|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi all,
I was just over on a Magus discussion and though I would bring my own experience of the new classes from the APG and UM. I'm interested in how others have found the classes "in game". I know on paper they are supposed to balance, but what have your experiences been like? They have been around a good while now, so I'm interested in what you have experienced, not what you think they should be.
Alchemist: The player was not optimised, but they seemed at the "top end" of power. The core equivalent, the bard, is rarely played, but the alchemist was very popular. The bombs did a lot of damage, expecially if the "Explosive bomb" discovery was used, causing ongoing damage. The class has a lot of utility. There were always enough bombs to go round. They get more every level and the damage increases, so I imagine by higher levels they rarely run out.
Cavalier: Nobody will play one. They figure they are better off playing a fighter or paladin.
Inquisitor: I have only played this class at very low levels. It seems to have a lot going for it. Its resource dependent Judgements are encounter based, so were quite limited at low levels. I would imagine once you can roll these out 2/3 times per day things become a lot easier.
Oracle: I have played a stone oracle to mid-levels. It was certainly not overly powerful. I built it around the "throw rock" revelation as I never assumed the game would last beyond 4th level. As a result it began to lose out, being a pure caster it would have been better to focus on the spell casting, but thats life, and the character is in for the long haul. The large number of spells per day compaired to the cleric seemed to balance out with the lack of channels. I would imagine an oracle of life may be a gm's nightmare in terms of available healing, particularly as selective channel feat is charisma based.
Summoner: Nobody has played one, although after the success of the druid in the group with his animal companion, I think it is only a matter of time. The complexity of the eidolon rules put people off and the fact most of the time you are "playing" your summoned creature.
Witch: We have just had a witch player join the group so very limited experience so far. The hexes seem to be a good power boost on other arcane casters. Its too soon to say how they work out.
Magus: Just reached level 5 in our group and is very powerful. Has good utility, good blast and is ok in combat without that. The arcane pool allows weapon enhancement above that of the paladins divine bond. It has as many combat feats as a ranger of the same level. It is the class most likely to cause an "argument phase", with the wording of class abilities. It is probably the most powerful of the new classes in experienced play in our group.
Let me know, I'm interested in your experiences. I expect there will be positive and negative for each class.
Alchemist: Played one to lvl 4, saw one played with bombs to lvl 6 and one to 7, one melee based to lvl 8. They were all very strong. The bombs did very good damage, and stink bomb was super powerful. The beastmorph/vivisectionist does a lot of damage if he is able to flank, and even without it its quite a lot. The extracts make them extremly usful to the party and very versatile as they can prepare them in 1 minute. Very very strong class in my opinion.
Cavalier: Haven´t seen one in game so far.
Inquisitor: I played with one during Carrion Crown 1. Was quite versatile and constributed good.
Oracle: Played one in Kingmaker to lvl 7. Made a good meleecaster with a lot of AC (nature with cha to AC) and nice spells. Misfortune (dual cursed) was extremly powerful, especially in kingmaker with a lot of 1 encounter/day days.
Saw one (flames) played to lvl 6. Was a good mix between melee and spells, but nothing outstanding.
Summoner: Played a Synthesist to lvl 4 in Carrion Crown 1. Nice melee damage, without the eidolon still very good at summoning. It was like playing 2 characters in one: with the eidolon I was a quite capable melee combatant, without it, I still was a powerful summoner.
Saw a master summoner played to lvl 8. Possibly the most powerful class in the game. Would have been able to win most encounters by himself.
Witch: Saw one played to lvl 6 in Kingmaker and one from 5-14 in Red Hand of Doom and Tomb of the Iron Medusa. Both were extremly powerful. The slumber hex wins so many fights, its not even funny. The other debuffs make a GM cry. Both were the best debuffers I have seen so far.
Magus: Played one to lvl 6, saw one played to lvl 14. Very versatile if build for it (I played a hexcrafter with a bow, which was still able to constribute very well in melee, even without feats spent for it). The damage spikes were quite high, but I think its one of the best balanced classes. It´s excatly what it´s supposed to be: a good mix between casting and melee.
I DMed Carrion Crown for (among others) an Inquisitor and an Oracle.
Oracle is a nice class, with lots of choices for many different ideas. I like it when you can pick and choose abilities. Mysteries are what Domains should have been.
Inquisitor... Ungh. I dislike gish classes such as Inquisitor because they're stepping on other people's toes. Inquisitor is basically a Ranger/Cleric and when you have an either one in the party alongside inquisitor, he's gonna feel like inquisitor is 'stealing' his thing. And inquisitor has so many abilities (HUGE combat bonuses (both judgement AND bane), knowledge bonuses, social skill bonuses, spells, changeable feats) which he does better than those classes that had those abilities originally.
I'm not saying that every party should have a Fighter, Wizard, Cleric and Rogue to avoid that problem, but at least if there's a jack-of-all-trades class he shouldn't also be a master-of-all.
|
They're all good, successful classes. I'll echo that the summoners are extraordinarily powerful.
Alot of people poo-poo Cavaliers, or dismiss them out of hand as one-dimensional.
If you take a deeper look however, they're like all the other APG classes. They are complex with potential for various strengths. The animal companion and challenge combine to make devastating damage output. And you needn't build your cavalier to be useless unless mounted, remember. The mount can fight whether you're riding it or not.. and most combat feats apply equally well whether mounted or not.
On top of howitzer-like damage, cavaliers can be built to various other strengths as well. Most notably party-buff throwing, and/or having social 'face' skills.
|
|
Thanks for the replies :)
It seems that those who have replied so far seem to rate the alchemist, inquisitor, summoner, witch and magus pretty highly.
I forgot to include the gunslinger, ninja and samuri! Probably as I have never seen any of these played yet.
I know there are a lot of different opinions about the Core classes, which are powerful and which are weak (the fighter thread is somewhere in the 1000+ posts, there are endless rogue bashing threads, and a lot of debate on the monk). How do they rate in comparison to the newer classes? Have you seen a drop in core classes played?
I know my preferences have shifted to the more versatile alchemist and inquisitor. Toadkiller Dog mentioned about classes being a "jack of all trades" and being a "master of all". Is this a widely held opinion of some of the new classes?
In my opinion, the 4 new 6 level spell progression classes offer greater "bang for their buck" than the Bard ever did. I'm not a regular player of Full Casters, Clerics, Wizards, Sorcerers etc. I'd be interested if any of those players could offer a comparison of the full casters to the 6th level progression casters that seem to have had a boost. Dela for example felt the Magus was "one of the best balanced classes". Do they fill the gap for a wizard or a fighter? Do they regularly outshine both in their specific roles? Do they fall behind both, but not so far they aren't worth playing?
Interesting point about the cavalier Deusvault. It probably falls prey of the same poor PR the Bard gets. Party buffers don't usually get the praise they deserve...
Concering the magus:
Yes, they fill the gap. They are somewhere in the middle of both classes. I never had the feeling of outshining anyone at the table and my player with the lvl 14 magus didn´t outshine anyone as well.
You are worse in both spellcasting and combat compared to the "pure" classes. In combat it wasn´t that far (especially when buffed before combat), but in spellcasting on the higher lvls it was felt. The save DCs were a lot lower then the witch´s in the same group. But the magus did utility stuff he couldn´t have used as a fighter. Dimension Dooring a NSC to safety, beeing invisible and so on.
But it always had a feeling of "being right". Thats why I said it as very well balanced.
I haven´t seen a drop in core classes since the APG. Sure, some people are more drawn to the new classes, but I think thats because they are generally more versatile which I think appeals to to players who already played a lot of characters and like to have a lot of options (at least thats true for me ;) ).
Ninja: Saw one played to lvl 6 and one to lvl 7. They are a better rogue. Vanishing Trick and Shadow Clones are both 2 very nice abilities. Overall I don´t think there are a lot of reasons to play a rogue anymore besides style, but I think that has been discussed enough ;)
|
|
... And if he can't use the mount, he just isn't as good as a Barbarian, Fighter, or Paladin. Or as useful or powerful as a Ranger...
A mount may not have the melee power of a martial character, but it's got the armor proficiency and more CON than most animal companions to make it a credidble front-line combatant. And a Cavalier may not have all the power of a barbarian/fighter/paladin, the challenge ability makes the difference slim. But a barbarian/fighter/paladin doesn't have the power of a cavalier AND his mount combined.
And if you make UMD a class skill, keeping around a supply of scrolls of spider climb and reduce animal ensures the mount can fight alongside the cavalier in the (many) times he's unable to RIDE his mount.
Nitty gritty?
A cavalier with the spirited charge feat on open ground will probably destroy any non-range martial character. But aside from those ideal conditions?
A barbarian is more stout, but the cavalier has more party buffs. Still, with all the rage powers most people would consider the barbarian to be the stronger class.
A fighter has more feats for flexibility in combat, but the cavalier has more skill points to do helpful things outside of combat.
A paladin has a little less martial capability than the cavalier (except when smite qualifies for double damage) but better utility buffs via spells. But like the fighter, the paladin has less skill-challenge utility than the cavalier.
This is how I would tier the classes.
1st tier:
Wizard
Summoner
Alchemist
Cleric
2nd tier:
Bard(possibly tier 1)
Druid(possibly tier 1)
Witch(possibly tier 1)
Sorcerer(possibly tier 1)
Magus
Barbarian
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
ninja
Inquisitor
Oracle
3rd tier:
Fighter
Rogue
Cavalier
Gunslinger(becomes obsolete very fast)
can't place because I haven't looked into them:
samurai(I assume tier 3)
I've been playing a Samurai (Order of the Warrior, now at level 6) and really enjoy the class.
I think people get thrown off by the mount - for most campaigns it doesn't make sense to build a medium PC around one. Most of our campaign has been indoors and my horse hasn't seen much action. Instead features like Challenge and Resolve make the Samurai a tank that can put out a lot of damage very quickly. At this point I'm doing slightly more DPR than the barbarian and am much more efficient in terms of healing resources (higher AC, rarely fail saves due to resolve and honor in all things).
The weapon expertise class feature is also much appreciated (quick draw for favored weapon, +2 to confirm crit, access to fighter feats). This gives my samurai some tactical flexibility, possibly starting the fight with a pole arm or long bow and switching to katana when the fight gets close.
|
|
Nice feedback on the samurai, I think thats the thing with a lot of character classes. If they fit your concept they work.
Having played the oracle, I would definately do it differently next time... I think I'd look at a nature oracle or a fire oracle.
Interesting that the magus loses out at higher levels, the one we have is at a "sweet spot" at the moment, 5th level maxes out shocking grasp, and its easy to recall with spell recall. Lots of damage, but its his chance to shine.
Don´t get me wrong: The damage was still good with intensified shocking grasp. But the overall combat performance wasn´t above the groups paladin or the ranger. It was close, but as I the DM was often more "concerned" about the other characters.
On the defensive site it was quite good: I never wanted to attack him, due to Mirror Image and Displacement ;)
@Svipdag - Agreed, probably the most important thing is coming up with a clear idea of what you want your character to do and how to accomplish that mechanically.
I put together a number of fighter builds, all of which were quite playable with good flexibility in combat and bone crunching DPR. The samurai build I came up with was less flexible (no combat maneuver feats, lower movement but can pull off switch-hitting) but comparable in terms of damage (esp. with challenge) and more resilient than the trial fighter builds (resolve and honor-in-all-things are especially crucial since our GM tends to throw a lot of will saves at us).
The mount doesn't see much use since we have seven PCs in our party (+ druid's animal companion) so the poor horse tends to get left behind to speed up play (also I've optimized my samurai* a bit more than the other melee characters and I don't want to pile on).
* Since the Samurai is one of the least MAD melee classes I just put my good rolls as STR>CON>DEX. Everything else is more or a less a dump stat (esp CHA) although I have negative-attribute-aversion so nothing is less than 10. Other than that it's really up to feat choices since the class features are already set. I only take feats that make me better every round if possible (Power Attack, Furious Focus, Weapon Focus: Katana, Weapon Specialization: Katana and Dodge. Next feat is toughness).
My experience running games for these classes:
Alchemist: Super powerful, super versatile. I've seen two alchemists, and even the one played by the player of mine who is the least familiar with the game manages to do well despite her behind the wheel. The other alchemist I've seen (run by a more competent player) is an absolute terror in and out of combat. That one is a vivisectionist specifically, and doesn't have bombs, but makes up for it with sneak attack, extracts, and a semi-rage (i.e. mutagen) strength boost. Not to mention some of the alchemist discoveries are VERY useful.
Cavalier: In combats where there's room for a mount, they're tough. In a narrow dungeon, not so much, though challenge puts them on par with fighters at low levels. I haven't seen a higher level cavalier, but I imagine it would start to get less useful than a fighter of the same level as the number of feats between them increased more and more.
Inquisitor: Decent class. Lots of things they can do. The one I've seen is built for healing, and yet the class manages to be useful in and out of combat as well. Maybe not to the degree that the alchemist is though.
Oracle: I've never actually GM'd a game with an oracle, but my highest levelled character was one, having reached 16th level. They're extremely fun to play, especially at low levels, though I admit I'm biased against caster classes that have to prepare their spells.
Summoner: Extremely powerful class. I've got two in a game I'm running. One fills the combat role (with his eidolon) just as well as the group's barbarian, and the other is a master summoner and could probably do the work of the entire party by herself in most situations.
Witch: The two I've seen played were extremely pathetic, though I admit I've only seen the class at levels 1 to 3 so far. I get the feeling that most of the witch's strength comes from hexes, so while in my mind I'm comparing them to wizards I've seen, that's probably not a fair comparison.
Magus: I can't really offer a fair opinion. I've seen one played, but the player didn't really understand how to use a lot of the class abilities and pretty much just played it like a bard without bardic performance.
I've DM'd for everything but a Samurai (I guess people don't find the samurai sufficiently distinct from the cavalier to want to go down that road), (EDIT: also antipaladin) and here are my thoughts -
Alchemist - Alchemists are a nutty class. They feel almost like they got too many different abilities, but it's cool that you can go in so many different directions with them. A bomber alchemist is really a force to be reckoned with. As is pretty much every other kind of alchemist, I guess. Vivisectionist is probably the best SA user in the game.
Magus - Maybe it's just the way my head is wired, but I had a hard time wrapping my head around the magus - both it's mechanics and its intended role. I do understand how it works now, but it took some getting. I feel that the magus is a nice addition to the game on the whole.
Inquisitor - Love the design on this class. Very clever all around. Its strong flavor really helps save it from being just "this is more or less just a bard again".
Oracle - Love this class too. The curse mechanic inspires the best character concepts.
Cavalier - It probably says something about this class that both of the non-dipped cavaliers I've seen were small characters. It's a shame, because this is a pretty neat fighter-type class otherwise.
Summoner - I don't need to say anything about how this class and several of its archetypes are just insane monsters, capable of being more or less the best at basically anything. I've had summoner characters that I thought I had talked the player into toning down into "reasonable" territory that were still utter beasts. I absolutely adore this concept, but the class could have used another balance pass.
Ninja - It's a rogue that can sort of contribute in combat instead of barely contributing in combat. It's a step, but I honestly think that a class that just got everything that a rogue gets AND everything a ninja gets would still be in-band, power-level wise. (Maybe punt Light Steps and Poison use to talents, but basically there.)
Gunslinger - I'm just pleased to see firearms in a fantasy game that don't look like they grudgingly written by someone who loathes the idea of firearms in a fantasy game. The class is a flawed gem, but it's serviceable.
Witch - My players seem to have a penchant for building witches as hardcore healers, rather than the debuffing role that I guess they're more famous for. Interesting class if only for having a nice mixed-up spell list, producing combinations that you don't usually see.
Antipaladin - Never seen one in play. I try to dissuade players from playing evil characters to begin with, and none of them have champed for this guy. (Probably because in most campaigns Smite Good rarely gets to fire at full power.)
Summoner:
The summoner, like the Wizard (or cleric, or druid) is largely in the ballpark of the Player to make sure they are within the power level of the group. It has the potential to shine above others just because they are easy to make very powerful. it doesn't have to be though.
Witch:
Myself, I've been playing a Witch through the Rise of the Runelords AP.
Its fairly strong. i wish they would have made "Misfortune" work more like Evil Eye and Evil Eye work more like Misfortune.
(i.e. EE is -2/-4 to everything and works on everything, Misfortune is 2x20's on one set at a time and is mind effecting only).
the DM having to roll twice on *every single thing* once the guy fails his save really makes for a frustrating time as the DM.
I avoided the Slumber hex entirely. Misfortune is bad enough on the DM without one shotting all the baddies who aren't immune to mind effecting.
Oracle: I've seen a level 1 oracle of life in action.. otherwise no experience.
None with the others either.
-S
APG:
Alchemist: Solid and reliable.
Oracle: Varies wildly depending on what revelation they take. it's kind of nuts, some are borderline top tier, some are next to worthless.
Cavalier: I classify this as terrible by virtue of the fact that in most games I have ever played in, mounts are not viable outside of 15-20% of combat situations, and that's being generous.
Summoners: Range from worthless (broodmaster) to solid (master summoner, base) to overpowered (properly built synthesist).
Inquisitor: Terrible. More MAD than Monk. This is a class that just doesn't know what it wants to do.
Witch: These seem to be awesome or worthless, depending on if the campaign's focus involves a lot of things that are immune to mind-affecting spells/abilities.
UM:
Magus: Little to no experience. Their shocking grasp tricks are cute.
UC:
Gunslinger: Meh, but if built properly they can be scary.
Ninja: Well.. it's better than Rogue.
Samurai: See Cavalier.
Alchemist: They are a lot better than I thought they would be. They put out pretty good damage, and are good with skills. I think they are powerful, but not too powerful.
Cavalier: I have not played one, but if I did it would be with a small race so my mount does not have the issues I had with my druid animal companion in a dungeon. The mount based issue, seems to make for limited opportunities.
Inquisitor: I have only played one in PbP games at low levels. I like them. Decent damage, and a nice selection of skills, and that was with me getting to really use any spells. I would to play one for a tabletop game.
Oracle: I played one, and I liked it. I think it was the battle oracle. I did not do damage like a fighter or barbarian, but I held my own. Sadly the game died.
Summoner: I had the master summoner at my table. The player got all the rules correct, which was my biggest concern. It did not seem to cause any issues, but the player was somewhat new to the system also.
Witch: I had one in a group I was GM'ing. That sleep hex is annoying, but I don't think it is broken. It is a decent class. They are just not so good against undead. Evil Eye is a great debuffer.
Magus: This is a class that I was really curious to see played out. The ability to recall spells is also nice. It did respectable damage without stepping on the toes of the full BAB classes, and it has a good number of skills also.
I know the gunslinger was not on your list, but a player had one of those also. They are more balanced that I thought. I must admit that it was a low-level game. The issue of the misfires is not to be taken lightly. Just like nat 1's they seem to happen at the worst times in my games.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inquisitor: Terrible. More MAD than Monk. This is a class that just doesn't know what it wants to do.
The two Inquisitors I've taken to mid levels would beg to differ.
Inquisitors make me feel like freaking Batman. I *always* have something for the situation at hand (combat or otherwise) and whatever I'm fighting, I can hurt it.
|
|
The Witch is easily my favorite "Pathfinder class". I have GM'd a half-dozen witches in PFS play and have played in a party with a witch, to level 8 in one campaign and an ongoing Kingmaker campaign where the witch is 13th level.
The difference and role in the witch class was underscored as between the two campaigns. In the first, the witch was being forced to act either as the primary healer for a low level group (which is still beyond the power of the witch class) or as the primary arcane caster for the group. While acting as a primary arcane caster is better suited to the witch's abilities, we concluded that role is also probably beyond the proper power range of the witch class.
In the Kingmaker campaign, the witch is one PC among six and compliments the Wizard and other characters in a flavorful and unique manner. That's the best role for the witch, imo. It is a perfect complimentary arcane caster, who can do enough unique things to help out that it never is stepping on somebody's toes, while doing things which only a witch can do. At the same time, the witch's powers are strong enough that it can hold the line where it needs to -- and when combining with the Wizard with complimentary spells and action economy, can reduce the BBEG to a helpless state pretty fast, too.
I have found that a mid-to high level witch when played in conjunction with a wizard is where the class shines brightest. Working together, the two can unleash Boss ending spells over two rounds which are extremely powerful and become almost impossible to resist. With a witch and wizard both casting Enervation on one round, followed on the next round by the witch doing an Evil-Eye + Cackle means that even if the target saved vs the evil eye (unlikely), the -4 to the saving throw will still persist for that round. The Wizard then follows with a casting of Dominate Person and that should be the end of the target as a foe, who is now an ALLY of the part for the next week or two, as the foe faces an average of -10 to the Will save vs. a DC 21-23+ dominate person spell. Even high level Boss casters are very likely to become mind-slaved to such tactics. It's a pretty deadly combo which takes advantage of the action economy of both casters.
I love the witch!
Summoners: Range from worthless (broodmaster) to solid (master summoner, base) to overpowered (properly built synthesist).
Are you serious about the synthesist being better than the master summoner? Also why don't you include the vanilla summoner considering it's better than the synthesist.
I really like the witch and she seems tailor-made for a character concept I'd like to play: debuff oriented caster. Generally, buffing is more reliable than debuffing (doesn't allow for saves, focusing on your own PCs guarantees that you know exactly what spells to have memorized and buffing usually accomplishes similar ends as debuffing due to the symmetric nature of AT/AC). However, if you already have a buffing oriented character debuffing with the witch allows you to double-dip, which is more than twice as effective*. The witch also has cure light wounds on her spell list and can wield the wand for cheap out of combat healing.
I would suggest the following combo for a witch:
Round 1: Misfortune
Round 2: Evil Eye + Cackle (Misfortune)
Misfortune is a more powerful effect but only lasts one round, but can be cackled to last longer. Having both Misfortune and Evil Eye on a BBEG pretty much ruins his day in short order.
* I think the best measure for combat effectiveness is how long it takes your party to kill the BBEG versus how long it takes him to kill you. Buff/debuff allows you to subtract from the former and add to the latter in ways while sidestepping the diminishing returns (due to typing like morale, divine, etc) of only doing one or the other.
In the Kingmaker campaign, the witch is one PC among six and compliments the Wizard and other characters in a flavorful and unique manner. That's the best role for the witch, imo. It is a perfect complimentary arcane caster, who can do enough unique things to help out that it never is stepping on somebody's toes, while doing things which only a witch can do. At the same time, the witch's powers are strong enough that it can hold the line where it needs to -- and when combining with the Wizard with complimentary spells and action economy, can reduce the BBEG to a helpless state pretty fast, too.
I have found that a mid-to high level witch when played in conjunction with a wizard is where the class shines brightest. Working together, the two can unleash Boss ending spells over two rounds which are extremely powerful and become almost impossible to resist. With a witch and wizard both casting Enervation on one round, followed on the next round by the witch doing an Evil-Eye + Cackle means that even if the target saved vs the evil eye (unlikely), the -4 to the saving throw will still persist for that round. The Wizard then follows with a casting of Dominate Person and that should be the end of the target as a foe, who is now an ALLY of the part for the next week or two, as the foe faces an...
I have the same experience in my Legacy of Fire game, but I like it a lot less. I find that the nearly automatic kill ruins the story. Every tale ends with "Wow, that Darth Vader/Thulsa Doom/Saruman guy was a punk! Went down in seconds!" Ho-hum.
My Red Hand of Doom game has only Core classes and the BBEG fight went seven rounds. It would have been over in three with my Legacy of Fire party at the same level. The RHoD party is a -lot- more fun and interesting to GM. It's a good thing I like my LoF players as much as I do.
|
|
Interesting you should mention Core only play Tarondor. I have just started playing in a Forgotten Realms conversion, and due to the GM having the basic Herolab package he has limited us to core play. I had made up an Inquisitor to play, but went with ranger due to the restriction and character background.
It was a fun first session, but I couldn't help but think the Inquisitors versatility would have helped in a number of situations. Still as the ranger I was "last man standing" at the end of the session. The stabilise orison would be very handy right now as I only have a +1 heal skill!
I think the rework the core classes went through from 3.5 to Pathfinder is still a big shock at times. Our druid is very different to 3.5 druids, the clerics we have played roll out a lot of healing etc. As an infrequent player (We only game twice per month and normally the characters have a long life) there are only so many PC's I've seen in play. Sometimes I think I'm compairing some of the newer classes to the 3.5 versions of the core classes in my head.
|
|
Play a lot of PFS so I've seem most things played.
Oracle: I think overall it is just slightly less powerful than the Cleric, though for roleplaying purposes the players who play it tend to be creative and inventive as heck. Basically, the typical cleric is the village friar militarized while the typical oracle is friggin Joan of Arc!
Inqisitors have a lot of fans but have not made an impression on me.
Alchemists are fun, mechanically interesting and pretty powerful.
Summoners, they vary from powerful to rather weak. It, like the Oracle gets some pretty interesting character concepts. I recently had a summoner die on me in a PFS game (low level enough so I couldn't afford the resurrection) and I have wondered if the DM targeted the character out of the dislike of the class. In the end I don't think so, but I've seen it/heard about it happening to Summoners and Gunslingers.
Witch, I've seen them. They are mechanically effective. However I've not seen one that blew me away RP wise. When I've went to build one the sorcerers have tended to support my character concepts better. I want to like this class, but just haven't fallen in love.
Caviler/Samurai exist on paper...but I've never seen them picked up other than gnome/halflings on medium mounts. I think that says something.
Ninja should have been a rogue. I am playing one. However, I made a point to strip of all it's asian flavoring. thus I see no difference.
Gunslingers are not my cup of tea, but players who have picked them up seem to have fun.
|
I LOVE witches as npc classes in games I run. Especially when I have one give the PCs a task to accomplish within a mile of her home. She scars them with her scar hex, and then scrys on them while they're out doing stuff. If they get low on hp during a fight, she heals them with a healing hex via their scars, all the way from her home.
|
This is from PFS gameplay
-Alchemist: I played with a gentleman who played his alchemist like some zany meth addict. They offer some good roleplaying flavor and are decent in combat. I have only seen bomb throwing alchemists which have plenty of opportunities to dish out AoE damage.
-Cavalier: Powerful in a limited setting. If I'm not mistaken they outlawed picking a medium sized mount for society play so that severely limits the class since there isn't much room for mounted play. However I have seen players have much fun role-playing a cavalier and enjoy having a "clutch" moment when mounted opportunities do present themselves. Season 1 adventures usually feature much more open terrain
-Gunslinger: I was at first hesitant about playing with these characters. But I have only seen one that was mildly powerful and if shooting guns that do less damage than a bow specialized character is your thing then be my guest.
-Inquisitor: Very fun flavor wise and with plenty of options. The adaptability of this class is it's strength. You'll be identifying your enemies strengths and weaknesses and then buffing/baning your way to victory. I have a level 6 at the moment and found him enjoyable to play. Play Murder on the Throaty Mermaid with this one of these.
-Magus: There just aren't enough abilities or powers to make this class appealing. I played with one at a table and we would kill everything before he really got to do anything. Every time I try to make one I just realize a fighter or other martial class would just be much better.
-Ninja: More powerful than a rogue. Not simply for his ninja tricks but because of his ki pool granting extra attacks. This class is very fun to play because who doesn't want to be ninja? As expected the Quest of Perfection is a great series for ninja.
-Samurai: I currently have a Samurai/Ninja Ronin that is an absolute joy to play. As a standalone class, the Samurai isn't very powerful. However a few dips to obtain Resolve and the Ronin Order 2nd level ability can make a melee character virtually unstoppable. This is not a class that is restricted to mounted combat such as the Cavalier. His ability to re-roll will saves is often overlooked and it is very powerful. Quest for Perfection series was great for a samurai.
-Summoner: Extremely overpowered and just not fun to play for me lol. Never understood the need for this class since my idea of a summoner is simply a conjuration wizard.
-Witch: I have only played with one of these and she was an interesting and useful character. As stated in previous posts the misfortune ability is pretty awesome.
Summoners: Range from worthless (broodmaster) to solid (master summoner, base) to overpowered (properly built synthesist).Are you serious about the synthesist being better than the master summoner? Also why don't you include the vanilla summoner considering it's better than the synthesist.
I did, see "base" net to "master summoner". And for clarification, I did also add the qualification "properly built" to synthesist.
The two Inquisitors I've taken to mid levels would beg to differ.Inquisitors make me feel like freaking Batman. I *always* have something for the situation at hand (combat or otherwise) and whatever I'm fighting, I can hurt it.
You're welcome to your opinion, I am sticking by mine. If we are going to at least assume a standard of "reasonably built and reasonably played", I would rather have a bard in the party than an inquisitor ten times out of ten.
Summoners: Range from worthless (broodmaster) to solid (master summoner, base) to overpowered (properly built synthesist).Are you serious about the synthesist being better than the master summoner? Also why don't you include the vanilla summoner considering it's better than the synthesist.I did, see "base" net to "master summoner". And for clarification, I did also add the qualification "properly built" to synthesist.
The two Inquisitors I've taken to mid levels would beg to differ.Inquisitors make me feel like freaking Batman. I *always* have something for the situation at hand (combat or otherwise) and whatever I'm fighting, I can hurt it.
You're welcome to your opinion, I am sticking by mine. If we are going to at least assume a standard of "reasonably built and reasonably played", I would rather have a bard in the party than an inquisitor ten times out of ten.
Rob what did or didn't the inquisitor in your party do well. I am asking in order to avoid pitfalls since I have the same experience as Orannis. Using 20pb I was the party face, had 2 or 3 other skills, had magic, and was a decent combatant.
If you can say the inquisitor did or did not do _____ then I can make a not of it, and persuade others in my group from going that route.
One thing I did notice is that that you should focus on 2 or 3 ability scores, and not all of them, even thought he inquisitor can make use of all of them. Turning the blinders on will help when buildind one.
PS:I did use 20pb for every occasion. 15pb might be an issue.
Rob what did or didn't the inquisitor in your party do well. I am asking in order to avoid pitfalls since I have the same experience as Orannis. Using 20pb I was the party face, had 2 or 3 other skills, had magic, and was a decent combatant.
It was an inquisitor of Sarenrae, but bear in mind it's been months so it's hard to recall exact specifics.
Basically, what I recall was struggling to hit, when I connected, it would do decent damage, but hitting was a huge issue.
However, putting myself into that situation let the monster open up a can of whoopass on me, and without sufficient ability to boost AC, I found myself eating silly amounts of damage, which put stress on my own and other's resources.
The buff spells were decent, I don't have too much of a complaint there.
My biggest problem was with the Wis/Cha/Int problem. It's a skill monkey class, so it wants you to have decent Int. The classes's primary skills tend to focus off Charisma or Intelligence, yet it insists on having Wisdom as a primary spellcasting stat, a departure from every other spontaneous class. Charisma would have been a FAR more fitting stat. "Monster Lore" should be a benefit, as it stands now, it just covers up for the fact that all your knowledge skills key off INT and you can't possibly have a decent score with all the other stats you need.
Judgment didn't feel like a buff. It felt like a crutch to get you "around were you should be" combat-wise. Bane is pretty much the one ability of the class where I go "yeah, this is good."
I dunno, maybe the class is more "OK" if you build it around ranged. Maybe it's more OK if you're willing to exploit Dervish Dance, which I refuse to do, because I feel that abilities that grant DEX to damage have no place in the game because DEX is already far too front loaded. And, if a feat is necessary just to make a class perform adequately, it should be granted by that class at Level 1 (Like Gunsmithing and Gunslingers).
Basically, my opinion from playing Inquisitor was that it was just a class that was haphazardly slopped together with no concern for how it's abilities interact with each other, no concern for what attributes are it's prime stats, and no clear "battlefield identity". The fact that in the first printing of the APG, several abilities reference mechanics that weren't even in the final version of the class. It's one thing for it to happen with an archetype (like Tetori), but for a base class, it seems to me there was a rushed rewrite of core abilities due to poor performance.
Basically, to steal the above poster's statement, I felt like Batman. Except I wasn't Bruce Wayne, I was just some dude who had found all of the Batman tools. I totally had a tool for every situation, yet I lacked the physical ability to make it actually work.
For additional clarification, when I was playing this the APG was the only source of info. There were no Archetypes or "Inquisitions" at that time.
|
Currently playing in two PF campaigns (since one group was playing other RPGs, and the other group was still playing 3.5 until quite recently-- this is my PF experience so far as well).
I'm playing Oracles in both campaigns, and I'm having a lot of fun with them (one is Human, has the Waves Mystery; the other is Aasimar, has the Flames Mystery; both have the 'Haunted' curse). In both campaigns there's also a Cleric in the party-- the Cleric generally outdoes me in healing, but I'm more effective in all other aspects of combat, and in both campaigns I'm definitely the party 'face' character.
In one of these campaigns, among the other PCs are an Alchemist/Gunslinger and a Magus. So far, everyone's having fun-- are we as maximally effective as we could be? Probably not, but it's a very flexible and adaptable team of characters.
Robb--
I tried building an Inquisitor for one of these games, but haven't had a chance to play him since I went with an Oracle instead. However, with the various 'Inquisitions' instead of ordinary 'domains' that UM and UC have made available.... Those make a big difference in the number of stats you have to be good in, to be effective. The 'Conversion' Inquisition meant I could still be quite good at the Cha skills I was planning on using, without needing an above average Charisma.
Alchemist: Single-target damage is incredible due to touch attack bombs, multi-target okay. The class has tons of versatility with a decent amount of skill points and a good spell list. The only problem is to choose a combat style for the time when your bombs have run out and not suck at it. Archery normally is a good solution, since you are probably taking P.-B./Precise Shot/Rapid Shot anyway.
Cavalier: Never seen one in play, the focus on being mounted is pretty large put-off for players.
Gunslinger: Can be really, really powerful, much more than people give it credit for. I don't think people realize how good always making attacks against touch AC really is in most situations. Sure, an archer does more damage... when he hits.
Inquisitor: It's Batman. Ranged Batman, if you care to look at the weapon proficiencies list. I don't know why so many teamwork feats are melee only, since the class was clearly built around being an archer and using teamwork feats. But this class has great nova damage, can hit pretty reliably, has an incredible spell list (only weakness there: Cannot fly) and tons of useful abilities to boost. MAD is much less a problem than Robb Smith thinks. You already have six skill points, just take what you can, leave other stuff to the other group members. Having Charisma is nice, but not necessary. Focus on having a 16 Wisdom, decent Strength and Dexterity and 10 Constitution. That's it, you got an archer Inquisitor.
Ninja: More powerful combatant than the Rogue, less versatile than the Rogue. If you want to use the actual power of the Ninja in combat, you are basically forced into taking four mandatory Ninja Tricks. And as there is no Extra Ninja Trick feat, that limits your choice considerably.
Magus: I've never really seen one in play beyond level four, but from a pure theoretical standpoint, it looks fine. It has the "limited power per day" thing going on, which has become so much a staple of Pathfinder classes with the new books ( which, btw., embraces the 15 minute adventuring day principle much more than I am comfortable with ), so it has nova potential. I'd have to see one in action at the mid levels at least to get a better grip on its abilities.
Oracle: Well, it's a Cleric-Sorcerer mix. Mysteries can be great. You'll miss channeling energy, unless you want to be the healing battery and take Oracle of Life.
Samurai: Oh, look, its a better Cavalier. Less reliance on mounted combat ( and with the Dragon Empires Primer it has an archetype which does away with that completely, hooray! The Sword Saint focuses on Iaijitsu. ) and with a set of very good mechanics to compensate for it. Strictly recommended over the Cavalier, IMO. If you can live with the eastern flavor, which I know some people cannot.
Summoner: Yeah, if I am thinking about banning a class entirely, this one is it. Horrible to GM for on all accounts. Needs a lot of book-keeping, can easily be built in the wrong way to be overpowered, has for some reason very powerful spells on a better level than everyone else. And I just dislike the flavor of it. The idea that some dude can run around with an extradimensional horror at its beck and call, which can look differently whenever he feels like it... I don't know, it just rubs me the wrong way. This class seems to invite power gamers and what accounts of it in play I've read about it only confirms my feelings.
Witch: Hexes can be really, really good. Having Sleep at will, with it working all the way up to level 20 is only one of the things which crinkle my GM eyebrow in concern. The more limited spell list is one of the balancing factors, but otherwise the Witch seems to mostly a full spellcaster which doesn't suck at low levels, if you choose good a couple of good hexes to start out. The flavor of the class doesn't do it for me personally, but I can see how other people may like it better. I just want all male Witches to be called Witchaloks, personally. ^^
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Inquisitor: It's Batman. Ranged Batman, if you care to look at the weapon proficiencies list. I don't know why so many teamwork feats are melee only, since the class was clearly built around being an archer and using teamwork feats. But this class has great nova damage, can hit pretty reliably, has an incredible spell list (only weakness there: Cannot fly) and tons of useful abilities to boost. MAD is much less a problem than Robb Smith thinks. You already have six skill points, just take what you can, leave other stuff to the other group members. Having Charisma is nice, but not necessary. Focus on having a 16 Wisdom, decent Strength and Dexterity and 10 Constitution. That's it, you got an archer Inquisitor.
Bingo. A big part of the Inquisitor's schtick is that you get class abilities that make you decent - scaling up to really good on some of them - at many uses of some int- and cha- based skills even if you don't put points into those. You're the non-brainy guy making the monster knowledge checks, the so-so charisma guy making the intimidate checks, you double down on Sense Motive and some survival checks, and with the right inquisitions you've got other skills relying on Wisdom as well. Inquisitors aren't zero-mad or anything like that - you need at least an acceptable wisdom score, and you need at least one attack stat, but if you're putting too many points into Int or Cha because you're a "skill monkey" class, you need to check out the Inquisitor's abilities again.
|
|
Summoner: Yeah, if I am thinking about banning a class entirely, this one is it. Horrible to GM for on all accounts. Needs a lot of book-keeping, can easily be built in the wrong way to be overpowered, has for some reason very powerful spells on a better level than everyone else. And I just dislike the flavor of it. The idea that some dude can run around with an extradimensional horror at its beck and call, which can look differently whenever he feels like it... I don't know, it just rubs me the wrong way. This class seems to invite power gamers and what accounts of it in play I've read about it only confirms my feelings.
I've played and GMed it and had no problems for an ADVANCED Player i.e. someone who has a reasonable level of system mastery. Bookkeeping, I have played it and the Paladin and felt that the Paladin had way more complicated bookkeeping. Spells are typically about the same level as a bard, but with fewer examples of getting spells at a lower level and in most cases less useful because many of them are simply used to keep your Eidolon up.
As for the flavor, I've played with and played some very cool concepts. For example, a woman who lost her child in childbirth and thinks of her eidolon as her daughter, Mary and who shouts out "hugs!" whenever she rends someone to my own summoner who was a lonely half elven farm girl who didn't quite fit in because her friends who kept outgrowing her. Her favorite playmate thus was her pet 'chicken', who appeared in the koop one day and she took home. We had a syntheist in Carrion Crown whose 'eidolon' was his conjoined twin who he kept 'suppressed' (this admittedly ignored some of the silly synthesist fluff).
Basically seeing it as simply an interdimensional horror is a failure of imagination rather than a failure of the rules.
Inquisitor - One of my players in my last game played one, and it was pretty solid. It did seem a little underwhelming at times because the player was fairly concervative with his resources (judgements, spells, bane etc). If you are going to play an inquisitor you really need to know how to manage those sorts of things.
Magus - I am currently playing a magus. It isnt super optimized (I am going strength based with a long sword instead of the default dervish dance high dex scimitar route). But I love the class. Spell combat is the best implementation of the fighter/mage mix I have ever seen. And the fact that it is attached to a suboptimal form of attack (one handed) it seems to work out ok. The only issue I've found so far is that if the magus doesn't have to worry about conserving resources (which has happened a few times in this kingmaker game) then it can be a bit much. This is another class where you really need to both be able to and be forced to manage your resources.
|
The only one I've played thus far is a Summoner.
Summoner - At 1st level, the Eidolon is going to have half the hit points of a druid companion, although it will probably have a much nicer AC. Get used to it dying on the first hit, of the first combat, every single day. If you had some RP notion of liking your Eidolon, or respecting it, or caring for it, abandon that now, because you will watch boo-bear die gruesomely every day, unless you don't bother ever summoning it. On the other hand, at 1st level, you're playing a PC with the weapons, BAB, armor and hit points of a cleric, more or less, a couple of grease spells (you took grease, right, right?) and, assuming a 16 Cha, *six* summon monster I spell-likes that only take a standard action to cast *and* last 1 minute / level. If human, you can start with SF: Conjuration and Augment Summons and pop out a celestial hound or eagle the round after your Eidolon gets ganked like the waste of flesh it is (at this level, anyway).
By 3rd level, your Eidolon will occasionally survive a battle, but be banged up, and, unless you have a cleric around, it's easier to just send the critter away and use the summon monster II SLA, which are now calling up small earth elementals and small air elementals (or 1d3 celestial eagles) and basically kicking butt for 3 minutes. You'll still be not much worse off than a cleric, for BAB, hit points, armor and weapons, and have spells like glitterdust and haste showing up at 4th level.
At 4th level, due to campaign restrictions, my Summoner is using the exact same 70 gp worth of gear he started the campaign with, and is *still* getting the job done. I still regularly dismiss his Eidolon because there are situations where the summon monster SLA is just flat-out more useful, and the spells remain fun. Everybody loves haste, and grease remains useful. Next level? Dretch demons and Lantern archons. Watch out!
Hoping to try a Witch next, without the flavor-of-the-month Slumber hex (sounds less than optimal in Carrion Crown anyway...). I love the idea of hexes, and I'd probably be fine with playing a Witch with a hex every level and no spells at all, 'cause I'm so over Vancian spellcasting.
Then again, that would pretty much be a 3.X Warlock, wouldn't it? :)
|
|
Only seen three in play.
witches:lots of fun less versatile than a wizard,not as much boom as a sorceror.
Ninja:Rogue on steroids
Summoner:PG unite!(my greatest dislike is they dont have to look anything like what their powers are).
My favorite concept of summoners so far.Hodds always had imaginary friends in his closet then one day they were real
I'm playing an Inquisitor in a homebrew campaign currently. I'm Inquisitor/Ranger 8/2 for the favored enemy. The character concept is an undead hunter, and every ability I get is done to maximize my Undead Killiness.
Even with my very high focus on undead, I still hit incredibly hard. I almost never roll out my Judgments unless I really need it because Bain is just so awesome.
The Batman analogy is very apt, and not because he has so many tricks up his sleeve. I think of an Inquisitor as the penultimate detective. With his Track, Detect Lies, Monster Lore and Bonuses to Intimidate and Sense Motive, he can unravel any mystery.
We had an NPC alchemist tag along with the party for an adventure at level 13. Very interesting. He was pretty powerful even though he was multiple levels below the party. Bombs I can imagine are pretty nifty.
My experience with an oracle is that the curses can present a huge drawback to the game on the whole, not just for a player. Our deaf oracle was a constant source of frustration, even when the DM went out of his way to try and accommodate the disability. Blindless would have been half as annoying. Power wise, the oracle isn't terrible depending on the choice of mystery. Waves is pretty terrible. Overall though I'm not a fan of the oracle, because so many spells on the cleric list are incredibly situation.
My experience with the summoner is that it really varies depending on the point buy of the party. We had one with the group from 11th-13th level, and he was terrible. Easily the weakest PC by a fair margin, and that was in a party with a wizard/sorcerer multiclass, an oracle of waves, and a rogue/cleric. This was not a matter of player incompetence - the player in question is skilled and experienced with the system. My take was that the problem was a very high point buy and wealth per level that was slightly above average, which offset the biggest strengths of the eidolon (it has good base ability scores). I wouldn't be surprised if in the majority of campaigns where the summoner or any variation thereof is blasted for being broken the average point buy and/or wealth is low.
Overall I was extremely unhappy with the summoner overall, and doubly so when upon closer examination of the rules it became clear the only possible way to build an eidolon now is as a melee brute, which is a real shame. I missed the beta version where if you wanted you could build a small spellcasting critter if you wanted.
My experience with an Inquisitor at 11th level was pretty entertaining. With a bow and the travel domain he was all but a god. Very happy with how that class played out. Between bane, judgments, and buffs he had no trouble keeping up with the party even when they had significantly more wealth.
Basically seeing it as simply an interdimensional horror is a failure of imagination rather than a failure of the rules.
Actually, no. It totally is a interdimensional entity, according to the rules.
Doesn't mean that making up a more interesting backstory for it with GM approval isn't absolutely okay, but the rules are what the rules are.
Basically seeing it as simply an interdimensional horror is a failure of imagination rather than a failure of the rules.Actually, no. It totally is a interdimensional entity, according to the rules.
Doesn't mean that making up a more interesting backstory for it with GM approval isn't absolutely okay, but the rules are what the rules are.
Entity is not the same as horror. It is possible to have a perfectly good backstory that invokes the former in creative ways without making it something that came straight out of Cthuhlu.
I love the alchemist class.
Oracle: Varies wildly depending on what revelation they take. it's kind of nuts, some are borderline top tier, some are next to worthless.
I agree with this assessment of the oracle.
The oracle is just a crappy cleric. I like it a lot sense I find the cleric is over powered in my games unless I bend over backwards for it.
The oracle is no more just a crappy cleric than a sorcerer is just a crappy wizard. It may use the same spell list, but that is where the similarities end. I've found people who insist on running the crappy cleric tend to get bored with it, while people who actually to try to play to the class and mystery's strengths tend to enjoy themselves while managing to contribute nicely to the party.
Could be. Either way, I prefer running for Oracles than clerics.
For me at least, it comes down to the specific concept I have in mind. Sometimes the cleric class fits better; sometimes the oracle class fits better.
Summoner - At 1st level, the Eidolon is going to have half the hit points of a druid companion, although it will probably have a much nicer AC. Get used to it dying on the first hit, of the first combat, every single day...
Really? That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I've seen with combat eidolons.
At first level a lot of enemies you're going up against don't have ridiculous bonuses to hit yet, and with the eidolon's aforementioned AC it's not really too likely to get hit. The combat-eidolon summoner I ran a game for was a powerhouse at early levels, and didn't really start to fall behind until 4th level. The lack of HD and BAB gain every 4 levels is what hurts eidolons the most from what I've seen, and even with that factor, it didn't really fall behind completely until 12th level when the "Dying every combat" thing you mentioned started to become a trend.
|
|
Get used to it dying on the first hit, of the first combat, every single day...Really? That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I've seen with combat eidolons.
Eh. That's just my experience. Without Toughness as your first feat, an Eidolon is going to have six hit points at 1st level. AC will be 16 for a quadruped or 15 for a biped (assuming Improved Natural Armor is one of your first Evolutions, and it should be!), which means a CR 1/3 Orc is going to hit it almost half the time (said orc also has a minimum damage of 6, which auto-kills an Eidolon that doesn't have Toughness, and an average damage of 9, which kills one *with* Toughness).
It's certainly not the least useful class feature in the world (hello Aura!), but I think it's OP-ness is highly overstated.