Playtest Thoughts: Week 1

I'm curious to see some of the replacements (a knowledge-based sneak attack equivalent like the Iron Heroes Executioner would make the investigator one of my favorite classes ever). But overall these chances sound both great and interesting.

Also, bonus points for listening and responding so directly. Kudos to everyone involved!

Cheers!
Landon

For the Slayer add the Talents Scouts Charge [low], Viscous Sneak [change sneak attack die to d8] [High] Skirmisher [Med] Armor Master [+2 to Max dex for any armor worn] [Low]

Quote:

Swashbuckler

We are investigating ways for the class to get Weapon Finesse at an appropriate level

After much consideration I think I may finally have obtained a solution. Watch this:

Quote:

At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat.

It took a lot of effort to solve this extremely difficult problem but I hope that helped clear things up.

Yeah, if you can give a character Power Attack at 1st level as a bonus feat you sort of loose any justification not to do the same for Weapon Finesse. (Hint: See Gendarme Cavalier)

I said it in my playtest results and I'll say it again here: the swashbuckler should be more flexible in Dexterity-based combat than any other option currently in the game. Not less flexible. As written, you can use precise strike with a one-handed pick but not a cutlass. There is something very, very wrong about that.

I would like to see the Swashbuckler get something like this:

Swashbuckler's Finesse: At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains Weapon Finesse as a bonus feat. A swashbuckler can use her Dexterity bonus instead of her Strength on attack rolls made with any light or one-handed melee weapon; not just those identified by the Weapon Finesse feat. A swashbuckler who wields her weapon with two hands or who wields a weapon or shield (except bucklers) in her off-hand loses the benefits of this ability but not the Weapon Finesse feat.

Simple and easy. Allows the swashbuckler to possess a huge array of weapon options (including katana, my personal favorite) while still adding a limiting factor; if you want to be a Ranger who dips into Swashbuckler for Weapon Finesse, go for it, but you're not going to get to finesse that katana unless you do it like a *real* swashbuckler.

I've wanted to run Jade Regent with Ameiko as a Swashbuckler ever since hearing about the class, allowing katanas sounds fantastic to me.

My thoughts on the 10 new classes:

Arcanist: Happy to see you’re changing it again. Combining the 2 classes is not an easy task.

Bloodrager: Almost perfect and an obvious choice to combine the 2 classes. I’m not sure that the Magus spell list is the right choice.

Brawler: Too little fight and too much monk. You can use the existing monk class and make a brawler. Adding the “close” weapon group is a good choice, but it needs to be more unique. Right now it’s too close to existing classes.

Hunter: Happy to see that you’re focusing on animal companion/teamworking and making it unique. Animal Focus is great.

Investigator: The Sneak attack and Poison use doesn’t fit the class. Extracts is ok, but Mutagens is not. Neutralize poison is an interesting idea. I like the Investigator Talents. Add the Uncanny Dodge feat as a 6th sense ability.

Shaman: In general I like this class, but it needs its own spell list combining part of the cleric and druid spell lists. It needs to be versatile enough to make a lot of deferent kinds of Shamans.

Skald: I don’t like it.

Slayer: Finally a ranger without spells. I’m not sure Sneak attack fits the class, Rogue and Assassin classes are more suitable. Add Trapfinding, Endurance and maybe Evasion and Uncanny dodge. Combat style feat could still be an option.

Swashbuckler: I like it. Looking forward to see the final version.

Warpriest: Might become one of my favorites. Interesting to see you’re planning to remove Channel Energy and I think you actually have to. Sounds difficult not to make it Inquisitor like. It needs to be less Cleric and more Fighter. It’s still too close to a normal buff Cleric.

I've said this is the Slayer thread but I'll say it here as well.

I'm surprised Paizo is willing to look at giving the Investigator's an ability to replace Sneak Attack so as to better fit that class' theme and yet not the Slayer as well. SA is in many ways counter to what the archetypes the Slayer represents. Warrior assassins, bounty hunters, monster slayers all are very much the niche the slayer is trying to hit, but all those character types are lone wolves in nature. SA however is very counter to that theme. It is very dependent either your party or very specific feat heavy builds to get the proper use out of SA.

Perhaps the developers would consider doing something to the Slayer similar to what they are doing with the Investigator and sub out Sneak Attack into a more thematic ability?

I don't particularly agree. Sneak Attack - in the slayer's sense - is about creating a very large alpha strike. Massive damage on the opening hit. For everything else there is Favored Target.

If a slayer is on a contract to kill something that is very hard to kill, he may very well look into working as a team. If he's set to do it on his own, then he may very well be the type of guy that has invested in the build and abilities to get his Sneak Attack off by himself.

Warpriest

Finally we get to the warpriest. We are looking at strengthening the role of this class by taking it a bit away from the cleric's position. While we want the class to be among the best at healing and casting spells on itself and we are investigating a mechanic to let it do just that (probably in place of channel energy). We are also looking into a new class feature that allows the warpriest to be an effective combatant with the favored weapon of its deity, regardless of what weapon is favored by their deity. Look for increased damage and additional effects depending on the type of weapon and its role in the game.

I'm very pleased by what I see here, particularly the redress of nonequivalent weapon statistics with regard to the favored weapon being a critical element to the class features. Having the class be the best at healing and casting spells on itself isn't a direction that I would have gone in, but it's not a bad direction to go.

I wonder if there's been any thought given to it being the primary class to look to when dealing with one specific category of foes (be it undead, evil outsiders, demons, devils, etc...), able to use an ability to keep them focused on the warpriest as their primary enemy. I feel that is an aspect of game play that has only very lightly been touched upon in Pathfinder.

Best wishes!

I'd much rather see the Investigator keep Sneak Attack. The character strikes me as a 'know it all' so I think knowing vital points to strike for damage fits fine.

I like teamwork. I like strategy and positioning. Therefore I like Sneak Attack as it rewards those facets of the game rather than -- charge, attack, continue to full round attack until it is dead -- snoozefest that optimized melee play seems to devolve to.

So what options do we have for Sneak Attack.

Rogue? OK.

Vivisectionist? Disallowed in PFS and is a bit sinister for most heroes

Assassin? Requires being Evil.

What else? A couple of oddball Prestige classes that either aren't built very well or are extremely narrow thematically?

Is it really so much to ask for the good guys to get another fairly well rounded class with access to Sneak Attack?

ArenCordial wrote:

I've said this is the Slayer thread but I'll say it here as well.

I'm surprised Paizo is willing to look at giving the Investigator's an ability to replace Sneak Attack so as to better fit that class' theme and yet not the Slayer as well. SA is in many ways counter to what the archetypes the Slayer represents. Warrior assassins, bounty hunters, monster slayers all are very much the niche the slayer is trying to hit, but all those character types are lone wolves in nature. SA however is very counter to that theme. It is very dependent either your party or very specific feat heavy builds to get the proper use out of SA.

Perhaps the developers would consider doing something to the Slayer similar to what they are doing with the Investigator and sub out Sneak Attack into a more thematic ability?

I don't particularly agree. Sneak Attack - in the slayer's sense - is about creating a very large alpha strike. Massive damage on the opening hit. For everything else there is Favored Target.

If a slayer is on a contract to kill something that is very hard to kill, he may very well look into working as a team. If he's set to do it on his own, then he may very well be the type of guy that has invested in the build and abilities to get his Sneak Attack off by himself.

I agree. 'Lone Wolf' or no, the Slayer is supposed to be some sort of expert hunter.

I've never met a hunter who introduced themselves to a deer. Instead they strike at their target's vital points from ambush.

Hunter needs a lot of work.

3/4 BAB, Full 'Pet' progression. Couple of oddball abilities.

Right now it feels like a Druid Archetype...

...is what I would be saying if it didn't cut the casting down to 6th level. For what? Teamwork feats?

Additionally, improving the class' ranged options doesn't seem like such a great direction for a class which can only share Teamwork Feats with its pet. Pet can't do shieldwall, pet can't cast magic, pet can't fire arrows. So we're left with Outflank, Precise Strike, Broken Wing Gambit, Tandem Trip, and Escape Route. Notice a pattern? They're all reliant on being in melee with your buddy.

Thematically, I like the class, but it is stuck somewhere between "Crappy Ranger with Boon Companion," "Druid who sucks at doing Druid stuff," and "Inquisitor who's judgments don't last long enough and who gave up everything good about being an Inquisitor in exchange for an Animal Companion it can't properly utilize."

LoreKeeper wrote:

ArenCordial wrote:

I've said this is the Slayer thread but I'll say it here as well.

I'm surprised Paizo is willing to look at giving the Investigator's an ability to replace Sneak Attack so as to better fit that class' theme and yet not the Slayer as well. SA is in many ways counter to what the archetypes the Slayer represents. Warrior assassins, bounty hunters, monster slayers all are very much the niche the slayer is trying to hit, but all those character types are lone wolves in nature. SA however is very counter to that theme. It is very dependent either your party or very specific feat heavy builds to get the proper use out of SA.

Perhaps the developers would consider doing something to the Slayer similar to what they are doing with the Investigator and sub out Sneak Attack into a more thematic ability?

I don't particularly agree. Sneak Attack - in the slayer's sense - is about creating a very large alpha strike. Massive damage on the opening hit. For everything else there is Favored Target.

If a slayer is on a contract to kill something that is very hard to kill, he may very well look into working as a team. If he's set to do it on his own, then he may very well be the type of guy that has invested in the build and abilities to get his Sneak Attack off by himself.

I agree. 'Lone Wolf' or no, the Slayer is supposed to be some sort of expert hunter.

I've never met a hunter who introduced themselves to a deer. Instead they strike at their target's vital points from ambush.

The Deer would either be killed or flee. Do you see most of your enemies being one-shoted by a Slayer or fleeing? In world with extremely tough prey, hunting tactics would have to differ to adjust.

Plus it essentially locks up in very feat intensive builds for a feat starved class like the rogue. Sure the Slayer ought to get a damage feature for its shtick, I SA being just as limiting to the class as being helpful that's why I think another option could be explored even if it did on avg less dmg I'd prefer consistency..

Jason Buhlmahn wrote:

Warpriest

Finally we get to the warpriest. We are looking at strengthening the role of this class by taking it a bit away from the cleric's position. While we want the class to be among the best at healing and casting spells on itself and we are investigating a mechanic to let it do just that (probably in place of channel energy). We are also looking into a new class feature that allows the warpriest to be an effective combatant with the favored weapon of its deity, regardless of what weapon is favored by their deity. Look for increased damage and additional effects depending on the type of weapon and its role in the game.

I'm very pleased by what I see here, particularly the redress of nonequivalent weapon statistics with regard to the favored weapon being a critical element to the class features. Having the class be the best at healing and casting spells on itself isn't a direction that I would have gone in, but it's not a bad direction to go.

I wonder if there's been any thought given to it being the primary class to look to when dealing with one specific category of foes (be it undead, evil outsiders, demons, devils, etc...), able to use an ability to keep them focused on the warpriest as their primary enemy. I feel that is an aspect of game play that has only very lightly been touched upon in Pathfinder.

Best wishes!

+1-ing this. As far as the self-healing goes, it pretty much needs to be swift action or Paladin will just be better with LoH. Maybe X/day swift action cast a spell with range of touch on self-only? That'd let you use a decent number of buffs, and most importantly the cure series.

ChainsawSam wrote:

LoreKeeper wrote:

ArenCordial wrote:

I've said this is the Slayer thread but I'll say it here as well.

I'm surprised Paizo is willing to look at giving the Investigator's an ability to replace Sneak Attack so as to better fit that class' theme and yet not the Slayer as well. SA is in many ways counter to what the archetypes the Slayer represents. Warrior assassins, bounty hunters, monster slayers all are very much the niche the slayer is trying to hit, but all those character types are lone wolves in nature. SA however is very counter to that theme. It is very dependent either your party or very specific feat heavy builds to get the proper use out of SA.

Perhaps the developers would consider doing something to the Slayer similar to what they are doing with the Investigator and sub out Sneak Attack into a more thematic ability?

I don't particularly agree. Sneak Attack - in the slayer's sense - is about creating a very large alpha strike. Massive damage on the opening hit. For everything else there is Favored Target.

If a slayer is on a contract to kill something that is very hard to kill, he may very well look into working as a team. If he's set to do it on his own, then he may very well be the type of guy that has invested in the build and abilities to get his Sneak Attack off by himself.

I agree. 'Lone Wolf' or no, the Slayer is supposed to be some sort of expert hunter.

I've never met a hunter who introduced themselves to a deer. Instead they strike at their target's vital points from ambush.

The Deer would either be killed or flee. Do you see most of your enemies being one-shoted by a Slayer or fleeing? In world with extremely tough prey, hunting tactics would have to differ to adjust.

Plus it essentially locks up in very feat intensive builds for a feat starved class like the rogue. Sure the Slayer ought to get a damage feature for its shtick, I SA being just as limiting to the class as being helpful that's why I...

In a world with big nasty game you would have to adjust your tactics, say by -- wait for it -- not hunting alone.

I don't know a single hunter who hunts alone. No one goes on safari alone. Steve Irwin took a whole camera crew to poke crocodiles. People who screw with big beasts don't do it alone. Knowledge of their anatomy and teamwork make killing them feasible.

So that covers beast hunters. What about man hunters? Dog bounty hunts with a team and so does Spike Spiegel. Cops all have partners. Assassins and covert operatives commonly work either in pairs or with gigantic teams supporting them.

You asserted 'lone wolf.' I neither agreed nor disagreed but simply supported that sneak attack, given great knowledge of prey and attacking from ambush, was thematic. Now I am flat out disagreeing with the lone wolf vibe while continuing to call sneak attack thematic.

If someone wants to play a fighty type who is some awesome monster hunter then there are a load of very flavorable options available alrrady, if someone wants to do that AND have sneak attack then slayer is fine.

Then why only for the Investigator. I could see a highly learned individual taking courses in anatomy and learning where best to disable the opposition.

I don't see how its thematic for one but not the other.

I agree the class doesn't need to be designed in vacuum but Sneak Attack makes you far more dependent on others...that's the cross the Rogue has had to bear and it makes that class an opportunist in nature relying so much on other players to use its class feature.

Let me give you an example were the Slayer corners an enemy alone away from its allies sounds just like the thing an assassin/hunter would desire the most, but that's not really a trigger for Sneak Attack.

We could go back in forth on this all day but long story short I think if its not thematic for the Investigator I don't see how its significantly more so for the Slayer.

I'm not sure I understand your argument.

If you're trying to day that you think both the investigator and slayer should get sneak attack, then I agree.

If you're trying to say they shouldn't, then I disagree.

The investigator especially. If you strip sneak attack from slayer then it is still a full BAB combatant with good skills and a couple interesting perks. If you take sneak attack from the investigator you get an alchemist without good discoveries and without bombs. It'd be pretty lousy.

I'm eager to see deadly blowgun, bladed scarf, and starknife wielders on the field.

I'm really curious to see how the favored weapon boost will happen. Many are sub-optimal for reasons beyond hit die or damage type - reload speed, range, nonlethal, feat taxes for crossbows). So it will be interesting to see how the field is leveled.

A note about using specific spell lists for the classes: I love them, but please don't repeat the summoner mistake, where you gave them a ton of spells at lover level than other classes.

Disregarding the cantrips a summoner has 137 spells in the list published in the APG. 63 of those are spell that he get as lower level spells than other classes (and I haven't counted a few spells that he get at the same level of the cleric but at a lower level than a wizard).
When a class get 45% of the spells its specific spell list at a lower level than other casters, even those specialized in the specific magic school something is wrong (as a comparison, 12% of the spells in the bard spell list [using the CRB only] are at a lower level than other casters).

I don't know a single hunter who hunts alone.

I don't know a single elf wizard.

I'd much rather see the Investigator keep Sneak Attack. The character strikes me as a 'know it all' so I think knowing vital points to strike for damage fits fine.

I like teamwork. I like strategy and positioning. Therefore I like Sneak Attack as it rewards those facets of the game rather than -- charge, attack, continue to full round attack until it is dead -- snoozefest that optimized melee play seems to devolve to.

So what options do we have for Sneak Attack.

While I agree that for the "new" Sherlock Holmes mold, sneak attack works very well, I actually prefer an ability to add Int mod to damage. It would be a static bonus and would reward the intelligent characters and not require a certain level of strength to be effective in combat. I would make it precision damage, but I would allow it to be in addition to strength mod, instead of replacing. (Thereby not promoting the Str dump.)

But let us see what they come up with before we start tearing down the idea.

I think they understand that we have concerns about the investigator's combat viability. ^_^

So... We're continuing to add new abilities that neither base class has and modify spell lists to use ones that are custom or don't matching either of the two original classes... Investigator loosing Sneak Attack for something "custom"...

How are these things a blending of the original pair any more? I get that you're trying to "solve" multiclassing, but you're actually just making new bases classes with restrictions... I mean, as it stands, why would I WANT to be an Arcanist 3/ Wizard 3? Whats the point in banning it other than to continue to force the idea that this somehow fixes multiclassing.

The problem here isn't these classes... I like these classes so far (Shaman lots), but these just need to be new bases classes and Paizo should give up on the multiclassing thing. The honest truth is that without a system rewrite we're never going to be able to be a Ftr3/Wiz2/Rog5 and be effective, and trying to make hybrid classes will never work, because what I think is important in a hybrid will never match what you think is important in a hybrid.

jhartmann,

Paizo has, I believe, experimented with hybrid classes before without making them simply a blending of two classes (the Magus comes to the forefront of my mind when I think of pre-existing hybrid classes). This advanced class guide seems to be continuing in that vein to give some more interesting and useful classes to play without being required to multi-class to create specific concepts. Yes, I know that the Magus isn't restricted from taking levels in other classes, but I don't think that was a concern at the time it was written. I don't see this as a fix to multi-classing issues, but an option to playing a specific class that fits a multi-class concept in the same way that playing a Magus does.

Best wishes!

Haven't read all of the posts, but I've got a question: Swashbuckler is attacked by a foe who has multiple attacks, but doesn't have reach. Swashbuckler invokes "Recovery" before the first attack and uses it to step back out of reach. Do the second and later attacks fizzle because the Swash is out of reach?

I think so, unless there's a caveat in the playtest document that says you have to stay in its Reach (like the Trickery Domain ability).

Recovery actually moves up a notch in my estimation now.

I am moderately certain that the no-multiclassing of hybrids is intended for the playtest - and they'll have a multi-classing solution for the final product.

I stand to be corrected though.

So... We're continuing to add new abilities that neither base class has and modify spell lists to use ones that are custom or don't matching either of the two original classes... Investigator loosing Sneak Attack for something "custom"...

How are these things a blending of the original pair any more? I get that you're trying to "solve" multiclassing, but you're actually just making new bases classes with restrictions... I mean, as it stands, why would I WANT to be an Arcanist 3/ Wizard 3? Whats the point in banning it other than to continue to force the idea that this somehow fixes multiclassing.

The problem here isn't these classes... I like these classes so far (Shaman lots), but these just need to be new bases classes and Paizo should give up on the multiclassing thing. The honest truth is that without a system rewrite we're never going to be able to be a Ftr3/Wiz2/Rog5 and be effective, and trying to make hybrid classes will never work, because what I think is important in a hybrid will never match what you think is important in a hybrid.

I'm all in favor of diverging significantly from the merging classes. The magus is an excellent example of a successful hybrid. The brawler (while effective) is a boring example of a hybrid. (It is boring, in my opinion, in that it really is just a monk archetype, it is not even distinct enough to be an alternate class of the monk.)

Haven't read all of the posts, but I've got a question: Swashbuckler is attacked by a foe who has multiple attacks, but doesn't have reach. Swashbuckler invokes "Recovery" before the first attack and uses it to step back out of reach. Do the second and later attacks fizzle because the Swash is out of reach?

That's worth asking in the swashbuckler discussion thread, but by my reading, you're only spared from the rest of their attacks if they decide not to or are unable to take a 5' step and finish.

A last thought - for now - the Advanced Class Guide will feature several archetypes for each hybrid. That makes perfect sense. However, what doesn't make sense is the need to make the hybrids recognizable as a combination of the merging classes.

Consider: a current hybrid fuses its two parent classes, then replaces/renames some of the abilities. The hybrid is by and large recognizable as the original. Then along come the hybrid archetypes. Now the remainder of original abilities may be replaced and something wholly original appears.

I think this is strong incentive and indicative that the hybrid classes should largely do their own thing. They may draw inspiration from their parents, but should be original in their own right.

If all you wanted to do was buff dual-classing (true dual-classing, not dipping) without introducing any new mechanics like Spell Combat to make the two classes synergize properly, you could write out a more general version instead of only writing out versions for ten of the 153 pairs. For example, off the back of a napkin, "Choose two classes. At levels 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, 18, 19, and 20, you gain a gestalt level combining those two classes; spread your other levels evenly between your two classes." That effectively makes you 2/3 of each class, which is essentially what things like the Warpriest are doing at the moment (and what the old core hybrid prestige classes tried to do before that).

The hybrid classes need to do their own thing and/or have new unique abilities a-la-Spell Combat to synegize their component classes. Otherwise, this book is taking a long time to do very little.

The magus is a hybrid between the fighter and the wizard almost exclusively on a thematic level, rather than a mechanical level. It inherits almost nothing at all from the fighter except that its small number of bonus feats can be combat feats, and nothing from the Wizard except being an int-based prepared arcane spellcaster and the ability to snipe some spells from that list. Meanwhile, it has its own spell list and tons of major class features that have nothing to do with anything the fighter or the wizard do natively.

There's a ton of room between "literally nothing but a slightly smoothed out multiclass" and "totally new class that happens to have slight thematic ties to a few existing classes, like the magus."

I'd much rather see the ACG classes be classes that use the idea of a hybrid of two classes as a starting place for doing their own thing than things that are just uninteresting multiclass progressions. I don't think that they need to be as totally novel as the magus (which is a bad example of a ACG-style hybrid anyway, since it inherits no more from what its alleged component classes are than any other new class inherits from other classes), but 30/30/40 is a hundred times more exciting to me than 50/50.

@Joyd: word.

The Arcanist is sounding cooler and cooler. Glad to see the Spells-per-day getting toned down. Also I'm glad to hear that the Brawler will be getting a better capstone. As it stands, it's really lame, especially since you can probably qualify for Awesome Blow earlier than you get that capstone.

I was most pleasantly surprised fluff-wise by the Hunter. I've always liked Beastmaster and Vixen and the Hunter really oozes this. Although it needs some work, I'm glad that at least fluff-wise, I can see how it is different enough from the ranger.

I was planning on running a quick playtest game this week with my roommies, but I may hold off for the second document.

I like how some of them are getting changed.

Though I am one that would love to have multiple options that don't require a person to take an Animal Companion or similar. After all with 6+ Players those can really slow down play.

Though I think the Bloodrager definitely needs it's own spell list. And the Hunter could be a 6 Level Nature Divine Caster. The Shaman could be a spontaneous Druid.

Then we would have:
-Ranger, Hunter, & Druid/Shaman.
-Bloodrager, Magus, Wizard/Sorcerer.
-Paladin, Inquisitor, & Cleric/Oracle.

ChainsawSam wrote:

I don't know a single hunter who hunts alone.

I don't know a single elf wizard.

Yeah, you'd think all wizards would be socially-awkward, but available elf wizzie bachelors/bachelorettes are always getting snatched up straight outta mage academy. Have you tried setting up a profile on eReverie.com?

I'm very keen on these classes not being straight 50/50... I'm just not keen on then "no multi"classing stuff... Is a Barbarian 2 / Bloodrager 2 going to be mechanically too good? No. When then the restrictions? Makes no sense to me.

I think when the actual book comes out, that restriction might be loosen a bit. I think it was put in as a block statement to avoid going into too much detail about how to handle progressing certain class features that would probably have to follow special rules, like a Cleric's/Warpriest's Channel Energy stacking rather than being two separate abilities like normal, or Sneak Attack combining to the total of class levels that give it rather than just adding together to get a lot of up front sneak attack.

But we will see, (and just my hypothesis).

Then we would have:

-Ranger, Hunter, & Druid/Shaman.
-Bloodrager, Magus, Wizard/Sorcerer.
-Paladin, Inquisitor, & Cleric/Oracle.

The logical perfectionist in me absolutely adores the symmetry you have here. On the other hand, do these classes really deserve their own spell lists? I can't say for sure, but I do think that there are more than a few ranger-only spells that deserve to be on the Hunter spell list. (Lead Blades / Gravity Bow, for example.)

Results of the Black Friday ACG playtest (DM's perspective):
1) Brawlers and Bloodragers could dish out serious damage but were a bit squishy and could be taken down fast. The Brawler's flexible access to feats is really cool, but requires some serious planning to optimize.
2) Swashbuckler is no joke. Had some really neat abilities and one of our group built one that could reach an insane AC (as long as dex bonus in play). Another could dish out good damage but was squishy.
3) Arcanist revised had some really DM annoying abilities like counterspell and was very tricksy. If I had to play another caster I'd probably try this next.
4) I liked the shamans a lot. Built four different version to try them out with each as spell/heal support to melee. Sending in familiars to heal front-liners was effective. I would like to try a melee build now too to see how they stand up.
5) Warpriests were tough enough to hold their own as well. Made a group that worked together in formation with teamwork feats and healed each other, keeping them going strong and killing one PC bloodrager in the mix. Fun.
6) Hunters were a little disappointing but probably my build was suboptimal. I didn't see how it's particularly better/different than a druid/ranger multi-class. They really didn't have the combat abilities to compare with other classes so much.
7) Slayers did as well as expected, but not too many surprises.
8) Investigator did well under the situation (mainly a combat playtest) and I'd like seeing one in action all around. The talent to share the insight bonus vs enemies was very useful.
9) Skalds meh. Colorful support and distraction.

I like virtually all of the proposed changes. IMO, with the exception of the changes to the Shaman spells, they address the most important problems with all of the classes. The change to the Shaman spells seems to be pigeon-holing the shaman into nature spirits, whereas currently nature spirits are only one type of spirit that they can choose. Why should a shaman focusing in Battle or Lore know Calm Animals or Charm Animals, much less Magic Fang, rather than spells like Augery, Remove Curse (this is supposed to be an Oracle / Witch based class), and later Planar Ally.

I cannot understand the logic behind giving the Shaman the Druid list. Even if we leave aside the fact that it will lose iconic shaman style spells (Protection from Alignment for dealing with possession, Speak with Dead, Commune (with ancestors) and plenty of others) how do you give a combination of the Oracle and the Witch the Druid spell list?

The Shaman deals with the invisible world of the supernatural, protecting his community from its threats, intervening with spirits, appeasing them, healing the sick or the possessed. The Druid is rooted in the natural world. The two are very different areas of experience and competence. How exactly is the Shaman supposed to do any of that with stuff like Entangle, Spike Stones or Summon Natures Ally.

The reality is that the Shaman would be far better placed with it's own list drawing fairly heavily from Cleric and Witch with a few picked Druid spells (Commune with Nature and the like). In the absence of that it should at least use one of its parent classes list.

Yeah I'm a bit peeved with that one too.

Partly because I despise the Druid spell list. It's pretty much the only reason I don't play Druids, despite the fact that I love Wild Shape.

But it also doesn't make any darn sense.

Azaelas Fayth wrote:

Then we would have:

-Ranger, Hunter, & Druid/Shaman.
-Bloodrager, Magus, Wizard/Sorcerer.
-Paladin, Inquisitor, & Cleric/Oracle.

The logical perfectionist in me absolutely adores the symmetry you have here. On the other hand, do these classes really deserve their own spell lists? I can't say for sure, but I do think that there are more than a few ranger-only spells that deserve to be on the Hunter spell list. (Lead Blades / Gravity Bow, for example.)

Gravity Bow is available for Wizards but I agree.

Heck they could eventually add a Class for the Cleric/Oracle & Druid/Shaman that casts spells like the Arcanist does.

But when adding 2 Spell Lists means you can then use those for future classes I think it is worth adding them

A Shaman is someone who communes with the Spirits in the world. I would say that corresponds with the Druid pretty well. The Spell List does have some stuff that would work with their role.

I was really hoping that the shaman was a spontaneous caster druid. At least they changed it's spell list to a druids spell list, much better then the cleric's to me.

I disagree myself. Druid sounds better on paper, as fat as theme, but in reality lacks far too much that the Cleric list had.

The druid spell list has accumulated fewer things that don't feel like they make a lot of sense, but it's also much shorter on divination spells, especially ones that don't do things like detecting plants and stuff.

Soooo. An idea when we see the updated playtest?

The druid's spell list is a better fit then the clerics for the shaman plus the druid has more blasting and battlefield control spells, plus I like the nature themed spells. If only the oracle could choose wich list(cleric or druid) it could use during character creation, then the earth, flame, waves, wind, and nature mysteries would be a lot more interesting.

I keep thinking that the Witch spell list is my favorite for Shaman. The mixture of traditionally divine and arcane spells fit with a class that is powered by the supernatural but not the deitic. Also Witch and Shaman seem to have similar power sources.

Hmm. Considering an idea… Druid spell list as an archetype? Limit the spirit options to Nature, Life, and the four elemental options. Replace Spirit Familiar with a tougher familiar. Replace the spells from Wandering Spirit with Summon Nature's Ally I - IX, maybe? I dunno, just a thought.

Most of these changes seem like very smart choices that balance fan concerns and paizo's vision. Although.... I think the warpriest's main issue is not optimization but theme. He could be the smoothest, most well balanced build in the book, but a player wanting to play a divine warrior already has the cleric, oracle, inquisitor and paladin: all better explained with a clearer niche and role. The warpriest needs a full conceptual enema. Other than that, awesome work!

I keep thinking that the Witch spell list is my favorite for Shaman. The mixture of traditionally divine and arcane spells fit with a class that is powered by the supernatural but not the deitic. Also Witch and Shaman seem to have similar power sources.

Yeah that actually does seem like the obvious choice