I love them. Its extra classes that present new ways to represent characters more exactly then before.
Honestly we dont need new classes, what more do you want then "Warrior" "Mage" and "Sneak" really? But all of these new classes present you with new ways to represent a character in more detail then just "Has a big sword" or "Has a thin sword". Which also happens to be the point with adding more feats and more archetypes too.
Is the swashbuckler better then just building a Barbarian with a falchion? No? Well that doesnt matter because thats not what the swashbuckler is for.
Is the Arcanist better then a classic god-wizard? No? Thank god because we really dont need a new spellcaster who is better then the supposedly best class in the game.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Design Manager
|
***Is the swashbuckler better then just building a Barbarian with a falchion? No? Well that doesnt matter because thats not what the swashbuckler is for.
Is the Arcanist better then a classic god-wizard? No? Thank god because we really dont need a new spellcaster who is better then the supposedly best class in the game.
I could go on, but you get the point.
None of those are problems people actually have with any of the new classes (well, some people who don't know any better keep calling the Hunter a weak druid, but other than that...).
The problems that people have with the classes aren't because they compare negatively with existing materials, it's because they have flaws within themselves that are frustrating. The Swashbuckler has taken the brunt of this and has been denounced by some as the most poorly designed class in the ACG for a few reasons:
1) He was showcased poorly in a scenario that made his weaknesses obvious. The Risen from the Sands scenario that the Swashbuckler premiered in couldn't have made the class look any worse if that was the specific goal of the scenario, packed with creatures that targeted his weak saves and were immune to his bonus precision damage, etc.
2) Poor Will and Fort saves. This is death for a front line character, especially one who already needs to invest a mental stat that doesn't improve any of his defenses.
3) Billed as mobile, doesn't deliver. This is less an issue of the class and more an issue of the design philosophy against allowing standard actions to be even remotely comparable o full attacks, and also ties into martial/caster disparity issues. Leave it that wizards, sorcerers, and arcanists are much better mobile combatants than the class that was intended to be mobile.
The issue isn't "A doesn't do as much damage as B" it's that "A doesn't do or isn't particularly good at the thing(s) A's supposed to be the best at".
There's also a few "issues" with classes that are purely perception based, like the supposed overpoweredness of the Arcanist (it's not), or the supposed underpoweredness of the Hunter (one of the strongest classes in the game).
None of those issues are helped by the rampant editing errors, and the (on average) low quality of many of the archetypes.
Different strokes and all that though, the good news is that the optimization floor for the new classes isn't as low as most of the CRB classes, so in groups of lower or casual system mastery the weaknesses of many of these classes won't seem so severe and some of them will even seem stronger than they actually are because of how forgiving they are.
...or the supposed underpoweredness of the Hunter (one of the strongest classes in the game).
Now this, I fear, will need some explaining too. I've made a hunter or two, neither of which seemed to get remotely close to the druid or the ranger in power level, much less to "the strongest class in the game."
It struck me as solidly mediocre (but not weak). What makes you think they are so strong?
|
Design Manager
|
...or the supposed underpoweredness of the Hunter (one of the strongest classes in the game).Now this, I fear, will need some explaining too. I've made a hunter or two, neither of which seemed to get remotely close to the druid or the ranger in power level, much less to "the strongest class in the game."
It struck me as solidly mediocre (but not weak). What makes you think they are so strong?
My computer froze while I was trying to edit that to "one of the strongest non-9th level casters in the game", but to elaborate:
Teamwork feats are the bomb-diggity. They're some of the best action economy boosters in the game and the fact that the Hunter and its pet are getting a wide swath of them automatically is a big deal. Broken Wing Gambit + Improved Feint + Paired Opportunists can allow you to add another full attack's worth of damage to a round (even sacrificing your move for the feint), all at your best to-hit and that's barely scratching the surface. Skirmisher tricks on your pet add another pseudo caster to the party, and it's one whose "spells" generally have no impact on action economy. The Hunter starts out strong, with reliable boosts to hit that can more than close the 3/4 BAB gap and early access to great spells like lead blades for damage boosts. The ready access to shared Teamwork feats can keep the Hunter at the leading edge of action economy, and the combination of 3/4 nature casting and Ranger proficiencies really opens up what he can do, and how he can do it.
That's one of the biggest things. Character + pet is already twice the action economy available to non-pet classes. Add the ability for the pet to trigger free action buffs and debuffs and you widen that gap, add in bundles of Teamwork feats that can add AoO's or even entire full round actions and the class has an action economy edge that is nearly untouchable.
This was a simple melee build meant to be viable and effective through all levels of play that still has room for lots of personalization. It isn't particularly min/maxed or over optimized, but its a fun build with great capabilities really high damage potential. This is an archery build built along the same parameters, with a pet whose purpose is keeping the archer open to maintain firing. They're both strong and effective but simple builds that still have lots of room for customization through traits, spell selection, etc. With boosts to hit and enemy debuffs being laid out by the pet, both builds have the same chance to hit or better at most levels as full BAB classes, much more than the druid can leverage, and have a much greater degree of adaptability and utility than the Ranger, whose Favored Enemy does grant an edge they can't match in combat.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally i think hunter was a waste , could have been a nice new pet class ... instead it is what it is.
It's the most powerful pet class in the game, excluding the cheesiness of the broken Summoner.
The Hunter's Animal Companion has everything the Druid's has and a lot more with buffs and teamwork feats. What more could you ask for?
I would ask for a polished class instead of what we got , the hunter seems a filler that had to be made to meet the quota of the book.
Dont get me wrong , there are good classes in this book , it is a pity being a person who quite enjoys having "pets" ingame i cant say hunter is one of them.
I'd say read it over again. There are some very subtle changes from the second playtest that are easy to overlook (since you don't expect to see them) but make some pretty solid improvements.
My issue with the warpriest is that they have way too many extraneous, boring abilities. No one really cared about using channel energy, sacred armor, and the extra sacred weapon abilities that just feel like a lame version of arcane pool enchantments. I would have preferred they removed those abilities in favor of fleshing out blessings or make the warpriest feel more like a divine magus. They could have made each blessing automatically bestow a permanent effect on the warpriest's sacred weapon, much like some of the shaman spirits do.
...or the supposed underpoweredness of the Hunter (one of the strongest classes in the game).Now this, I fear, will need some explaining too. I've made a hunter or two, neither of which seemed to get remotely close to the druid or the ranger in power level, much less to "the strongest class in the game."
It struck me as solidly mediocre (but not weak). What makes you think they are so strong?
My computer froze while I was trying to edit that to "one of the strongest non-9th level casters in the game", but to elaborate:
Teamwork feats are the bomb-diggity. They're some of the best action economy boosters in the game and the fact that the Hunter and its pet are getting a wide swath of them automatically is a big deal. Broken Wing Gambit + Improved Feint + Paired Opportunists can allow you to add another full attack's worth of damage to a round (even sacrificing your move for the feint), all at your best to-hit and that's barely scratching the surface. Skirmisher tricks on your pet add another pseudo caster to the party, and it's one whose "spells" generally have no impact on action economy. The Hunter starts out strong, with reliable boosts to hit that can more than close the 3/4 BAB gap and early access to great spells like lead blades for damage boosts. The ready access to shared Teamwork feats can keep the Hunter at the leading edge of action economy, and the combination of 3/4 nature casting and Ranger proficiencies really opens up what he can do, and how he can do it.
That's one of the biggest things. Character + pet is already twice the action economy available to non-pet classes. Add the ability for the pet to trigger free action buffs and debuffs and you widen that gap, add in bundles of Teamwork feats that can add AoO's or even entire full round actions and the class has an action economy edge that is nearly untouchable.
This was a simple melee build meant to be...
Interesting. You seem to have a much better understanding of this than I. Might you have some advice for improving my hunter?
Not sure if it's the link or my browser but I seem to be being directed to the top of your character emporium. What's the name of your Hunter so I can take a peek?
Albert Franstein
|
Design Manager
|
Not sure if it's the link or my browser but I seem to be being directed to the top of your character emporium. What's the name of your Hunter so I can take a peek?Albert Franstein
I love Albert! Where did that excellent art come from?
At a glance, I'd probably swap Vital Strike (or Power Attack) and Furious Focus for some action economy boosters like Broken Wing Gambit and Paired Opportunists. That'll cost you 5 skill points, but you can shave a bit here and there and still be very proficient thanks to your high bonuses. Improved Spell Sharing is nice but not particularly necessary since the buffs you are using are predominantly long term and things that would typically be cast out of combat, so I'd use that feat for Broken Wing and then sub in Combat Reflexes to boost your attacks of opportunity (Tiger as your Animal Focus can also be helpful). Reach weapons are the Hunter's best friend after his animal companion, but that sugliin is so thematic I'm not sure I could bear giving it up.
On my build I went with the wolf animal companion so that its free trip attempt would help generate more AoOs, but the cat opens up other possibilities. Clever positioning could allow you to have your cat spread its attacks out and open up a whirlwind of AoOs. Broken Wing Gambit + Paired Opportunists is almost a mandatory combo for melee Hunters since it kind of acts as a modified Robillard's Gambit (if you're familiar with 3.5); they attack you (or your pet), which provokes an AoO from your pet (or you) and Paired Opportunists means that that also triggers an AoO from you (or your pet). So a successful attack you or your pet lands is potentially an extra attack from each of you, up to your total possible attacks of opportunity. Instead of hitting harder, you hit smarter... and more often.
|
Design Manager
|
Couple things, how exactly are you getting a full-attacks worth of attacks out of Broken Wing Gambit and Paired Opportunist? Generally, you and your pet will each get one attack out of it. Unless your target attacks both you and your pet, but that's not a typical circumstance.
Also, I would be wary of assuming Skirmisher tricks work like you think they do until the ACG faq comes out, as there are numerous people who believe that the trick use limit still applies. I know you don't, but making that assumption is risky.
In the build I posted I noted that the character had Improved Feint Partner and Broken Wing Gambit; if the Hunter successfully feints (move action) then the pet gets an attack of opportunity, which means the Hunter gets an attack of opportunity, both against the foe's flat-footed AC. We're at 2 extra attacks. Then, you make a standard attack using Broken Wing Gambit and the foe retaliates, which is 2 more attacks. So, that's 3 attacks from the Hunter and 2 from the pet all at their highest to-hit (and some against reduced defenses), while the pet still has all of its action economy left to use, and that full routine is useable in the build I posted by level 9, when the hunter would normally have a BAB of 6/1. You're getting 5 attacks at your best to hit in place of 1 at your best and 1 at -5.
Skirmisher tricks are icing on the cake and just serve to make the build better. As to you and others divining intent that has no RAW backing it, I can't really have an intelligent conversation about that other than that your opinion has no founding in the rules and makes no difference to the tactics noted above. It only determines how awesome the Hunter is, not whether or not he's awesome.
For myself, I constantly compare the Hunter with a Feather Domain Inquisitor, and past level 6-7 is just seems to consistently fall short. Worse attack/damage, worse spell list, no bane, worse out-of-combat abilities at the cost of one feat for you (boon companion) and a few feats for your AC(whatever teamwork feats). Additionally, the inquisitor is a lot less dependent on a single tactical situation. A melee hunter is practically useless if it is not flanking a creature with its pet. To me, the issue is that the hunter is incredibly front-loaded but with horrible scaling, making it great 1-6, good 7-12, and mediocre above that.
I don't want this to be offensive, but I don't think there's any way to ask it that won't be taken the wrong way, so I'm just going to throw it out there: have you even read the class? Because your statement would indicate you haven't. Boon Companion does not make any other animal companion equivalent to the Hunter's pet, who has many more feats than any other animal companion, plus skirmisher tricks. Pack flanking allows you and your pet to flank an enemy from any position where you're both threatening it (my melee build has it at level 3) so flanking is not "incredibly rare" it's something you can have constantly. If you decide to mount your pet, you literally have flanking all the time without needing to do anything else (Hunter's are awesome for mounted combat, btw). Your casual dismissal of some of the strongest feats in the game is a pretty clear indication of why you think the Hunter is weak and doesn't scale well; there's a whole subsystem of mechanics you just don't know how to use.
|
Design Manager
|
I had missed the improved feint partner, just saw improved feint, so that works, not sure its completely optimal (non-class skill based on dump stat), but it works. And again, plays into the front-loading of the class. And again, I look to the build you linked, and the exact same build(-1 feat due to lacking a lvl 2 bonus feat) would work better with an Inquisitor.
I'm sorry, are you saying that your Inquisitor's animal companion boosted its INT, spent skill ranks, and took all of those teamwork feats? Mind showing how? Because the pet you gain from the Feather domain kicks in late, costs an extra feat to get up to usefulness, and doesn't gain the use of your Teamwork feats, access to Skirmisher tricks, or the bonus tricks the Hunter gains. So, no, the build can't be done better by an Inquisitor with the Feather domain.
Now, if you went with the Sacred Huntsmaster archetype maybe there's some argument there as the archetype is much closer to the Hunter while keeping some of the best Inquisitor goodies, but you still don't have free Outflank, extra AnC tricks (invaluable if your group actually follows the AnC rules), you give up your Judgements and your capstone ability, and you have a much narrower choice of weapons available since you don't have martial weapon proficiency like the Hunter.
Sidenote on Charisma as a "dump stat" for characters with animal companions: you see this come up as a common suggestion but it's worth noting that it's actually very risky, especially at low levels. You really want to be able to auto-succeed on your Handle Animal checks since it's still a DC 10 to get an animal companion to perform a known trick, and 25 if you ever need them to do something you haven't taught them. Jory's only an 8 because I never really planned on playing him at low levels, but it's worth noting that at level 1 he'd still have a 15% chance of failing a check to do something you want to take for granted (RD's Albert would have a 20% chance, and missing a command to your pet 1 time out of every 5 is kind of rough).
|
I'm sorry, are you saying that your Inquisitor's animal companion boosted its INT, spent skill ranks, and took all of those teamwork feats? Mind showing how?
At 3rd level, all of the inquisitor's allies are treated as if they possessed the same teamwork feats as the inquisitor for the purpose of determining whether the inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats.
|
Design Manager
|
I'm sorry, are you saying that your Inquisitor's animal companion boosted its INT, spent skill ranks, and took all of those teamwork feats? Mind showing how?At 3rd level, all of the inquisitor's allies are treated as if they possessed the same teamwork feats as the inquisitor for the purpose of determining whether the inquisitor receives a bonus from her teamwork feats.
In the routine I listed 2 of the 5 attacks were made by the animal companion, which Solo Tactics does nothing for. So again, it doesn't allow him to do the same thing. It allows him to do a watered down, less effective version.
|
Design Manager
|
Master Hunter should have been on the list of "significant elements" as it includes a 3rd constant focus for the Hunter.
That being said, I already acknowledged that there was a fair argument for the Sacred Huntsmaster, which is much different than your earlier "Inquisitor with the Feather domain and Boon Companion" statement.
That being said, I don't consider that a weakness of the Hunter, I consider it a poor reflection on the inferior quality of the archetypes presented in the ACG. The fact that anyone thought a limited use per day ability that competes for action economy with the Inquisitor's other great combat-use class ability would be a fair trade for the Hunter's action economy boosting defining class ability and then several other people signed off on it just shows how little attention was paid to balancing and editing the archetypes in the ACG. If one, single archetype runs the risk of completely overshadowing an entire class it draws on, the problem is probably not with the class, it's with the archetype.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It seems to me that the hybrid classes exist because pathfinder passively discourages multiclassing. There are a lot of bonuses given for sticking with one class. Even prestige classes do not seem as common as archetypes.
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
Overall, I'm not a big fan of the hybrid classes in the first place. Many of them either aren't needed since the two base classes multi-class just fine, or could have easily been archetypes.
I would much rather the book have been approached as: lets add some new classes because there are some classic types of characters that really don't have a class that does them justice, and lets design those classes from the ground up.
Instead it feels like we got: we're doing 10 hybrid classes, and we'll find 10 combinations to fill that out, even if they don't really warrant a full class write up or if there's no reason that they should be hybrids.
Arcanist - I'm still not convinced that this is a hybrid anyone really needs. I feel that overall the Wizard and Sorcerer give pretty good full 9 level arcane caster options, and the Witch gives another one. Do we need a 4th? As for the class itself, it's somewhat interesting, but feels like an attempt to let the player have his cake and eat it too. What's wrong with making choices that impact your character and dealing with the tradeoffs that the choice entails? The most interesting premise of the class is the exploits, but too many of them feel like other types of class abilities such as wizard school powers or sorcerer bloodline powers.
Bloodrager - This seems overpowered compared to the barbarian. Not much is lost from the barbarian, and a lot more is added on. I'm also not a fan of their core power being bloodrage rather than rage. It's a lot cleaner if the same ability is named the same thing, so other powers, feats, abilities interact with them in the same way. Being able to cast spells in a bloodrage could easily have been a separate power, or detail of their spellcasting.
Brawler - This is another one that I don't get the need for. It pretty much seems like a fighter with a few bonus powers aimed at unarmed combat. I also don't really see what martial versatility has to do with being a brawler and why that power isn't really a core part of the fighter class if there's a need to have it in the game in the first place. In general, I'm not a fan of powers that let you pick how to use it each time it's activated from the entire game's collected rules. That slows down play, and becomes more powerful each time a combat feat is published. Isn't that why Pathfinder re-wrote the summon monster spells to be from a fixed list?
Hunter - This is another class that doesn't seem to justify it's existence. It seems pretty much the same as a druid/ranger multi-class, with the somewhat goofy animal powers tacked on. That aspect could easily be a druid archetype to replace wild shape.
Investigator - I really like this class conceptually, but it seems far weaker than the other new classes (and than many previous classes). I'm not sure why most of the cool combat related talents seem to be modeled on the critical feats rather than the spells of equivalent level. If a wizard or sorcerer can cast confusion at 7th or 8th level, why not let the investigator use confusing strike at that level also, instead of 19th? Just have an inspiration cost, which you can reduce or eliminate at 19th?
Shaman - This class was the once conceptually I was most looking Forward to, but feel that the class doesn't deliver. I don't see how a combination of Oracle and Witch really make a Shaman, and the execution is a big mess. This looks like a table slowing class with the wandering hex and spirit, though thankfully only once a day. I don't see a strong connection to interacting with the spirit world, which is part and parcel to what a shaman class should be. I'd have really liked something that emulated the binder from 3rd edition, or characters from Gregory Keyes' Blackgod and Waterborn books.
Skald - Why isn't this an archetype? I don't see a lot of difference between it and the base bard.
Slayer - Don't we have this already? It's called a rogue/ranger. Or an assassin for that matter. Also, the name is poor, pretty much every class in the game is a slayer.
Swashbuckler - Fine that they introduced it, but I would much rather this not necessarily used the grit/panache system and simply made a class that was a light armored mobile fighter type. In many ways, the abilities gained feel like a 20-level version of the duelist prestige class.
Warpriest - This is actually my favorite. It does a good job of being a non-LG paladin, while actually feeling somewhat different by being able to use fervor to swift action self-buff with their spells. Unfortunately, the blessings all are fairly weak and for the amount of space in the book they take, I'd have rather seen them be more useful abilities.
Finally, the archetypes are a disappointment. After 10 full classes of hybrids, most of the archetypes are even more hybrids. This is what most of the 10 new classes should have been, leaving room for more new design space. Do we really need 4 hybrids to each hybrid introduced?
Long thread. :-)
Coming at this from a background where my favorite system doesn't have classes at all, I have perhaps a skewed view of the whole thing but it strikes me that hybrid classes, prestige classes, feats, multi-classing, archetypes, and on and on are all things designed to try to overcome the fundamental flaw of the system - people don't divide what they do into arbitrary classes in the first place. A person ought to be able to learn how to do whatever it is he wants to do (with varying chances of success depending on the subject matter, availability of teachers, likelihood of being able to learn without help, etcetera), whether it fits some "class" mold or not. Don't like the rogue? Build your own. What you need is the basic building blocks. In my favorite system, the building blocks are skills. Everything is a skill, from how to use a particular weapon to how to cast a particular spell. You can learn a lot of different skills, but if you don't use them for long enough, you're likely to forget them. Or you can learn a few (even quite a few) narrowly focused skills, keep them honed, and get really good at them. Your choice.
Ed, a bit off-topic but if you do ever plan to play in Pathfinder's system I strongly suggest you check out the "Talented X" series from Rogue Genius Games. It's not quite to the extent you suggest - the classes still have their separate molds - but it does open up the "standard list and array of limited abilities" down to their "basic building blocks" for the player to arrange as they see fit.
Oh, I'll play in Pathfinder's sandbox - and I'll use the character classes. But I'll still think there's a better way. Thanks for the tip on "Talented X", I'll look into that.
I like them. Come more then others, and some a LOT. So be prepared, this is a mostly positive review ...
Arcanist: The idea of an easier to run wizard is appealing. For those people that want/have more system mastery and want the power will still go for a wizard. Until I see an arcanist in action, I can't comment on the OMG OP OMG of the class.
Bloodrager: One of the more interesting hybrids. Barbarian and Sorcerer aren't really my cup of tea, but it looks really fun for a martial/spontaneous caster.
Brawler: I definitely see the niche to be filled here. It's the un-mystical monk or unarmed fighter (which was never really as good when it was a fighter archetype).
Hunter: I LOVE this class. All the animal companion, without any of the wild shape bookkeeping issues. Don't get me wrong, there is still a lot of bookkeeping with the class (I'm looking at you teamwork feats), but it still piques my interest a lot.
Investigator: This has probably the least appeal to me. I love the alchemist and I like the rogue, so I should at least like the investigator. I suppose I don't have a character idea yet to fit the class. So I can't really comment.
Shaman: Looks very interesting. However, TBH The Expanded Shaman from Kobold scratched my Shaman itch, so I'm not sure if this one will see play.
Skald: Haven't read enough to comment on flavour or mechanics. Skip
Slayer: THIS was the reason I was SSSOOOO excited from the beginning. A lot of people have wanted a full BAB rogue. I have wanted a spell-less ranger. Though Kobold Press' ESL Ranger was very good, this one tops it. The slayer is a win from all angles for me.
Swashbuckler: I've always been intrigued with the gunslinger mechanics, so this was a good addition for me. Can't wait to try one out.
Warpriest: Great for the battle divine caster and great any-alignment paladin. And ALSO now I can make a character who kicks arse with a dagger (barring knife master rogue).
Some general notes: I don't get to play often so my opinions are on feel and fluff rather than full crunch and mechanics. Without actually playing a specific to see how it works, and if it is OP/UP/complex etc I feel any comments on mechanics would be very hollow.
The one thing that still grits me about the ACG classes is two of the names - Bloodrager and Warpriest. Both words are a portmanteau which harkens back to the days of bloat of 3.5 classes like Duskblade, Favoured Soul, Hexblade, Shadowcaster, Soulborn, Spellthief etc etc etc. Paizo has been fantastic with naming classes well up to this point. I would have much preferred Berserker for Bloodrager and Templar for Warpriest. In the greater scheme, this is a minor gripe.
All in all, I think the ACG did a great job and is one of the core books I will use from now on.
Investigator - I really like this class conceptually, but it seems far weaker than the other new classes (and than many previous classes).
Ehh, I think your wrong here. I have two statted out (one strength based and one dex based) and they both deliver more than many other martial classes, while being amazing Skill Monkeys and having great utility abilities. They are a little late developing (since they don't get studied combat until 4th), but 4th-5th on they have a massive upswing in power level, even without contributing every resource to combat (like a fighter would have to).
Brawler: I definitely see the niche to be filled here. It's the un-mystical monk or unarmed fighter (which was never really as good when it was a fighter archetype).
When I saw this class, my first thought was "Mixed Martial Arts". :-)
Re: Hunter. I want a beastmaster (basically a hunter with a team of animal companions. Lessee, Hosteen Storm had Baku (African black eagle), Hing and Ho (mated meerkats), a sandcat (sand tiger?) whose name I forget, and possibly one other companion in his original team. He later added Rain-on-Dust, an Appaloosa pony. Archetype, maybe?
|
Design Manager
|
Brawler: I definitely see the niche to be filled here. It's the un-mystical monk or unarmed fighter (which was never really as good when it was a fighter archetype).When I saw this class, my first thought was "Mixed Martial Arts". :-)
Re: Hunter. I want a beastmaster (basically a hunter with a team of animal companions. Lessee, Hosteen Storm had Baku (African black eagle), Hing and Ho (mated meerkats), a sandcat (sand tiger?) whose name I forget, and possibly one other companion in his original team. He later added Rain-on-Dust, an Appaloosa pony. Archetype, maybe?
There is a Pack Master archetype for the Hunter that allows you to have multiple animal companions.
There is a Pack Master archetype for the Hunter that allows you to have multiple animal companions.
Hm. Missed that. I'll go take a look. Thanks for pointing it out.
|
Design Manager
|
There is a Pack Master archetype for the Hunter that allows you to have multiple animal companions.Hm. Missed that. I'll go take a look. Thanks for pointing it out.
No problem. It's pretty standard fare, divvy up your AnC levels amongst your pets, choose a number of them (starting with just 1) to get the Focus and feats, etc.
Slayer, Investigator, Skald and Brawler are great. Special shoutout to the Slayer because Rogue fix.
Hunter, Shaman, Arcanist and Bloodrager are OK.
Warpriest and Swashbuckler are meh.
I thought the Slayer would be Rogue fix but having played on from level 1 to 12 now I'm finding the slayer isn't that roguish. I find I'm more like a spelless ranger with trap finding. A slayer is more of killer than a rogue. I guess it fixes the combat oriented rogue.
Well to be fair, for everything else that is usually considered "roguish" there was already the Bard.
I kind of see the slayer and investigator as dividing the rogue concept between them - the slayer as a fightery combat rogue and the investigator as the "skill rogue".
That said, the slayer changes a lot depending on what talents you take. The obvious option is the ranger style talents, combat trick and weapon training, but if you take talents like trapfinding, trap spotter, fast stealth etc you can make a very "rogueish" slayer.
|
Design Manager
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I kind of see the slayer and investigator as dividing the rogue concept between them - the slayer as a fightery combat rogue and the investigator as the "skill rogue".
That said, the slayer changes a lot depending on what talents you take. The obvious option is the ranger style talents, combat trick and weapon training, but if you take talents like trapfinding, trap spotter, fast stealth etc you can make a very "rogueish" slayer.
I like the Vanguard Slayer archetype for the "guild leader" type of build.
I kind of see the slayer and investigator as dividing the rogue concept between them - the slayer as a fightery combat rogue and the investigator as the "skill rogue".
That said, the slayer changes a lot depending on what talents you take. The obvious option is the ranger style talents, combat trick and weapon training, but if you take talents like trapfinding, trap spotter, fast stealth etc you can make a very "rogueish" slayer.
Stealth and trap finding isn't what makes a rogue a rogue. It's the whole package. While the class is weak it's interesting what you can do if the GM or published adventure allows you to do those things.
Stealth and trap finding isn't what makes a rogue a rogue. It's the whole package. While the class is weak it's interesting what you can do if the GM or published adventure allows you to do those things.
Okay, please narrow it down for me. Can you describe what you consider the "whole rogue package" and what aspects of it the slayer doesn't cover?
I'm looking and all I can see for rogues is
8 Skill Points/Level
Sneak Attack
Trapfinding
Evasion
Uncanny Dodge
Rogue Talents
Improved Evasion
Improved Uncanny Dodge
Advanced Talents
Master Strike
Good Reflex Save
I don't see how any of these actually make the Rogue good at any specific thing.
Skill points matter only for how many skills you max, not for how good you are at them. Sneak Attack is only good when paired with other offensive abilities. Trapfinding is cool and can be strong depending on the campaign, but it's parceled out like candy. Evasion, I. Evasion, Uncanny Dodge, and I. Uncanny Dodge are definitely cool, but are not strong enough to make the Rogue good at something the game throws at you often. Talents are mostly bad and situational. There are some cool Advanced Talents, but mostly they suffer Rogue talent problems. Good reflex save+I. Evasion makes mages just not target reflex.
All together the whole Rogue Package just makes a character who's mediocre at everything except Reflex Saves and fighting other Rogues.
Most other classes in the game are good at multiple things that show up commonly at the table and mediocre at everything else. Some are good at just about every common table occurrence. No other class as "a whole package" is as mediocre at everything as the Rogue is.
|
I was somewhat hesitant at first, being someone who really dislikes gestalt, but after reading I've been won over.
I shared the Brawler with my player who loves monks, but doesn't really give a flip about the ki powers. He was sold immediately.
I've got a player who always tries some weird Bard/Barbarian combo, and is never truly satisfied with the results. He read the Skald and started grinning.
One player loves Clerics, but dislikes the thought of playing a plate-clad priest. He likes the idea of them being more wizardly. Enter the Ecclesitheurge archetype. Asmodeus now has a more enthusiastic representative.
As a long time lover of Wizards, I'm interested in the Arcanist, but have yet to try one in play. The Exlpoiter archetype for Wizards has a certain appeal to me, as well.
Overall, I'm pleasantly surprised by the material I've seen. The new feats and archetypes allow you to fine-tune a lot of concepts to fit more closely with your ideal character. I know my next Druid is going to be a terror with this material.