I have the hardcover edition of this path and have noticed a substantial amount of NPC classes used on the NPCs throughout
Now since the -2 CR only applies if someone only has NPC class levels most of the current builds end up, in my view, comparatively under powered for their CR
Do other people think this?
There are experts and aristocrats all over the place. The main examples I am thinking of are:
- Ileosa - would be the same CR if her Aristocrat levels became bard levels (or even Dragon disciple as I have seen mentioned elsewhere)
- Doctor from 2nd adventure : Loses I think 4 levels since 3.5 and becomes significantly weaker to the point of being quite ineffective for his given CR
- Gaedren and his associate - so many Expert levels that achieve very little for the CR they grant.
Have other people rebuilt characters with full class levels.
I understand people have backgrounds but by this logic all PCs should start with at least one level in an NPC class and then a level in what actual class they want to pursue
My personal thoughts are use investigator, rogue and bard as necessary to replace the expert and aristocrat levels in many cases.
Or am I completely off base here and these characters do end up being appropriate challenges in game play?
For some reason it seems like no one is allowed to be a noble without explicit levels in aristocrat... even people like Kroft and Endrin.
For the most part, I've been replacing the NPC levels, although I'm a bit wary of replacing Ileosa's aristocrat levels with bard, since that would give her deadly performance at DC 33! Gaedren is also fine with them since too many rogue levels could let him one shot level 1 PCs.
I've also been replacing all instances of rogue with unchained rogue. It makes a noticeable difference, especially when they have much higher dex than strength. Jolistina is much nastier as an unchained rogue 3/sorcerer 4/arcane trickster 2, for example.
I can't say I have ever even looked at the Unchained classes. I don't understand the point behind them and why only some classes have unchained variants
I quite like investigator as pseudo noble as they have the skills that aristocrats do. Extracts complicates things.
Swashbuckler also seems like a good trade because they again have the relevant skills, are keyed to charisma for fighting rather than intelligence etc.
(also they fight how many nobles in urban/city based environments would have been trained to when young. More refined rather than brute force)
For Ileosa blue dragon disciple could be a swap. Few more HP and 2 extra strength which she is unlikely to use. Links to the story and Kazmaron
But I am less concerned about her as she does look like a challenge and has associates.
The Doctor is the one that annoys me the most so far (especially when seeing the original version). I will definitely be swapping some of his build should I ever get a group to get that far
I can't say I have ever even looked at the Unchained classes. I don't understand the point behind them and why only some classes have unchained variants
Basically the unchained rogue and monk are a lot stronger (and way more fun to play, imo) than their original counterparts. Most of the rogue enemies in CotCT are fairly weak, and I've found using the unchained version makes them more of a challenge without going overboard.
As for doctor Davalus, I just made him an unchained rogue/alchemist. There aren't a whole lot of alchemists in the AP, and I think it makes a lot of sense for him considering his background.
Why were the Unchained classes introduced? Were originals considered the weakest? I would be interested to know how this decision was arrived at.
I have never considered rogue weak but maybe the introduction of vivisectionist and slayer created this interpretation
I have never considered rogue weak but maybe the introduction of vivisectionist and slayer created this interpretation
Actually, core Bard and Ranger (not to mention wizard) created this interpretation. Alchemists and Slayers (and all the other skilled T4-T3 classes) just hammered home the rogue's inadequacies by being balanced against middling core classes, not one of the weakest (if not the weakest, but it is certainly bottom 3).
Why were the Unchained classes introduced? Were originals considered the weakest? I would be interested to know how this decision was arrived at.
All the originals were "problematic" in some way.
Rogue is only passable at skills while being the worst non-fullcaster PC class in the game at stabbing things.
Summoner had an incredibly high skill floor, while having a skill ceiling above all but the most broken classes. In other words, a complete noob can snap the game in two by outperforming the rest of their team without meaning to unless their fellow PCs are optimized to the hilt or are themselves using full-casters. Seriously, the chained summoner is a pseudo-full caster with a pouncing fighter as a pet.
Without piling on non-core archetypes, Monk was barely functional as a combat class, despite combat being the only thing it could really do. The monk was also one of the least mobile combat classes in the game in practice, despite having class features which hinted to the contrary (mostly due to melee pseudo-TWF full attacking being the only effective thing it could do, so move speed buffs and no armor penalties meant roughly zilch).
Barbarian...had a little too much math? Barbar is widely agreed to be the odd one out, as a class that is neither brokenly weak or brokenly amazing. Its implementation is a little cleaner than the chained barbarian, but otherwise its existence doesn't really add much to PF.
Thanks for the info.
So unchained summoner is actually powered down? That would be good to know as original summoner can be ridiculous as you mentioned