The Alchemist is a bold design choice. It's a lot less traditional alchemy and more like the "alchemists" from World of Warcraft and other computer games (some Western game I played was a lot like this) what with the bombs and mutating and all. It'll be controversial; I like it OK but wish it was less on the "powered by the alchemist's magical aura" thing, to me one of the reasons to have an alchemist character is to lay on the pseudoscience.
My main concern with the alchemist is that it seems weak. The limited number of bombs a day and limited extracts mean he's like half a spellcaster. And the mutagens (I agree this needs to be renamed - how about elixir?) just don't work enough - the cleric BAB/HD plus the mutagen boost still doesn't quite make them a useful fighter even when juiced. I'm afraid that over the course of an entire adventuring day, and especially as they go up in level, they will be quite weak.
On the Inquisitor - this class seems like an odd mishmash to me. It's partly trying to be Buffy, but seems like it's also trying to be a paladin of any alignment and also trying to be a marshal. It seems unfocused and also very close to/redundant with existing classes - seems like a little bit of multiclassing in the pally/cleric/ranger area would step on its toes pretty hard. My recommendation here is to very strongly clarify the vision for this class and then tweak it to fit that vision, as it's definitely not coming across in the current version.
Mechanically they seem to work well and at first glance they don't seem overpowered...
But.. the flavor is not there, maybe if the alchemist wass named "Mad Alchemist" or something alike... but as it is now, they are, like the good Ernest pointed out, "..."alchemists" from World of Warcraft and other computer games..."
If the mechanics don't change, the flavor and background applicable to this class will be VERY limited. I fear this kind of classes, they scream "pc-game!", and who likes that?
The inquisitor is nice, but the combination of abilities seems odd, there are too much "judgments" options... maybe you could take some of them and make another set of abilities... or make that you only know a number of judgments (and boost them to equilibrate the versatility losed) as it is now, it seems too versatil... (not game braking, but still... odd)
The Alchemist is a bold design choice. It's a lot less traditional alchemy and more like the "alchemists" from World of Warcraft and other computer games (some Western game I played was a lot like this) what with the bombs and mutating and all. It'll be controversial; I like it OK but wish it was less on the "powered by the alchemist's magical aura" thing, to me one of the reasons to have an alchemist character is to lay on the pseudoscience.
My main concern with the alchemist is that it seems weak. The limited number of bombs a day and limited extracts mean he's like half a spellcaster. And the mutagens (I agree this needs to be renamed - how about elixir?) just don't work enough - the cleric BAB/HD plus the mutagen boost still doesn't quite make them a useful fighter even when juiced. I'm afraid that over the course of an entire adventuring day, and especially as they go up in level, they will be quite weak.
On the Inquisitor - this class seems like an odd mishmash to me. It's partly trying to be Buffy, but seems like it's also trying to be a paladin of any alignment and also trying to be a marshal. It seems unfocused and also very close to/redundant with existing classes - seems like a little bit of multiclassing in the pally/cleric/ranger area would step on its toes pretty hard. My recommendation here is to very strongly clarify the vision for this class and then tweak it to fit that vision, as it's definitely not coming across in the current version.
I have to agree. The alchemist, while conceptually intriguing seems mechanically weak in comparison to some other classes. The closest thing I would compare him to is the 3.5 warlock class, and that class could blast away all day long, while the alchemist only have a limited number of "bombs" each day. There is also the extremely limited list of "Spells" which I personally despise. I would like some way to add more formulas from different sourcebooks, and I think a book of formulas similar to a spellbook would work great.
The Inquisitor I didn't care for at all. It reminded me of a lot of poorly designed classes I find in various 3rd party materials and fan based materials. It seems to lack focus and the abilities are just a cluttered mash-up of other classes. Personally I find this the least appealing of the new classes. Maybe the class is mechanically balanced, but the lack of focus and with no solid niche to fill, and add to that a personal peeve of mine, a unique spell list, I can't see this class ever being played in any of my games as it currently is written. I think the Inquisitor concept is easy to make by multiclassing cleric and ranger or paladin and ranger, and I don't understand the need for this class. I would rather prefer a swashbuckling type of class since I think that is a niche which lacks a solid mechanic in the current rules.
I intend to give both classes a thorough run through and maybe that will change my mind.
The Inquisitor I didn't care for at all. It reminded me of a lot of poorly designed classes I find in various 3rd party materials and fan based materials. It seems to lack focus and the abilities are just a cluttered mash-up of other classes. Personally I find this the least appealing of the new classes.
Yeah, that's about how I feel about it. First glance says balance is OK but I don't care enough about it to bother with a playtest or even bothering to analyze it real hard, unlike all the other APG classes.
|
My big complaint is that the alchemist can make a certain number of bombs per day. That's... very meta-gamey, and it really breaks my ability to get into the class. What's the rationale there? Honestly, the idea that the alchemist's extracts are powered by his own magical aura also bug me. I think the class needs a major overhaul.
From my point of view, avoiding meta-gamey concepts is the reason I stayed with Pathfinder instead of going over to 4th Edition D&D. The alchemist is therefore highly disappointing to me.
Jeremy Puckett
Yeah, that's about how I feel about it. First glance says balance is OK but I don't care enough about it to bother with a playtest or even bothering to analyze it real hard, unlike all the other APG classes.
I just want to point out that i find it amusing that there are so many of you who feel this way, because its actually the most appealing of the 6 to me. Also, judging by what I have seen in other threads, the mish-mash of class abilities is kinda the point. Jason was going for extreme versatility.
I just want to point out that i find it amusing that there are so many of you who feel this way, because its actually the most appealing of the 6 to me. Also, judging by what I have seen in other threads, the mish-mash of class abilities is kinda the point. Jason was going for extreme versatility.
Yeah, that's about how I feel about it. First glance says balance is OK but I don't care enough about it to bother with a playtest or even bothering to analyze it real hard, unlike all the other APG classes.
I get that the class is supposed to be sort of a divine counterpart to the bard, but I think they missed their mark. I can't find any appealing features of this class that I wouldn't get by multiclassing instead. The condemnation stuff is supposed to be the class' equivalent to bardic music I suppose, but to me the feature seems clunky and tacked on.
I will still try to play-test the class as it currently stands if I get the time, but I am fairly certain I will feel the same way.
|
|
I only just finished reading the two classes so I haven't been able to see them in play yet, but here's my first impression...
Alchemist- Two good saves, D8 HD, a middle BAB progression, simple weapons and light armor make the class survivable. 4+INT Skill points on a class that benefits greatly from high INT and a good range of skills make the class versatile.
I don't think the class needs more bombs, mutagens or extracts to be playable. Taken as a complete package with the addition of poison and standard alchemical goods, the alchemist isn't going to run out of things to do for awhile. He might end up standing in back of the party with the wizard throwing tanglefoot bags and acid splashes once they've both run out of tricks and spells for the day, but it doesn't seem like a first rank class to me anyway.
The only thing that really confuses me about the class is the inclusion of Throw Anything as a bonus feat. The alchemist can already throw darts, daggers, acid flasks and bombs. What else does he need to be able to throw? It seems like the feat just gives the Alchemist something he doesn't really need.
The magic aura battery seems like an unprecedented choice for the alchemist's power source. I can sort of imagine it as a metaphysical/fantastical explanation for chemical reactions, and I guess you'd need a way to keep the alchemist from simply stockpiling chemicals he can mix and throw at will so I'm mostly okay with it.
At first glance, I think the class is balanced without overshadowing any of the base classes.
I can't say the same thing for the Inquisitor.
Inquisitor - Two good saves, D8 HD, a middle BAB progression, simple weapons + bows + deity's favored weapon and light and medium armor + shields makes the class very survivable. 6+Int skill points and a great selection of skills makes the class more versatile than a ranger.
On top of all that, the class is a better divine caster than a paladin, a better specialized foe hunter than a ranger and a better fifth slot than a bard. The judgement ablility would be fine on its own, but the addition of bane, greater bane and exploit weakness seem to make the class a boss-killer. Maybe that's the idea? The tactical feats seem, no pun intended, tacked on, and I don't know if I like the swap-at-will mechanic for the bonus feats. If I was going to take anything out, I'd probably start with the solo tactics and related abilities. In fact, the cavalier seems like a much better candidate for an ability like this.
The bane powers do make sense, but I think they're very powerful and might need to be scaled back somehow.
At first glance, the class seems like an overpowered everyclass that overshadows the ranger, the paladin and, possibly, the bard to some extent.
|
The Alchemist is a bold design choice. It's a lot less traditional alchemy and more like the "alchemists" from World of Warcraft and other computer games (some Western game I played was a lot like this) what with the bombs and mutating and all. It'll be controversial; I like it OK but wish it was less on the "powered by the alchemist's magical aura" thing, to me one of the reasons to have an alchemist character is to lay on the pseudoscience.
My main concern with the alchemist is that it seems weak. The limited number of bombs a day and limited extracts mean he's like half a spellcaster. And the mutagens (I agree this needs to be renamed - how about elixir?) just don't work enough - the cleric BAB/HD plus the mutagen boost still doesn't quite make them a useful fighter even when juiced. I'm afraid that over the course of an entire adventuring day, and especially as they go up in level, they will be quite weak.
On the Inquisitor - this class seems like an odd mishmash to me. It's partly trying to be Buffy, but seems like it's also trying to be a paladin of any alignment and also trying to be a marshal. It seems unfocused and also very close to/redundant with existing classes - seems like a little bit of multiclassing in the pally/cleric/ranger area would step on its toes pretty hard. My recommendation here is to very strongly clarify the vision for this class and then tweak it to fit that vision, as it's definitely not coming across in the current version.
you have organized my thoughts about this admiarbly- +1 to all you said.
I really do think that those two are the weakest link in the chain of new classes to appear in the APG. the MMORPG fell of the alchemist is... annoying. if I would want to feel like I'm playing WoW I'll play 4E, not PFRPG. The Inquisitor is just boering, since he presents nothing new and just tweak many other abiltis of other classes. mah.
I'm going to put a +1 on the tactical feats.
I really don't get how they mesh in with the rest of the class. He's more of a divine agent than a tactical mastermind. It fits in perfectly with the Cavalier, however. People have been complaining about him gaining Combat Feats like the Fighter does, but by gaining tactical feats he gains yet another niche which distinguishes him from the Fighter.
I'd also like to add that I don't even really think spells suit the Inquisitor that well. I'd prefer a bigger emphasis on his judgements, perhaps even letting him choose between them as he levels up.
I just want to point out that i find it amusing that there are so many of you who feel this way, because its actually the most appealing of the 6 to me. Also, judging by what I have seen in other threads, the mish-mash of class abilities is kinda the point. Jason was going for extreme versatility.
What, exactly, do you like about it? "Mishmash!" isn't a compelling vision statement... What makes it better than a multiclass?
|
I read through the Inquisitor and felt like this is the character I've always wanted to play and never found the right class for. I love it. I do agree that the tactical feats don't make a lot of sense for the character though, I have to agree that they feel like more of a Cavalier ability to me. Bane is good, but it's rounds/day. Calling the Inquisitor a BBEG killer is pretty accurate. He's the guy you send in when you need the BBEG killed and a paladin can't get the job done (or your god doesn't have them).
But.. the flavor is not there, maybe if the alchemist wass named "Mad Alchemist" or something alike... but as it is now, they are, like the good Ernest pointed out, "..."alchemists" from World of Warcraft and other computer games..."
If the mechanics don't change, the flavor and background applicable to this class will be VERY limited. I fear this kind of classes, they scream "pc-game!", and who likes that?
Really? To me it had much more of a traditional Jekle/Hyde feel combined with a bit of mad hatter and bits of traditional alchemy history thrown in.
But then again I've never played WoW.
I think there are enough literary 'alchemist' references around to draw upon to create very varied backgrounds. Plus the class is fairly varied so you could go for a brute looking for the perfect body in a bottle or a crazy poison using madman with assasin as his goal. Just to name a couple options.
|
I like the inquis, I think it needs some tweaking though. Mostly some of the things listed already like tactical feats.
Alchemist, not a fan. i get what Jason was going for and thats fine. i think it does a fine job in that regard. But really not what I was hoping for. I was more hoping for a none spell caster able to make a wide range of alchemy things. The mutagen is nice but I think it would have been better. To allow them to make as much as they want, but only allow the Alchemist to only drink one so often with out running the risk of bad things happening to them.
Like they can only drink one a hour safely. After that they have to make a Fort Save or something. failing results in something bad happening to them. Each time they drink more after the first the save gets harder and the penalty gets worse. Like say -3 to save on the 3rd one -6 to the 4th and so on. Then add the same number a mishap chart. Chart say ranged 1-30 and you just roll a die 10 or 20. I would favor a d10 and have more powerful alchemy things have built in adjustments. Like the more powerful ones have a built in +5 mishap roll. Anyways thats what I was hoping for.
I read through the Inquisitor and felt like this is the character I've always wanted to play and never found the right class for. I love it. I do agree that the tactical feats don't make a lot of sense for the character though, I have to agree that they feel like more of a Cavalier ability to me. Bane is good, but it's rounds/day. Calling the Inquisitor a BBEG killer is pretty accurate. He's the guy you send in when you need the BBEG killed and a paladin can't get the job done (or your god doesn't have them).
I agree, not a fan of the tactical feats. I understand the idea- a 'monster' hunter that is giving orders and shaping the flow of the battle by sharing his 'monster' knowledge and fighting tactics.
But the feats seem weak. I've found that players will almost always take a feat that's always 'on' or is easy to switch 'on' over a feat can't be called upon unless the circumstances are right. If you want players to use feats that are conditional then they better be VERY EFFECTIVE. And only one or two of the ones listed are.
Mutagens should be renamed to 'Vile Concoctions'.
Ken
You can go with old alchemy jargon and call them "tinctures."
Or use the more medieval "dread physic."
Actually, "physics" would be a good term, as that's a name that applies to medicines, and they all have physical effects.
The term "mutagen" explains what they do okay but is far too X-men for my taste.
I've been reading through all the classes for the APG as they've come out, even got to playtest the Witch a little (very enjoyable, but could use some tweaking), but none of them have gotten me as excited as the Inquisitor has.
I'm a fan of the old Soloman Kane stories, my dad got me into them when I was younger and I did not expect to see something similar to that appear in this round of classes. I fully expected the Inquisitor class to be some kind of full divine caster, but nothing at all like this flexible skirmisher.
I like the Judgements, and unlike seemingly half the people on these boards, I even like the name of the ability. The random little abilities that people have been calling 'mish-mash' make a certain amount of sense to me, the monster hunting, the initiative boost, the Bane ability, the Solo Tactical feats and spontaneous divine casting all put together make an interesting fighting class that I'm really looking forward to playing.
It seemed odd to me at first that the Inquisitor would have access to anything promoting teamwork, as the rest of the class seemed quite self sufficient. Then, it occurred to me: The tactical feats that the Inquisitor gains for free don't represent how good he is at working with other people, they represent how good he is at USING other people.
He's an opportunistic fighter who can take advantage of his companions to maximize his own damage and prowess. If he gave bonuses to other people because of his free Tactical Feat usage, then I would wonder why it was part of the class, but as it stands I think it fits the flavor very well.
Overall, with a few tweaks, I'm sure it's going to turn out to be a great class.
Calling the mutagens Elixirs or Vile Concoctions denote either a game mechanic that is already in use and different from the abilities of the class, or associated can be mistakenly associated with evil including the term "mad alchemist".
Get off the terms used for abilities stick with the mechanics of the class.
I find it ironic that you are telling people not to get stuck on the terms used for an ability to match the mechanics...
...when you are getting stuck on alternate connotations for the suggested replacements.
Personally, I do rather prefer concoctions (not vile) to mutagens.
What about Panacea?
|
i love the look and feel of both these classes and cant wait to try them out.
incidently, i think some of you are letting the wordage get in the way of flavor with the alchemist. I think they call him a caster because it is the easiest way to explain what he does from a mechanics point of view. but i charicter, i would never say he casts anything, he whips up a potion/concotions and drinks it.
i love the look and feel of both these classes and cant wait to try them out.
incidently, i think some of you are letting the wordage get in the way of flavor with the alchemist. I think they call him a caster because it is the easiest way to explain what he does from a mechanics point of view. but i charicter, i would never say he casts anything, he whips up a potion/concotions and drinks it.
I'd be fine if that was what he did. But he doesn't. If that was what he did, he could make a concoction, put it in a shelf, and drink it 3 days later. Or, he could make a concoction and give sell it to someone and they drink it and heal X hitpoints.
What he does instead is cast spells only on himself via a unique mechanic. If you replace 'Mixes formulae' with 'Casts a spell on himself only' the class is a bard replacement that only casts spells on himself (unless he takes a feat, for all intents and purposes).
Don't get me wrong, I love the concept of an alchemist, but this class is more of a 'I buff myself and that's all I do' class. It's not really an alchemist (he can't even brew potions, which is arguably a classic alchemist ability).
When I think of an alchemist, I think of a guy in a shop with a lab in the back who mixes up medicines, boosts, potions, elixers, and other things that don't require magic and work (but may have side effects).
I'd rather have no magic involved and have the potions work for anyone but have a 1 in 20 chance for a bad side effect instead. That would be a fun character to play. :(
On the other hand, I've liked 5 of the 6 classes so far (loved two of them), so if I don't like 1 of the 6, I'm sure someone else will love it.
What, exactly, do you like about it? "Mishmash!" isn't a compelling vision statement... What makes it better than a multiclass?
I just want to point out that i find it amusing that there are so many of you who feel this way, because its actually the most appealing of the 6 to me. Also, judging by what I have seen in other threads, the mish-mash of class abilities is kinda the point. Jason was going for extreme versatility.
Well to be honest, i like the flavor of the class the most. I haven't tried the class yet so I can't really say whether or not I'd be able to do the same with a multiclass, but I love the idea.
I'm not one of those guys who bash on people for "munchkining" or anything but personally I don't worry about my characters power level all that much. A couple of guys in my group always go for the most powerful at the table but I'm fine as long as I've got the coolest at the table, so take that into account when you look at my viewpoint on the class.
My big complaint is that the alchemist can make a certain number of bombs per day. That's... very meta-gamey, and it really breaks my ability to get into the class. What's the rationale there? Honestly, the idea that the alchemist's extracts are powered by his own magical aura also bug me. I think the class needs a major overhaul.
From my point of view, avoiding meta-gamey concepts is the reason I stayed with Pathfinder instead of going over to 4th Edition D&D. The alchemist is therefore highly disappointing to me.
Jeremy Puckett
This is also why I don't follow the Con score negative for death rule. A game based on modifiers should not use an actual Con score to determine death point. My rule is death is -10 + your con bonus. With a minimum of -10, in the case where your con has been reduced.
|
I like what I see in the Alchemist, but it's a looong way from done.
The Inquisitor, however.... jeez. Just scratch out "Inquisitor" and pencil in "Ranger". This class is better than sliced bread, and thus I fear a wee bit over the top. "Whatever I need right now" judgements? Ok, I guess. "Whatever I need right now" Bane weapon, gee, that's powerful. "Whichever I need right now" Tactical Feats too.... AND no one else has to take one for me to get the benefit?
Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over???
How is an Alchemist like a MMO class specifically WOW. I have never played WOW so I am curious. One of my players said the same thing but could not articulate why. Is it a fluff thing or a mechanics thing?
I haven't played WoW, but I have played lots of MMO's back when they were text based (MUD's is what we called them, Multi User Dungeons). The feel is the same as some of the other classes. It was the 'Firebomb firebomb firebomb' mixed with abilities that only affect the character. It's not the fluff (so much, although there is some in there) as the fluff mixed with the mechanics, which come off as some sort of wierd mix of caster/not caster magic/not magic alchemist/not alchemist.
Wow, I can't explain it either, but the feeling is there and very strong. It's like some sort of synergy where the sum of the parts feels computer characterish.
Actually, that's it, it kind of reminds me of my character from Borderlands. The whole choose your revelation think feels like a skill tree from a video game, take this path to get this uber cool ability, take this skill path to get this other ability. I think that's what may be a bit off putting.
I'm intrigued by both classes, and I think there's something interesting going on with them, but I don't love that the alchemist's bomb ability is as limited as it is. It feels like he's not as dangerous as a spellcaster, but he also lacks something to fall back on once his juice starts to run out, which kind of bums me out. I'd rather he had a bit more staying power, but I'll have to see how it plays out. The inquisitor is good enough, too. A little strong in some areas, especially at higher levels, but he's still dependent on critical hits for some of his better abilities to really kick in.
The thing that I'm hating on this time around are the tactical feats themselves. At the moment, the only character in a party who'll bother with the majority of them is the inquisitor, and only because he gets them as bonuses and he doesn't need someone else to spend a feat slot.
Feats are precious commodities, so getting a feat that is barely better than another feat and only works in limited circumstances when someone else has already invested in it... is lame. The casting one, for example, pales in comparison to Spell Penetration, which only requires you to take the feat once for an always on benefit. The feats just do not work nearly as well as WotC's tactical feats, and most of those weren't even that useful. Very unimpressed with them. They need some serious buffing to become a worthwhile investment for most parties.
The one that gives you an extra 1d6 damage on every successful flanking hit is really the only good one. The PHBII had a feat that upped the flanking bonus for a character, and it didn't require an ally to also have a feat for it to work. I suppose it is nice in that it gives a benefit to both flankers, but it still just doesn't seem entirely worth the investiture.
I think Inquisitors are the only ones who'll actually get any real use out of these feats as they currently stand, and that's just because they get them for free.
How is an Alchemist like a MMO class specifically WOW. I have never played WOW so I am curious. One of my players said the same thing but could not articulate why. Is it a fluff thing or a mechanics thing?
Not saying it's bad, but yeah, in WoW it's all about the bomb throwing. And in a lot of comp games have the "juice yourself up with green glowing liquid" type guys.
The one that gives you an extra 1d6 damage on every successful flanking hit is really the only good one. The PHBII had a feat that upped the flanking bonus for a character, and it didn't require an ally to also have a feat for it to work. I suppose it is nice in that it gives a benefit to both flankers, but it still just doesn't seem entirely worth the investiture.
I think Inquisitors are the only ones who'll actually get any real use out of these feats as they currently stand, and that's just because they get them for free.
Personally, I really like the tactical feats for flavor for the inquisitor, and love the class overall. I have to agree entirely though that the feats are practically worthless. I see very few players taking them, and me dieing from them as my GM throws optimized NPCs using them at me.
I do not agree that the Alchemist will be a weak adventurer. They have plenty to do between their Extracts, Mutagens and bombs. In fact the mechanics of the Discoveries even encourages the player to specialize their Alchemist e.g. as a mad bomber, a potion master or a mad scientist.
Having something to do and having something useful to do are not the same thing. A 10d6+10 bomb as a full round action at 20th level is not an effective use of an action. Period. 37 average damage is absolutely laughable. His polymorphing spell daughts are laughably far behind other classes in their choices, and never catch up. These are areas this class should be focused in, and the are not better than, or even as good as, a spellcaster of equal level.
Right now the Alchemist is a really, weak class to add to any party.
Most on this board thus far seem to be confounded as to what the focus is of the Inquisitor. It is really very simple. Inquisitors are monster hunters in the truest tradition of a Von Helsing or as some one has already mention Solomon Kane. The class is even comparable to a divine version of Harry Dresden of the Dresden files.
The problem with the Inquisitor is that it is a mishmash of abilities that don't work well together and make little sense. Domains but low level spells, evasion but poor reflex save, and tactical feats (that are godawful by the way) on a class that focuses on hunting down enemies in a lone ranger way.
While it may be aiming for a Van Helsing character - and I like the concept, it is just falling apart. On, one thing though, it doesn't even remotely resemble Dresden, so please don't bring him into it. He's a sorcerer if he's anything, and even then he works poorly in D&D or Pathfinder. The best way I've found of working him up mechanically is the True Sorcery spellcaster class.
In terms of mechanics it may be able to keep up with the party, and even help out, but the mechanics are messy as hell right now.
Evasion and a poor Reflex save don't really bother me that much - I fail to see why they couldn't potentially benefit from having Evasion even with a low save in the area, since it'd help them when they do manage to make the save. It's just not as powerful an ability, and I'm fine with that. Besides, they may just find themselves using the Tactical feat that allows them two chances to get a REF save right so long as they're standing next to someone else who has to make the save.
Domain abilities are a nice idea, too. It helps make the class feel like it's actually linked to its deity, and it doesn't bother me at all that their spell list isn't a full list, since they're getting the domain abilities but not the spells anyway.
Honestly, I like the class well enough. It does have something of a grab-bag of abilities, but they're unified and progress, which is more than I can say a cleric/paladin/ranger multiclass character would amount to. It's a hybridization class in a lot of ways.
|
|
The problem with the Inquisitor is that it is a mishmash of abilities that don't work well together and make little sense. Domains but low level spells, evasion but poor reflex save, and tactical feats (that are godawful by the way) on a class that focuses on hunting down enemies in a lone ranger way.
Have you played one in an actual game? I have and the abilities DO work well together.