Thoughts on the Advanced Class Guide
Numbers for ease:
1. No multiclassing – this could be very annoying trying to make characters, being cut off from more than two classes. Means you need more planning to create characters. Also suggests there is some balance issues?
Arcanist (this sounded like there wasn’t much they could do)
2. So same spell progression, BA and HD as sorcerer. So I’ll be using that as a base for comparison.
3. They lose some ability with sorcerer powers (maybe not that much really) but gain access to any spells? Seems good. This is often how I want to run my wizards!
4. And they get feats too?
5. But one less spell per level – hence inbetween wizards and sorcerers.
6. I think I’d prefer these than sorcerers. But there isn’t really anything new? Still I like the partial flexibility idea. At higher levels I use this from divination spells.
7. Using INT instead of CHA is a really good bonus compared to sorcerers though. More skills (and less cha, but that’s what charm person is for!) This would really make me think of them over sorcerer!
8. Overall? It’s okay, a more flexible sorcerer – I’d prefer this to sorcerer myself, compared to wizard I’m not sure due to the spell level being delayed.
Bloodrager (must say this one sounded interesting)
9. Full BA and spells, it’s an arcane version of ranger and paladin. As spells look very secondary, I’ll compare to barbarian.
10. So you lose rage powers and trap sense, but gain bloodline powers and spells (and spellcasting). Seems a good deal to start with! Also D10 HD instead of D12, but that’s fine!
11. But gain feats from level 6 onwards? That’s good! Extra spells? Mmm okay.
12. Rage is the same as a barbarians, as is movement and uncanny dodge, skills, skill points.
13. You don’t have to be Chaotic?!
14. I’d say this is more like a detailed archtype.
15. Overall – I’d say it’s better than a barbarian, giving more flexibility and playability. I’m sure some would still prefer the brute force of the barbarian. But I’d happily play this! (which probably means it’s overpowered) Plus the bloodrage powers look great!
Brawler (didn’t think I’d like this, but I do)
16. Full BA, D10 HD, skills as a monk, saves halfway between the two. I guess you have to compare to monk due to the martial arts variety and looks like they have a lot of the monk abilities.
17. So full BA is great, no flurry means less attacks, but better to hit – I was wrong, they have a form of flurry!
18. Feat gaining ability is good! Would give lost of flexibility, but a problem for all the book keeping!
19. Don’t need to be lawful – makes sense.
20. Bonus feats as a fighter? Nice. Does seem weird they’re not ‘fighter feats’ and also doesn’t specify they cant get feats for other weapons (I guess it’s brawler, not unarmed master)
21. Light armour and a few weapons feats. No shields.
22. Why not just say the flurry applies to all the base Brawlers weapons? Free two weapon fighting is nice. Also it doesn’t say you can’t be armoured? A Brawler Paladin anyone?!
23. Extra combat maneuvers looks nice. Makes them better ‘weapon masters’ than fighters. Let alone more feats, more feat flexibility and free two weapon feats. Still get bonus to AC.
24. So no evasion, no wisdom to AC (but can use armour) No stunning fist, no movement bonus. No acrobatics, slow fall, Ki.
25. Ccompared to monks, there are still reasons to play both. Monks are acrobatic and fast!
26. Compared to fighters? Well they seem more skilled, it depends if their feats count as fighter feats for specialization etc. Otherwise I’d always prefer a brawler for the extra feats, flexibility and pretty close AC. Lose armour mastery (don’t use it much) and bravery (not used much) – not got the weapon mastery which is good. But they seem to be more flexible to be fun.
27. Overall – this one feels good. Not too overpowered (unless you like this sort of fighter, then you get lots for free!) and still plenty of reason to choose this or either the others.
Hunter (wasn’t sure about this?)
28. Looks like it’s more druid than ranger at first glance. Same BA but less spells. So will need something good to offset that!
29. Animal aspect looks good. Lots of bookkeeping when you can shift it for free each round for 10 rounds!
30. Animal companion as a druid. But the team work is a nice touch.
31. Compared to druid, you lose spells and wildshape and some of the funky abilities (1000 faces, trackless step, timeless, venom immunity) and others delayed like woodland stride, but gain the animal focus and teamwork feats as well as tracking.
32. Compared to ranger you lose BA and weapon styles, favoured enemy, but gain better spellcasting, animal focus and an earlier companion and teamwork.
33. Overall this one feels like a nice fit too – a few little tricks the others don’t have. But not sure I’d ever go for it. Spellcasting or full BA with weapon feats would likely win out for me.
Investigator (hmm sneak attacking bombs?)
*Note – this is a shorter review as I don’t know Alchemists that well)
34. Lots of skill points, extracts, sneak attack. No bombs. Poison, extracts.
35. I like rogues and their abilities, but this seems to make up for what it’s missed and I know extracts can be fun. So my guess is this is better then rogue (unless you’re going an assassin route)
Shaman (*not going to bother, don’t know Oracle or Witch much)
Skald (I remember the prestige class)
36. Spellcasting, D8 HD, this is looking like a bard.
37. So no inspirations. But can make people rage? Not quite as good as the barbarian one, but then it can affect everyone! That just seems dangerous. And do they stack? Can you have a barbarian raging and further infused with the skald song?
38. Looks less versatile than a bard to me, more fighting focused and not much else. But that could work well for some games (and I rarely play bards anyways).
39. Rage powers affecting all allies too? They look like a well trained one trick pony (that of raging allies) – would be a good enemy leader!
40. Spell Kenning adds some nice versatility, especially as there seems to be no knowledge of the spell – so suddenly hugely versatile!
41. Overall - I’m not sure what I’d play, if you want many skills, then bard is better, but for fighting, rage, helping allies and spellcasting that one needed spell a day, Skald looks the way to go! Seems good to me, but I could imagine it upsetting a lot of games. Groups would really want one of these – but I can imagine, no one wants to play it?
Slayer (just sounds bad)
42. So a ranger rogue? Well less sneak attack than the other rogue class (investigator) but full BA!
43. Must say, ever since seeing the 3rd ed ninja, I’ve loved full BA with sneak attack. I’ll compare to ranger as full BA and tracking.
44. Favoured target makes an amazing bonus to any social interactions and even fighting!
45. A free feat every two levels? Looks good.
46. Compared to a ranger – it’s more one on one stalking and sneak attack. No spells, or outside things, no weapon style (but can get the feats). Less skills.
47. Compared to a rogue – less skills and no trap finding, which can be a problem. This is more an assassin fighter class, with some handy social benefits.
48. Overall - it seems a bit specialized? Basically a social ninja? I could imagine people loving this class though.
Swashbuckler (fighter and gunslinger, without the guns?)
*Note – this is a shorter review as I don’t know Gunslingers that well)
49. I know fighters best and full BA so will compare to that.
50. So critical? Rapiers and Kukri’s it seems. Who doesn’t want to play dandy fighters outwitting and out sword fighting their opponents?
51. Parry with -4 for size difference, (I read someone complaining of this) maybe a feat could work (eg Used to fighting Big Uns) to reduce this, but normally a small creature has +1 AC and +2 Dex, giving a total for +2 AC so they should be hit less and thus need to parry less. But. Why have the negative? Just say it can only be done to one category size larger? (eg Humans can pary ogres, but Halflings can’t as they are too big and strong).
52. A bit of book keeping to remember all the deeds?
53. Otherwise they just look like nimble light weapon fighters. The deeds make them a little different and so I can imagine people playing them easily.
54. I can’t see a problem with them being gunslingers too though?
55. Overall – nice, but confusing to be linked to gunslingers (just make gunslingers only apply to ranged weapons, and swashbucklers only apply to melee weapons).
Warpriest (can’t say I expect much – clerics are already fighters with spells)
56. So more a cleric by the look of things. Lose spells. Gain feats. Half channeling. Weapon and armour focus
57. Looks interesting. But reminds me of a paladin more than anything. Not sure it’s enough to make it look better than a paladin.
58. Overall - I think I’d play a cleric over this (the spellcasting being better than the abilities) – it’s just cleric is a really boring class to level up in (apart from the spells)
Thread closed. Please post any followup comments in the stickied thread for this class, otherwise we'll end up with a hundred parallel discussion threads. Thanks!