What are everyones thoughts on the ACG hybrid classes?


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 242 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Sorry if this has been posted by someone else already but I'm new to the message boards. I was just wondering what everyone else's reactions have been to the new hybrid classes in the ACG?

I'm a massive fan of Paizo's previous books but the classes in the ACG just left me feeling a bit underwhelmed. I just can't shake the feeling that the majority are just a bit meh!

It's probably a result of my own preconceptions but when I was told there would be 10 new hybrid classes I was very keen to see what Paizo would come up with but I just can't help but feel uninspired by them.

Ok, yeah they have smoothed out a few of the hiccups from multiclassing the parent classes but they just seem like they have been mashed together.

In fairness, I haven't played any of the classes but on paper it looks like they are either a bit meh, or make one of the parent classes redundant (slayer I'm looking at you here!)

Let me know what you think of the new classes! I really want to like them, I just need to be convinced so please convince me!!

Have you played them? Which ones? How did you get on?


I finished reading through all of them yesterday. The Brawler and the Slayer are the two that interest me. The rest didn't do much for me.

I have wanted to play a no-weapons character that wasn't a monk for some time, and this version of the Brawler is the first iteration of one that looks like it might be worth trying.

The Slayer is (finally) a decent version of a hunter. I don't know why they didn't name that class "Hunter," to be honest. Still, it looks like something fun to play.

Now if they could just come up with a decent version of a knife fighter and a true shapeshifter, I would be happy.


I am currently running a hunter, but I have only been in one session so far, so I haven't seen what his combat is going to be like, yet.

But, his Wolf animal companion seems strong, and the two teamwork feats I took, which automatically apply to the wolf, will aid his archery nicely, I think. Enfilading Fire and Coordinated Shot work rather well for an archer. +2 to hit if your teamwork buddy is flanking, and +2 to hit if they are flanking and threatening. So, with the total -4 I have from Deadly Aim and Rapid Shot, they even out.

I admit, I worry about higher levels when the 3/4 BAB will start to show more and more, but right now, the character looks pretty solid.

i have to admit, though, when I made the character, I was almost done, and then thought "Oh! I have to pick spells". They were kind of an after thought, as so very few are useful to archery. The one notable exception is Gravity Bow. Had a tough time picking the other spells I know, though.

My final impression is I have a Ranger with a lower BAB and no combat style in exchange for casting at first level, adding the Druids spell list, and getting my animal companion at first level. You also lose favored enemy and terrain, but I don't miss them.

One thing concerning the animal companion, though, is it states you can take tricks for your animal companion from the Skirmisher Ranger archetype, but they don't seem to be for the animal, they seem like tricks for the Ranger. Not sure how they work.

I have heard a lot of moaning about the Arcanist, but I like the idea. This will be the class I use for any Arcane casters I play in the future.

Bloodrager and Brawler look very cool as well, and the idea of the Skald is pretty cool, too. Especially if there is another character with any rage ability (Barbarian, Bloodrager, or another Skald), as they can use the Raging Song of the Skald instead of their own rage ability, and then still have their full rage duration after the Skald has used his up. And they use their own bonuses while the Rage Song is active, AND they aren't fatigued afterwards!

So, all in all, I like them. The Slayer and Swashbucklers aren't really my cup of tea, and I haven't really done a divine caster, so the Shaman and Warpriest so I can't say if they are good, but I think I would go Warpriest if I ever did run a divine caster.


What about a class that has a proc based ability to just take massive damage and taunt enemies...ie a tank! Similar to that of rage but adds con and dex, natural armor, has class options for dr, resistances, fast healing. That'd be nice to see, a verifiable class based on defense and control that doesn't just rely on AC or killing the enemy quicker!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I really like shamans and witch-doctors and such as a concept, and it seems like the Shaman works a lot better for creating a character with that feel than previous options did. I've been stewing on the idea of a fierce spear-wielding warrior-shaman type character for a long time, so it's nice to have a whole ton of thematic options beyond an Ancestor or Occult oracle.

Improved Unarmed Strike -> Hex Strike: Evil Eye + Rime Frostbite + Dragon Style once per round w/bodywraps, in between spearing things with a Conductive spear that channels a melee touch ability, while making poltergeist-hair strikes (also Frostbite and bodywraps)... there's so many thematic ways to cross voodoo and direct violence I don't know where to begin.


BadBird, the shaman is one of the standout classes and for me has a very different flavour from both parent classes. I do like the brawler but then it is very similar to a house rule pc combo I used where the gm let me skip alignment restriction on monk cross class to fit a specific concept.

I like the idea behind the swashbuckler but I'm a bit concerned that the panache rules make the fighter an underpowered choice now.

The slayer seems to make the rogue redundant now too.

I like the core classes and genuinely feel that the newer classes shouldn't upstage their predecessors in terms of power level.

The warpriest, hunter, arcanist, bloodrager etc are good ideas, I guess I just wanted something that was more unique than an almost-but-not-quite multiclass.

Then again, they said hybrid and hybrid is what we got.


I really like them, they fill out some blanks that couldn't really be done before. I really like the Bloodrager. It's scary enough being around a barbarian. What's worse? Being around a spellcasting barbarian.


I genuinely want to like them. I do, maybe I've just been spoiled by Paizos previous offerings.


I really like the Bloodrager (finally an Arcane pseudo-caster that's a non-evil antithesis to the Paladin). It's easily my hands-down favorite, especially since it's a single-class-entrance into Dragon Disciple that integrates seamlessly with the Prestige Class (full BAB, high HP, gets bonus spells & the levels stack for Bloodline, plus, thematically, it fits to a "T").

The Warpriest is, hilariously, hands-down the single greatest unarmed combatant I've ever seen in the game - even if it wasn't intended as such - and I'm happy to say that it's the spiritual successor to the Favored Soul I've been wanting for years.

The Swashbuckler was by far my favorite during the Beta, as it seemed a great Alternate Class to the Gunslinger (I never saw one ounce of Fighter in it, frankly - just pure Gunslinger with a sword instead). Not much changed, and with the Archetypes, it's the perfect Erol-Flynn-esque swordsman class.

The Skald is really cool, flavor-wise, though I was a little disappointed that it didn't have a "real" rage ability - now we just need a true Barbarian-Cleric/Oracle Hybrid and you can have a party of nothing but VIKINGS

The Arcanist might actually be my favorite Arcane caster - it's got the best of both worlds of the Sorc and Wizard, and is kind of a "pure mage" as a result; I haven't tried the

I haven't used the Hunter, though it's neat that now you can have the Druid as the Full Caster, Hunter as the Half-Caster, Ranger as the Pseudo-Caster, and Skirmisher Archetype as the non-caster to cover act as a Nature-themed group of classes.

The Slayer seems cool; again, haven't used it, but it seems like it's great for creating bounty-hunters, and especially good for creating villainous NPCs.

The Investigator's a little weird until you consider that they were probably going for a very Holmesian design of an "investigator". Still a bit out there, but nice to see that the Alchemist is now in the company of another "Non-Magic Caster".

And the Brawler. Oh, the Brawler. That class is basically Paizo's way of saying "You wanna know what class Batman/Superman are? HERE! Now hush up!"


Interesting, though I expected to be dissapointed by this book, overall I have been very pleasantly surprized.

Ofcourse it's still very very early to come to any conclusions about the book, people will have to actually use it for quite some time first.


I'm disappointed. The whole book feels rushed and is loaded with editing problems.

The classes? Here is what I think:

Arcanist –I like the concept and it fills a much needed niche, a more flexible spontaious caster, but my gut feeling fells that is overpowered.

Bloodrager - Nice to have a full BAB class with arcane spells. The class seems really cool.

Brawler – Not something that really interest me. A bit disappointing, but bad.

Hunter – seems pointless. The archer /pet set up isn’t possible until level 2 unless you play a human and that bugs me. The class could be cool in low level campaigns, but past level 10 a druid or ranger will be far better than this.

Investigator – probably my favorite class. Seem rock solid from level 4. Some minor things bugs me, but overall a very good class.

Shaman – to complicated and the spell list is not to my liking. A disappointment. Also, I would have preferred if they made it a spontaneous caster and that they had dropped the pet. Shaman doesn’t strike me as someone that bonds with a pet, but more someone that bonds with nature or spirits. Also, I don't like pets. Hard to keep em alive if you don't even have mage armor on the spelll list.

Skald – not what I wanted. I had hoped for a full BAB class that was far more into buffing performances and less spells. More of a marshal class. Not saying the class is bad, it just isn’t what I had hoped for.

Slayer – Seems rock solid. One of the best designed classes in the book although I still got some very minor issues with this class, but nothing big. This one and the Investigator are the two classes that stands out. Well the Bloodrager is also a well done class.

Swashbuckler –Huge disappointment. The class isn’t mobile at all, bad saves and dex to damage is a letdown. It stuck with the same: stand still and full attack mechanics. It had so great potential but they just dropped the ball.

edit:

Warpriest – another huge disappointment. I, and most people, had hoped for a full BAB Divine Warrior. To be honest, it feels a bit pointless. Why not give people what they want? Also, I don’t think it manage to accomplish what it was set out to be.

Verdict:
Good: Investigator, Slayer and Bloodrager .

Nice but but must be nerfed or tweaked: Arcanist. It will work very well at our table if we nerfed it somewhat or if we don’t abuse it.

Disappointment: Shaman and Hunter

Big disappointments: Skald, Swashbuckler and Warpriest

I don’t care: Hunter and Brawler.


Zark wrote:
Arcanist –I like the concept and it fills a much needed niche, a more flexible spontaious caster, but my gut feeling fells that is overpowered.

While the exploits seem stronger than Bloodlines and bonus feats/generic school powers to me, I'm not sure I'd call it overpowered, at least not compared to the sorcerer or wizard.

The lower number of spells per day(unless you go school specialist) really feels like it could hurt a fair bit.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Grizzled Gryphon wrote:

I am currently running a hunter, but I have only been in one session so far, so I haven't seen what his combat is going to be like, yet.

Give her time. I just ran a Hunter through Dragon's Demand and I had a great time with it. The free teamwork feats give the Hunter a unique edge with her animal companion, don't discount them.


Poldaran wrote:
Zark wrote:
Arcanist –I like the concept and it fills a much needed niche, a more flexible spontaious caster, but my gut feeling fells that is overpowered.

While the exploits seem stronger than Bloodlines and bonus feats/generic school powers to me, I'm not sure I'd call it overpowered, at least not compared to the sorcerer or wizard.

The lower number of spells per day(unless you go school specialist) really feels like it could hurt a fair bit.

I specifically thinking about the Counterspell and Quick Study Arcanist exploit. Both need a nerf.

At limit to how many times per day Quick Study can Counterspell can be used would be a simple fix.

Edit:
Actually, I think a lot of the Arcanist exploit should come with a limit of uses per day. Just like the Oracle.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
thebigdog wrote:


I like the idea behind the swashbuckler but I'm a bit concerned that the panache rules make the fighter an underpowered choice now.

The slayer seems to make the rogue redundant now too.

just to be clear fighter and rogue had already been having their toes stepped on. The rogue suffers from multi-personality disorder, it's trying to be the guy that is great in out-of-combat scenarios and be that guy that can do massive dps through back stabbery, they fell short on both ends, and so the investigator and slayer were made to more specialize those roles.

The fighter, is just sort of feat man, they don't do much else and basically every other martial arguably steps on their toes at some point. Don't know how panache steps on the fighter's toes more than, say, rage, basically. Fighters also gained the mutagenic fighter archetype so they actually got a good buff.


Arcanist- not a fan of this one but it does fill a niche.

Bloodrager- I like the idea of a melee character with sorcerer bloodlines but I really do not like the rage mechanic.

Brawler- I love this class.

Hunter- I really like it though I would have liked a non-caster specialized with an animal(magical beast) companion.

Investigator- I really like this as well but wished it's status ailment abilities were gotten at a much earlier level.

Shaman- Not the version I would have liked.

Skald- Not big on this one but it fits well if you want something with Viking flavoring.

Slayer- Not a fan of assassin classes.

Swashbuckler-I love, love, love this class though I wish it got a good fort save or 6+int skill points.

Warpriest- Fills a niche but not fond of it.


Zark wrote:

I specifically thinking about the Counterspell and Quick Study Arcanist exploit. Both need a nerf.

At limit to how many times per day Quick Study can Counterspell can be used would be a simple fix.

Edit:
Actually, I think a lot of the Arcanist exploit should come with a limit of uses per day. Just like the Oracle.

Doesn't the action on Quick Study prevent it from being used with the Counterspell Exploit(or did you just mean using it on its own)? Also, successfully countering still requires a Dispel Check, does it not?

Counterspelling doesn't seem too terribly OP, especially since you're using up your limited number of spell slots on a less than sure thing. As for quick study, it might be a bit powerful if you can find a way to get the points to use it often, so I'll give you that one.

Paizo Employee

I've been doing in depth reviews but short version:

Arcanist - Pick of the litter. Probably replacing wizards in my game whole cloth, for flavor and bookkeeping reasons.

Bloodrager - So metal! Still an annoying amount of math like the barbarian... but so metal!

Brawler - Could be fun if you have a player that's willing to do the prep work for martial flexibility. Snakebite striker might show up in my games.

Hunter - A good take on the "pet class" but I'm still leery of the time it'll take to resolve their turn in combat.

Investigator - Really want to like it, but I doubt it'll show up in my game without houserules.

Shaman - Like the investigator, really want to like it. Unlike the investigator, I don't think houserules can batter down its complexity.

And four more to go.

Cheers!
Landon


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

Arcanist - Feels actually really nice conceptually, doesn't fully live up to its fluff though and feels unnecessary holistically given how crowded 9th level arcane is.

Bloodrager - Cool, flavorful, thematic, but has some identity issues with its spell list and ultimately ends up feeling too much like a base barbarian (especially when you factor in primalist).

Brawler - Martial Flexibility is damn cool, the rest of the chassis is a bit eh. Awesome blow is really a 16th level skill? Ech

Hunter - Again, feels a bit unnecessary given that ranger and druid were already similar. Ends up often feeling like Druid-1 or Summoner-1. Still manages to be pretty cool in its own right and has a great pet that's probably more balanced than either of those parent classes.

Investigator - Probably the best class of the lot. Flavorful, well balanced, has some relatively new design space given the nature of the ACG. Studied Combat delayed till 4 is annoying though and how fearful they were of the debuff strikes is a shame too. 9/10

Shaman - Pretty cool themes, but feels a bit uninspired when a lot of its spirits and hexes are just pulled straight from the parents. Not a bad class though.

Skald - Personally don't like it, but manages to be a pretty good bardbarian without making either the bard or barbarian look bad.

Slayer - For its role, it's pretty good. Decent damage, Decent non-damage options. It does suffer from some redundant features though. Studied Target smells an awful lot like the Investigator's feature from only a few pages ago, and Quarry is basically the same concept applied yet again.

Swashbuckler - Probably the biggest failure of the book. The class is not mobile. It has terrible action economy issues and ultimately just doesn't do very much to create a particularly iconic swashbuckler. It's serviceable at least and probably better than a fighter though.

Warpriest - So, almost ironically, I'm calling this one a bit redundant too. Fighter-Cleric is a design space that's already extremely crowded. Inquisitors, Paladins, Clerics themselves all playing the same role. Warpriest does it pretty cleanly though, even if it can be a Cleric-1 in a lot of situations.

Quote:
Investigator - Really want to like it, but I doubt it'll show up in my game without houserules.

I can see where you're coming from, and the suggested change in your blog certainly isn't a bad one, but I feel like you're overstating the complexity of studied combat by a bit. I do agree with the proposed change though.

Dark Archive

I adore the Skald and Sacred Fist Warpriest, like the Bloodrager and Slayer, and find most of the rest of the book interesting, if not exactly stuff I care about usually.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Overall? Books great.

A lot of the disappointment comes from high expectations. All the classes function just fine, redundant or not. We can argue until we're blue about how X is better than X but at the end of the day they do their job at the table and that's what matters.


Arcanist – I'm sure most forum members know how I feel about this class by now, but here I go anyway: It's broken. It's overpowered enough to obsolete Sorcerers and give Wizards a run for their moneys. As if being a arcane full caster wasn't enough, Arcane Exploits have some of the most powerful effects in the game. The class also doesn't really allow any character concept that wasn't possible before.

Bloodrager - Cool class. I worry it steals too much of the Barbarian's thunder, though. I'd say that any Barbarian that doesn't conform to "the one true build".

Brawler – It's... Okay, I guess. Like many other classes, Brawler suffers from the "If I can't hit stuff, I can't contribute" problem, but they at least have some versatility in combat. Interesting addition, but could use some improvement.

Hunter – Completely pointless. At best it's a mediocre class that doesn't allow any character concept that couldn't be achieved by playing a Druid, Ranger or Inquisitor with Fur/Feather domain.

Investigator – Great class. Very interesting and balanced. Overall, a very well designed class.

Shaman – I like it. Spell list could use some work, though.

Skald – I really don't like the idea of a single characters giving another class' main class feature to the whole party. Martial classes already struggle enough without casters stealing their toys. Other than that, it's mostly okay.

Slayer – Possibly the best designed class in the book. Finally, a mundane Rogue that works. Its class features are interesting, effective and useful. Love it.

Swashbuckler – Tsc... When I thought I couldn't be more disappointed, we get a "mobile" combatant that is no more mobile than anyone who has Acrobatics as a class skill. Awful saves (Charmed Life is pathetic), zero mobility and slightly-better-than-horrible out of combat utility makes the SB just another victim of "Stand still or suck" syndrome. The way they handled Dex to damage just adds salt to the injury.

Warpriest - I was interested in the class... Until it got nerfed to the point where it became pointless. Why play this instead of an Inquisitor or Oracle?

And then we have archetypes such as:

Exploiter Wizard - Because Arcanists aren't broken enough.

Daring Champion Cavalier - Which is a better swashbuckler than the Swashbuckler, but that isn't saying much. Good archetype that mixes two bad classes.

Primalist Bloodrager - Steps even harder on the Barbarian's toes.

Eldritch Scion Magus - Cool Idea. Bad execution. Has to spend arcane points just to use their main class feature. WTF? Did no one realize that Arcane Pool is not nearly as plentiful as Bloodrage rounds?


TarkXT wrote:

Overall? Books great.

A lot of the disappointment comes from high expectations. All the classes function just fine, redundant or not. We can argue until we're blue about how X is better than X but at the end of the day they do their job at the table and that's what matters.

I'm not sure why you're phrasing it like high expectations are a bad thing or that we should have really really low standards for this sort of thing.

"It kind of works I guess so it's fine" doesn't really help anyone.


anlashok wrote:


"It kind of works I guess so it's fine" doesn't really help anyone.

Except I did not say that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
TarkXT wrote:

Overall? Books great.

A lot of the disappointment comes from high expectations. All the classes function just fine, redundant or not. We can argue until we're blue about how X is better than X but at the end of the day they do their job at the table and that's what matters.

I disagree. The book is pretty bad, if just for its awful editing alone.

I'm not sure if Swashbucklers do their job, either.

I suppose they kinda do it in the sense that they can stand still and full attack like any other class in the game (unless they have to make a saving throw, then they are screwed), but they fail to do the job of being a martial class with real mobility.


Arcanist - this class seems to say that the Sorcerer was too weak. I'm not sure I am ok with that.

Brawler - Added spont feats to the game, the class itself is kind'of meh. Defiantly the mundane monk people have been looking for though.

Hunter - I like the hunter. I think it does "the pet class" right.

Investigator - The rogue I always wanted.

Shaman - Eh it's ok. I don't really have the desire to play one.

Skald - Bardbarian = best class

Slayer - The other rogue I always wanted.

Swashbuckler - Easily the biggest flop in the book. The mechanics just don't click well for me.

Warpriest - Divine Magus and the magus is a great class.

Now I actually like certain archetypes better.
Like the Martial Master Mutagen Warrior.
I've been obsessing over it: Build Path, lvl 12 version, lvl 20 version, Mythic Version
It's barely a fighter anymore, but it seems like a competent character that scales well into high levels.


Arcanist- Overpowered, but the biggest issue is the way its archetypes rob entire class features wholesale from other arcane casters and staple it onto the best casting method in the game. Black blade, spellstrike, summoner's summon monster, I can accept that. But a full bloodline or arcane school? No. 1/10

Bloodrager- A martial class that feels flavorful, fun, and has out of combat utility. Easily my favorite from the book. Primalist archetype is problematic for barbarians, but at least it makes the class itself more interesting. 9/10

Brawler- Even the monk is more interesting than this guy. He's mechanically solid, he just doesn't strike my fancy at all. 5/10

Hunter- With the small but significant improvements, the animal companion is now a terror. Does the 'pet class' right. Spell list is still weak, and animal focus is too easily obsoleted by items everyone gets, but overall, a success. Primal Companion Hunter is amazing. 8/10

Investigator- Fun, innovative and mechanically solid. The only beef I have with the investigator is that he doesn't compare so well to the similar vivisectionist alchemist. 9/10

Shaman- Still feels too derivative. They tweaked the oracle revelations a bit and stapled on witch hexes and a familiar. Mechanically it's solid, but I'm not feeling a niche compared to cleric/witch/oracle/druid. 5/10

Skald- It works. I would like to see more archetype support, but I think that will come in time. Granting rage powers gives a unique niche and the flavor is there for sure. 9/10

Slayer- The biggest disappointment is the piss-poor slayer talent selection. The best thing it gets from the talents is combat feats, with few exceptions the rest are uninteresting class features that already existed. Does very little new or unique. Other than that, solid. 6/10

Swashbuckler- Yeah. It's bad. Other people have already discussed this extensively. 2/10

Warpriest- It's not unique or interesting, but it's very functional. Blessings are a missed opportunity and should have just been domains if all they were going to be was domain rehashes. 6/10


Why would someone play a Barbarian over a Primalist Bloodrager?

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Quicker access to Rage powers, ability to take Extra Rage Power feat, Invulnerable Rager, etc.


One more vote on the "Arcanist is busted" side. The devs don't seem to have listened, at all, to the concerns about this class that were voiced during the playtest. I dunno if it's quite a Summoner-level derp (or a not changing the 3.5 Druid-level derp), but it isn't pretty.

Liberty's Edge

Arcanist: Obsoletes the Sorcerer in many ways, but I'm not sure that's a huge problem given how much weaker Sorcerer was than Wizard anyway and the fact that the thing you could actually do with Sorcerer rather than Wizard (spam one spell until people die) isn't nearly as viable an option for them. They also have less spells per day than anybody, so there's that. All in all, fairly balanced with the Wizard, IMO.

Bloodrager: A fun and effective option, though, as I've argue elsewhere, not a gigantically good replacement for an optimized Barbarian. Maybe a little easier to optimize, but not more powerful in a meaningful sense.

Brawler: I like it. It's got decent skills, some in-combat versatility, and just generally seems fun and effective at what it does. Simpler than a Qinggong Monk in many ways, too. Especially if you trade out Martial Versatility (and there are some good things to trade it for...Snakebite Striker gets Sneak Attack, and Wild Child an Animal Companion and Skirmisher Tricks).

Hunter: Looks like melee Hunters are very good indeed at low levels, and archery ones are okay. Eventually fall behind a Druid, but who doesn't? Seems solid enough. Dipping in the Vermin archetype and killing your pet is probably too good, but that's a really niche corner case.

Investigator: My favorite thing ever. There is no part of this Class that doesn't make me happy inside...well, aside from the ridiculous level minimums on the Strike-based Talents. But those are easy enough to fix or ignore. And Empiricist is made of win.

Shaman: Looks very solid and fun. It's a little weird that they lack Sense Motive as a class skill, but that's about my biggest complaint. The Animist in particular looks like it'd be great fun to play. Not my favorite class, but a neat one.

Skald: Very solid, lots of fun, will play. Actually synergizes surprisingly well with a Barbarian, Bloodrager, or other full BAB melee type. Their lack of Wind Instruments is weird and deeply annoying, but that's about my only complaint.

Slayer: Perfect. The Rogue, Fighter, and spell-less Ranger people have always wanted all rolled into one. It's easily the best non-spellcaster in existence at out of combat stuff, and second only to the Barbarian of non-spellcasters in combat. Just beautiful.

Swashbuckler: Sadly disappointing. Basically, Swashbucklers don't have the Saves to stand up and take the role of frontliner, and aren't designed right for anything else. Their sheer number of abilities that'll never get used because they all take a Swift or Immediate action is also a bit annoying, but not the end of the world if it weren't for that first problem. This is particularly annoying since the Class is otherwise well-built to stand as a Dex-based frontliner, and a few changes in Charmed Life would've been sufficient to fix the issue.

Warpriest: A bit disappointing as well, though not as much as the Swashbuckler. Again, there are too many Swift actions competing for use, and IMO little reason to choose this over Inquisitor, who have similar spellcasting combat about on-par, and out-of-combat stuf that's better by an order of magnitude. It's not terrible, it's just not great either.

I like most of the Archetypes and Feats, too (though divine Protection is terrible and should not exist). So, all told, I'm pretty happy, though I still hold out vague hope that something will be done to help out the Swashbuckler's Saves.


I think Arcanist did not live up to the hype (even with some of it's really really awesome archetypes) and that the Shaman is being criminally underrated at the moment. (Though ya, what's up with no Sense Motive? The lack of Summon Monster on the class is also quite painful.)


I've only had experience with the hunter (at low levels).

I think the hunter was a massive success in terms of combining two classes and making a hybrid. The truth is that this class does exactly what it's supposed to.

You're weaker than a ranger in melee (obviously). With modest BaB and hit dice and ONE bonus combat feat (percise shot or outflank), you really struggle to come into your own as a combatant. You're worse off casting spells than a druid, although I secretly wonder weather or not a dedicated casting build is viable. But with teamwork feats buffing yourself and the best animal companion in the whole game, it's not hard to see the potential for an extremely effective combat character.

I've heard some complaints in regards to the hunter and I just can't sympathize. This is one of the most middle of the road classes in the game (IMO) with regards to overall power level. There is literally not an ounce of cheese of , just a capable combatant with a unique spell list mechanic, easy spontaneous preparation of said awesome spell list and viability as a melee or ranged fighter, and possibly as a dedicated caster.


Despite everything the Arcanist and it's archetypes can do... I guess I'm just not seeing the problem. My buddy says he's gonna run a delve, and my first thought was: "I'll play a wizard."

I haven't looked at their spell list yet, but I do like Shaman quite a lot. Brawler seems bland(but not Wild Child), and both Hunter and Skald look really fun too.

Paizo Employee

Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
Investigator - Really want to like it, but I doubt it'll show up in my game without houserules.
I can see where you're coming from, and the suggested change in your blog certainly isn't a bad one, but I feel like you're overstating the complexity of studied combat by a bit. I do agree with the proposed change though.

We are kind of simplicity snobs :) It's very possible other groups won't be annoyed by stuff we are.

With studied strike, though, it's more that the added tracking almost never matters. So I'd rather whoever's tracking it use that extra brain space for something more interesting.

Cheers!
Landon


I played the Bloodrager and The arcanist pregens over at gencon, I liked them, the arcanist when played right is a lot more versatile than I thought it would be, and I finally found a reason to like color spray, The bloodrager I enjoyed as a one hit kill class that allowed me to squish a couple of enemies first shot.

My friend meanwhile played an investigator He did 2 damage through six quests and still loved him. I'm looking forward at getting to give the rest a shot


Given the amount of problems the book has, I won't be playing anything out of it for quite some time. However if there was some reason or game and someone said to pick a class from the ACG, I would have to pick the Slayer. It is as close to a Ranger as I can get without spells and favored enemy is simplified. I could even mix a standard ranger with Rogue talents I suppose. So there are some combinations there that I like.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Well, my personal reactions are...

Arcanist: Looks less annoying to play as than a wizard, but I would still rather play a sorcerer. I don't think it really fills a new niche, but could easily take the place of the wizard in-setting as a less school-oriented master of magic. Then again, so could the exploiter wizard or spell sage wizard. Any would be welcome, I don't mind school-oriented wizards, but think it's a bit dull that they're the norm instead of variants (and universalist doesn't count).

Bloodrager: A very welcome arrival as far as I'm concerned, both thematically and mechanically. The same themes of either magical contamination or eldritch heritage as a sorcerer, but more focused on martial prowess than magic, which opens up some interesting things. Sure, there was eldritch heritage if you previously wanted to explore that, but it was a bit of a feat investment. And mechanically, I've been wanting a full BAB four level arcane caster for awhile, so I'm happy to see the bloodrager filling that niche. Do kind of wish the buff-raging kicked in earlier, but I suppose that would be stepping on the warpriest's toes a bit.

Brawler: Ehhhh. I suppose it's good to have it exist, but I like monks more for their mysticism. That said, for people who wanted to play a pugilist without being a fighter and without the monk's mysticism, I suppose it's an okay role to fill. Can't say as I'm too interested, though some of the archetypes for it are more intriguing.

Hunter: Looks kind of interesting. I prefer the summoner for a pet class, but it is an interesting pet class with its emphasis on teamwork feats, and it's a spontaneous caster, which interests me. Might try it out. I think it's kind of pointless that it gets summon nature's ally spells automatically, though...

Investigator: Looks like a good option for people who like skilled characters. I like the infiltrator archetype in particular, but wish they got a longer duration...even with the caster level boost, I don't think one minute/level lasts long enough to infiltrate something well, a long-standing gripe of mine about alter self's reduced duration in Pathfinder...makes a dandy combat buff, but a terrible disguise for anything other than extremely brief encounters. But I suppose that's getting off on a tangent...

Shaman: I like it more than I like cleric or druid. Not inherently linked to deities, with a primitive vibe without being locked and riveted to nature the way that most druids are. Additionally, spirit magic along with a spirit and eventual wandering spirits give it an interesting blend of prepared and spontaneous casting. Also, the animist archetype amuses me greatly.

Skald: Ehhhhh. Honestly, it seems pretty unnecessary to me, really...all I see is a variant bard. That said, I don't dislike it despite thinking it's not really necessary, but I wish they had gone a bit more wild with it, like a full BAB 4 level caster, or even no casting, just with some potent bardsong or sonic abilities...or something else altogether. That said, spell kenning is pretty nifty. I'm not sure why it's skald-appropriate, but it is pretty nifty.

Slayer: I think it's good that this exists, but I really have no interest in playing it. I like characters with supernatural elements, and this is basically a badass normal type. If someone wants to play a badass normal, this is probably the class I would recommend to them, but I am not that person.

Swashbuckler: Again, I don't really have too much interest in this...but it's neat that it exists. Though I wish it wasn't riveted to light or one-handed piercing weapons. Panache seems like a neat thing, but I think I'm more likely to try out the eldritch scion magus and nab some deeds.

Warpriest: Well...seems effective. Gets some nice blessings, can make some normally less optimal weapons deal more damage, fervor seems quite useful for quickly buffing up, and blessings are a neat concept. But I don't really like the concept of a cleric that much, so this doesn't really do much for me. I kind of wish it was a full BAB 4 level casting type, though...domains seem like a much better thing to base a divine warrior around than alignment axes. But that may just be me.


Im beyond in love with hunter and investigator. So many cool mechanics and hunter is very along th ther lines what I want from divine. I need to lear more about druid spells and shape change.
Basically with feral docus amd a few feats I can make riza from princess ressuurection.
It really does need some clarity on the focus ability especially feral focus. In specific what happens if pet dies and you both have same effect on. Its be cool if it double downed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I never like the "hybrid" class concept. At first it was advertised as what they did with the magus, but in the end it is not.

The slayer for example. It is a solid class, but it is just the same old calss features everyone know over and over again. Boring.

Contributor

Seranov wrote:
Quicker access to Rage powers, ability to take Extra Rage Power feat, Invulnerable Rager, etc.

More rage powers in general, too.


I have only seen the final version of the swashbuckler in action, and while it has some neat tricks, and can put out good damage it might need better defense. I will attempt to build one myself at level 12 to see if I can address what I saw at the table.

I did build a slayer and a warpriest, but I did not play them. They both look solid on paper, but not spectacular.

Contributor

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Stark_ wrote:
Slayer- The biggest disappointment is the piss-poor slayer talent selection. The best thing it gets from the talents is combat feats, with few exceptions the rest are uninteresting class features that already existed. Does very little new or unique. Other than that, solid. 6/10

Here's a relevant post you might want to read, and this followup post, too.


The Arcanist makes me sad, because the only thing that a Sorcerer is good for is if you want WIS- or CHA-based 9th level casting now (and if a swap-spellcasting-stat archetype comes out for the Arcanist, expect that reason to vanish as well). Their primary class feature (bloodline) has even been whittled down to an exploit for an Arcanist or a 12-15k magic item.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Stark_ wrote:
Slayer- The biggest disappointment is the piss-poor slayer talent selection. The best thing it gets from the talents is combat feats, with few exceptions the rest are uninteresting class features that already existed. Does very little new or unique. Other than that, solid. 6/10
Here's a relevant post you might want to read, and this followup post, too.

I believe what he means is unique Slayer Talents, something only the Slayer gets.

As-is, while many of the options are good, they also exemplify the worst the ACG's concept has to offer...merely a copy and paste of other class' features as options for the Slayer.

Of the many "Slayer Talents" in the book, only 3 regular Talents (Foil Scrutiny, Slowing Strike, and Deadly Range) are unique, and none of the Advanced Talents are.

The rest are either straight up Rogue Talents or Feats, or "Here, take these class features one of the parent classes had".

While many of these options, again, are solid choices (especially Ranger Combat Style, Evasion, and Trapfinding IMO), they're not particularly inspired, which makes the class disappointing in that regard even if it's pretty damn good otherwise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Poldaran wrote:
Zark wrote:

I specifically thinking about the Counterspell and Quick Study Arcanist exploit. Both need a nerf.

At limit to how many times per day Quick Study can Counterspell can be used would be a simple fix.

Edit:
Actually, I think a lot of the Arcanist exploit should come with a limit of uses per day. Just like the Oracle.

Doesn't the action on Quick Study prevent it from being used with the Counterspell Exploit(or did you just mean using it on its own)? Also, successfully countering still requires a Dispel Check, does it not?

Counterspelling doesn't seem too terribly OP, especially since you're using up your limited number of spell slots on a less than sure thing. As for quick study, it might be a bit powerful if you can find a way to get the points to use it often, so I'll give you that one.

I meant using the abilities on their own. Counterspelling may not seem to be terribly OP, but regardless of Dispel Checks this ability is very powerful, especially when the PC faces a Boss with this ability (boss being higher levels than the PC’s) or when the PC’s fighting creatures that cast spells that can easily be Counterspelled. This ability can easily kill a blaster that mostly relies on adding meta magic to low level spells such as fireballs.

As for Quick Study, we seem to agree. I just want to point out that I’m in no way saying it is too good to use in battle. It is actually rather awkward to use in battle, the problem is more that it can be use before and after the battle. The balancing factor of the class is its limitation. Removing the limitation is to remove the balance. Pearls of power are cheap and add Quick Study and you have a full arcane caster that is far better than the Sorcerer. As pointed out by Deadmanwalking, the wizard is still probably just as good as the Arcanist (or even more powerful).

Landon Winkler wrote:

I've been doing in depth reviews

...
Cheers!
Landon

I agree to some parts with your analysis about the Shaman and Investigator (and also to some extent the Skald). A lot of the stuff in this book just seems to be too complicated. Shaman is a good example of this. I’d go as far as even saying it is more complicated that it needs to be.

Studied combat is one of those things that may not be ‘too complicated’, but is sure is more complicated that it needs to be. I agree with Squiggit” “that the suggested change in your blog certainly isn't a bad one , but I feel like you're overstating the complexity of studied combat by a bit. I do agree with the proposed change though
Not gaining Studied combat until level 4 is also somewhat problematic, but not a huge problem.
Stark_ wrote:


...

Slayer- The biggest disappointment is the piss-poor slayer talent selection. The best thing it gets from the talents is combat feats, with few exceptions the rest are uninteresting class features that already existed. Does very little new or unique. Other than that, solid. 6/10
...

I wouldn’t say the slayer talent selection is piss-poor, but I agree it could have some more talents, especially advanced talents. I think “time and space” was an issue with this book. Not enough space to cram all the stuff they wanted into the book, not enough time to rinse out the bad stuff and awkward wording and this also led to not having enough space for what really was needed in the book. That said Ranger Combat Style is awesome. I love that he does not need to have the normal prerequisites to pick those feats. I think they got it right even though I really dislike sneak attack. There are some other minor issues I have with the class such as not having diplomacy as a class skill (and I personally prefer classes that get spells), but I really think they nailed it with this class. I really like the simplicity of the class. For those that like a more mundane rogue we now have the slayer and for those of us that want a rogue that uses magic we now have the Investigator.

BTW, when I told my friend about the class he wanted to play one in next campaign. He doesn’t like spells and he always dreamt of playing something like this. I think there are many players out there that have been waiting for something like this, a really good spell less ranger that is more of Slayer than a Ranger. Also, the fact that the spell less Ranger A) is not very good, and B) haven’t got any support from The Devs has really made a lot of people avoid that Archetype. I know it is a matter of taste so I won’t say you are wrong in not liking the Slayer.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Arcanist: Obsoletes the Sorcerer in many ways, but I'm not sure that's a huge problem given how much weaker Sorcerer was than Wizard anyway and the fact that the thing you could actually do with Sorcerer rather than Wizard (spam one spell until people die) isn't nearly as viable an option for them. They also have less spells per day than anybody, so there's that. All in all, fairly balanced with the Wizard, IMO.

Well put. That is how I feel too. I think the problem with Sorcerer vs the Arcanist lies with the Sorcerer not the Arcanist, although I still think they should nerf stuff such as Quick Study.

I think, no I know, that this will be our default full arcane caster. In some ways it is influenced by 5e.
Deadmanwalking wrote:


Investigator: My favorite thing ever. There is no part of this Class that doesn't make me happy inside...well, aside from the ridiculous level minimums on the Strike-based Talents. But those are easy enough to fix or ignore. And Empiricist is made of win.

I totally agree that ridiculous level minimums on the Strike-based Talents is annoying.

These are the things that bother me with the class:

  • It not getting cantrips or spell-lie abilities that can be cast at will (detect magic, detect poison, Sift, light, etc.)
  • Studied combat being overcomplicated
  • Not gaining Studied combat until level 4
  • Studied Strike. I think they either should have boost it or stopped it from killing Studied combat.
  • The ridiculous level minimums on the Strike-based Talents

Despite my minor issues with the class I still really like it. How cool is that?

What however is problematic is the poor editing of the class. For example the Quick Study talent says it lets an investigator use his studied combat ability as swift action instead of a standard action, but the studied combat ability says it’s a move action. Stuff like this is really problematic.


Sean K Reynolds wrote:
Stark_ wrote:
Slayer- The biggest disappointment is the piss-poor slayer talent selection. The best thing it gets from the talents is combat feats, with few exceptions the rest are uninteresting class features that already existed. Does very little new or unique. Other than that, solid. 6/10
Here's a relevant post you might want to read, and this followup post, too.

I agree with others that more unique Slayer Talents would have been nice. That said I think you should be proud of the Slayer. To me the Slayer and Investigator are two most rock solid classes in the book.

edit:

BTW, could you explain this to me?

ACG wrote:


Any talent effects
based on rogue level use the slayer’s class level. A slayer
can select this talent multiple times
. If the rogue talent
has a prerequisite (such as the major magic rogue talent
requiring the minor magic talent), the slayer must fulf ill
the prerequisite before taking that rogue talent. This
talent can be selected multiple times; each time, it grants
the slayer a new rogue talent.

Does this mean he can takle Combat Trick more than once?

Liberty's Edge

Zark wrote:
What however is problematic is the poor editing of the class. For example the Quick Study talent says it lets an investigator use his studied combat ability as swift action instead of a standard action, but the studied combat ability says it’s a move action. Stuff like this is really problematic.

Eh, I looked through that chapter. From what I can tell, the editing is actually about equally bad throughout.

I'm annoyed about that, but wouldn't be inclined to single out any particular class due to it.


Zark wrote:

each time, it grants

the slayer a new rogue talent.

Does this mean he can takle Combat Trick more than once?

see bold


christos gurd wrote:
Zark wrote:

each time, it grants

the slayer a new rogue talent.

Does this mean he can takle Combat Trick more than once?

see bold

It is listed twice, and I can see no reason why excpet that some can be taaken twice some can't.

1 to 50 of 242 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / What are everyones thoughts on the ACG hybrid classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.