I ran five characters through Level 3A ("The Well") of Rappan Athuk, with a few minor modifications (due to one level increase), over the course of two game days. I'm going to link each of the players to this post and see if they want to add anything to my thoughts, but here are my feelings as GM:
As the group was entering Rappan Athuk, and I didn't want them to die too quickly (since there were a whole bunch of 'fifth wheel' classes, as my group tends to term them), so I ran an NPC Kyra that I leveled from 7 to 9.
The Swashbuckler and Skald were able to keep up fairly well. Damages seemed pretty in tune to what I would expect for their output, despite the Swashbuckler grandly losing a sword in to the water on a double 1 roll. Skald was really nice utility, about what I would have expected out of any standard Bard, but with a few additional nifty abilities. My feeling is that they're the two classes that we played that were most closely balanced with the "pure" classes.
The investigator was played by someone who understood how to play rogues fairly well, and unfortunately it felt like the alchemist stuff didn't really fit in very well with playing a traditional 'thief' model (which I know they clearly aren't). I imagine this class would probably shine a lot more in an urban campaign, but the damage output couldn't come close to what a rogue does at 10th level. As for 'investigate-y' type stuff, I felt that lacked a lot. One of the things I've always been sad about in Pathfinder is that it's really quite hard for your general roleplaying group to do 'mystery' based gaming. I imagine more passive 'deduction' skills would be very helpful, so the GM could pass along hints for an in-game reason, rather than saying... hey... look... a window...
The arcanist. Oh, the arcanist. Tl;dr: Can't keep up with real wizards or sorcerers. Longer version: I really, really wanted to like this class. I admit that I have rose colored glasses on, because there is a class in Rolemaster called the Arcansit. It was my very first character that I played in a roleplaying game (yes, I was introduced in Rolemaster; Crazy, I know.). That tends to be my basis for the word "Arcanist," though the way that the class is described pretty much agrees with my basis. But as far as I can tell from a 'play' standpoint, it has all the weaknesses of a sorcerer and wizard combined, without having powerful enough strengths (read: exploits) to overcome those added weaknesses. It feels like a flawed implementation from the get-go, because of the fact that it is trying to combine sorc/wiz. Vancian magic has never been a big favorite of mine, and basically the Arcanist takes Vancian magic to a whole other level. Dropping your choices, and only letting you use those. I suppose if you played this character type like a pure artillery class, it could work. But from that perspective, a Sorcerer would still be more effect, since they have more allotment per day. Additionally, Arcanists just aren't what I want them to be. I expect them to fiddle with the 'essence' of magic. Altering spell mechanics, throw around raw energy (or null energy), etc. The brief forays in to that seem half-hearted at best, and left to try and stand alone.
Final thoughts: The Level 7 Kyra + 2 that I ran with the group easily kept up with all of the playtest classes that were level 10, while at level 9. On pretty much every level. She could keep up in combat, she easily showed the most utility, and with channeling just destroyed one encounter on her own. Recognizing that undead is where clerics shine, I eventually had to say 'Oh! Kyra turned in a bug suddenly, and doesn't seem like she'll turn back until after combat!' so that she wouldn't add big numbers to the combat. That is pretty telltale to me. Yes, she's a core class, and probably expected to be a bit more powerful than the others, but it definitely felt like she was more powerful than the other characters. I hated having an NPC run over the PCs encounters, and that's totally what ended up happening.
End of play test result: It was a good try on the classes, but I'm going to have to put my hopes in other content to make the book worth buying. Because without significant changes, I'm not real stoked about the classes.
The investigator isn't meant to be a primary damage dealer. He's meant, from what I've picked up on the forums and in the guide, to be a great utility skill monkey. And yes, the damage is low even for that but the designers seem aware and may not do anything about it. Rogues are meant to be more damaging than an investigator.
From what I've been reading, the Arcanist is a very versatile class that can do some pretty vicious things but needs to be played by someone who is aware of all the tricks and how to fully push the class. This is true for sorcerers and wizards, of course, but it seems a lot of the Arcanist is based on counterspelling and pounding things with up-jumped DCs, thus a focus on save-or-suck spells (makes them an effective debuffer in fact).
They won't have the utility of a wizard or the output of a sorcerer... but neither of those classes can mix metamagic around or arbitrarily push up the DC on any spell they have (or extend durations or most of the other stuff they can do with their exploits).
What did the Arcanist fail to do that he should have done? What did he encounter that didn't work out the way he wanted it to? In what way did you wish he could have helped? Was he using exploits whenever he could make use of it? Did he have a lot of metamagic? It seems the class's real failing, from your paragraph, is that it isn't what you wanted it to be based on preconceived notions of the name.
It sounds like your cleric shined because she could destroy all kinds of monsters in large groups with little danger. Because she could channel. Try a non-undead adventure with the same party and she'll probably be more in-line with the party.
New classes require new approaches to the adventure and in a playtest like this your players haven't had time to grow into the class or into a cohesive party. That will hurt any adventure and make it feel weaker than usual.
I found the new classes interesting in a certain way, but in an overarching way, I didn't like that they just felt like multi-classed characters, without the work of multi-classing. This is part of where my frustration in them comes from. Because the Magus, the Alchemist, Inquisitor, etc- Those were all pretty 'new' concepts, which added new angles to come at problems from. While all of these classes are mostly more-of-the-same.
I agree with your take on Investigator; Though the revised book took away their sneak attack. That nerfed them pretty hard.
Arcanist is a versatile class, and in the right hands, it could be a decent character (as it stands). It definitely would be circumstantial as to how useful they would be in a campaign, though. What I really didn't want out of the Arcanist (that definitely is there), is "just another wizard". Think like what a Cavalier did with the Fighter class- It took the idea, and went a different direction. And really, that's my feedback as a whole. Too much going in the same direction, not enough new directions.
As for the Cleric- There were only four encounters of the 12 or so that were dealing with undead. By the time they reached the last two, I removed her from the equation. Despite that, in a dungeon setting, Clerics definitely shine brighter than many other classes, no question. I'm not entirely certain where this group would shine that a Cleric wouldn't though. Ship-board comes to mind, but even then.. really.. when isn't a healing-button needed. So I think that's a pretty hard argument to stick with.
Just for reference, I think there were... 21 Stirges, mid-20ish Dire Rats, 6 Wights, 4 False Black Skeletons, 2 Black Skeletons, 2 Wraiths, 2 Golems, 1 Named Spectre. A few Piercer traps that drop stalactites from the ceiling on characters heads, but no major traps other than that. The cleric took out 3 Wights, and partially all the black skeleton-types.
The Arcanist has access to every spell he can put in his spellbook and can change its spells known on a day to day basis, it is the very opposite of circumstantial.
Are you able to post the Arcanist character so we can see what the player was doing. At level 10 you should have enough spells prepared to be able to contribute to most situations.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.The Arcanist has access to every spell he can put in his spellbook and can change its spells known on a day to day basis, it is the very opposite of circumstantial.
Are you able to post the Arcanist character so we can see what the player was doing. At level 10 you should have enough spells prepared to be able to contribute to most situations.
Really? You're going to be flip? The whole point of my post was that I *didn't* want just-another-wizard. :P
As for andrewww: Same response, without the question of flippancy. It's not a question of contributing more arcane spells, it's that they're either- Not as good at artillery as Sorcerer's, or not as flexible as Wizards... and they're really just-another-wizard.
How are they not as flexible as a wizard? If anything they are more flexible.