very good.
They suffer with Pathfinder's love for unreasonable long feat chains filled with crappy prerequisites.
AoO mechanics should exist to make martials more useful and help them intercept enemies who move around them. And yet, every time a martial tries to do anything other than dealing damage, they provoke AoOs. Want to disarm someone? AoO. Want to trip someone? AoO. Want to drink a potion? AoO. Want to grab something? AoO.
And unlike casters, they don't get free mechanics to do their stuff without provoking. No, martials have to pay their feat taxes, complete with crappy prerequisites, if they want to try a disarm. After all, what kind of warrior learns how to trip or disarm, right?
The game actively punishes players for trying to do anything creative with martial characters. Martials are pretty much forced into being a DPR-obsessed 2-handler or archer that spams full-attacks without a second thought.
To make matters worse, Paizo has a tendency of nerfing good martial options to make the bad ones look less awful. "What is this? Cavaliers are weak? Let's nerf animals for everyone!", "Uh? martials got something unique and useful? Let's cripple CW into uselessness." or "Wait... TWF with a 2-handed weapon and armor spikes is slightly better than normal TWF, the weakest combat style in the game? Banned!".
Deviate from the norm, and your martial character will be either nerfed or banned. And you'll still have to hear that that is game balance.
(Meanwhile, Paragon Surge + Expanded Arcana goes unchanged for years. Coincidentally, only being fixed when Arcanists and their "Quick Study" ability are about to be released).
Martials have zero versatility in combat. Take Fighters. They should be masters of combat, but realistically, the only effective tool they have past 11th level is standing still and full attacking. Fighters are great at full-attacking, but they are terrible at actually fighting.
Meanwhile, any caster can have a dozen different tricks with a dozen different effects. Their standard actions are often far more useful than any martial's full round of actions.
They also suffer because of the idea that if you're good at hitting stuff with your sword, you're bad at everything else. The better you're at hitting stuff, the worse you're at doing anything useful. This philosophy goes to absurdly stupid design choices such as Fighters only having 2 skill points. You have a guy who lives and breathes mundane abilities. In fact, non-magical abilities is all they have, and yet, they somehow forgot to learn any useful skill. Meanwhile, Wizards can be amazing swimmers, climbers, acrobats and escape artists because they are just that smart.
Buffing martials is far more important than nerfing casters. Almost as important as removing the awful double-standard that Paizo has in relation to class design when it comes to martials and casters.
- I'd go with Good Fort and Reflex (Fighters are supposed to be paragons of physical combat, after all).
- 4 skill points per level is cool, although I'd not be against it getting 6. All Fighters have is mundane abilities, after all, they should be really good at it. Add Acrobatics, Heal and Perception to their list of class skills.
- Give Fighters an ability to bypass some feat prerequisites. e.g.: Add their Fighter level to their Int/Wis/Cha score for the purpose of fulfilling prerequisites for Combat Feats.
- In fact, remove Int 13 and Combat Expertise from the least of prerequisites of feats that have nothing to do with either of them. Stop adding prerequisites just because of a feat's name!
- Bravery should apply against mind-control and possession effects, and at some point, Fighters should become immune to Fear, Fatigue and Exhaustion.
- Weapon Training should provide the same bonus to all weapon groups, instead of giving smaller and smaller bonus. Fighters should also get Martial Versatility/Mastery for free at some point.
- Mobility is an issue for all martials. Every class should be able to move and still be effective, so I'd rather this fix wasn't class specific. That said, at 20th level, Fighters should be able to full attack as a standard action.
- Feat Chains should be mostly gone. Most of them do nothing but harm the game balance. They stop marital classes from doing anything other than full attacking and rob Fighters of their main class feature.
- Create more feats that are actually useful and not locked behind an insurmountable wall of awful prerequisites. Make them do something other than increase DPR too. Weapon Focus/Specialization is extremely boring! Give us more feats like Lunge and Cornugon Smash, useful and interesting.
You're missing the point. Sneak Attack is not the problem. It's probably the one thing that actually works for Rogues, it's just not good enough to be a class' one and only offensive tool.
Increasing Sneak Attack damage is like trying to buff Fighters by increasing their damage output. It's technically a improvement, but it misses the whole reason why the class is underpowered.
The real problem with Rogues are:
1- Low Accuracy: They are the only medium class BAB with no means of boosting their to-hit.
Rogues don't need help with Sneak Attack damage, they need help with everything else!
I think the point you're missing is that the Fighter class doesn't do any of that. It doesn't give you any tool to work out of combat.
No one is saying that Fighters are completely useless out of combat, just that they are far less effective than any other class in the game (save for Commoners and Warriors) whenever "hit stuff with a pointy stick" is not a viable option.
All that you mentioned can be done much more easily and for greater effect with any other class. I know Fighters can be skilled and contribute out of combat (I've built effective social Fighters myself).
That doesn't change the fact that they need considerably more resources and a lot of extra effort just to be almost as good as any other class doing the same.
tl;dr: Are Fighters useless out of combat? No. Are they less useful than any other class (save for Warriors and Commoners)? Yes, they sure are.
Joe M. wrote:
Lemmy, if your point was not in fact "I doubt I'll ever see one being played again", then when DrDeth and others take that to *be* your point, it might be more helpful to say what you actually *meant* to say rather than telling these folks that they "missed the point entirely" by taking your point to be what you actually said. Just a thought! :-)
My point is not that Sorcerer weren't played. My point is that there is no real reason to play one now that the Arcanist is available. The Paragon Surge exploit gave a few Sorcerers a competitive edge, but now that it has been (rightfully) fixed, Sorcerers are made completely obsolete by Arcanists.
Unless your whole character concept starts and ends with "I don't have a spellbook", there is nothing a Sorcerer can do that an Arcanist can't. The difference in spells per day is pretty much insignificant.
I don't let mechanical constructs tell me what kind of character I should play, so if I want to play a sorcerer (character concept), I'll just play an Arcanist (class) and role play it as a sorcerer (character concept) and I'm pretty sure the guys I play with will do the same, therefore, I'll never again see a Sorcerer (class) in play ever again (at least not without house rules going for them, that is).
My tips for new GMs:
My Advice to New GMs:
1- Don't use DMPCs: That is, resist the temptation of having a character of yours in the party, unless it's absolutely necessary, and even then, it should NEVER outshine the players.
2- Don't Get Too Attached to Your NPCs: Chances are they will end up dead or forgotten. Memorable NPCs are a real thing, but you should always think of them the same way you think of characters in Game of Thrones. ("This guys is kinda cool. He'll probably die.")
3- Learn to Improvise and Be Willing to Adapt: Your players will often surprise you with completely unexpected ideas. Learn to accept them and mold the story around their choices instead of forcing their choices to match your preconceived script.
4- Give Them Real Challenges, But Don't get Adversarial: Remember, the PCs are the heroes! They are supposed to be the stars of the game. Don't be pissed off just because they one-shot'd your villain. Sometimes it happens.
5- Assume Players Will Kill Everything: I'm exaggerating, of course. My point is: Always be prepared for the possibility of the PCs killing (or at least attacking) anything you place in front of them. Sooner or later they will attack someone or something when you were sure they had absolutely no reason to do so. Be prepared.
6- Remember: Your Priority is to Make the Players Have Fun: I know it sounds cheesy, but it's true: The GM has the most fun When the players are having fun. You'll quickly notice that you will enjoy the game the most when your players having a blast.
Also.. Give your Players The Following Advice:
My Advice to New Players:
1- CARRY A FREAKING BOW! If you are proficient with them, there is no reason not to! It's unbelievable how often players (even veteran players!) forget about this! Then a flying enemy comes along and their uber-warriors can't do anything.
2- Carry backup weapons. Because you'll eventually be disarmed or have your weapon destroyed. Have a back up. It doesn't have to be as good as your main weapon, but it has to be good enough to keep you alive until you find a better one.
3- Remember: there are no aggro mechanics in Pathfinder. If you want your enemies to focus on you instead of the squishy wizard, you have to give them a reason to! Most often, this reason is raw damage output, but there are other ways.
4- Don't underestimate consumables. I know potions/scrolls are wasted after you use them, but sometimes, they're all you need to get through that one encounter/challenge.
5- Don't overspecialize. Be awesome at whatever it is that you want to be awesome, but don't do it at the cost of being ineffective at everything else. Sometimes, your usual course of action will not be a viable solution.
6- Always try and get as much information about your next challenge/enemies/puzzles/quest/etc as you can. Knowing is half the battle.
7- Carry wands of Cure Light Wounds and wands of Lesser Restoration. They'll save your life more often than your party. ;).
8- Put skill ranks in Perception. Even if your Wis score is not very good and Perception is not one of your class skills. You'll be rolling Perception skill checks more often than any other, so you might as well invest in it. It'll probably save your life at some point.
9- Carry a scroll of Daylight. Seriously. Sooner or later your GM will throw a vampire or shadow demon in your way. They all do. (Admittedly, this advice is based more on personal trauma and paranoia than actual game analysis) :P
Good Luck & Have Fun!
Actually, they don't.
Since there are no facing rules, everyone is always looking at all directions at all times. This means they are actually looking to the explosion, no matter what way they are walking (or how slowly they are doing it). :P
But, hey! If it makes you feel better, they are also looking away from it, so there is that. ;)
Well... While FAQs are not errata, I'll give credit where credit is due.
Thanks, Paizo for (finally) fixing the Paragon Surge exploit. The spell is still very useful, but it's no longer game-breaking. It's been a long time since I last saw casters being hit with the nerf bat.
While Pathfinder still has plenty of balance issues, this is a step in the right direction. Hopefully we'll see this FAQ as an official errata.
I'd say this restores a tiny bit of my hope in a more balanced PF, but there is still a long road ahead...
Pathfinder Unchaneid, aka: "How to release a 2nd edition without actually releasing a 2nd edition".
I approve. :)
I'm actually excited for this book.
I'd like to say I'm expecting caster/martial disparity to be addressed in a meaningful way, but if I learned anything from Ultimate Combat, Arcanist and CW, it is "Never have hope, just cautious expectations".
Aaron Scott 139 wrote:
You have made it very clear now in multiple posts you don't think Paizo cares about game balance. Obviously they do but you insist on arguing even when the devs come in and show you how the class balances out. At this point you're just beating a dead horse. You've made your illogical point, now move on.
Well, the point that was made about how the Arcanist class "balances out" wasn't very good, IMHO. A dev disagreeing with me doesn't make my point any less logical.
But you're right about something. I am beating a dead horse. The books has probably already gone to printing, so Paizo is probably unable to balance Arcanists even if they wanted to. There is no point in arguing this anymore. Right now, it's just my frustration talking.
I apologize to everyone if I come on too strong sometimes. It's not my intention to antagonize anyone. I'm just very frustrated.
I'm dropping this thread.
That's the kind of thing that makes me believe Paizo doesn't give a damn about game balance... They were eager to ban 2-handed weapon + armor spikes/unarmed strike as if it were not very underpowered, they nerfed weapon cord because a combat class was doing too much damage (although to be fair,m that one I understand, I disagree with it, but I understand), then crippled CW into complete uselessness because apparently, PFS GMs can't think of (or don't have the freedom to use) "advanced" tactics such as "using ranged weapons" or "attacking the same target twice".
And yet... Paragon Surge + Expanded Arcana/Eldritch Heritage, quite possibly the most broken loophole is still there... Perfectly functional. And let's not mention the always lovely Dazing Spell metamagic feat.
The problem here, DD, is that you always dismiss each and every opinion that differ from your own as "theory craft", as if your gaming experience were the only one that matters.
If what you say about your history with D&D is true, I bet I have far more play time with 3.X and PF than you, so if anything, your opinion is closer to "theorycraft" than mine, but you don't see me claiming that you (or anyone else) don't play the game right or that you (or anyone else) don't play the game at all.
Instead of dismissing other people's points about the game, trying making your own.
You don't really have to optimize a lot to outpace Cure spells though... A simple 2-handed weapon with Power Attack will do it almost every time. (And I honestly don't see that as "optimized").
And honestly... Who cares how JJ plays his games?
I mean, I love his work and I really hope to one day see a Pathfinder Tales novel written by him, but his gaming experience has no more weight than that of anyone else.
Stop acting like every PF designer had said they agree with you on everything PF-related. This appeal to authority thing is getting really old, and it doesn't matter to anyone but you.
Hmmm... That's true. Problem is that focus on Dex + Buckler means the AC of these character will be really high, so I fear a bunch of PFS GMs will whine and Paizo will CW the hell out of the Dex-to-damage feat.
Ross Byers wrote:
Sorcerers are easier to play with less system mastery.
Doesn't make Arcanist any more balanced. Ease of use =/= Power. Warriors are extremely use to use. Doesn't make them any more powerful.
Ross Byers wrote:
Sorcerer bloodlines (especially the arcana) let them do certain things better than arcanists or wizards.
Too bad Arcanists can use Sorcerer's Arcana. And anyone can grab Eldritch Heritage
Ross Byers wrote:
A page of spell knowledge is just as easy to get as a pearl of power.
Yup. But raising your casting attribute doesn't give you more spells known.
Ross Byers wrote:
The human favored class option for sorcerers can get lots of extra spells known.
And that's assuming Arcanists don't get anything similar.
Ross Byers wrote:
I think the arcanist is a powerful class. It certainly could be (and probably is) stronger than the sorcerer. But 'completely obsoletes' is overstating things.
I fear it isn't.
Ross Byers wrote:
And sorcerer is hardly the strongest class in the game.
Never said it is. Just said it's a very powerful class.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Yeah...Not a significant difference, especially considering how easy it's to raise spell slots (and pseudo-spell slots, Arcanists can always make scrolls of situational spells and then never bother to memorize it again). and how powerful Arcane Exploits (or whatever they are named, can't remember right now) are in comparison to Bloodline powers, not to mention the far greater number of skill points and the fact that Arcanists have no equal when it comes to metamagic feats.
Arcanists have interesting class features. They do seem like a cool class, but they do obsolete Sorcerers. Sure there'll always be that moment where the Sorcerer have an advantage, but 80%, an Arcanist would be more effective.
Criticism is fine. What has been happening in these threads is not criticism, and it's not fine.
Perhaps you are the one not reading my posts... I'm pointing out the class flaws (It's overpowered) and giving my reasons for thinking so (full caster with extremely powerful class features, completely obsoletes Sorcerers) without ever making a single personal attack.
How does that not qualify as criticism?
Everything Sorcerers do, Arcanists can do better.
It's much easier to get extra spell slots than it is to get extra spells known. And as its been pointed out, Arcanists vcan dump Cha to 7 and still be completely fine.
If "Paragon Surge + Extra Arcana" is the argument for why Sorcerers are not obsolete, then this only shows how OP Arcanists are.
So criticism it's only valid when it's positive? Are we only allowed to praise Paizo's work, no matter what?
As with any other product, there is good and bad stuff in the ACG. I'll praise Paizo for what I think is well done, such as Bloodragers, Investigator and Slayer, and I'll criticize them for what I think was poorly done, such as Arcanist and Hunter.
I'm not criticizing these classes for entertainment, I'm doing it because I honestly believe they have major flaws on their design. I'm not a "Paizo hater", but I'm not a blind fanboy either.
Like it or not, negative criticism is just as valuable as positive. People are too quick to mindlessly defend everything Paizo does, but that doesn't help the company to improve. Quite the contrary, in fact. If every poor decision Paizo makes is met with praise, what reason do they have to try and improve things next time?
I think people think they have an unlimited amount of Arcane Reservoir to do these crazy thin.gs with.
Doesn't need to be unlimited to be overpowered.
Lemmy has made his opinion that this is the most OP class ever conceived multiple times. And multiple times, he has been shut down by logic and number crunching.
Don't remember that. No one has ever made any good point about how this class is anything less than extremely powerful. At very least, it's a Sorcerer+, and Sorcerer is already a very powerful class. The... ahem... "Strongest" arguments were things like "It doesn't have a familiar" or "It's not as broken as Paragon Surge + Extra Arcana". And really, if you're using Paragon Surge + Extra Arcana as measure of balance, you already lost the discussion.
In reality, Quick Study is not even close to applicable in combat.
Doesn't have to be applicable in combat to be overpowered either. And BTW, Quick Study is not even among the top 5 reasons why Arcanists are OP.
Jason Bulmahn wrote:
Sorry, Jason, but given the information available to us, there is nothing unreasonable about what we go from this preview.
Just being a prepared full caster with access to the Sorcerer/Wizard list is enough to make any class incredibly versatile and far more powerful than most other classes. Giving it "spontaneous prepared" casting pushes it even further up. Increasing CL and DC of their spell is very powerful too, Arcane exploits include stuff like teleporting as move action, effective counter-spelling, a better version of quick study, ignoring spell effects for a few rounds, etc.
Now, seeing from this preview, they got buffed even more, as if they weren't the most powerful class in the playtest already.
Unless you guys added some completely unexpected weakness or really big nerf to it, there is no way Arcanists won't be extremely powerful... I don't see anything other than particularly clever and optimized Wizards and Clerics being capable of holding a candle to it.
Unless you count Sorcerer/Oracle using the Paragon Surge loophole (which remains open and perfectly functional to this day, for some reason). Something that is banned by basically every GM.
I had no major balance-related criticism about any other ACG class, but Arcanists, at least as they were in the 2nd version of the playtest, just throw any pretense of game balance out the window.
Another preview thread, another visit by me with my Umbrella Loan Offer for the falling sky.
Dunno what are you talkig about. The class seem very overpowered in playtest version, and Jason reveals it got a boost.
The whole point of playtest is to find flaws in the class design. This one was overpowered in the 1st version, became even more powerful in the 2nd one and apparently got buffed yet again.
It's very, very reasonable to assume that it's going to be overpowered.
My opinion on ACG classes:
Arcanist: So. Insanely. Broken. Definite proof that Paizo either doesn't give a f%+& about game balance or is really bad at it (Probably a mix of both). As if being a 9th level arcane caster with access to their whole list wasn't enough to make a class tier 1, they also gave Arcanists a bunch of extremely powerful class features. Boosting CL and save DC of spells is amazing, and Magic Exploits (or whatever they are called) are interesting, but seriously overpowered.
Seeing Arcanists in the same game as CW errata makes me think Paizo sees game balance as a joke. Harsh? Probably. But still true.
Bloodrager: Possibly the best designed class in the book. Seems very fun to play and well balanced, although a bit too similar to Barbarians. I wish their class features were more different from each other. Bad news is, I think they one-up every Barbarian build other than (Beast Totem + Superstition + Spell Sunder).
Brawler: Cool class, but very one dimensional. It has some interesting abilities, and it's great to finally see another option for unarmed combatants, but I'm not sure if it'll have many valuable combat tactics other than full attacking.
Hunter: Waste of word count. Hunters are underpowered, boring and pointless. It's just a worse druid based on a terrible Ranger archetype. Doesn't fill any niche, doesn't allow for any character concept that couldn't be done much better with Druid, Ranger or even Inquisitor. Paizo could have given as a Wildshapping Ranger without FE, FT and a different spell list, but no. They decided to play it safe and created the most unnecessary of classes. If it isn't vastly reworked from the playtest version, Hunters will add nothing to the game.
Investigator: Another incredibly well designed classes. It seems all problems I had with its "Study Enemy" ability have been fixed. Love it. Finally a Rogue that works!
Shaman: Seems interesting enough. Can't make any meaningful comment, though. Barely checked the class.
Skald: No comments. Had no interest in the class. Never bothered with it.
Slayer: Another cool class! Could have done a few things differently, but I like it.
Swashbuckler: So much disappointment... This is the very definition of wasted opportunity. Such a cool character concept, that could have opened so many different options to the game. I wanted martial with real mobility, interesting class features and great flavor. Instead, all we got is yet another "stand still and full attack, don't do much of anything useful out of combat" class. Swashbucklers are incapable of living up to their class description. They are no more agile than a Fighter with weapon finesse and just slightly more useful out of combat ("Look! I have 4 skill points! That means I'm versatile, right?" ¬¬'). All Swashbucklers have is damage and AC. Just a cool concept strangled by bad mechanics. And having another class with the worst saves in the game doesn't really help either.
Warpriest: Seems pretty cool as well. Simple, but interesting. There are some fun ideas here, and allows for more (effective) character possibilities.