Advanced Class Guide Preview: Hunter

Toward the end of the write-up, I was expecting "stay thirsty, my friends."

Looking forward to seeing the final incarnation in a couple of weeks.

Also, love those beefy tiger fingers for the feral hunter!

I'm liking the direction this is going quite a bit. Also, clearly, the Feral Hunter will be effective mechanically, since it has basically all the advantages Druids have in melee (well, a few less buff spells, but Animal Focus balances that out a bit).

Hopefully the standard Hunter will also be viable via Teamwork Feats and similar things, and personally I expect that it will, I'm just noting that, given how awesome Wild Shape is, we already know that at least one Archetype is good to go.

so human is your guess, where from?

edit:I should also ask what ethnic group of human as well

She's a redhead, and has a pet wolf. So...maybe Ulfen? Really, that's just a guess, though.

so human is your guess, where from?

I can see her being from Nirmathas, also.

But I'm still scratching my head as to why it's a full "new" class when it's basically a glorified ranger archetype.

And an arcanist is a glorified sorcerer archetype. And a brawler is a glorified fighter archetype. And a warpriest is a glorified cleric archetype. And a bloodrager is a glorified barbarian archetype...

Barbarian, Druid, Ranger, Hunter, Witch - My ideal "Champions of Nature" party, would be really interesting to see such a group interact with a campaign like Kingmaker, or Serpent's Skull which have a pretty big nature/outdoors focus.

This is just my opinion, but I think that the strength of this class is going to depend on the new teamwork feats available in the Advanced Class Guide. Just like the strength of the fighter depends on combat feats.

swoosh wrote:

But I'm still scratching my head as to why it's a full "new" class when it's basically a glorified ranger archetype.

And an arcanist is a glorified sorcerer archetype. And a brawler is a glorified fighter archetype. And a warpriest is a glorified cleric archetype. And a bloodrager is a glorified barbarian archetype...

Eh, the bloodrager is magical, which makes him distinct. The brawler has a few different tricks too and while it is similar (too similar, I think) it doesn't really cover a niche that its base classes already try to cover.

But no arguments at all on Warpriest or Arcanist, they're just as bad. I mean we already have Strength clerics, melee oracles, Inquisitors and Paladins... why do we need another divine fighter? And the Arcanist... Wizards and Sorcerers are already too similar, why the hell do we need to hybridize two classes that are almost identical to begin with?

Though at the very least the Warpriest and Arcanist try to do a couple new things. The hunter is literally just the Ranger again.

A square is a glorified archetype of a rectangle.
Mass is a glorified archetype of energy.
All fantasy worlds are glorified archetypes of the real world.
Humans are glorified archetypes of apes.

Being reductionist is fun!

Incidentally all squares are rectangles, but not all rectangles are squares.

The brawler has a few different tricks too and while it is similar (too similar, I think) it doesn't really cover a niche that its base classes already try to cover.

The hunter is literally just the Ranger again.

You're right, it's just like the ranger except for the BAB, Hit die, spell progression, and class features.

All they really have in common is an animal companion (which the hunter gets a better version of) and the idea that both might like to shoot you with a bow.

It's almost as if it was a halfway point between the druid and the ranger.

it would be really great if Mark Seifter would write a blog post explaining in clear detail how the hunter class design process evolved to help differentiate it from both the ranger and the druid rather than making it feel like a glorified archetype of either

OH WAIT

You're right, it's just like the ranger except for the BAB, Hit die, spell progression, and class features.

All they really have in common is an animal companion (which the hunter gets a better version of) and the idea that both might like to shoot you with a bow.

It's almost as if it was a halfway point between the druid and the ranger.

So other than the fluff, playstyle, themes and niches it fills it's nothing like the Ranger at all? Kind of struggling to find differences at that (slightly different HD! Entirely different class! Every spell the rangers knows and a few he doesn't! Entirely different spell progression!)

We're basically describing an archetype here.

You're right, we are describing the halfway point between a druid and a ranger.. the problem here being that there isn't a lot of design space there since the ranger is half druid to begin with.

Question: What's stopping me from keeping my animal companion dead and reaping four succulent benefits? How does that ability work?

Now I want to play a hunter who summons a wolf, kills it, skins it, and absorbs its power by wearing its pelt as a cloak. And any time he encounters a situation where a live wolf would be really handy, he throws his wolf pelt on the ground and raises it from the dead.

We're basically describing an archetype here.

I can't think of any archetypes that change HD/BAB or casting progression. The closest I can think of a handfull that reduce spells-per-day by a uniform number across the table. There isn't anything that reduces a sorcerer to a bard progression, for instance.

But you clearly have your opinion, so who am I to try to change your mind?

I'm a bit of a junky for Shapeshifting Hunter Druid/Rangers, so when I read Feral Hunter I was a bit disappointed. My first gut feeling was that, by losing the Animal Companion, the Feral Hunter would be worse than a Druid/Ranger hybrid Shapeshifting Hunter build.

Then, you realize the Hunter still has more to offer. If you're looking for a replacement for a Wild Shaping Druid or Shapeshifting Hunter Ranger, you can't just look at the Hunter and expect it to buff. Feral Hunter (and Hunter in general) adds new playstyle and build styles to mess around with and shouldn't replace the Ranger or Druid for anything. That's a sign of a well-built class. Yes, I hope that the Hunter has some sort of accuracy boost built into it. Yes, I hope that Feral Hunter has enough of a summoning boon and 'permanent buffs' to make it not overshadowed by the Hunter. But just like the Druid and Ranger shouldn't overshadow the Hunter, the Hunter shouldn't completely kick-down the Druid and Ranger, two very powerful classes. We're not talking about the Rogue and Monk here, Druid and Ranger are very strong and making a class that can replicate a build of those classes but be even stronger is asking for power creep.

TL;DR: You can't look take a Ranger or Druid build and directly compare it to the closest version of the build as a Hunter. I'm glad most of the conversation is excitement as it should be and I don't think anyone here is being negative. It's great (probably due to an excellent post on Mark's part and the hype with the book coming out soon). Paizo has a very competent staff and I doubt they would make a class that could not do their job better than similar classes this far into the development cycle of Pathfinder.

Alexander Augunas wrote:

Question: What's stopping me from keeping my animal companion dead and reaping four succulent benefits? How does that ability work?

Now I want to play a hunter who summons a wolf, kills it, skins it, and absorbs its power by wearing its pelt as a cloak. And any time he encounters a situation where a live wolf would be really handy, he throws his wolf pelt on the ground and raises it from the dead.

Okay, despite the bloodrager, skald, and slayer, this might be the most metal character idea so far.

I quick question that can hopefully be answered. While it mentions in the blog post that they aren't restricted from wearing heavy armor can they wear metal armor now?

Couldn't they use metal armor in the playtest? Just not heavy armor.

Ventnor wrote:

If an Inquisitor and a Hunter pick the same Teamwork feats with their class features, why wouldn't said feats interact with each other?

I suspect he meant that the teamwork feats might have a prerequisite to take them of "Animal Companion", or such thus limiting who can pick them up.

Feather Domain. The inquisition cannot be stopped!

Blackvial wrote:

so here is a good question, what race is the iconic hunter going to be and from where do they hail?

We know that the iconic hunter is female, since that's the pronoun used in the playtest.

We've seen (blurry) art of the iconic together, so we know she's human or half-elf. Possibly elf, if not a very tall one.

We currently have two female half-elf iconics and only one male half-elf iconics, so she's probably human.

I think the iconic is going to be a big cat (wolf?) and he'll have a female human casting companion.

this class also looks awesome

if this ever gets a firearm archetype i could make a proper Mordecai

I couldn't handle it. If my bird ever died I'd have horrible flashbacks and break down crying mid-session.

swoosh wrote:

But I'm still scratching my head as to why it's a full "new" class when it's basically a glorified ranger archetype.

And an arcanist is a glorified sorcerer archetype. And a brawler is a glorified fighter archetype. And a warpriest is a glorified cleric archetype. And a bloodrager is a glorified barbarian archetype...

Warpriest is more like a glorified Paladin archetype, actually. They get a lot of the same stuff, but much of it is worse, bar the casting.

swoosh wrote:

We're basically describing an archetype here.

I can't think of any archetypes that change HD/BAB or casting progression. The closest I can think of a handfull that reduce spells-per-day by a uniform number across the table. There isn't anything that reduces a sorcerer to a bard progression, for instance.

If the only thing that separates a class from another class is HD, BaB, and casting progression, it's time to go back to the drawing board.

It is, in that case, a glorified archetype. Which is what he said.

(Glorified meaning something unexceptional presented as something special, since you seem to have overlooked that).

Which the 2nd playtest version of Hunter was undoubtedly. It was PRESENTED as a new class.

What it ACTUALLY was was a Druid with less casting, and a few minor abilities based around its Animal Companion, which could have come from an archetype easily.

Hence: Glorified archetype.

You're nitpicking tiny differences and trying to inflate them to something more significant.

Is the final Hunter that way? Remains to be seen.

But it certainly WAS originally.

Ross Byers wrote:

Blackvial wrote:

so here is a good question, what race is the iconic hunter going to be and from where do they hail?

We know that the iconic hunter is female, since that's the pronoun used in the playtest.

We've seen (blurry) art of the iconic together, so we know she's human or half-elf. Possibly elf, if not a very tall one.

We currently have two female half-elf iconics and only one male half-elf iconics, so she's probably human.

I think the iconic is going to be a big cat and he'll have a female human casting companion.

Nope. If going by that logic, he or she is a wolf with a human casting companion.

Dennis Baker wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

Blackvial wrote:

so here is a good question, what race is the iconic hunter going to be and from where do they hail?

We know that the iconic hunter is female, since that's the pronoun used in the playtest.

We've seen (blurry) art of the iconic together, so we know she's human or half-elf. Possibly elf, if not a very tall one.

We currently have two female half-elf iconics and only one male half-elf iconics, so she's probably human.

I think the iconic is going to be a big cat and he'll have a female human casting companion.

Nope. If going by that logic, he or she is a wolf with a human casting companion.

Yeah, I didn't know about the wolf artwork. Fixed my post sort of.

The hunter was the only class in the playtest that didn't grab me like the others. But now? Now things have gotten interesting.

But it certainly WAS originally.

it would be really great if Mark Seifter would write a blog post explaining in clear detail how the hunter class design process evolved to help differentiate it from both the ranger and the druid rather than making it feel like a glorified archetype of either

OH WAIT

Rynjin wrote:

But it certainly WAS originally.

Lamontius wrote:

it would be really great if Mark Seifter would write a blog post explaining in clear detail how the hunter class design process evolved to help differentiate it from both the ranger and the druid rather than making it feel like a glorified archetype of either

OH WAIT

Cute.

It'd probably be more valid if the changes presented were more significant than "It gets a Bonus Feat" (something many archetypes do),
"It gets to add some spells from other lists" (which is something some archetypes do), and "It gets more skills" (something far fewer archetypes do, but still some do).

It is, at best, an alternate class from what has been presented. Without MAJOR changes, none of which have been teased here except the neat little "Raise your companion from the dead" thing, it will be that way in the final release too.

This is the only class I took an immediate disliking to from the playtest just on concept alone, and its execution so far has done nothing to change that initial impression.

The book as a whole, from the information we've been given is a real mixed bag of really well designed (Slayer, Investigator, Bloodrager, possibly Skald and Shaman), flawed but workable (Brawler, Swashbuckler, Warpriest), and horrid (Arcanist and Hunter).

swoosh wrote:

We're basically describing an archetype here.

I can't think of any archetypes that change HD/BAB or casting progression. The closest I can think of a handfull that reduce spells-per-day by a uniform number across the table. There isn't anything that reduces a sorcerer to a bard progression, for instance.

But you clearly have your opinion, so who am I to try to change your mind?

You're right. Archetype might be the wrong word (Though a minor change in HD and BAB are pretty trivial overall)

The larger point here being that the Hunter occupies the same design space and has a lot of the same mechanics as the ranger, which I don't think makes it a particularly compelling choice for a new class (along with the arcanist and warpriest).

A square is a glorified archetype of a rectangle.

Actually, the square is a hybrid class of the rectangle class and the rhombus class.

The larger point here being that the Hunter occupies the same design space and has a lot of the same mechanics as the ranger, which I don't think makes it a particularly compelling choice for a new class (along with the arcanist and warpriest).

I've been tooting this horn for awhile now, and its kind of pointless since the Core Rulebook is not going to be changed, but I think the largest challenge to the Warpriest and Hunter is that that Druid and Cleric have 3/4 BAB. If the cleric, druid, and oracle had 1/2 BAB like the other 9-level casters, then it would be much more obvious what midpoint the hunter and warpriest are filling.

Instead of the current situation, where it is really easy to look at the hunter and say "That's nice and all, but I could fight just as well as a druid and get new spells every other level instead of every third level." (There is clearly SOME design space there, as the Inquisitor shows. But it's much more of a knife's edge than the corresponding design space for arcane classes where the Alchemist, Bard, Magus, and Summoner hang out.)

Blackvial wrote:

this class also looks awesome

if this ever gets a firearm archetype i could make a proper Mordecai

I couldn't handle it. If my bird ever died I'd have horrible flashbacks and break down crying mid-session.

I know that feel.

You could make almost the same argument about the inquisitor versus the cleric, but the end result is two classes that play very differently in actual experience. I rather expect the hunter to play put similarly.

The book as a whole, from the information we've been given is a real mixed bag of really well designed (Slayer, Investigator, Bloodrager, possibly Skald and Shaman), flawed but workable (Brawler, Swashbuckler, Warpriest), and horrid (Arcanist and Hunter).

So far I'm happy with what I've heard from most of the previews. I'm still iffy on a few but the only one that I'd put in the 'horrid' section is the Warpriest. That preview was a big kick to the groin. Pretty much Warpiest and hunter swapped places and now I'm looking forward to the Hunter and wary about the Warpriest.

Maybe Mark should have done the warpriest preview too! ;)

swoosh wrote:

The larger point here being that the Hunter occupies the same design space and has a lot of the same mechanics as the ranger, which I don't think makes it a particularly compelling choice for a new class (along with the arcanist and warpriest).

I've been tooting this horn for awhile now, and its kind of pointless since the Core Rulebook is not going to be changed, but I think the largest challenge to the Warpriest and Hunter is that that Druid and Cleric have 3/4 BAB. If the cleric, druid, and oracle had 1/2 BAB like the other 9-level casters, then it would be much more obvious what midpoint the hunter and warpriest are filling.

Instead of the current situation, where it is really easy to look at the hunter and say "That's nice and all, but I could fight just as well as a druid and get new spells every other level instead of every third level." (There is clearly SOME design space there, as the Inquisitor shows. But it's much more of a knife's edge than the corresponding design space for arcane classes where the Alchemist, Bard, Magus, and Summoner hang out.)

It's nice to see that the hunter has been improved, but I'm still not entirely convinced by the class - out of the 10 ACG classes the hunter is the only one I'm not really interested in. As has already been mentioned, "nature guy with nature spells and an animal companion who likes nature" is a fairly tight design space to try and fit in a third class. I do think the "wildshape" hunter archetype sounds interesting, but that could have worked as a ranger archetype as well.

I can't help but feel that the "hunter section" of the book could have been better used on another class concept - a 1/2 BAB divine caster, for example. There's plenty of design space for a non-martial "priest" class that focuses more on knowledge skills and using supportive (or harassing) magic. Archivist anyone?

A 1/2 BAB divine class has the same problem the hunter does, but from the other side. It can't have better spells than the cleric, because a cleric already has great spellcasting. But then the cleric has 3/4 BAB and better armor.

What BAB track is the shaman on?

The Hunter was the only class I wasn't super excited about during the playtest because I honestly wasn't sure what niche it was trying to fill. At first, I thought it felt too much like the WoW class, but now I'm beginning to see that that isn't necessarily a bad thing. The Hunter was my wife's second favorite class in WoW after the Druid, so she's excited to give the final version a go.

Switching it to a spontaneous caster, lending it a bit more magical firepower in the early levels, and additional teamwork feats may well set it further apart from the Ranger and Druid. I'm excited to run a session with a Ranger, Druid, and Hunter on the same team and see how my players feel about them in terms of similarities and differences.

Couldn't they use metal armor in the playtest? Just not heavy armor.

I'm pretty sure they couldn't at least in the first playtest.

Another question that can hopefully be answer; based off the playtest can they be any alignment instead of just any neutral like in the playtest

I suppose I'll see next week, but are there any new Traps (a la the Ranger Trapper archetype)? The ones from UM are fairly lackluster, and it'd be awesome to get more support for that sort of archetype. Especially with the Hunter class coming out, it seems like prime opportunity.

Otherwise, the class looks like it fills a niche one of my players has been wanting. He dislikes the complexity of the Summoner eidolon and its bad combat abilities. The spell list also looks like it'll be really good. Excited for release!

I can't help but feel that the "hunter section" of the book could have been better used on another class concept - a 1/2 BAB divine caster, for example. There's plenty of design space for a non-martial "priest" class that focuses more on knowledge skills and using supportive (or harassing) magic. Archivist anyone?

Yeah, personally I would've preferred a cleric + wizard or sorcerer + oracle. Something that can deliver the Mystic Theurge feel without having to be level 7 to get things rolling.

A 1/2 BAB divine class has the same problem the hunter does: it can't have better spells than the cleric, because a cleric already has great spellcasting. But then the cleric has 3/4 BAB and better armor.

I disagree. I like the Priest for example. A little more spellcasting (one extra domain, and one extra domain slot), diferent spontaneous casting, way more skills, better channeling and bardic knowledge. I think is a pretty balanced class, I would have liked a paizo attempt to the concept though.

A 1/2 BAB divine class has the same problem the hunter does, but from the other side. It can't have better spells than the cleric, because a cleric already has great spellcasting. But then the cleric has 3/4 BAB and better armor.

What BAB track is the shaman on?

Shaman should be 3/4 BAB, at least from last playtest. So yeah.

Honestly, I'm now considering making a Hunter/Inquisitor of Gozreh just as the proof of my ultimate sniper concept. Now I don't need to invest in UMD for the Inquisitor's Distance Heavy Repeating X Bane Crossbow to have even bigger dice to roll. Just a level or two of Hunter, and I'm set.

A 1/2 BAB divine class has the same problem the hunter does, but from the other side. It can't have better spells than the cleric, because a cleric already has great spellcasting. But then the cleric has 3/4 BAB and better armor.

It doesn't necessarily need to be a significantly more powerful spellcaster than the cleric. What I'd do is to take the other cleric features (D8 HD, two strong saves, medium BAB, channel energy, domains, medium armor & shield proficiency, weapons) and trade that in for other things.

If you go start with a class that has cleric-style casting, D6 HD, strong will save, no armor or shield proficiency and wizard-level weapon proficiency, that leaves you lots of playroom to add interesting stuff. There are a bunch of homebrew takes on the concept, and at least two 3rd party versions as well.

What BAB track is the shaman on?

The shaman is medium BAB.

Ross Byers wrote:

A 1/2 BAB divine class has the same problem the hunter does: it can't have better spells than the cleric, because a cleric already has great spellcasting. But then the cleric has 3/4 BAB and better armor.

I disagree. I like the Priest for example. A little more spellcasting (one extra domain, and one extra domain slot), diferent spontaneous casting, way more skills, better channeling and bardic knowledge. I think is a pretty balanced class, I would have liked a paizo attempt to the concept though.

I'm not trying to say such a thing is impossible. I'm simply saying that that is another difficult chunk of design space. (Too much spellcasting or other class features and it starts looking better than the wizard. Too little and it compares poorly against a cleric.)

If this book had a cleric/wizard crossover (Priest, archivist, whatever) instead of a ranger/druid crossover, we could just as easily be having this same conversation.

"It's a glorified Cleric archetype." "I can't imagine why I'd choose to play this over a cleric or a wizard." and so on.

I see the Feral Hunter as an opportunity to play a Wildshape focused character who isn't OP like a Druid.

Similar to how I see the Inquisitor as the chance to play a Holy Warrior who isn't super OP like a Cleric.

We'll see how it goes, but for now that's my opinion. Also I'm glad the PDF is only 10 dollars because I dunno if I really want this in hardcover.

Toward the end of the write-up, I was expecting "stay thirsty, my friends."

Looking forward to seeing the final incarnation in a couple of weeks.

I often play Summoner's, but when I don't, I choose Hunters. Stay bloodthirsty my friends.

KirbyEF wrote:

Spontaneous caster as in they know a limited number of spells like an oracle/inquisitor/sorcerer/bard? or all ranger and druid spells?

Mark is there are limited number of spell known (like an inquisitor)?

Yes, it has a limited number of spells known, in the typical spontaneous caster fashion.

A class that can spontaneously cast "Allfood"? Sold.

My greatest concerns for this class(which I was active about in the playtest), is that they didn't fill the void the hunter had in class ablities from level 9 to 19 as well as the enhancement bonuses to animal focus. The class got a total of 4 teamwork feats and its normal spell progression only for 10 levels strait,that's it. This void made it feel bland.

The issue with animal focus, was its interaction with the animal companion, namely that as an enhancement bonus and thus it is able to be replicated by items.By having a key class feature that offers no real bonus at higher levels could never elevate the hunters companion above a rangers or druids. Not only that the bonus type didn't feel unique, the hunters parent class the ranger gets untyped bonuses to its key features, and the hunters counterpart the inquisitor gets sacred bonuses. The hunter was mainly being sold to us as "the animal companion" class. Yet its animal companion was pretty normal, and not nearly the strongest available (consider mad dog barb, pre-retconed black sable marine, a few cavilers, and the existence of the summoner). I have hope that the divine hunter archetypes' animal companion alleviates this, or we have more useful and less situational animal focus choice.

The feral hunter sounds amazing but two things jump out at me: one, I dread the possibility of the "solo" style animal focus bonuses being enhancement. Because yeah all of mine and my groups martials typical strive for a belt of physical perfection at higher levels, thus rendering a cool class ability less useful.

The second concern is its wildshape. Yes the hunter gets same progression as druid (yes!), but is restricted to animals (no biggie), but has 3/4 bab and no way to buff its hit ( especially if its animal focus bonus is enhancement bonus). So why not just play a druid with more options and better spell casting? I am not saying this snarky, I really love the idea for this archetype, I am just concerned. Team work feats have been listed as the way to get this buff to hit, but unless the feral hunter gets a replacement or inquisitors solo tactics I fear for this archtype.

Guess we will have to wait and see, but I am hopeful.

The enhancement bonus thing doesn't bother me. Belts of physical perfection are crazy expensive, at worst it is letting you buy a belt of physical might instead of spend that coin on something else cool.

There's also the option to get non-numeric abilities (Mark mentioned blindsight and evasion as options), if you really do have all your physical abilities capped out.

For the feral hunter, it's mentioned they get stuff for summoned creatures. Maybe it uses its teamwork feats with summons instead of a companion?

For the feral hunter, it's mentioned they get stuff for summoned creatures. Maybe it uses its teamwork feats with summons instead of a companion?

I'm hoping this. That or having the summons last longer or summon faster. Teamwork feats is what I would like to see most, though.