How in the world is the Wild Stalker Barbarian+?
And where does it get "most" of the Ranger class abilities.
Lets analyze the Wild Stalker shall we:
Rage -3 thats in itself a Problem beacause the better Rage Powers all have a Minimum Classlevel.
No Greater Rage at all.
Fewer Hitpoints
Loses Favoured enemy.
Loses Combat Style.
Loses Hunters Bond.
Loses Quarry.
Loses Improved Quarry
Now what does he get in eychange:
Track O_o
Endurance as a Bonus Feat wow this is getting better and better
Lowlight Vision Barbarian can get
Perception Bonus well thats something I guess
Favoured Terrain Barbarian can get
Evasion well thats at least something
Wild Talents Those are shit Rage Powers are way better
So what the Wild Stalker does is give a weaker rage without DR and all that barbarian archetype stuff, in exchange for a Perception Bonus, Evasion and here it comes .........Track.
Oh and you get +2 Skill Points.
I´m not saying this can´t make a decent character, It probably can because it´s somewhat of a Barbarian.....just weaker.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
One problem is the justification for useless archetypes that they fill niches that previously had no mechanics.
Often, this simply isn't true.
Would you tell a bard player that their non-archetyped bard cannot play the role of a geisha no matter how hard they try?
I don't really see what's all the fuss about Wild Stalker. What Paizo wanted to do was, clearly, to make an NPC Barbarian class. So, now we have a Commoner, Warrior, Expert and Wild Stalker.
I think this is the absolute worst archetype going:
we worked out one use for a siege mage on this thread but it's hardly an archtype for a dungeon-crawler.
also, i may have missed the point on this one but isn't the arcane bomber giving up an aweful lot for what amounts to low-end, short-range blasting? they don't even get the alchemist's discoveries to add to their utility.
I think this is the absolute worst archetype going:
You certainly throw away most of your class features into the dumpster. But that does NOT compare with Comatose Chemist or PK Rager. You aren't actually worse off for having or using your godawful class features.. They ARE. Very, very much so.
There's plenty of archetypes that basically throw away large quantities of class features. Such as Siege Mage as you mentioned, Monk of the Healing Hand, and White Haired Witch. I agree, these are terrible archetypes, but they are still at least just a nerfed version of the original class. Comatose Chemist and PK Rager can't even function! If using a Seige Engine left your wizard stunned for 1d4+1 rounds, or as part of the archetype he lost his ability to cast spells, or something else utterly crippling to his ability to even do anything, it might be more comparable.
I like nearly all archetypes even if I would never play one with a new group. They are good flavor for DMs even if broken and I occasionally like to play a nerfed character (Fighter with strength of 8,etc.). Something you couldn't really do in 1st, 2nd or 4th, but 3rd and Paizo is made for it.
|
Crossbowman is probably the one that comes to mind first, mainly because it's an archetype dedicated to a fairly sub-par weapon, and also because it puts a strange emphasis on readied actions. If I wanted a crossbow fighter, I'd use the Weapon Master archetype instead.
Trapsmith is also pretty bad, and for the same reason as Crossbowman: it's too centralized on something that isn't good enough to centralize on in the first place.
|
I read that as 'you can of course, just ignore your archetype'.One of my problems with the Totem Druid is that Bear Druids get to talk with ALL mammals, but Wolves just get canines, Tigers, just get Felnies, and of course, as was mentioned, Dragons just get lizards.You can of course, just prepare the normal spell.
That's more your angle. An Eagle Shaman can talk to eagles just fine... He's got no time for mere ground dwelling animals. You're the one who's unhappy that the free spell only applies to his proper totem animal.
Bear shamans I can see opening up the communication lines. Bears are a lot more harder to find for conversation than most of the other totem animals.
Actually. . .
+1 to that whole post of yours.
Archetypes I am disappointed in/wish they had been playtested/don't feel they do what they claim to/etc.:
Free Hand Fighter (APG): I find this archetype very frustrating--especially because I'd love to have a good reason not to put a shield or other weapon in your off hand, if you're not a spellcaster.
It doesn't really do what it says it does. The fluff is "The free hand fighter specializes in the delicate art of handling a single weapon in one hand while using his free hand to balance, block, tip, and distract his opponents. While not a brawler, his open hand is as much a weapon as a bow or blade."
And then the archetype proceeds to allow you to do nothing with your empty hand, except keep it empty. It also has very little to do with providing balance, blocking, tipping, or distracting. An archetype that would do that would, say, for example, allow Acrobatics as a class skill (I'd definitely take that as a swap for never holding a shield or off-hand weapon). Or would allow you to gain a low shield bonus (as opposed to the nonsensical dodge bonus the archetype actually grants). Or have a number of tricks available surrounding Feinting (perhaps granting Bluff as a class skill too?). Or perhaps bonuses to the Dirty Trick maneuver, which was introduced in the same book, and would have been a great opportunity to show that ability off. (On the other hand, I'm getting some great ideas for building a homebrew archetype...)
Most of the class is designed around granting bonuses to disarm (which oddly is not mentioned amongst "block, tip, balance, or distract"). And one of the cool things about disarm builds is being able to build up to the point where you can grab someone else's weapon once they've dropped it. In fact, it would be awesome to have a fighter archetype with an ability to directly grab away the other person's weapon. But you can't do that with the free hand fighter, because you lose all your bonuses as soon as you get a weapon in your hand.
I get the sense that someone wanted a "fencer" build and tried to smash it together with other focused single-weapon fighter options with less than spectacular results. At the moment, still the best way to be a singleton weapon user is to prestige into Duelist (which itself is not the most stellar of PrCs, though it can be fun).
Two Weapon Warrior: This isn't as bad as the free hand fighter but has some frustrating elements. Part of the problem is that the build increases a weakness two-weapon fighters already have: reliance upon full attacks to be effective, as many of the bonuses you get are ones you only get when you full attack.
The worst is the very first ability that starts the archetype off, Defensive Flurry. First, it requires a lot of bookkeeping--your AC potentially can change every round. Not to mention it's a dodge bonus that's granted so you've got your normal flatfooted AC which doesn't get the bonus, then your "didn't make a full attack this round" AC, then "did make a full attack this round" AC, then the "what the hell is my AC if I choose the option to start a full round action as a standard action that gets completed my next turn?" and so on.
Second it takes away Armor Training entirely which is annoying because you are likely playing a mobile type warrior and can use the ability to move full speed with better armors and keep your Dex up (which a TWFer is reliant upon). I'd rather be able to at least keep Armor Training 1, and get a lower bonus to some kind of defense later on (and I'd rather get a shield bonus that stacks with two weapon defense--how in the heck are you improving your ability to dodge by swinging two weapons around anyway?).
Doublestrike is awful because you don't get your bonuses from the first two abilities when you use it.
Some of the later abilities are nice---Improved Balance is cool, as is Equal Opportunity. But it's hard to discern whether it's worth getting there. It doesn't seem like the build pays off till you're mid-high level--and are the abilities really worth waiting till 11th/13th level to get? This is where one of the problems I have with archetypes in general come in -- because they have to swap out existing abilities, some abilities a character really should get at lower levels doesn't come in till higher levels because there was no ability available to swap. The fighter especially has this problem since most of the abilities they swap out go up by fives (except for bonus feat of course, which the designers seem reluctant to swap something for).
Further, when the APG came out, I remember people posting core fighter and mobile fighter builds that out TWFed the Two Weapon Warrior by far (in part because, especially in the case of the core fighter, they never lose their bonuses to their weapons of choice regardless of the kind of attack they are making). I'm sorry I don't have a link--this was a couple years ago and pre-favorite system, and I have limited frustration tolerance for working with this site's search engine at the moment.
The Cloistered Cleric (UM): Guh. Others have gone into this previously with great detail so I'm not going to say much other than the abilities you get are not worth the tradeoffs. I can see NO point to limiting the spellcasting for example--if anything, a cloistered cleric should be better at it than the standard cleric. The single domain is fine but I really don't understand the thinking behind that.
I'll also note that I had a player play a "cloistered cleric" we converted from Unearthed Arcana (well before UM came out). This was effectively a much stronger build than the archetype provides but the class still had weaknesses. One thing is especially that the cleric spell list tends to assume the caster is going to wade into combat, which the cloistered cleric can't do. Any "cloistered" archetype should allow the cleric to learn or swap spells for some arcane spells--at a COST, absolutely--but that's something that concept needs not to feel useless especially at higher levels.
The Geisha (UM): Yeah.
@Divergent
Hey if this Archetype works for you ,great.
I´m just pointing out that it´s a downgrade to the Barbarian an loses pretty much all of the Ranger Value Features.
To the things you pointed out I have to say that you should look at the Archetype again, you do not gain any Bonus Feats(except Endurance),you also do not gain Quarry or Improved Quarry.I have do admit that I forgot about Hips but thats at 17th level after 16 levels of lagging behind other Barbarians and thats the main Problem the Rage powers do Scale with Level or have Level prereqs and your always going to be behind the real Barbarians without gaining any Bonuses Rangers normally would.Saves are also going to be worse than that of superstitious Barbarians and if the Barbarian is Human( and lets be honest,most are) then your going to be leagues behind actually.Rage and stealth don´t mix sure you can sneak around out of Combat but Brabrians can do that too,just like they can do pretty much everything else Wild Stalkers can,... just better.
Edit: Forgot about the Ranger Spells, Well not a big issue in my oppinion but many will disagree still they will hardly make up for anything.
|
Aldori swordlords.Why because they have to dump all their feats into their weapon of choice and dont get any real benefit that a straight fighter cant do better.I would like to see an aldori mixed with a lore warden but because of bravery that cant be done.That being said Im still playing one because i really like the concept even if the design isnt 100%. I concur with deathquaker as well whats the point of the freehand fighter should be mixed with magus or ek then it would be awesome.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I do kind of wish that every fighter archetype that had a "it's Weapon Training, but only for one weapon so it has a different name" feature allowed that feature to count as weapon training. As it is, nearly every archetyped fighter eats -2 to attack and damage vs. a normal fighter because Gloves of Dueling are a thing that exists. That's kind of a big deal.