(My definition of 'power' being, effectiveness in a wider range of scenarios)
To me, that sounds more like versatility. I consider power to be a measure of how quickly you end an encounter. A blaster sorcerer with cross-blooded can have a lot of power, but not as much versatility as some other casters. Or, a martial archer can kill a lot of things very quickly, but doesn't do much outside of that.
Even with all the recent improvements, you still think Warpriest is more powerful than Fighter?
But yes I take your point... the Fighter should have been 'Unchained' as opposed to 'Band-aided'!
To me, that sounds more like versatility. I consider power to be a measure of how quickly you end an encounter. A blaster sorcerer with cross-blooded can have a lot of power, but not as much versatility as some other casters. Or, a martial archer can kill a lot of things very quickly, but doesn't do much outside of that.
Yes I see where you're coming from but then the ability to "end an encounter" is dependent entirely on the encounter itself.
y=f(x) and all that!! :)
Hmmm... we need a grand unifying definition me thinks!
Even with all the recent improvements, you still think Warpriest is more powerful than Fighter?
Even before the improvements, the fighter would do slightly more damage, excluding summoning shenanigans. But the warpriest has a lot more versatility as a prepared divine caster. It only looks bad, because the cleric can do the same thing, but better.
How in the world would a Core rogue be more fun than a slayer? Do you have fun because you're bad?
Because the original rogue is better, more well rounded, and more fun class. Unchained rogues are awful. They curtailed the talent list and tried to cover it up by giving out some ”kombat skillz" they didn't need. The kiddies don't seem to notice because they were playing it wrong already. Don't get me started on why the rest of Unchained is garbage.
|
How in the world would a Core rogue be more fun than a slayer? Do you have fun because you're bad?Because the original rogue is better, more well rounded, and more fun class. Unchained rogues are awful. They curtailed the talent list and tried to cover it up by giving out some ”kombat skillz" they didn't need. The kiddies don't seem to notice because they were playing it wrong already. Don't get me started on why the rest of Unchained is garbage.
What? Unchained talents are actually useful. Which talents are you talking about?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How in the world would a Core rogue be more fun than a slayer? Do you have fun because you're bad?Because the original rogue is better, more well rounded, and more fun class. Unchained rogues are awful. They curtailed the talent list and tried to cover it up by giving out some ”kombat skillz" they didn't need. The kiddies don't seem to notice because they were playing it wrong already. Don't get me started on why the rest of Unchained is garbage.
You're joking right? You must be. I'm pretty sure that original rogue isn't better at anything. I know that the original rogue was not well rounded. Like what's this "proper way" to play the rogue that makes it so much more awesome than classes that are better than it?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It's not that Hunters aren't different... They simply aren't different enough. They barely an archetype. There's no character concept that can be achieved via Hunter than couldn't be achieved just as well via Druid, Ranger, or Inquisitor with the right selection of feats/archetypes, unless you have a very, very narrow definition of that concept.
You really can't have played a Hunter that much if you can say that. Hunters have an intriguing spell list combining both druid and ranger lists and they get access to ranger spells before the rangers do, at the price of having to choose specific ones for a spontaneous casting list.
Hunters are now the best pet class outside of the Summoner. They can leverage both teamwork feats and spells in a way a Druid and Ranger can not match... period.
But one of the gems is the flexible bonus of the Animal Focus. A Hunter can adapt to a wide variety of situations with it. Almost whatever you need more of at the moment, a Hunter can call upon it. (Archer Hunters are going to find the adaptive enchantment the best one they can buy.)
In other news, black is white, up is down, and Fighters get too many skill points.
More seriously, most GMs I've met wouldn't object to taking an old talent on UC Rogue. There's a bit of a workaround where you can take Ninja Trick for Rogue Talent anyway.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
LOL! Core Rogue was one of the least effective classes in the game. It was obsoleted by literally half a dozen other classes (at least).
It offered nothing to the player. Awful saves, awful accuracy, poor to mediocre AC, Rogue Talents that ranged from "acceptable" to "complete garbage"... And ZERO attack abilities other than Sneak Attack, which is simply not good enough to be one
Hell! They aren't even very good at skills.
LOL! Core Rogue was one of the least effective classes in the game. It was obsoleted by literally half a dozen other classes (at least).
It offered nothing to the player. Awful saves, awful accuracy, poor to mediocre AC, Rogue Talents that ranged from "acceptable" to "complete garbage"... And ZERO attack abilities other than Sneak Attack, which is simply not good enough to be one
Hell! They aren't even very good at skills.
Again, what is your measure of "very good" if 8+Int bonus points per level, and a selection of some of the most useful class skills of the game are not enough to cut the mustard for you?
It's not that Hunters aren't different... They simply aren't different enough. They barely an archetype. There's no character concept that can be achieved via Hunter than couldn't be achieved just as well via Druid, Ranger, or Inquisitor with the right selection of feats/archetypes, unless you have a very, very narrow definition of that concept.You really can't have played a Hunter that much if you can say that. Hunters have an intriguing spell list combining both druid and ranger lists and they get access to ranger spells before the rangers do, at the price of having to choose specific ones for a spontaneous casting list.
Hunters are now the best pet class outside of the Summoner. They can leverage both teamwork feats and spells in a way a Druid and Ranger can not match... period.
But one of the gems is the flexible bonus of the Animal Focus. A Hunter can adapt to a wide variety of situations with it. Almost whatever you need more of at the moment, a Hunter can call upon it. (Archer Hunters are going to find the adaptive enchantment the best one they can buy.)
You completely missed my point (or intentionally ignored it). I won't discuss it any further.
BTW, saying adding "...period." to tbe ene of your sentence doesn't matically turn your opinion into fact.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hear that "full stop" does, however.
Again, what is your measure of "very good" if 8+Int bonus points per level, and a selection of some of the most useful class skills of the game are not enough to cut the mustard for you?LOL! Core Rogue was one of the least effective classes in the game. It was obsoleted by literally half a dozen other classes (at least).
It offered nothing to the player. Awful saves, awful accuracy, poor to mediocre AC, Rogue Talents that ranged from "acceptable" to "complete garbage"... And ZERO attack abilities other than Sneak Attack, which is simply not good enough to be one
Hell! They aren't even very good at skills.
Being good at those skills would be nice. Being mediocre in all of them isn't very impressive...
Literally all other skilled classes are better skill monkeys than the core rogue. Anyone who manages to get 6 skill points per level makes a more useful character... That includes pretty much all Int-based classes.
8 skill points is not much of an advantage over 6 skill points... Specially when that's all you have going for you. You're now assigning ranks to your 7th and 8th most useful skill... Whoopie-dee-doo...
Again, what is your measure of "very good" if 8+Int bonus points per level, and a selection of some of the most useful class skills of the game are not enough to cut the mustard for you?LOL! Core Rogue was one of the least effective classes in the game. It was obsoleted by literally half a dozen other classes (at least).
It offered nothing to the player. Awful saves, awful accuracy, poor to mediocre AC, Rogue Talents that ranged from "acceptable" to "complete garbage"... And ZERO attack abilities other than Sneak Attack, which is simply not good enough to be one
Hell! They aren't even very good at skills.
Probably a mechanic like Bardic Knowledge, Inspiration, or Derring-Do that makes you better than anyone else at using the skill.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Again, what is your measure of "very good" if 8+Int bonus points per level, and a selection of some of the most useful class skills of the game are not enough to cut the mustard for you?
Well, investigators will have more skills than a rogue since they get 6+int and they are an intelligence based class, and they get higher bonuses to those skills because of their class features, so it doesn't really cut the mustard at all.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hear that "full stop" does, however.
Only if you have 6 ranks in Diplomacy and the "Objective Opinion" feat chain, though...
Double entendre fighting?
Again, what is your measure of "very good" if 8+Int bonus points per level, and a selection of some of the most useful class skills of the game are not enough to cut the mustard for you?LOL! Core Rogue was one of the least effective classes in the game. It was obsoleted by literally half a dozen other classes (at least).
It offered nothing to the player. Awful saves, awful accuracy, poor to mediocre AC, Rogue Talents that ranged from "acceptable" to "complete garbage"... And ZERO attack abilities other than Sneak Attack, which is simply not good enough to be one
Hell! They aren't even very good at skills.
Good is having a high likelihood of success on skills. Core rogue having 8 skills didn't make it good at skills, it made it able to attempt a variety of skill checks. A rogue may have many skills, but it's no better at those skills than an expert with the same stats. So if you wanted to be better at skills than an NPC, or in other words, good at skills, you'd take a class that gives you bonuses to skills.
My relationship with ACG classes? Still wouldn't touch the book with a 10' pole.
Broken: Bloodrager, Brawler, Hunter, Investigator, Slayer, Swashbuckler, Warpriest - All way overpowered (too versatile and/or too strong in focus)
You-gotta-be-kidding Broken: Arcanist, Shaman - blindingly overpowered, but at least the Shaman is so complicated I haven't even seen someone try it.
Honestly don't know: Skald - haven't seen one. Seems like it turned into "the Barbarian's bard" instead of a real mixed-class. Regular bard seems so much easier.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I gotta ask...
Majuba, what classes are balanced for you?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Swashbuckler... overpowered... riiiiiiight...
Slayer is OP? So a ranger is too then right?
Arcanist, it's still worse than a wizard. So wizards are super OP broken too right?
I'm with Lemmy, which classes do you feel are okay power-wise? core only Rogues and Fighters?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Good is having a high likelihood of success on skills. Core rogue having 8 skills didn't make it good at skills, it made it able to attempt a variety of skill checks. A rogue may have many skills, but it's no better at those skills than an expert with the same stats. So if you wanted to be better at skills than an NPC, or in other words, good at skills, you'd take a class that gives you bonuses to skills.
Even back in core, the bard beat the rogue at this, with Versatile Performance able to turn 1 skill rank into 2 more. And then he gets the bonus of Bardic Knowledge making him able to be decent at all knowledge skills. And also the bard Inspire Competence to give a bonus to all of those skills he knows.
So, the rogue was never really the "skills guy". The core bard already had the rogue beat at that, and then the bard got spells and combat buffs on top of that.
Slayer is OP? So a ranger is too then right?
Not OP compared to something like a full caster, but a ranger with Instant Enemy makes most other martials look bad.
Slayer is OP? So a ranger is too then right?Not OP compared to something like a full caster, but a ranger with Instant Enemy makes most other martials look bad.
It's directed to Majuba, who said that Slayer was OP.
Yeah, just pointing out the power difference. The Ranger is about at the top of his character type, the martials. The Slayer is more towards the middle. Better than a few and worse than a few.
Yeah, just pointing out the power difference. The Ranger is about at the top of his character type, the martials. The Slayer is more towards the middle. Better than a few and worse than a few.
Hence why I was asking if he thought that ranger was too OP too.
I gotta ask...
Majuba, what classes are balanced for you?
You can ask...
Swashbuckler... overpowered... riiiiiiight...
The swashbucklers, and swashbuckler dips, I've seen are virtually unhittable and do massive damage with parry/riposte, and never run out of panache with high-crit range weapons.
Slayer is OP? So a ranger is too then right?
Slayer I've seen the least of, but from what I've seen it's far more versatile than a core ranger. And yes, Instant Enemy is completely broken.
Arcanist
Arcanist is far more versatile than a core wizard.
And also the bard Inspire Competence to give a bonus to all of those skills he knows.
A Bard can't inspire competence in himself.
You can ask...I gotta ask...
Majuba, what classes are balanced for you?
If I had to guess, I'd say Cleric, Monk, and Fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, personally I'm throwing out Majuba's opinion out. If we have no reference of what a balanced class is you can't take seriously his claims that all the ACG classes are out of balance.
I gotta ask...
Majuba, what classes are balanced for you?
You can ask...
Swashbuckler... overpowered... riiiiiiight...The swashbucklers, and swashbuckler dips, I've seen are virtually unhittable and do massive damage with parry/riposte, and never run out of panache with high-crit range weapons.
Slayer is OP? So a ranger is too then right?Slayer I've seen the least of, but from what I've seen it's far more versatile than a core ranger. And yes, Instant Enemy is completely broken.
ArcanistArcanist is far more versatile than a core wizard.
And also the bard Inspire Competence to give a bonus to all of those skills he knows.A Bard can't inspire competence in himself.
You didn't answer his question.
Which classes do you think are balanced?
If I had to guess, I'd say Cleric, Monk, and Fighter.You can ask...I gotta ask...
Majuba, what classes are balanced for you?
You must be reading another thread :)
Yes, I'd say all the core classes (with core spells), sans-archetypes, yes including the wizard (but no, not the teleportation subschool) are well balanced. Exception might be the Paladin - a bit over the top at times.
Other than that, Cavalier isn't too bad, unless you've also got a Bard in the group - then it's like a jingasa, too many cheap bonuses. Oracles are close in general, though it seems most that are played go for pretty extreme options.
But this thread is about ACG classes, not all those.
The Arcanist isn't really more "versatile" than the wizard. The wizard can leave spell slots open and memorize whatever he needs in a fairly short time. The arcanist does however have a much, much higher optimization floor. It's the easiest of the arcane casters to play.
Also, the arcanist fairs very poorly on the levels where it's a spell level behind the wizard. At least the sorceror gets more spells per day to make up the difference a little.
If I had to guess, I'd say Core Rogue, Monk, and Fighter.You can ask...I gotta ask...
Majuba, what classes are balanced for you?
Fixed it for ya.
Should probably come to a consensus on the definition of "balanced" first.
If I had to guess, I'd say Cleric, Monk, and Fighter.You can ask...I gotta ask...
Majuba, what classes are balanced for you?
You must be reading another thread :)
Yes, I'd say all the core classes (with core spells), sans-archetypes, yes including the wizard (but no, not the teleportation subschool) are well balanced. Exception might be the Paladin - a bit over the top at times.
Other than that, Cavalier isn't too bad, unless you've also got a Bard in the group - then it's like a jingasa, too many cheap bonuses. Oracles are close in general, though it seems most that are played go for pretty extreme options.
But this thread is about ACG classes, not all those.
If you think the core wizard is balanced then you haven't been playing it right.
The Arcanist isn't really more "versatile" than the wizard. The wizard can leave spell slots open and memorize whatever he needs in a fairly short time. The arcanist does however have a much, much higher optimization floor. It's the easiest of the arcane casters to play.
15 minutes is not a short time, and leaving slots empty is much less effective than *changing* what you have memorized. Quick Study is better than a very good .
If you think the core wizard is balanced then you haven't been playing it right.
Or perhaps I've been playing it right?
The swashbuckler's quite broken...
Broken as in the transmission's busted and the undercarriage is entirely rusted through.
Part of the problem is that it's based on the gunslinger chassis, which only seems strong because firearms are strong. Gun beats rapier.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Ooooooh-kay. So, we got someone who is a big Core Only fan. Thought they were growing extinct.
My problem with the Slayer is feat starvation (granted, that is a problem for me with a lot of classes, but being a martial means that you need more feats). I have a martial character concept that I am probably going to have to rebuild as a Fighter (probably Lore Warden) instead of a Slayer; too bad, because Slayer really has the quasi-Inquisitorial flavor (without being deity-bound) that I want (even as it is, I already have to dip 2 levels of Lore Warden Fighter to get feats I need).
The only things I can see that are overpowered on Slayer are:
1. Blood Reader Talent (should be an Advanced Talent instead of a basic Talent)
2. Ranger Combat Style (Rules As Written, you can use this in Heavy Armor even though a Ranger can't -- I don't think that is Rules As Intended, although it is minor enough overpowering that I wouldn't mind a Hellknight Slayer archetype getting a bypass of the restriction against using these in Heavy Armor)
Design Manager
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How in the world would a Core rogue be more fun than a slayer? Do you have fun because you're bad?Because the original rogue is better, more well rounded, and more fun class. Unchained rogues are awful. They curtailed the talent list and tried to cover it up by giving out some ”kombat skillz" they didn't need. The kiddies don't seem to notice because they were playing it wrong already. Don't get me started on why the rest of Unchained is garbage.
Possibly worth noting that even Jason Buhlman has said, and I quote "The core Rogue needs help. He just isn't where he should be, and we all know it."
And despite the assertion that the "kiddies" were "doing it wrong", I think you may be looking at the Rogue through some rose colored glasses, or attributing things that were true in older editions to the modern core Rogue. The core Rogue wasn't the best skill monkey, by far. The Bard has had that locked in since day one, and the Alchemist and Investigator only increased the number of classes that could "rogue" better than the Rogue.
My relationship with ACG classes? Still wouldn't touch the book with a 10' pole.
Broken: Bloodrager, Brawler, Hunter, Investigator, Slayer, Swashbuckler, Warpriest - All way overpowered (too versatile and/or too strong in focus)
You-gotta-be-kidding Broken: Arcanist, Shaman - blindingly overpowered, but at least the Shaman is so complicated I haven't even seen someone try it.
Honestly don't know: Skald - haven't seen one. Seems like it turned into "the Barbarian's bard" instead of a real mixed-class. Regular bard seems so much easier.
Not to be argumentative, but are these gut reactions, feelings you came to after playing the classes for a while, or something else?
I ask because, while I think there were a lot of issues with the AC when it came out, balance wasn't really one of them. Bloodrager, IME, is solid but no stronger than what was already there, maybe even a little weaker at many levels. I'd use similar words to describe the Brawler and Slayer. Hunter is one I'd actually agree is probably a bit stronger than normal, particularly during levels 1-4, though it mellows a bit after that. War priest I don't like because it's really strong under one specific set of circumstances but lacks the real power and endurance of a Cleric. Investigator I like, a lot; it has the ability to compete with spellcasters on the problem solving front without feeling like another caster.
Arcanist is one that looks really strong on paper, but just isn't. The Wizard will be an entire spell level ahead for about 1/3 of the game, and the Sorcerer will always have way more raw spell power. The Arcanist basically sacrifices raw power for unrivaled versatility, which is cool, but it's rare to see one getting used over a Sorcerer or Wizard in my experience. They're basically a "training wheels" Wizard that lowers potential in exchange for being harder to screw up.
Anyways, in my personal opinion, "balance" really isn't one of the ACG's issues. There just isn't really anything that changes the fundamental framework of the game, or shifts previous balance points at all. Maybe the Skald. In the right party the Skald will be a ridiculous force multiplier, and in the wrong party he'l leave the player wondering why he didn't play something else, so balance there is entirely dependent on group composition.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Arcanist isn't really more "versatile" than the wizard. The wizard can leave spell slots open and memorize whatever he needs in a fairly short time. The arcanist does however have a much, much higher optimization floor. It's the easiest of the arcane casters to play.15 minutes is not a short time, and leaving slots empty is much less effective than *changing* what you have memorized. Quick Study is better than a very good .
The wizard has a Quick Study too, but it's 1 minute, instead of 1 full round. But then the wizard doesn't have to burn another resource to use his.
That said though, Daring Champion Cavalier has absolutely nothing from the Swashbuckler I consider worth playing for. So, I don't know why people liked it before Order of the Eastern Star.
I obviously can't speak for everyone else in that regard, but one thing that I prefer about Daring Champion over Swashbuckler is being able to nab Orders, which can be nice and helpful. Add in Challenge for an additional damage spike on top of Precise Strike, and you can really start to bring together some really nice static bonuses on your damage rolls. I also gladly admit that I like teamwork feats more than the average person, so tactician provides a nice extra draw in my mind.
Personally, while there may be some stuff from the ACG that I would be hesitant to allow, I do not feel that the classes, especially unaltered, are on that list.
no stronger than what was already there...
I have plenty of issues with what was already there when the ACG came out. And I'd say you're mostly right about nothing new in brokenness (parry/riposte excepting), just too much put together.
15 minutes is not a short time, and leaving slots empty is much less effective than *changing* what you have memorized. Quick Study is better than a very good .The wizard has a Quick Study too, but it's 1 minute, instead of 1 full round. But then the wizard doesn't have to burn another resource to use his.
Core wizard does not.
For me, the ACG classes took the most overpowered options of the previous five years and crammed them all together, but better. Most of their class features I would consider banning individually, let alone together.
But I've probably side-treked this thread too much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My preference for daring Champion is the saving throw. As a dex based d10 hit die class, a strong reflex save just isn't that important. But as a melee class, a strong fort save is pretty important.