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)
A slayer isn't far behind a fighter in feats. You're down 1-2 feats at lv10. What are you going for that a slayer doesn't have enough feats for?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
I suppose it really comes down to what you are comparing Daring Champion to. The problem I always have isn't really whether the Daring Champion is better statically. It's that a two-handed or two-weapon Cavalier is just going to be a better damage dealer than Daring Champion. And the loss of Mount is PAINFUL.
Don't get me wrong, the synergy with Order of the Eastern Star is great. That is totally worth it. But previously Orders range between meh and terrible. I think there is like one legit Order for that build before then?
By contrast, there are a few Deeds in Swashbuckler that are interesting. Maybe not great statically, but they bring something cool to the table. Like Menacing Swordplay.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
.
..
.
.
.
Oooookay, then...
I was going to point out the major imbalances in the CRB, but Majuba's opinion is so extremely contrary to mine, I'd just be wasting both our times.
I don't even know how to start a discussion about game balance with someone who thinks Core Wizards are balanced but Swashbucklers are OP. :/
Should probably come to a consensus on the definition of "balanced" first.Good luck with that.
One can dream :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Slayers can get plenty of feats, half of his talent options give him feats. There's rogue talents that do, plus ranger styles that skip prerequisites.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Oooookay, then...I was going to point out the major imbalances in the CRB, but Majuba's opinion is so extremely contrary to mine, I'd just be wasting both our times.
I don't even know how to start a discussion about game balance with someone who thinks Core Wizards are balanced but Swashbucklers are OP. :/
I just want to congratulate you for realizing this instead of engaging in a shouting match.
Majuba's opinion is so extremely contrary to mine, I'd just be wasting both our times.
I don't even know how to start a discussion about game balance with someone who thinks Core Wizards are balanced but Swashbucklers are OP. :/
We can always have a discussion, but you're right that are starting points are pretty far apart. You accept all the craziness released with the APG (yes APG), I do not. The abuse of swift/immediate action economy in particular shines out - heck, you even have an immediate action in your *profile*. It's just not for me.
I'll step out - some good cavalier/swash discussion going on now, wouldn't want to dilute it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Part of the problem is that it's based on the gunslinger chassis, which only seems strong because firearms are strong. Gun beats rapier.The swashbuckler's quite broken...
Broken as in the transmission's busted and the undercarriage is entirely rusted through.
I think part of the problem is that it's way too similar to the Fighter... It should've been a Gunslinger/Rogue hybrid... But seeing how bad the class turned out and how much feedback was ignored, I don't think even that would make much of a difference.
I don't like the "borrow from the future!" aspect of Immediate actions. It should just be it's own thing, imho. So many classes are swift action heavy as it is.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We can always have a discussion, but you're right that are starting points are pretty far apart. You accept all the craziness released with the APG (yes APG), I do not. The abuse of swift/immediate action economy in particular shines out - heck, you even have an immediate action in your *profile*. It's just not for me.Majuba's opinion is so extremely contrary to mine, I'd just be wasting both our times.
I don't even know how to start a discussion about game balance with someone who thinks Core Wizards are balanced but Swashbucklers are OP. :/
I guess we have a different idea of what's "craziness" and where to find it...
(And if you actually read my profile, you'll notice the "immediate action" listed there is a joke. It's based on the fact that I'll often point out useless trivia somewhat related to whatever conversation I'm having with my friends and have no idea how I got that knowledge... while simultaneously having a less-than-great memory for stuff that's actually useful... like names and dates. ¬¬
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Interesting opinions.... but I would disagree on some of your broken list.... Brawler?? Hunter??... REALLY??
My thoughts on the Arcanist was that it was unnecessary to start with. I think in its initial form it was broken but when they errata'd ACG they did sort some of the probs. Another bad thing that it did do was force the Exploiter Wizard archetype which is OP compared to core.
Amen on the Shaman!... I just can't get how people can't see that it is a horrendous mistake and easily the most broken thing in PF.
"Hello....allow me to introduce myself... I have all the best bits of the Tier 1 classes and none of the downsides! Observe as I simultaneously make everyone in my party redundant!"
Amen on the Shaman!... I just can't get how people can't see that it is a horrendous mistake and easily the most broken thing in PF.
"Hello....allow me to introduce myself... I have all the best bits of the Tier 1 classes and none of the downsides! Observe as I simultaneously make everyone in my party redundant!"
What makes full casters powerful is essentially their spell list and spell availability... Their class features are often a second thought. That's why Druids are often considered less powerful than Wizards, for example, despite Wild Shape being awesome.
And the Shaman's spell list isn't particularly impressive, IIRC... The class is still really freaking powerful, of course... This is Pathfinder, after all... Every full caster is overpowered to one degree or another. It just isn't as broken as other full casters...
Part of the problem is that it's based on the gunslinger chassis, which only seems strong because firearms are strong. Gun beats rapier.But guns are terrible. There's a reason why no one uses them except one class that has all of its class features dedicated to trying to use them and a reason why every non-gunslinger gun archetype in the game is terrible.
Trench Fighter is okay...
You accept all the craziness released with the APG (yes APG), I do not.Easy to do once you get past the most imbalanced book in the game!
Yeah... I never get it when people say the CRB is balanced... That is the book that places Fighter, (Core) Monks and (Core) Rogues side by side with Clerics, Druids and Wizards, after all... The same book where we have spells like Planar Ally, Wish and Simulacrum... And feats like Leadership and Quicken Spell. :/
Wow, you kids managed to stay quite long on topic before devolving into your usual "civilized discussion on balance" :P
It's almost like class balance would have a place in a discussion about classes... Who could have seen that coming? What's next? A discussion naturally evolving into different topics? BLASPHEMY!
You will keep to the topic of discussion, citizen, or you will be made to.
@Slayer Feat Starvation: Trying to build a big scary (for Intimidate for Cornugon Smash and/or Hurtful and/or Shatter Defenses) Qlippoth-Spawned Tiefling(*) who hits REALLY hard (what's DR?) while being able to switch-hit and is really good at sensing treachery or Possession (Studied Target is very useful for this) for (preferably) non-Mythic Wrath of the Righteous, who doesn't have to depend upon a deity (unholy origin), doesn't have to depend upon Rage (sin of Wrath), and doesn't have to depend upon most magic (other mortal sins). And need Ancestral Scorn and Fiend Sight I and II to fit in somewhere.
Add up the Ranger Combat Style for archery, the Vital Strike chain, the various Intimidation feats and their prerequisites, the Tiefling feats, and it starts getting really expensive.
(*)Reskinned Campaign Trait: I Am Awfulness.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
@Slayer Feat Starvation: Trying to build a big scary (for Intimidate for Cornugon Smash and/or Hurtful and/or Shatter Defenses) Qlippoth-Spawned Tiefling(*) who hits REALLY hard (what's DR?) while being able to switch-hit and is really good at sensing treachery or Possession (Studied Target is very useful for this) for (preferably) non-Mythic Wrath of the Righteous, who doesn't have to depend upon a deity (unholy origin), doesn't have to depend upon Rage (sin of Wrath), and doesn't have to depend upon most magic (other mortal sins). And need Ancestral Scorn and Fiend Sight I and II to fit in somewhere.
Add up the Ranger Combat Style for archery, the Vital Strike chain, the various Intimidation feats and their prerequisites, the Tiefling feats, and it starts getting really expensive.
(*)Reskinned Campaign Trait: I Am Awfulness.
Don't add Vital Strike... It sucks. Full BAB + High Str + Power Attack + Studied Target (possibly + Sneak Attack) is enough to deal with DR. :P
Quick build:
lvl 1 - Power attack
lvl 2 - Talent: Ranger Feat - Rapid Shot
lvl 3 - Quick Draw
lvl 4 - I don't know... Talent: Bonus Combat Feat: Intimidating Prowess (?)
lvl 5 - Hurtful
lvl 6 - Talent: Ranger Feat - Manyshot
lvl 7 - Cornugon Smash (can't take it earlier, anyway)
Aaaaand... That's it.
The build is "complete" by 7th level... Everything else is gravy.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Oh, it's just TOZ.
:(
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.
The bard only beats the rogue in knowledge skills. The rogue more than holds his own in social skills, and very necessary dungeon skills such as perception and of course the trapfinding bonuses he gets per level and his auto-sensing mechanic. The rogues's class bonuses are more dungeon and social oriented and he has advantage in areas the bard does not.
The bard only beats the rogue in knowledge skills.Not true. The rogue gets nothing special to boost his skills, while the bard gets far more as they level up.
Trapfinding begs to disagree. The rogue also has more non-knowledge class skills which means more skills with that inherent +3 bonus.
The bard only beats the rogue in knowledge skills. The rogue more than holds his own in social skills, and very necessary dungeon skills such as perception and of course the trapfinding bonuses he gets per level and his auto-sensing mechanic. The rogues's class bonuses are more dungeon and social oriented and he has advantage in areas the bard does not.
How does the rogue hold it's own in social skills compared to a bard? The bard gets more rounds and spells from a good charisma, so having a good charisma is nicer for the bard than the rogue. Also the bard gets to use it's performance skill for some of the wisdom social skills. And I'm curious why you think the rogue is better at social? The rogue doesn't really get any benefits to any social skills.
The bard is just as good as perception as the rogue, but they both lose out to druids, hunters, and monks.
This also only assumes core and not any of the bard archetypes like the archaeologist that gets trapfinding and the auto-sensing mechanic as well. But this is only for traps.
So the bard wins in the social mechanics and can be just as effective as the rogue in the dungeon. But it'll still have bardic performance to be useful to the party in a fight and it also has spells to help out with.
Trapfinding can also be obtained via a trait... Or easily ignored, as it is far from being a necessary ability... or even particularly useful. There are numerous ways to circumvent traps without having to disarm them.
And of course, we always have the Archaeologist archetype. ;)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Trapfinding can also be obtained via a trait... Or easily ignored, as it is far from being a necessary ability... or even particularly useful. There are numerous ways to circumvent traps without having to disarm them.
And of course, we always have the Archaeologist archetype. ;)
I don't know about you but we always Zeth our traps around here.
Also, drifting very slightly from core, you have Aram Zey's Focus, which is on the Bard's spell list and can give anyone an improved version of trapfinding.
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.
Having access to more default(before the int bonus) skills is not the same as being better at skills. This subtopic is covered in several rogue/anti-rogue threads though.
|
Back to the top at hand, in a new game that I am running I have had the low level arcanist run out of non zero level spells multiple times. The arcanist seems to get fewer actual spells per day than a wizard. I do not let parties retreat easily to reload. Anybody else ever seen this as an issue with low level arcanist?
Back to the top at hand, in a new game that I am running I have had the low level arcanist run out of non zero level spells multiple times. The arcanist seems to get fewer actual spells per day than a wizard. I do not let parties retreat easily to reload. Anybody else ever seen this as an issue with low level arcanist?
Most low level casters run out of spells easily which is why I tell players to conserve spells, and arcanist at low levels tend to be more prone to this. I will plink away with a crossbow or use something like acid splash unless a real spell is needed.
Once the arcanist is level 6ish or higher he can afford to unload a little more.
lv1 Arcanist has 2
lv1 wizard has 1+1
lv1 sorcerer has 3
lv2 Arcanist has 3
lv2 wizard has 2+1
lv2 sorcerer has 4
lv3 Arcanist has 4
lv3 wizard has 2+1/1+1
lv3 sorcerer has 5
So level 1 and 2 it's tied with lowest. Then it's solidly lowest.
Design Manager
|
Back to the top at hand, in a new game that I am running I have had the low level arcanist run out of non zero level spells multiple times. The arcanist seems to get fewer actual spells per day than a wizard. I do not let parties retreat easily to reload. Anybody else ever seen this as an issue with low level arcanist?
Low level tends, in my experience, to be where the Arcanist shines best. By 3rd level he's getting left behind by sorcerers and wizards pretty dramatically.
As I've said before, Arcanist seems really strong in theory, but he pays for flexibility with a direct hit to power. A lot of his coolest seeming abilities, like counterspelling, are also pretty crappy in actual play, since they suck resources rapidly and the Arcanist is often a level behind and lacks the ability to counterspell the spells you really want to stop from classes like the wizard and cleric at many levels.
He's actually a lot like the Warpriest- when the party has completely bombed their research and rushed in without prepping or been taken by surprise, his flexibility is a welcome addition. The rest of the time, you're better off with a real wizard (or cleric in the warpriest's case).
Yeah, the Arcanist has it pretty good in the first few levels. I do wonder if some think the Arcanist is OP just because of those first few levels.
The Shaman by comparison looks pretty weak in its first level. Most builds can't do much of anything until level 2 or later.
Bloodrager has received a bloodline recently at least.
I don't know about you but we always Zeth our traps around here.Trapfinding can also be obtained via a trait... Or easily ignored, as it is far from being a necessary ability... or even particularly useful. There are numerous ways to circumvent traps without having to disarm them.
And of course, we always have the Archaeologist archetype. ;)
Am I missing a reference here?
Back to the top at hand, in a new game that I am running I have had the low level arcanist run out of non zero level spells multiple times. The arcanist seems to get fewer actual spells per day than a wizard. I do not let parties retreat easily to reload. Anybody else ever seen this as an issue with low level arcanist?
I see it as working as intended. It's part of what balances them with sorcerers and wizards. It encourages players to learn resource management. 1st-3rd level arcane casters should be using things like crossbows to conserve spell use.
You have to decide of course whether you're throwing too much at your group, but that's something that should be based on your overall group dynamics.
Counting wildblooded is disingenuous.
Also yeah, that makes sense, because the sorcerer has been out for seven years more. The Bloodrager does have a good assortment of archetypes on top of that.
Trapfinding can also be obtained via a trait... Or easily ignored, as it is far from being a necessary ability... or even particularly useful. There are numerous ways to circumvent traps without having to disarm them.
And of course, we always have the Archaeologist archetype. ;)
Bit of a sidetrack, but I feel that it's worth mentioning that the trait in question is a campaign trait from Mummy's Mask. Those are often special cases and tends not to be allowed outside of their respective campaigns, something that's often forgotten when the subject of Trapfinding availability comes up. I agree with the rest of your assessment though.
More on topic, I've been playing with a slayer and a hunter in the Emerald Spire for a while now and both perform well. The hunter's player has had a blast with the animal focus flexibility and the nicely mashed spell list (though he tends to forget his teamwork feats), and the slayer has been quite effective as both the trap spotter and our primary frontliner, which is especially nice since he usually has the lead for trap-duty anyhow.
It just bothers me that they haven't touched on bloodragers in a hardcover, while sorcerers continue to get new bloodlines in them.
Just realized you are right! They haven't touched them in hardcovers yet. Only splatbooks.
In any case, they've gotten a lot of love there - Urban BR, Bloody-Knuckled Rowdy and the Shadow Bloodline, plus the new Magic Tactic's Toolbox options are all great additions.
Now I was a fan of the Brawler when it came out...