Advanced Class Guide Preview: Hunter

I was just goofing around. And while optimizing can be a fun intellectual exercise, I try not to let it get in the way of the role-playing.

That said, the warpriest is also a divine spellcaster with full martial weapon proficiency.

Consider...

WP1/Wiz1/EK6/MT2/EK2/MT2/EK2/MT2/Wiz1/WP1

9th lvl Wizard Spells, 15 BAB, 3rd lvl Cleric Spells, and 1d6 with a dagger or whip.

There is a reason that I chose this screen name. ;)

How do you go into eldritch knight after only one level or Warpriest and one level of Wizard? You need 5 levels of wizard to qualify for Eldritch Knight, or 4 levels of Warpriest and 3 levels of wizard to qualify for mystic theurge in order to then get two levels of MT before that qualifies for EK.

Tels has the right idea and also is full of amazing ideas for classes!

Maybe we'll get lucky and the Hunter will have some good archetypes? Also the niche it's going to fill in my group is "Let's have a game with no full casters." Honestly that's not a niche that should exist for various reason, but it's a niche.

When you work from character concept then to class the Hunter has nothing

"I want to be a natury archer who has a pet!"
Ranger is better

"I want to have natury spells!"
Druid is better

"I want to be some amazing beast transformation dude!"
Druid is better

"I want to be a dude who hits things in melee!"
Barb, Slayer, Paladin
"-who is ALSO natury"
Oh then Ranger

I don't, and I hope most people don't, pick class first then concept. I pick my concept first then find the chassis that best fits what I envision my character doing.

Yes but the problem you are having is you are picking what class is "better" not nessisarily whats more fun. Too many people go for "more power" and lose sight that at the core this game (and every other game) is about having fun not going for the garenteed win. I think this class has lots of great potential along with all the other ACG classes.

How do you go into eldritch knight after only one level or Warpriest and one level of Wizard? You need 5 levels of wizard to qualify for Eldritch Knight, or 4 levels of Warpriest and 3 levels of wizard to qualify for mystic theurge in order to then get two levels of MT before that qualifies for EK.

Spell-like Abilities count for those prerequisites. So just being a Diviner (Scryer) for your wizard level is enough to qualify for EK. Mystic Theurge gets a little trickier, but Aasimar can pull it off if I recall correctly.

Insain Dragoon wrote:

Tels has the right idea and also is full of amazing ideas for classes!

Maybe we'll get lucky and the Hunter will have some good archetypes? Also the niche it's going to fill in my group is "Let's have a game with no full casters." Honestly that's not a niche that should exist for various reason, but it's a niche.

When you work from character concept then to class the Hunter has nothing

"I want to be a natury archer who has a pet!"
Ranger is better

"I want to have natury spells!"
Druid is better

"I want to be some amazing beast transformation dude!"
Druid is better

"I want to be a dude who hits things in melee!"
Barb, Slayer, Paladin
"-who is ALSO natury"
Oh then Ranger

I don't, and I hope most people don't, pick class first then concept. I pick my concept first then find the chassis that best fits what I envision my character doing.

Yes but the problem you are having is you are picking what class is "better" not nessisarily whats more fun. Too many people go for "more power" and lose sight that at the core this game (and every other game) is about having fun not going for the garenteed win. I think this class has lots of great potential along with all the other ACG classes.

Look at it from another angle, three months into the character and the player wants to drop out because while they love their concept the animal either dies to fast or they can't land a hit/deal meaningful damage.

You don't need the most powerful build in the game to have fun but most people want to have a thing their character is good at and if you play class A with minimal effect at what you wanted to do while someone with class B is equal or more effective at what you wanted while also having other abilities it's very disheartening. We can't say that's how any of these classes will turn out, not even warpriest, but it's the same concern expressed in every preview thread. Some classes more so than others because they seem to overlap a lot of pre-existing classes which we know much more about. So, when we look at the Hunter we compare it against a boon companion ranger or druid who sound like they can do everything a hunter does except teamwork feats but also other things.

Threeshades wrote:

How do you go into eldritch knight after only one level or Warpriest and one level of Wizard? You need 5 levels of wizard to qualify for Eldritch Knight, or 4 levels of Warpriest and 3 levels of wizard to qualify for mystic theurge in order to then get two levels of MT before that qualifies for EK.

Spell-like Abilities count for those prerequisites. So just being a Diviner (Scryer) for your wizard level is enough to qualify for EK. Mystic Theurge gets a little trickier, but Aasimar can pull it off if I recall correctly.

Ah, okay. Yeah, I forgot to count in the shenanigans-factor.

I like the sound of those changes but now that the class is a spontaneous caster does it use wis or cha as it's casting stat?

Also I still want a cha based spontaneous caster version of the druid one day.

The one major thing that bugs me is this: why the majority of you critizers feel the compelling urge to always compare one class with another already existing class, *even* if the new ones were hybrids from them? Can't you just go with the thought that *maybe* this game and these classes weren't designed to satisfy some sort of mechanical balance between the classes, but to fulfill certain concepts (=ideas of a particular kind of heroes or heroines)

A game that is not balanced is not a game. It's a farce. Part of a game designer's job is making sure content is balanced.

But, even if you were correct, and I should look at it solely from a conceptual perspective...it fails there too. There is ZERO conceptual reason for the Hunter to exist. It's all filled by the Druid, Ranger, or both.

And on a personal note, I for one, do find Arcanist a great class greatly because of their spellcasting ability, the arcanist exploits are just a bonus I could well live without. For over 12 years of this game I've been waiting for that kind of approach on how spellcasting should work. Sure, you are limited to those spells you know and maybe learn afterwards, but that you could always prepare a set of spells you think you'll need for a day and then cast them, spontaneously in this game's terminology, as you wish, without having to fear you ran out that one spell which you would've wanted to use for another and maybe yet another time during the same day, all without sacrificing a potential utility from the other spells you could cast, even if you chose not to.

Although this change might seem so small, it actually will have HUGE impact in the game.

Nobody's saying the impact is small for the Arcanist. The thing is liable to be the only class I have ever banned from my game.

It probably would be closer to balanced if it just had the "best of both worlds" Prepared/Spontaneous casting.

But with all the extra goodies it gets? Hell no.

As for the Hunter, from purely conceptual perspective, they do have their own place, if you just would open your mind a little more and give space to your imagination over those odd thoughts "that everything must fit within the same boundaries already given to us".

Please, do tell. What concept do you think the Hunter can fill that the Ranger and Druid cannot?

Nature warrior? Both have it covered.

Hunter? Both have it covered, Ranger does it better.

Fighter with an animal companion? Both have it covered, Druid AND Ranger do it better, or at least as well.

3/4 BaB divine caster with a nature theme? Druid does it better.

The only niche I can see the Hunter has is "Space taker that could have been better utilized for something people actually asked for".

How many times have people asked for an out-of-the-box Arcane Trickster? A more magical Monk? A 1/2 BaB Divine caster (which I personally don't like the idea of but at least people WANT it)? Any number of other hybrid characters people struggle to build with the current mechanics of the game?

The answer: A whole hell of a lot more than people who asked for yet another nature themed class that adds nothing to the niche it's attempting to fill.

All of the classes in the ACG (bar, again, the Arcanist, another class I loathe) fill some sort of new niche and/or some common request.

Swashbuckler? You couldn't hear yourself think sometimes for people clamoring for one.

Warpriest? Flawed in execution, but at least people wanted a more generally applicable holy warrior.

Slayer? People have been saying "Fix the Rogue" since before the game came out. This does that pretty well.

Brawler? Again, flawed in execution, but a more beatstick-y Monk with full BaB was another thing people wanted a LOT.

Shaman? Less so, but people have wanted a class like that for a while now.

Bloodrager? Not sure anybody really ASKED for it, but it fills a new niche, the 4/9 casting arcane character. The magical beatstick who's not a Gish. It's interesting.

Skald? This one people asked for almost as much as the Swashbuckler.

Investigator? Again, nobody really ASKED for this one, but it fills a new niche, the dedicated Int based skills character, essentially taking the "skill master" part of the Rogue (which failed so horribly at it) and making it worthwhile.

But who asked for a Sorcerer/Wizard hybrid? Nobody.

Who asked for a Ranger/Druid hybrid? Nobody.

Because they're redundant.

I wouldn't say the Hunter is completely redundant. I can certainly see myself playing one, though in my case that might be more for mechanical reasons—I like a lot of the individual elements that the Hunter bundles nicely together, like teamwork feats, spontaneous casting, animal companion—than any especially unique flavor that the class is serving up.

Plus, having the base class with its mix of abilities could serve as a good foundation for some interesting archetypes. For the most talked-about example here, even if the base Hunter isn't your thing, you might find the Feral Hunter to fill a nice new niche.

So even with the strongest version of your concern here, there are still recognizable benefits to having the Hunter in print. Why not focus on the positive?

:-)

Swashbuckler? You couldn't hear yourself think sometimes for people clamoring for one.

Agree

Warpriest? Flawed in execution, but at least people wanted a more generally applicable holy warrior.

Agree

Slayer? People have been saying "Fix the Rogue" since before the game came out. This does that pretty well.

Agree, worth saying is that this class also fills the niche of an “any alignment assassin”. Something people have been asking for AND we finally get a spell less ranger that actually awesome.

Brawler? Again, flawed in execution, but a more beatstick-y Monk with full BaB was another thing people wanted a LOT.

Agree.

Shaman? Less so, but people have wanted a class like that for a while now.

Well I would say people have been asking for this a lot. Also, the reason people like myself wanted a ½ BAB divine class is that I wanted a dedicated dive caster that isn’t a GodZilla type of class. To me this is it.

Bloodrager? Not sure anybody really ASKED for it, but it fills a new niche, the 4/9 casting arcane character. The magical beatstick who's not a Gish. It's interesting.

Agree, and interesting enough the full BAB and 4/9 arcane caster came up many times when the ACG was announced.

Skald? This one people asked for almost as much as the Swashbuckler.

True, if you by that mean a Marshal type of character. I would have preferred a full BAB class with more focus on bardic performance/Battle inspiration/battle cries and less spells. Even a ¾ BAB class with less focus on spells and more focus on inspiration / battle cries would have been nice, but SKR hinted in the beginning of the play test that there might be archetypes that get other kind of inspirational performances. So I’m optimistic.

Investigator? Again, nobody really ASKED for this one, but it fills a new niche, the dedicated Int based skills character, essentially taking the "skill master" part of the Rogue (which failed so horribly at it) and making it worthwhile.

Agree, the Investigator and the slayer are both the new rogue, but just two different aspects of the rogue. Both classes look awesome.

edit:
For those of us that like Call of Cthulhu, we now finally have an Investigator type of class in Pathfinder.

But who asked for a Sorcerer/Wizard hybrid? Nobody.
Who asked for a Ranger/Druid hybrid? Nobody.

I agree no one really asked for them, but they might be popular anyway. I am personally not too excited over the Hunter, but maybe there are some cool Archetypes that will excite me. The feral hunter sounds very interesting.

The only niche I can see the Hunter has is "Space taker that could have been better utilized for something people actually asked for".
How many times have people asked for an out-of-the-box Arcane Trickster? A more magical Monk? A 1/2 BaB Divine caster (which I personally don't like the idea of but at least people WANT it)? Any number of other hybrid characters people struggle to build with the current mechanics of the game?

The classes I miss are:

Alexander Augunas wrote:

The bonus provided by Enfilading Fire is not a flanking bonus, and is therefore incompatible with outflank or the menacing property.

You're right, it's not, specifically, a flanking bonus, but read the feat.

It's cheesy because you are ignoring the flanking rules: the flanking bonus only applies on melee attacks. It is part of the core rules in the Core Rulebook, and as noted Enfiladating Fire does not modify the types of attacks that flanking bonuses apply to. Even when you attack an adjacent creature with a ranged weapon, you are not making a melee attack. For that reason, Outflank and menacing of nothing for a ranged weapon hunter.

If your situation, you would have a +6 flanking bonus with the spiked gauntlet, but not the bow. You can't flank with a bow, even with Enfiladating Fire.

I love the additions to the class, especially the ranger spell list.

But i'm pretty bummed they didn't add favored terrain in there, or for that matter, a favored enemy ability of some sort.

There still isn't much ranger in the class...
I guess the slayer steps on this class's feet too much.

Disappointed by the change to spont casting.
Hopefully when I get a look at the book something else about it will make me think it's not just a variant Animal Domain Inquisitor.

-TimD

Stuff...

Of note, the Shaman is also a 3/4 BAB class, just like all of the other divine classes except Paladin and Ranger. At least as of the second playtest.

A game that is not balanced is not a game. It's a farce. Part of a game designer's job is making sure content is balanced.

Are asymmetrical games not games in your view? How about asymmetric co-op games like Pandemic? Asymmetrical trust games like Werewolf/Mafia? Casino games where the odds favor the house? Free-to-play games that let you buy items? Games that reference biographical information (such as letting the youngest player go first)?

I'll grant balance is very important for many kinds of games, but even that may not be apparent in a straight comparison between characters. Just a given match-up in Street Fighter typically goes one way doesn't mean the game as a whole is imbalanced.

Your choice of characters in a game like that, just like selecting a deck in Magic or Heathstone, depends on what other people are playing. That's not balanced, but it is very much intentional.

The question for those games is never "balance" so much as the health of the metagame. If you sit down and everybody's playing the same thing, something's probably broken. In fact, symmetrical matches where players are both playing the same deck are considered a failure state. Does actively avoiding match balance make them not games?

Now, the question is: do you find Pathfinder's metagame unhealthy? Do you sit down at your table and find that everyone's made the same character? Do you grab a PFS seat and realize every player brought the same build?

Cheers!
Landon

Hopefully when I get a look at the book something else about it will make me think it's not just a variant Animal Domain Inquisitor.

-TimD

That is a really good point!

Inquisitor with animal domain:
- cost you a boon companion feat for good animal companion
- gain Bane and Judgements.
- lose aspects (you and animal companion)
- wash: solo tactics vs animal companion benefiting from teamwork
- lose ranger spell access at lvl 1
- lose 2nd lvl precise shot/outflank

Hmm, a lot of people would take that tradeoff i think.

Zark wrote:

Stuff...

Of note, the Shaman is also a 3/4 BAB class, just like all of the other divine classes except Paladin and Ranger. At least as of the second playtest.

Yes, I know. I meant in the absence of a 1/2 BAB dedicated divine Caster, the Shaman will hopefully be able to fill that niche to at least some extent.

I’m pretty sure I will love the shaman as long as the spell list is to my liking.

TimD wrote:

Hopefully when I get a look at the book something else about it will make me think it's not just a variant Animal Domain Inquisitor.

-TimD

That is a really good point!

Inquisitor with animal domain:
- cost you a boon companion feat for good animal companion
- gain Bane and Judgements.
- lose aspects (you and animal companion)
- wash: solo tactics vs animal companion benefiting from teamwork
- lose ranger spell access at lvl 1
- lose 2nd lvl precise shot/outflank

Hmm, a lot of people would take that tradeoff i think.

Good Points. Let's hope the book will prove you wrong.

The class looks fine and I'm interested to try it, but when I think of "Playing a Hunter" I think Full BAB, Full companion, no spellcasting, maybe ranger traps, Favored Terrain but not favored enemy, and unsure on ranger combat style and wild shape. But that mostly really *could* be a ranger archetype.

I think you're right about the classes, Sean. And glad you liked the writeups. But gosh, it must be 3 AM in Indiana--get some sleep! (I should too)

Sean's gone all rural, he wasn't up late, he just got out of bed, and was waiting for sunrise before heading out to milk the chickens.

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 would get revenge and then drown my self in dwarven ale

Rynjin wrote:

A game that is not balanced is not a game. It's a farce. Part of a game designer's job is making sure content is balanced.

Are asymmetrical games not games in your view? How about asymmetric co-op games like Pandemic? Asymmetrical trust games like Werewolf/Mafia?

These games have a different sort of balance, but are still balanced. They're balanced around the group bringing certain resources to the table to combat the same menace (the different jobs in Pandemic) or around the "weak" characters also being the majority. Though I will say my limited experience playing Mafia, if you're Random Joe #2, you might as well f~&# off and do something else, because you have nothing significant to contribute to the game except to act as cannon fodder for the mafia members to wrongly pick instead of the police officers or whatever.

Not a big fan of Mafia.

Casino games where the odds favor the house?

Are a different kind of design entirely. The point of casino games are not to be fun, they're specifically designed to make the casino money while also holding out the tantalizing "Well COULD be the one to win it big..." dream.

They're exceptionally well designed for that.

Free-to-play games that let you buy items?

Depends on whether you mean actually Free to Play ala stuff like Team Fortress 2, where all of the game affecting items are free, or Pay2Win games where superior, game affecting items are only available to paying players.

The first are fine, and are balanced or not on their own merits.

The latter are garbage, money grubbing pieces of dirt nobody in their right mind should consider a good thing.

Games that reference biographical information (such as letting the youngest player go first)?

Small imbalance that largely doesn't affect the rest of the game.

I'll grant balance is very important for many kinds of games, but even that may not be apparent in a straight comparison between characters. Just a given match-up in Street Fighter typically goes one way doesn't mean the game as a whole is imbalanced.

The difference here is that Street Fighter is a competitive game.

However, if one character were the best in all circumstances (highest priority on attacks with no real counter, for example), that would make the game as a whole unbalanced, yes, since everything else then exists only as an inferior option.

It's generally why characters are banned in fighting games, to re-balance the game.

The question for those games is never "balance" so much as the health of the metagame. If you sit down and everybody's playing the same thing, something's probably broken. In fact, symmetrical matches where players are both playing the same deck are considered a failure state. Does actively avoiding match balance make them not games?

Now, the question is: do you find Pathfinder's metagame unhealthy? Do you sit down at your table and find that everyone's made the same character? Do you grab a PFS seat and realize every player brought the same build?

Cheers!
Landon

Not sure what any of this has to do with anything in context.

Pathfinder is a cooperative game. A class' merits are based on what it contributes to the group that another class cannot (as well as how well it faces off against the challenges provided).

The Hunter as it is currently presented provides nothing significant that the Ranger or Druid do not.

Comparing it to other classes is a valid comparison, because that is half the measure of balance in this game.

The other half is contribution regardless of a unique niche, and it does meh there as well, though not terrible.

So you have a class that both provides nothing new and is not exceptionally good at something old...so there's no reason for it to exist.

It'd be like if I suggested a class for the new book, we'll all it the Frogue.

The Frogue does everything the Rogue does, except he does it while wearing a frog suit. Also he only has 3/4 Sneak Attack progression, but gains the ability to squirt water from his hands in exchange.

Does this sound like it would enhance the game? Do you think it's balanced?

Because by your logic, that doesn't matter.

I can actually see this thing filling a niche now, being able to do combaty-things and cast spells from 1st level. Basically, a ranger that focuses more on the spellcasting. I believe there was a ranger variant in 3.x called the mystic ranger that essentially did what this class does.

Having him now as a spont caster makes him something that we haven't seen before, the closest we might get to a real spontaneous druid for a while, and it is definitely a welcome niche imo.

Definitely getting the inquisitor comparisons, I will also throw in my obligatory spell combat chant because such a mechanic would give the class something to do that rangers and druids cannot.

I also wish it had a spellcombat / spell strike component. But there is always blessed hammer for divine spellstiking

I've heard a lot of requests for something spontaneous using the Druid list. Throwing in the Ranger list is gravy, especially with early-access spells.

This fits the following concepts for me:
I like Ranger, but hate waiting until 4 to get casting and a companion, only to suck with both for another level, when I can take Boon Companion.
I want a CE naturey follower of Lamashtu. Tons of great archetype options here!
I want a Druidic caster who doesn't have to respect nature.
I want to modify my animal companion.

I haven't played Druid or Ranger, but I'd probably pick Hunter first.

TimD wrote:

Hopefully when I get a look at the book something else about it will make me think it's not just a variant Animal Domain Inquisitor.

-TimD

That is a really good point!

Inquisitor with animal domain:
- cost you a boon companion feat for good animal companion
- gain Bane and Judgements.
- lose aspects (you and animal companion)
- wash: solo tactics vs animal companion benefiting from teamwork
- lose ranger spell access at lvl 1
- lose 2nd lvl precise shot/outflank

Hmm, a lot of people would take that tradeoff i think.

Hmm, while minor points, the Hunter has better weapon selections, doesnt it? Though a few races and the right god can go a long way for the Inquisitor to fix that one. Also the Inquisitor Probably wins out on the skills what with adding 1/2 level here and there among them... Bonus point to Inquisitor for Blistering Invective making Intimidate a hilariously fun skill they already get bookoo bonuses to? (my favorite way to check for invisible enemies too)

WANT BOOK NAO

I'm seeing a lot of complaints that the Hunter doesn't fill its own niche, and I have to disagree. Though the Ranger and Druid have animal companions, there is a disconnect between those companions and their other class features - there's little synergy between the player and the companion overall. The Summoner and Cavalier do have abilities that synergize with their companions quite nicely, though the Summoner focuses almost entirely on boosting their Eidolon's capabilities while the Cavalier focuses on using their mount as a means to boost their martial power - neither truly works with their companion.

That's where the Hunter comes in. Teamwork Feats emphasize the need for the two to work in tandem in a way that the Ranger and Druid never did while Animal Focus boosts both halves of the team rather than one or the other like the Summoner and Cavalier. The class gets early access to both the Druid and Ranger spell list, allowing her to buff herself and/or her companion from Level 1 (Aspect of the Falcon, Lead Blades, Gravity Bow, and Magic Fang are all 1st-level spells for the Hunter, for example). The Hunter is, effectively, the only "pet class" focused on teamwork where both the player and their animal companion can contribute martially to combat and not have one overshadow the other.

Could the Hunter be done with a Ranger archetype? That's possible. Of course, the Alchemist, Summoner, Magus, Witch, Arcanist, and Sorcerer could have been Wizard archetypes. The Oracle, Inquisitor, and Warpriest could've been Cleric archetypes. The Cavalier, Gunslinger, Brawler, and Swashbuckler could've been Fighter archetpyes - you get the idea. The fact that these classes aren't archetypes means Paizo has more room to design flavorful mechanics and fulfill character concepts an archetype wouldn't have been enough for.

tl;dr, the Hunter is a "pet class" whose abilities emphasize teamwork between the player and the animal companion while allowing both to be competent warriors rather than putting one in a purely supportive role.

I like the changes stated but my big hope is that the Animal aspect thing is tweaked to be more frequent. To me Hunter is more Beastmaster than any flavor that's been put on it, hanging out with the wild so much that he gains their aspects. While I don't like pet mandetory classes I hope that since they went the route of emphasizing the connection with the animal companion and went all out with it. During the playtest I was throwing out ideas like beastshaping your companion (so you can turn your wolf into a shark-wolf and surf him while wielding a sword.) or even wielding them as melee weapons (Snake-Whip. Porcupine Boxing Gloves). I don't think going too crazy with Animal Companions was very popular but I can dream.

It'd be like if I suggested a class for the new book, we'll all it the Frogue.

The Frogue does everything the Rogue does, except he does it while wearing a frog suit. Also he only has 3/4 Sneak Attack progression, but gains the ability to squirt water from his hands in exchange.

Does this sound like it would enhance the game? Do you think it's balanced?

Because by your logic, that doesn't matter.

Well, clearly frog suits' are OP :)

Actually, I'd totally play a grippli frogue in a joke campaign, right next to the kobold warrior and half-orc wizard with 7 int.

And, in a social skill or trap heavy game, the frogue could still outshadow a lot of other classes. I'd take a frogue into Mummy's Mask before a fourth fighter, that's for sure. Bonus points if the water is potable.

That's what I meant with the metagame talk. Yeah, you don't bring a frogue into a group with a rogue... but you also probably don't bring a rogue into a group with a frogue. Your abilities largely overlap and you're just being a jerk to the frogue player.

And, in a campaign where the frogues represent the pinnacle of human ability, bringing your optimized druid might not be the best fit. It's a thought.

So you bring a character that fills a need for the group without replacing other PCs. A character that fills a bunch of roles at once like the druid is phenomenal to fill out small groups or one where everyone has broad characters. A character that fills one small niche fits well with a large group or one where people play specialized characters.

It sounds like your group will find the druid a better fit than the hunter. My group finds the rogue a better fit than the druid. Neither of these is statements about balance.

Cheers!
Landon

stuff

Nice post!

I'm happy most for the Precise Shot feat. Because Precise Companion became totally worthless in a situation where the hunter and her pet aren't in a solo battle. We house ruled that the benefits of Precise companion didn't go away when someone else joined melee.

Ranger spells though.... that's pretty awesome.

I do like the changes given in the preview overall. The only thing that made me not want to play the class was all those dead levels - it just didn't look interesting at the time. Going back, I can see that the Hunter herself isn't half bad in combat. With a +9 bonus before Teamwork Feats and buffs at Level 4, she had no problem hitting things - damage could've been better though.

Not sure if its been said yet, but could the guy in the Archetype picture be from the Tiger Lord clan of Numeria?

Not sure if its been said yet, but could the guy in the Archetype picture be from the Tiger Lord clan of Numeria?

The rulebook line is supposed to be setting-neutral, so I doubt it.

WolfenFenris wrote:

Not sure if its been said yet, but could the guy in the Archetype picture be from the Tiger Lord clan of Numeria?

The rulebook line is supposed to be setting-neutral, so I doubt it.

Fair enough. Although... All the Iconics are from Golarian, yes?

Ross Byers wrote:

WolfenFenris wrote:

Not sure if its been said yet, but could the guy in the Archetype picture be from the Tiger Lord clan of Numeria?

The rulebook line is supposed to be setting-neutral, so I doubt it.

Fair enough. Although... All the Iconics are from Golarian, yes?

the iconic characters are from there yes, but i think they are trying to keep the archetype pics setting neutral

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Threeshades wrote:

How do you go into eldritch knight after only one level or Warpriest and one level of Wizard? You need 5 levels of wizard to qualify for Eldritch Knight, or 4 levels of Warpriest and 3 levels of wizard to qualify for mystic theurge in order to then get two levels of MT before that qualifies for EK.

Spell-like Abilities count for those prerequisites. So just being a Diviner (Scryer) for your wizard level is enough to qualify for EK. Mystic Theurge gets a little trickier, but Aasimar can pull it off if I recall correctly.

Ah, okay. Yeah, I forgot to count in the shenanigans-factor.

Yeah, it was pure shenanigans. The Aasimar spell-like ability Daylight meets the 3rd level arcane spell requirement for the Eldritch Knight, and using the Heavenly Radiance feat to get Wake of Light satisfies the 2nd level divine spell requirement for the Mystic Theurge.

WolfenFenris wrote:

Ross Byers wrote:

WolfenFenris wrote:

Not sure if its been said yet, but could the guy in the Archetype picture be from the Tiger Lord clan of Numeria?

The rulebook line is supposed to be setting-neutral, so I doubt it.

Fair enough. Although... All the Iconics are from Golarian, yes?

the iconic characters are from there yes, but i think they are trying to keep the archetype pics setting neutral

Works for me. Can I petition that if we ever get an NPC from the Tiger Lords that it be a Hunter?

Actually, I'd totally play a grippli frogue in a joke campaign, right next to the kobold warrior and half-orc wizard with 7 int.

You got me thinking about a Grippli hunter. I've been wanting to try a Grippli for a while and this might be a good fit. Decent ability scores for a Dex based hunter and they get nets which fits the hunting theme. Hmm...

It's a good thing they didn't preview the Warpriest, Arcanist, and Hunter back to back- the singularity of negative feedback would have collapsed the internet and sent us all back into the dark ages of complaining via snail mail.

As for myself, I like the change to spontaneous casting for the Hunter. I think it has just enough flavor to it to differentiate it from its parent classes at this point, and can definitely see some possibilities in creating different sorts of characters with this class.

I also find it interesting to conceptualize how, mechanically, you can take a single sort of concept (say, urban hunter) and how it would play out differently across the Hunter, Ranger, Inquisitor, and Slayer classes, but provide a very different sort of take on the same idea.

You got me thinking about a Grippli hunter. I've been wanting to try a Grippli for a while and this might be a good fit. Decent ability scores for a Dex based hunter and they get nets which fits the hunting theme. Hmm...

Yeah, use the net to entangle people and let your pet finish them off, could be fun. Nets also do a surprisingly good job of keeping people in place, even if you don't hold on to the other end.

Downside, of course, is that grippli can't net large creatures. But that's why they invented bows :)

Cheers!
Landon

I'm happy most for the Precise Shot feat. Because Precise Companion became totally worthless in a situation where the hunter and her pet aren't in a solo battle. We house ruled that the benefits of Precise companion didn't go away when someone else joined melee.

Ranger spells though.... that's pretty awesome.

True, but removing cantrips was a not needed nerf.

My gut feling tells me I won't be playing this class.

LazarX wrote:

I'm happy most for the Precise Shot feat. Because Precise Companion became totally worthless in a situation where the hunter and her pet aren't in a solo battle. We house ruled that the benefits of Precise companion didn't go away when someone else joined melee.

Ranger spells though.... that's pretty awesome.

True, but removing cantrips was a not needed nerf.

My gut feling tells me I won't be playing this class.

Technically it never had Cantrips. It had Orisons... But still, I'm not seeing where someone would get the idea that the Hunter doesn't get 0 level spells. It still casts Druid spells, and Druids get 0 level spells.

LazarX wrote:

I'm happy most for the Precise Shot feat. Because Precise Companion became totally worthless in a situation where the hunter and her pet aren't in a solo battle. We house ruled that the benefits of Precise companion didn't go away when someone else joined melee.

Ranger spells though.... that's pretty awesome.

True, but removing cantrips was a not needed nerf.

My gut feling tells me I won't be playing this class.

Wait... No cantrips... Now I'm less interested again...

Zark wrote:

LazarX wrote:

I'm happy most for the Precise Shot feat. Because Precise Companion became totally worthless in a situation where the hunter and her pet aren't in a solo battle. We house ruled that the benefits of Precise companion didn't go away when someone else joined melee.

Ranger spells though.... that's pretty awesome.

True, but removing cantrips was a not needed nerf.

My gut feling tells me I won't be playing this class.

Wait... No cantrips... Now I'm less interested again...

You may want to wait and read the book yourself rather than trusting everything you read online ;)

I'll leave it as a fun riddle for the rules gurus here on the forum who don't have ACG yet. Why would it be reasonable for someone who had the book and was excitedly paging through with their playtest doc open and looking for changes to think that this is true at first glance, when it isn't the case. Prove your rules-fu by sleuthing the answer without even having the book!

Zark wrote:

LazarX wrote:

I'm happy most for the Precise Shot feat. Because Precise Companion became totally worthless in a situation where the hunter and her pet aren't in a solo battle. We house ruled that the benefits of Precise companion didn't go away when someone else joined melee.

Ranger spells though.... that's pretty awesome.

True, but removing cantrips was a not needed nerf.

My gut feling tells me I won't be playing this class.

Wait... No cantrips... Now I'm less interested again...

Where does it say no cantrips? The second playtest had the hunter with 0 level spells and nothing in the preview says they lost that. So... where are people getting this?

This seems like more band wagoning on whining about something we don't know anything about. Per the usually for people on these forums I suppose. Guess people have come to the point where they have to make up stuff about the class to hate it.

graystone wrote:

Zark wrote:

LazarX wrote:

I'm happy most for the Precise Shot feat. Because Precise Companion became totally worthless in a situation where the hunter and her pet aren't in a solo battle. We house ruled that the benefits of Precise companion didn't go away when someone else joined melee.

Ranger spells though.... that's pretty awesome.

True, but removing cantrips was a not needed nerf.

My gut feling tells me I won't be playing this class.

Wait... No cantrips... Now I'm less interested again...

Where does it say no cantrips? The second playtest had the hunter with 0 level spells and nothing in the preview says they lost that. So... where are people getting this?

That's my riddle. There's a very reasonable reason that a non-thorough reading might lead to this belief. Have any guesses?

Odraude wrote:

graystone wrote:

Zark wrote:

LazarX wrote:

I'm happy most for the Precise Shot feat. Because Precise Companion became totally worthless in a situation where the hunter and her pet aren't in a solo battle. We house ruled that the benefits of Precise companion didn't go away when someone else joined melee.

Ranger spells though.... that's pretty awesome.

True, but removing cantrips was a not needed nerf.

My gut feling tells me I won't be playing this class.

Wait... No cantrips... Now I'm less interested again...

Where does it say no cantrips? The second playtest had the hunter with 0 level spells and nothing in the preview says they lost that. So... where are people getting this?

That's my riddle. There's a very reasonable reason that a non-thorough reading might think this. Have any guesses?

Because he is switched to a Spontaneous caster and as a result he doesn't have a daily amount of 0 level spells in a day because they can all be recast over and over. So the only limitation on his 0 level spells is his spells known.

If you look at any of the spontaneous caster tables like the sorcerer and oracle, you will notice there is no column for daily zero level spell slots.

Mark Seifter wrote:

Odraude wrote:

graystone wrote:

Zark wrote:

LazarX wrote:

I'm happy most for the Precise Shot feat. Because Precise Companion became totally worthless in a situation where the hunter and her pet aren't in a solo battle. We house ruled that the benefits of Precise companion didn't go away when someone else joined melee.

Ranger spells though.... that's pretty awesome.

True, but removing cantrips was a not needed nerf.

My gut feling tells me I won't be playing this class.

Wait... No cantrips... Now I'm less interested again...

Where does it say no cantrips? The second playtest had the hunter with 0 level spells and nothing in the preview says they lost that. So... where are people getting this?

That's my riddle. There's a very reasonable reason that a non-thorough reading might think this. Have any guesses?

Because he is switched to a Spontaneous caster and as a result he doesn't have a daily amount of 0 level spells in a day because they can all be recast over and over. So the only limitation on his 0 level spells is his spells known.

If you look at any of the spontaneous caster tables like the sorcerer and oracle, you will notice there is no column for daily zero level spell slots.

You got it!

Mark Seifter wrote:

Odraude wrote:

graystone wrote:

Zark wrote:

LazarX wrote:

I'm happy most for the Precise Shot feat. Because Precise Companion became totally worthless in a situation where the hunter and her pet aren't in a solo battle. We house ruled that the benefits of Precise companion didn't go away when someone else joined melee.

Ranger spells though.... that's pretty awesome.

True, but removing cantrips was a not needed nerf.

My gut feling tells me I won't be playing this class.

Wait... No cantrips... Now I'm less interested again...

Where does it say no cantrips? The second playtest had the hunter with 0 level spells and nothing in the preview says they lost that. So... where are people getting this?

That's my riddle. There's a very reasonable reason that a non-thorough reading might think this. Have any guesses?

Because he is switched to a Spontaneous caster and as a result he doesn't have a daily amount of 0 level spells in a day because they can all be recast over and over. So the only limitation on his 0 level spells is his spells known.

If you look at any of the spontaneous caster tables like the sorcerer and oracle, you will notice there is no column for daily zero level spell slots.

Was just going to type this. You beat me :p

Also, are 0 level spells really so good that it's a deal breaker to people if the class doesn't have it? I didn't realize acid splash and create water were so desperately desired for casters ;)