Jessie Scott's page

A lot of contestants (like myself) made a few items, and picked one for submission. This thread is for items you made, and liked, but for one reason or another decided wasn't your best work for the contest. Here's mine, which I think is cool, but ultimately a SiaC.

I think this is a good idea, but keep in mind that all items can be retooled, reworked, and redone to be a better item. By posting your item, you are, essentially, giving people a free pass at your concept for future contests.

However, this may not be a concern for you. For me, I want to keep my ideas close to my vest as they are important if I want to do more design in the future.

Just something to think about!

Your item is pretty cool though. Mirror image is always a great choice.

I still have to look up the Deceitful feat if I want to reference it, to make sure it's not the Deceptive feat.

In fact, I looked it up JUST now, before posting this.

The moral here folks is that, like any good writer or designer, always double check your work and reference material.

I think I went over mine at least 5 times. And re-read my submission just as many times to ensure the formatting was correct.

A great idea can easily be quashed by the visual and written quality. Don't allow the easiest things to fix to ruin your chances.

JamesCooke wrote:

Tripp Elliott wrote:

Darklord Morius wrote:

My item didn't get trough. I'm thinking because i didn't repeated it's name in the actual item's text. The first text box (item's name) fooled me, i didn't remember it from the previous contests.

The item had it's flaws but it was solid.

Nahhh, others (including myself) have made that mistake and made it into the 32. Don't beat yourself up over that.

I dunno, the voters seem to be more draconian about the template/formatting than usual. Since it's 100% the voters determining the top 32, I think you're unlikely to see items that don't adhere 110% to the template.

After 9 seasons, countless advice threads, and four seasons of open voting, and multiple open ended offers to workshop your items yeah we expect template compliance as a minimum standard.

Totally agree. Paizo spelled it out on their front page of RPG Superstar. They handed us a template to use, already formatted. SKR gave us quality posts about what to do and what not to do.

I judge by quality first, but when I see flagrant disregard for rules when they are so easily followed, it's not hard to choose the winner in that instance.

Also, before you submit, you get another message about previewing your post to make sure everything looks legit. Everyone who submitted had multiple chances to ensure they submitted it properly. There is no excuse for formatting errors.

I regret my item's high cost. It was originally a lot cheaper, but when I reviewed the Magic Item Creation rules I started second guessing myself.

The problem is that the magic creation rules only give you a small amount of information about the cost of an item. Deviate from that at all and suddenly you're left to ballpark and make educated guesses.

I had to reverse engineer a few items like the one I created for the contest to get a price that appeared to be in the range I was going for.

I did the same too, but in the end I ended up doing this:
1) Go "by the books" to determine cost.
2) Look up comparable items to determine if it seemed like the cost fit the power.
2a) If it didn't fit, I reverse priced similar items to find individual power/price estimates.

Not a perfect system, but some of the Paizo created items appear to rely on advanced pricing rules or just "wing it".

Besides, the price is the least of your worries. It's all about an item's awesome factor - does it do something unique? Price can always be adjusted. So if price is what you're worried about, you're doing just fine.

Drejk wrote:

Ambrosia Slaad wrote:

"Now I will kill you until you die from it, you meat piñata of cash!"

I think I just saw that item.

I saw it too... if you see it again, look at the Construction section.

If you can identify the item from these "snarky" descriptions, you're giving out too much information.

Please don't disqualify my 1500 word +5 Shield against Korean Spam...

Bush league. I crafted an entire history in 3700 words on the origin of my masterwork dagger.

This is my first RPG Superstar but I have a new level of respect for people who create unique items. That was a challenge and I had to scrap more than one idea. Nervous is not how I would describe what I'm feeling. I'm excited for the opportunity to create more items. Win or lose, this was fun.

I enjoyed being able to take part in the feedback and having the developer's chime in personally with their thoughts and acknowledging ideas/problems with certain classes.

What I didn't like was the short timeline for the revised versions of the classes. With less than a week for most, it was difficult to throw together some games.

People gave great insight and a lot of great suggestions were made. I'm very glad that the public had the chance to chime in and help make the classes better than originally presented.

Jessie Scott wrote:

Keep in mind that when you lose your animal companion, you're losing over half of your class. As it stands right now, without an animal companion you're crippled. If someone wants to kill their animal companion to get a small boon but lose out on all the teamwork feats and any other bonus from having an animal companion... they're basically shooting themselves in the foot.

That's also why the druid and ranger are still coming out on top over this hybrid. (I'd really love to know the thinking behind why they thought this class combo was needed, desired, or what it could accomplish that cannot already be with ranger, druid, cavalier, witch or summoner and their archetypes. Or even a cleric with the animal domain. I get that the idea is that "this is class about animal bond" but unfortunately animals are not immortal and thus the class cries out for jerk GMs to target them).

Druids and rangers with animal companions are not severely compromised if they lose their animal companions; they can still fight, cast, use skills, use other hunting/tracking abilities and do all of the above often better than the hunter can. At the same time, the hunter is only minorly and moderately better with an animal companion than a druid or, say, a beastmaster ranger. And while these classes don't have the animal focus, the animal companions can be buffed by spells for equal or longer duration anyway (sure, same goes for hunter). If animal focus gave something actually cool and different than just some skill bonuses and a few minor attribute increases (which don't stack with spells like bull's strength) then it would be fine, but it just doesn't provide much of what you can't get some other way.

Quote:

Keep the big picture in mind. It's not really "powering up" the Hunter if the animal companion dies. It's making sure they're not worthless. Constant on animal focus < Full Animal Companion able to utilize teamwork feats. These are not equivalent.

I think you could also be...

Agreed. We should consider implications of if the animal is killed on purpose. Maybe treat it Paladin style; if a Hunter willingly kills their animal companion or delivers a coup-de-grace, and the animal is not under any enemy enchantments, they must atone (as a Paladin would need to). That or lose the class feature for a week/month (3 PFS sessions?). It's hard to say for sure.

The more we travel down this rabbit hole, the more problems suddenly arise.

Asking earnestly though, do we really think people who take this class would really kill their animal companion if they were given the opportunity to use the boon freely until they were replaced? My guess is no.. but there are others options to reduce the likelihood of this scenario. It could be a standard action (rather than a free action) to switch the style for the Hunter while the companion is gone.

All I know, is I would never want to kill my big kitty companion friend. Or my awesome crocodile. /shrug

.

.
1 quick note, I would really like to +1 changing the type of bonus bestowed by animal focus.
.
.

Jessie Scott wrote:

Also, two suggestions to help the base class since their class feature is so entwined with a companion:

1) An ability that allows the Hunter to replace their animal companion in half the time would be nice since they are crippled without them.

2) And/or some type of boon that allows them a quick replacement or stand in like allowing them to act like an Inquisitor when their animal companion is down; Solo Tactics w/o animal companion and they get the constant Animal Focus until the companion comes back.

I like the idea of getting the hunter back on their feet, but the second part of this leads me to worry about people killing their ACs so that they can change from animal focusing for minutes/level to having an always on animal focus changeable at will. Or not even killing them but playing it VERY fast and loose with their ACs safety. If you were adding something like this I would add two conditionals to it:

a) You can keep the animal focus until your AC is replaced, but can only switch between whatever focus YOU had when they died, and whatever focus THE AC had when it died, if the same focus no switching.

b) If your AC dies within 24 hours of being resummoned then you get no animal focus. If the AC dies within 48 hours then you only get half the bonus.

It might sound harsh, but if players want to just have constant animal powers without an archetype I would prefer they had an archetype to use rather than they had such an obvious loophole to exploit by sacrificing ACs!

Also while I just mentioned archetypes, I would love to see a dragon hunter one, that has some different animal focus's, such as:

Green Dragon - Protection against acid 5, and all attacks which deal damage deal an additional 1d4 acid damage. At level X this increases to 10 resistance and 1d8 damage, at level Y this increases to 20 and 2d6, at level 20 this increases to immunity...

Keep in mind that when you lose your animal companion, you're losing over half of your class. As it stands right now, without an animal companion you're crippled. If someone wants to kill their animal companion to get a small boon but lose out on all the teamwork feats and any other bonus from having an animal companion... they're basically shooting themselves in the foot.

Keep the big picture in mind. It's not really "powering up" the Hunter if the animal companion dies. It's making sure they're not worthless. Constant on animal focus < Full Animal Companion able to utilize teamwork feats. These are not equivalent.

Either way, the devs will need to address this issue. As I said before, Summoner is still THE pet class as they have other ways to shore up the loss of their Eidolon (summoner monster super duration). The quick and dirty solution to this is give Hunter's summon nature's ally in the same vein; standard action to use, 1 minute per level. Can't use if Animal Companion is alive, not disabled, controlled, etc.

Otherwise, when the AC goes down, the Hunter is a crippled, extremely weak Druid.

Does The hunter get to learn Druidic as a bonus language?

Nope. Only a Druid can learn the Druidic language. Hunters follow the typical language rules that apply to the other classes (and of course your chosen race).

Yes, waiting for feed back from the devs as there are still big issues with the class, and new changes need to be tested.

One of my biggest concerns still has yet to be answered and has been thus far overlooked from what I know:

What happens when the animal companion is dead or incapacitated?

My suggests are further up but basically either/or:

1. Hunter can get a new animal companion quicker (8 hours vs 24 hours)
2. Hunter gets to use the always on boon until the Animal Companion is replaced.

Without the animal companion, this class becomes utterly useless. Loss of the companion, in some way, should not cripple the class. As of right now, that's exactly what happens. Summoner seems the better option right now for anyone wanting to play THE pet class. I really want Hunter to steal that thunder.

My take:

- Precise Companion should really do something extra if you pick up Precise Shot. Most Hunters will go after PS anyway just because there will likely be other members of the party in melee besides their companion. I think that if they get Precise Shot, Precise Companion should give them +2 to hit instead, as the companion instinctively reveals gaps in the foe's defense or maneuvers the foe better into your line of fire.

- Spontaneous casting, with the ability to learn spells from both the Druid and Ranger lists, is absolutely fantastic.

- A shapeshifting, melee-focused archetype where you get to flank with your animal buddy. This could either be full-on Wildshape, or simply animal "aspects" similar to the natural weapon style hunter.

There are so many exciting archetypes for Hunter, but Paizo will need to be careful because Ranger explores many of these already (or Druid does). This class in particular needs careful balance because it walks a very fine line.

Skirmisher, Trapper, Shapeshifter all are naturally "Hunter" themed. But since they exist as Ranger archetypes, they will need some balance to make similar builds viable for Hunter.

Also, two suggestions to help the base class since their class feature is so entwined with a companion:

1) An ability that allows the Hunter to replace their animal companion in half the time would be nice since they are crippled without them.

2) And/or some type of boon that allows them a quick replacement or stand in like allowing them to act like an Inquisitor when their animal companion is down; Solo Tactics w/o animal companion and they get the constant Animal Focus until the companion comes back.

Given that the devs have said they're trying out the hunter with traps, combat styles, spontaneous spellcasting, a buffed companion, and who knows how many other changes, which is awesome..that leaves only one problem.

Barring the release of a third playtest of the class, which I'm hearing isn't likely, that gives us four days with no frame of reference for discussion.

So...now what do we talk about? :D

We wait friend. We wait and we watch. And we clamor!

I like the discussions and really think everyone has contributed to making the Hunter a much stronger class that initially revealed. I'm glad the devs are thinking about all the instituted changes (like spontaneous, ranger spells being added, the Hunter combat styles to allow flexibility, better training, etc) and can't wait to see the next revision.

All in all, I'm hopeful about the final version of the class. Can't wait to see the final shape!

What I would prepare...

Yup, your preferences. Not mine. You mentioned "Endure Elements" being the Cleric's "job"; guess what, so are Cure spells apparently. You're effectively shoe-horning the Hunter by saying they all take certain spells at certain levels. Why not just give cure spells to them for free? Why even have a spell list then? Why not just give them new spells at certain levels? It can go both ways.

Still, I'm in the minority and in the end I'm sure Paizo will consider both sides but prioritize making the majority happen. As SKR said, if you want a weakened spontaneous character, well go for it.

As others have pointed out, I'm on board with Hunter's getting a selection of Ranger spells too. I don't think a custom spell list is necessary for this class (like the Bloodrager), but I do think it would benefit from the Ranger's hunting-based spells.

Jessie Scott wrote:

I get you're trying to get a consensus, but just because you feel something is right doesn't make it so. I work in Clinical Trials and someone feeling a certain way does not cut it as a decision. We use numbers and analysis.

How exactly does spontaneous casting help this class? Less flexibility, reduced spell casting, and lowered utility. If you really want to talk theme and flavor, a Hunter is ready for anything with a bag of tricks to help them hunt. This means being adaptable to each situation. How can this be accomplished? Letting them have a large spell selection they can change each day (or leaving slots open to fill later in the day).

Please, other than feeling a certain way, enlighten us as to how spontaneous actually helps this class. Personal preferences and feelings are not valid data.

I already made two posts about why spontaneous casting is seriously useful to the hunter. It's the "protect/hinder/heal/group damage/transport" method. It's about doing the following things repeatedly:

- Buffing the hunter or the pet's resistances/AC (barkskin, resist energy).
- Healing either of them repeatedly.
- Hindering enemies to give the hunter and pet advantage (entangle, faerie fire).
- Damage enemy groups you can't flank or skirmish easily (flame strike, ice storm)
- Spells for getting out of situations (quench, tree stride).

These are the kind of spells I use over and over and over. In fact, when I did play druid, I wound preparing multiple copies of many of these spells, just because they were so useful. That's my primary reason for spontaneous casting.

My secondary reason is that a number of druid spells simply aren't that useful for the hunter, and she doesn't have enough spells per day as a six-level prepared caster to warrant using up precious slots on anything overly creative anyways. I would be more likely to take one or two creative utility spells as a spontaneous caster than I ever would with a tiny number of...

And you can only use the small selection of spells you've chosen, meaning you will never be able to have the flexibility to handle multiple different situations. I still don't understand the benefit of being a spontaneous other than getting another single use of a spell per day that you could easily prepare anyway.

So, basically, you have a favorite selection of spells and would prepare them or choose them spontaneous regardless? If I'm understanding correctly. And by going spontaneous, you get, what, another daily use of said spell selection?

Okay, let's assume the hunter needs an overhaul. We've been trying to do fixes on a class that doesn't even work yet. It needs to be:

- More effective
- Have more distinctive flavor
- Not be totally useless without the AC
- Have have less wasted space

Here's my proposed new version:

Level__Special_________________________________________________
1______Animal companion, animal focus, nature training, orisons, wild empathy
2______Precise shot, track
3______Hunter tactics, teamwork feat
4______Woodland stride
5______Hunter's trick
6______Enhanced companion
7______Teamwork feat
8______Swift tracker, second animal focus
9______Seasoned hunter
10_____Hunter's trick
11_____Teamwork feat
12_____Enhanced companion
13_____Hunter's tactics 1/day
14_____Experienced hunter
15_____Teamwork feat
16_____Hunter's trick
17_____Hunter's tactics 2/day
18_____Enhanced companion
19_____Teamwork feat
20_____Master hunter

- Precise Companion changed to Precise Shot.

I don't have time to offer my opinion on the rest, but Precise Shot needs to be changed entirely to a "Hunter Style" similar to a combat style for Ranger. Giving Hunter precise shot shoe-horns them into a ranged combat style and we really should give players the options. See a previous post of mine about different Hunter themed styles and feats that could be used.

Okay, I'm actually going to count this like a poll.

In favor of spontaneous casting: Myself, Idar, Neo2151, DarkOne the Drow, KainPen, drakkonflye, Captain K., Quandary, ICPD, Dispari Scuro, Psyren

Against spontaneous casting: Jessie Scott

You know, Galileo tried to convince people the Sun didn't revolve around the Earth. In the end, the majority won out and he was condemned for his speaking out.

I get you're trying to get a consensus, but just because you feel something is right doesn't make it so. I work in Clinical Trials and someone feeling a certain way does not cut it as a decision. We use numbers and analysis.

How exactly does spontaneous casting help this class? Less flexibility, reduced spell casting, and lowered utility. If you really want to talk theme and flavor, a Hunter is ready for anything with a bag of tricks to help them hunt. This means being adaptable to each situation. How can this be accomplished? Letting them have a large spell selection they can change each day (or leaving slots open to fill later in the day).

Please, other than feeling a certain way, enlighten us as to how spontaneous actually helps this class. Personal preferences and feelings are not valid data.

I think the class is taking shape nicely with the revisions. I will do my best to playtest this revision in a week, but that may be tough considering work, the time of year, and how much free time I have. Still, I see some weaknesses and have some ideas that could help without reinventing the class:

Weakness: for a combatant, the BaB is low. While a character can increase their ability to hit slightly (attack bonus mainly) with animal focus and spells, this still keeps them left out from feats until much later.

Proposed Solution: Either increase Hunter's BaB (and lower their spells per day across all levels by 1 to offset the change) or let them consider their BaB equal to their Hunter level for feat requirements (same for animal companion) so the Hunter is able to choose effective feats at the same rate a Ranger would.

Weakness: No focus on the Hunter's Combat viability other than teamwork feats.

Proposed Solution: Hunter Combat Styles: 2nd, 6th, 10th. Like the Ranger, replacing precise companion as many have pointed out should just be a free feat at this level. These would be new lists, but they would not take much design space as all that is needed is listing which feats are available.

Also, Disable Device should be a class skill. This class shouldn't get the trapfinding class feature, but they should be able to identify and disable traps like pits, animal snares/traps, and other ways of catching/killing prey. This would also get synergy with the Trapping Combat Style (if implemented) and would make the Trick "Detect" more useful as well.

Personally, I feel this class is really close. Hit dice still seems to be a point of contention, and as Hunter and Animal Companion are meant to take down foes, they simply don't have the hit points to survive long. In addition, this class has serious Multiple Ability Dependent (MAD) Disorder at this point. Str or Dex for attack/damage; Wis for Spells, Chr for handling of animals/empathy, and Con for surviving attacks. Which means that Int will likely remain low and most Hunters will see 4 skill ranks per level (not accounting for Race) limiting their out of combat abilities (Seriously, who won't take Survival, Perception, and Handle Animal leaving only 1 skill rank to be chosen?).

Shaman is not spontaneous.

Shoot, you're right. Screwed that one up. Regardless, I am still throwing my card in for not changing this to spontaneous.

teribithia9 wrote:

I thought that the sticky at the top of the original posting for the hunter class indicated this class had been changed to d10 hit dice but it looks like the revised class has only the d8 hit dice again. Is this intentional because of the other changes or a typo?

Basically, the Hunter still sucks at being a hunter. I started a new thread on a revised version of the class, and a d10 hit die (which someone else also suggested) seems like it might be good.

The New Hunter

No thanks on the spontaneous spellcaster for Hunter. Hunter's need to be adaptable and a small set spell list does not allow for that.

Besides, the Shaman has been revised. Have you checked it out? Spontaneous Druid Spell List caster.

If the hunter and the Animal Companion are both 3/4 BAB, they would each benefit from frequent buffs individually, to say nothing of working as a team.

Not sure if I'm reading your post right, but it sounds like you agree that they need buffs to be effective in combat?

If this class works as a team, between animal focus and teamwork feats this should be the bread and butter of this class to take down enemies. I hope that we some more bonus to hit/attack buffs with Animal Focus or better ways to increase HP, to hit, damage, and AC.

Alternatively... a quick and dirty solution would be make the animal companion's HP and BaB equal to the Hunter...

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Jessie Scott wrote:

If it's Hunter only, why not just make them like Hunter Talents (rogue talents) rather than introducing them as Teamwork feats? I think if it's a teamwork feat, it should be usable by ANY class that wants to take them.

Because if we make them teamwork feats, then any class with an animal companion can make use of them, but they're still primarily a hunter freebie.

Jessie Scott wrote:

As it is, they've just taken an already made feat (Broken Wing Gambit) and just altered it to affect the animal companion since they can't achieve 5 ranks in Bluff.

1) People complain that "most teamwork feats won't work for the hunter because the animal companion can't perform the necessary actions."

2) Design team takes an established teamwork feat and makes it something a hunter could use.
3) People complain that it's "just an already-made feat altered to affect the companion."
4) Design team goes "..."

LOL,

"And the winner, in a one post knockout, Sean K Reynolds!!!!!!"

*crowd goes wild*

Yet if all they've done is taken that feat, removed the bluff requirement, and then throw it back in as a new teamwork feat that only affects animal companions, isn't that just a band-aid? I don't know how the final feat will look yet and realized I was not being fair.

I admitted that I was simply speculating and I will withhold my thoughts until I see the finished product when the next PDF is released. I trust and respect Paizo staff as they really want what's best for the their consumers.

RJGrady wrote:

For me this is true to the extent that I consider teamwork feats to be a class feature shared by the cavalier and inquisitor.

Jason says that was the intent: a way to create a flexible class feature for those two classes which technically other classes could get involved in, but were primarily intended for the two classes which got extra teamwork feats and either (1) trigger them without other people taking the feat, a la inquisitor solo tactics, or (2) grant the teamwork feats to others, a la cavalier tactician.

This is an incredibly helpful clarification. Free feats for certain classes that get benefit, but you won't see many (if any) classes that don't get them automatically for free.

It helps to see them less as feats and more as class features that allow build variety (if I'm understanding the intention correctly).

You haven't seen Wounded Paw Gambit and don't know how it's different than Broken Wing Gambit, so you're not really in a position to dismiss it as "not needed."

You're absolutely right, we haven't seen them. My apologies, I'll wait until we see them before getting to worried. Based on what I heard, my assumption was that it was Broken Wing Gambit just without the bluff requirement (an investment that wouldn't make sense for the Hunter considering they'd have to give up 5 ranks of bluff to get that feat) and what Jason had reportedly explained the Broken Paw Gambit does on the podcast.

Lord Malkov you're right about the Feat Requirement. Only the Hunter needs to meet it, not the animal companion. Still, the Hunter would have to invest 5 ranks of their currently limited skill point pool to do so for that particular feat. Regardless, I'm speculating and that's bad so I'll stop.

My only concern is now that I hear about "Broken Paw Gambit" we now have two feats where one is redundant. Altering them to be Hunter-only only cheapens it and illustrates the fundamental flaw of teamwork feats to begin with.

If it's Hunter only, why not just make them like Hunter Talents (rogue talents) rather than introducing them as Teamwork feats? I think if it's a teamwork feat, it should be usable by ANY class that wants to take them.

As it is, they've just taken an already made feat (Broken Wing Gambit) and just altered it to affect the animal companion since they can't achieve 5 ranks in Bluff.

Hey folks,

There is a great post in the general discussion forums that notes what Jason talked about during a podcast about changes to the classes.

The Hunter is still being approached by how I originally saw them too, the pet class that works together to bring down foes. Take a look if you want to get some insight into the next round of playtesting.

Can't wait to see the changes they made and test them out.

Don't you guys think that a teamwork feat should provide someting to the guy who's meleeing, too? I'm starting to see a tendency where only the ranged guy of the pair is getting something out of the deal.

Well I think people are generally getting the feeling that ranged teamwork feats are non-existent (and thus leaves the Hunter with less options in terms of using the existing teamwork feats).

I'm all for more melee benefits! Throw in some ideas and add to the stuff already here to make it even better.

Agreed, something needs to be changed. Let's avoid going down the Druid versus Ranger path as that's best saved for a different portion of the messageboards.

As it is now, the Hunter needs some distinguishing features. With the update I'm hoping to see those features and finally see this class as distinct and unique (and not a watered down Druid with the ranger's Track ability).

In PFSP even if you can have multiple animal companions you are restricted to one.

Thank you for reminding us of this (Pathfinder Society Play for those who don't know what PFSP stands for). Multiple pets is extremely unlikely (I'm 99.99% sure it would not happen) for a base class. There are already archetypes that fill that niche like Beastmaster and Packlord. We'll probably see a multiple animal companion archetype down the road for the Hunter.

About Animal Companion...

As many stil have mentioned, AC should be Magical Beast.
So, for its creature feature, AC gains d10 HD, good BAB, Darkvision 60ft, and Low-light vision.

I still don't agree with this. Seems to be a more arcane flavor than what's intended here - nature hunter/predator. I think giving the animal companion bonuses at certain levels would increase it's viability without completing rewriting animal companion rules.

I think the animal companion should get an extra hit die, bonus to attack, an extra trick and/or bonus skills every even level (set in stone or chosen by player for more build variety). These are little things that would increase the overall power of the Animal Companion without needing to rewrite or come up with a huge set of new rules.

And I'm still advocating that more tricks (and being able to switch tricks like the Hunter would their teamwork feats) would make the animal more "intelligent" as it opens up a LOT more possibility in how they act.

No one would compare a wizard and a fighter.

You're right; because those are completely different classes. But what we have here are hybrids; this IS a druid and ranger mixed. Therefore, the comparisons to druid are fair game. Why? Because this class needs to stand out from the classes it's derived from.

As people have pointed out, currently it does not. It is a weaker druid with a severely under powered ability (Animal Focus) and a splash of Inquisitor (Hunter's Tactics).

That's why the comparison's are being made. As I and others have pointed out, there is not enough "ranger" in this mix and all we're seeing is druid. Not enough to stand out right now.

Kryzbyn wrote:

ciretose wrote:

Stuff

No, you're right. I do not want you, or anyone else, to stop offering your opinions.

I see the differences in the synthesist, and the Warg idea, but invariably, unless you mechanicly make it inpossible, someone will try to "wear" a bear into combat. Then we have the same thing. That's my only concern.

They could, but it would be mechanically disadvantageous. Synthesist makes up for the loss of action economy in other ways, but this wouldn't, in fact considering the focus on teamwork feats and such with the AC this would be a terrible thing to do in combat unless you really need the AC to do something you can't manage with a handle animal check "Lassie! Go around the corner and press the floor tiles in the order left, right, right, left, right right before we all get crushed in this trash compactor!" can't really be conveyed with a handle animal roll.

No, but that's what a Familiar does. And if we make an animal companion like a familiar, then we begin to step on other classes' toes (like the Wizard).

Jessie Scott wrote:

Calling it "like magic jar" or "warging" or any other term does not make it something it's not.

Except that is exactly what we are arguing for.

You aren't wearing the animal "like translucent, living armor." You are taking control of the animal to do things you couldn't do in your body.

Serious question, have you seen Game of Thrones or read the books?

That is what we are talking about.

I've read all through Dance with Dragons. I'm waiting for the next book. I'll leave out my favorite moments so I don't spoil it for others.

If you wanted to make this a unique ability... I guess you could make it minutes/day or hours/day and allow the Beastlord/Hunter whatever to take over ANY animal with a will save (Animal Companions can freely allow you to infest them).

I don't like having your body be helpless though. I get the theme, but I don't see how this is that much different from "becoming a bird" with Shapeshifting (and still having your animal companion able to move freely) versus taking over your animal companion (and making yourself helpless in the process and leaving your animal companion in the void - do you share their meat bag as two souls?).

I guess that's my whole point. Other than the "soul goes into an animal" versus "turn into any animal", I don't see how this is that much different from Wild Shape as it is being presented now (except more limited in choices). Wild Shape already gives you use the animals abilities and speak with them.

If you extend this to include Magical Beasts and other arcane type beasts, you're starting to go outside the realm of Hunter (as a Druid/Ranger mix).

The new classes are evolving to be more than the sum of their parts. I asked Sean if we should provide Hunter like feedback or Beastlord, he said Beastlord and so I suggested an ability fitting to that theme.

This class from my perspective is all about forging a bond with a specific animal far closer than the one shared by rangers and druids with their animal companions. Warging is a nifty, not too powerful ability that woukd be a nice addition to the class's repetoire. Sometimes in new class design the classes are too focused around certain abilities and don't get the variety the core 11 have. I wonder if we were designing the druid today if it would get Timeless Body for example.

Completely fair. I guess maybe I don't understand the intention of this class anymore then. Maybe I'll take my hands off playtesting, analysis and suggestions until it's made clear what the intent is.

Beastlord seems rather vague to me. Mystical animal connection or master of their natural animal companion?

At this point, I'm frustrated with this class. I was most excited for this one, and it's the biggest let down for me. Now it sounds like we don't know where it's headed and we still have two very different groups of people - ones who think this is a natural world/less magical animal companion focused Hunter, and a mystical magical animal controlling one.

Until we get clarification on the matter, we're going to have two different groups disagreeing with each other.

I guess I'll step out until there is clarification.

Kryzbyn wrote:

Warg idea has been done by the synthesist.

Might be cool to be bale to see their eyes without being vulnerable (ala Beastmaster), but "wearing" them has already been done.

You mean the widely banned synthesist?

Not nearly the same thing.

This isn't changing shape, this isn't wearing a power suit. This is going into a bird to fly over the battlefield to scout. This is going into a mouse to get through a hole to listen in. This is being a stray dog wandering into town to get the lay of the land.

But you aren't there. You can't suddenly shift from mouse form to your body inside the inn. Because you aren't there. The mouse is. You are just in control of the mouse.

But unlike seeing through eyes, you are actually in control of the actions of the creature and the creature.

This is Bran and Jon with their wolves. This is very limited magic jar.

Suddenly your generic normal dog animal companion is a lot more useful, since a generic normal dog animal companion won't stand out wandering around...

Again, way to much focus on combat, not enough consideration of utility.

I get it. You explained the whole Game Of Thrones theme. Thanks, though I definitely understood it the first time and this second or third explanation isn't any more convincing. It still isn't a compelling argument. You keep likening it to a limited magic jar spell; guess what, Druid doesn't get magic jar. Nor would this function in the same way. The two classes this one draws from is Ranger and Druid. That should be the focus.

What you're actually describing, and seemingly blind to or not listening, is this IS wildshape, only extremely restrictive. "Morphing into an animal" versus "taking over an animal". Call it what you want, it's still changing you into something else.

Calling it "like magic jar" or "warging" or any other term does not make it something it's not. We're comparing Hunter to Druid and Ranger. What does this ability you're suggesting most emulate? Druid's wildshape. What are the developer's not going to do with Hunter? Have any sort of wildshape like ability.

And yes, this IS the Synthesist class ability:

How is what you're suggesting any different than this? They call it living armor instead of power armor maybe? Or is it because the Hunter is now helpless?

Well if we are talking about mirroring the summoner's Summon Monster SLAs then they last 1 minute/level.

But in any case, the concern I would have is that:
1. The eidolon is more powerful than the AC
2. The summoner attempts to avoid the slowdown by being unable to have both out.
3. The summoner spell list is stronger
4. Summon monster is a stronger more versatile summon spell than SNA.

So, the tradeoff would have to be that the Hunter's companion stays out (which makes the most sense since it isn't a summoned companion like the eidolon) and the Teamwork feats. (hopefully having them apply to summons, dire wolves with tandem trip!)

And Hunters would get 3+wisdom uses per day (rather than charisma)

If that is the case, though, you can expect Hunters to use Summon Nature's Ally in pretty much every fight, which means that they will play through every combat with their companion and at least 1 other summoned creature (possibly more).

So... I guess I just don't see why a persistent companion would be any worse. In my experience, a companion that you have stats for, that doesn't have to be looked up or modified with augment summons/moonlight summons etc, runs faster. A good player will carry around stat block cards for creatures that they regularly summon, but it can get wonky when they need to pull out something different for a weird case.

If you don't give Hunters the advanced summon progression for SNA that summoner get, then SNA becomes an incredibly weak option that isn't going to get used 95% of the time. (IE with a 6 level spell progression, a Hunter will generally be at least 2 spell levels behind a druid.. and summoning one 3 HD leopard at level 9 is just going to be fruitless)

So, bringing up SNA versus a persistent second companion, I think ends up being the same amount of bookkeeping and game time required. If it pushes one way, I would say that summoning multiple creatures is probably going to slow the game down more.

OTOH, giving the hunter a second companion makes it a unique class. That very well may not be the way they want to go, and it could be to slow to implement as a base class, but I think that if full SNA progression is on the table, then this should be too. I don't quite think we need a druidic summoner clone.

Ah, I see. I didn't realize the suggestion was to mirror the Summoner's Summon Nature's Ally time extension. In general, I don't think the Summoner is a good class. It's all kinds of broken, but that's not for this thread. My point - it's not good to base any of the abilities off from Summoner until it either receives errata or adjustments. That's just me though, so I can't speak for any of the developer's on this point.

Plus, you fail to point out that the Summoner as a base class does not allow the Summoner to have his Eidolon out and use his summon monster spell like ability. Since Animal Companions function differently, it's not a 1:1 comparison.

I don't think a base class having multiple companions is a good idea. Between the action economy of each turn, having to manage characters, and the more companions you own the harder it is to plan APs, figure out wealth by level, etc, it also makes it harder for less experience players to get the maximum enjoyment out of the class.

And I'm assuming Paizo staff goes into building these classes so everyone could enjoy them and not just Pathfinder or d20 experts.

Coridan wrote:

It is more like a limited magic jar than wildshape. I think it would be a cool additional feature not the class's trademark ability.

Exactly. Not every ability needs to be a combat ability.

And if you say "Flavor and theme aside" I think you are missing the point.

Flavor and theme are a primary goal, not side dishes.

No, I'm not missing the point. The developer's have said in this thread they are not going to take this class down shapeshifter route and I agree. Anything that even mimics shapeshifting just leaves this class as a subpar druid.

When I said "Theme and Flavor aside" I was referring to not bringing that aspect up. But if you want to talk about how I feel about the "theme" it brings to the class I'd be more than happy.

Mechanically - because, you know, theme and flavor are only the half of the product - what you're suggesting is wildshape (becoming an animal - your animal companion to be exact) by removing your pet from the world while you "inhabit" it's body/soul and leaving your body helpless. How does the name "Hunter" bring about thoughts of "Magical men inhabiting animals so they can take over their bodies to do their bidding?"

If this is "like" Magic Jar, where does the animal companion's soul go? Where is the receptacle it goes to? What happens if your animal companion dies while you're in it's form? Do you die since your "soul" was in there?

Cheapy wrote:

Joyd wrote:

That's pretty neat. If they don't do that, one idea for an archetype might be a hunter that trades the animal companion for the Summoner's Summon Monster SLA, but for SNA instead, and the archetype is allowed to share teamwork feats and the Animal Focus boosts with anything summoned with SNA.

I quite like this idea.

Funny, the last time I brought up this exact same idea, I got jumped on by a bunch of people that said that this would bog down combat and slow the game to a crawl....

Well, if the tides have turned on that, yes I think this could work.

I also still think that simply giving the Hunter a second persistent companion would do the trick. Essentially giving the Hunter the full progression companion from druid and the lvl-3 progression companion from the ranger.

We didn't jump on you, we pointed out that having multiple companions slows the game down and ends up giving one player a lot more time in combat than others, taking much longer to resolve combats. This is legitimate criticism of having multiple pets - especially in official PFS games.

And to be fair, you were talking about having 3 animal companions at level 11. When talking about Summon Nature's Ally, you are limited to rounds/level and they are much simpler to command (as in, they attack to the best of their ability until they die or are unsummoned). SNA inherently works different than an animal companion which does not make them immediately interchangeable.

I still think that more than one companion (especially having two fully level companions) is too much of a time drain and possibly character management.

I will let others weigh in though and see what the developer's think.

My $.02.

1. Having something cool available as an archetype doesn't mean it wouldn't also be cool as part of a class.

2. The beastmaster feature isn't Warging. It's modified empathic link. Not nearly the same.

3. Beastlord theme.

But how is this any different from Wildshape aside from less forms to choose from and your body is left defenseless? Theme and flavor aside, what you're suggesting mechanically is a less useful wildshape. Limited to your animal companion only and your body is defenseless. Plus, you lose your animal companion until you return to your form, effectively crippling you from a class feature.

Personally, this is too close to wildshape to make it in and the developer's have said this not going to be a shapeshifting class.

I do think that this would make an interesting archetype.

Scavion wrote:

Coridan wrote:

Sean K Reynolds wrote:

Go with the beastlord theme.

Awesome. How about something like a warg Game of Thrones allowing the player to fully control the companion without needing tricks or pushing the animal, but having to leave their own body helpless while doing it.

Mmm as much as I like the flavor of that ability, I don't much care for it in game terms. The Beastlord should work in tandem with her companion. I'd really like it if they had a *Super* Animal Companion that performs much better than the others. It could be intelligent like an Eidolon so that it doesn't need to be handled. It being a Magical Beast version of the animal would be super helpful.

I think you are overlooking the out of combat utility that would make this feature awesome.

Want to scout? Get in your hawk and fly over. Track? Get in your wolf.

Better yet at higher levels if you see a low CR animal flying by, warg check to take it over and explore safely out of your body.

This is not a combat ability as much as a non-combat ability.

This can already be achieved at 6th level with the Beastlord Ranger Archetype. Personally, I like it where it is. The Beastlord Ranger was a perfect position for that and I don't think it thematically fits with the Hunter theme here.

So, what do you guys think of this?

In addition to the teamwork feats, the animal companions receive boons as well. One of them should be additional free Handle Animal tricks at set Hunter levels. These would work very similar to the teamwork feats for Inquisitor where they can switch them and they solidify the next time they get to choose another. So if you need your wolf to be sneaky, switch out the "Sneak" trick and have them go with you. Want your megasaurus to bull rush enemies? Take the "Maneuver" trick to switch out and have them push enemies.

Additional Hunter animal tricks are learned at level 2 and every 2 levels after or 3 and every 3 levels after. These can be changed as a full round action.

This alone would be a huge boon. If the Hunter is companion focused, they should receive a Cavalier like Expert Trainer class ability too at level 4 or 5. They should be able to train their Companion with speed and ease. I think increasing the trick count as well would make the animal companion "smarter" which more people were asking for without having to go through brand new animal companion rules.

The reason that even asymmetrical teamwork feats aren't split into two is exactly that. Inquisitors, crusaders, and now hunters have mechanics that make everything work much better if even teamwork feats like that are made into a single feat. Unless the intention is to specifically make teamwork feats that work badly for those classes, teamwork feats should not be split across multiple feats for different participants.

This does mean that you have to avoid giving the teamwork feats prereqs that make no sense for some of the participants. Even the game's own writers get confused by this sometimes; Enfilading Fire, for example, is extremely difficult to use except with a ranged crusader or inquisitor, because it otherwise requires a melee ally to have taken Point Blank Shot and Precise Shot, which basically never happens outside of pretty rare niche builds or very advanced builds. The feat's prereqs were either written completely forgetting that the flanker has to have the feat too or it was never meant to not be a real teamwork feat at all, just an inquisitor talent disguised as one.

Completely agree with this. In addition to requiring multiple people to have the feat, the benefits have to be worth it. Considering that many of them have conditions that have to be met as well, the power aspects of Teamwork Feats needs to be considered and improved. As of right now, only the classes that get free teamwork feats use them because it's a waste of some other, more powerful feat instead.

We ran one playtest with a 5th-level Hunter, and the Hunter stole the show. She was built with 17str, 14dex, 14con, 10int, 14wis, 10cha; mithril breastplate and Tribal Scars feat for 35-ft speed; the Andoran Captain's Blade trait for Acrobatics; scythe for main weapon; a tiger companion; and the precise strike teamwork feat. With the Hunter and tiger both being fairly speedy and acrobatic, they easily got into flank with one another, and once they were there they just ripped things to shreds.

There definitely needs to be more teamwork feats to chose from... too many of them are designed for adjacent fighting rather than flank-buddy fighting. We had fun with the flavor of the scythe... made the Hunter a cloaked Death figure and the tiger more of a black puma... but I do think it makes sense to widen the weapon choices, and of course being able to wear metal armor but not metal shields is just silly. All in all though it was a fun class, and I think well worth giving up the wildshape.

Can you elaborate? You say stole the show; what were the other classes? Was it a combat situation only? Did you try not combat situations? What were the enemies that you were facing? Tricks taught?

Thanks in advance! It's important that the Hunter is explored from both a battle and a non-combat perspective. Many of the Paizo APs are approximately half investigation/explorations and half combat.

Oh yeah, I was wanting it to be applicable to even just regular horses if they were trained properly... though the wording could be modified to be a little less suggestive? :D

That's what I was referring to; the suggestive nature of said feat. Otherwise, I like the idea!

Cavalry Shield

When mounted by an ally with this feat, you may use their shield bonus to AC rather than your own.

The wording... You may want to rephrase this and mention a pre-requisite of being an animal companion or something...

As it is, this could apply to any two characters where one is being mounted by the other.

Well, I already posted how this is very much doable within the current rules... so it isn't like I am tossing something out that you can't run into right now.

So why do we need a class that can already be achieved with the current options in game?

It is no more game-slowing than a Druid that has an animal companion and casts a Summon spell in each combat, and since the Hunter is way behind on summons, it is likely that they won't be using them. So, tit for tat, it will be pretty much the same.

So just because there are other examples of builds that slow combat to crawl it makes it okay to design a class with that in mind? The druid can choose not to cast summon spells. Also, keep in mind that summon spells have short durations and function differently than an animal companion.

The free action to issue commands is easily handled by allowing the Hunter to just use one free action to command all of his pets.

To give them individual commands or to issue one to all pets? In the first case, giving commands to three different creatures is a little excessive for a free action. Keep in mind, the Player's Handbook states that GMs can set reasonable limits as to how many free actions are allowed in a round.

The other options that have come up just don't come anywhere near making up for the loss of 3 levels of casting plus wildshape. This might at least have a chance at doing that while increasing the concept of teamwork feats as a major class feature.

While I don't disagree, your suggestion is not the solution to the problem. Throwing more pets (and taking longer to resolve your actions every round) does not make it any better. Others, including myself, and have contributed to this thread to offer suggestions on how to fix and improve the current build.

I have to assume that you would also disallow a Multi-classed cavalier/druid, a beasmaster ranger, and any class that makes heavy use of summon spells... particularly the Summoner and Druid.

You really shouldn't make any assumptions about someone you don't know. First off, summon spells are different than animal companions. Second, I have no issue with a different builds - a Cavalier/Druid could also keep his mount as his animal companion without any change. One that takes another companion would likely need two boon companion feats to bring to full. In addition, a Druid could just as easily take a Domain and the Cavalier can take boon companion or something else entirely.

Edited: Let's keep my personal preferences out of this discussion. My concern is the sheer length of time each round will take the Multi-Companion Hunter.

Okay... so here is my solution to this class.

Two full animal companions

Action economy. Taking out home games and looking solely at PFS; that's one character who is playing 4 characters total at 10th level. 4 different initiatives. What about the sheer amount of free actions needed to issue commands to each animal companion?

Not to mention having to track each animal individually.

I would not allow such a character at my table if I was running a home game. And I sure wouldn't want to play with another character at a table who gets to make (let's assume they took 3 bird companions) 3 attacks on a full attack action; 9 attacks total from the animals and another 2 from their main class for a grand total of 11 attacks in one round.

Besides, this class shouldn't just be something another class can do. If the Magus was simply a mashup of Wizard and Fighter and brought nothing new, it would have been a waste of printing space. This class needs to do something different, not do something that's already achievable (as you've pointed out).

I truly think the focus should be on the one animal companion and make them stronger.

LOL

I suggested earlier that maybe perhaps instead of the animal companion being set in stone, it be more of a nature spirit, that takes the forms of animals that make sense for the area.

Grasslands, it might become a lion or gazelle...
Water, shark or gator
Mountains, ram or bear
etc.

Keep it with the same base stats, then modified by form, and have stats for it in spirit form so it can combat incorporeal nasties too.

Basicly, the AC gets the druids wildshape, instead of the PC.

Which would be pretty cool as a Hunter or Druid Archetype. But this doesn't fit the Hunter's theme at all. I think that there are a lot of people who want an Animal Mystic type of character, but I don't think the Hunter base class is going to fill the niche.

Trogdar wrote:

really is pretty hard to make up the gaping wound that wildshape left.

Well...if you take limited wildshape off the table :)

I still like my Warg idea even if no one else did.

Being able to enter and take over your animal companion, and eventually other animals...come one, that is cool.

It is neat; but it doesn't fit the Hunter class name nor the flavor text they provided. They'd have to change the name to something like Animal Mystic (which I mentioned earlier) and alter the flavor text to be more akin to some kind of mystic animal taker-over.

Also, I worry about the the mechanics needed to do something like this. I'd rather it be a Hunter Archetype: Animal Mystic.

I really want to see the Hunter flavor text hit the mark with the mechanics and I think it can happen with everyone's feedback.