I hear a lot of talk on these forums about problems with the design of some of the base classes, for example the Gunslinger and the Summoner. Additionally, I've seen almost no threads that involve Cavalier builds.
So that raises the question to me: what do you think are the best designed and coolest of the post-CRB base classes in crunch and/or flavor? Which make the coolest but still balanced builds and which make the most interesting character to play and/or roleplay?
Personally I'm quite fond of the Inquisitor but I've got no clue how to properly play one. I've got some troubles with the flavor of the Alchemist and I've never seen one in play but the crunch seems well-balanced at first glance.
(I know almost nothing of the 3d party classes but please don't leave them out if you think they're well-designed)
Yeah, everything but those 3 classes.
Actually, I don't have much of an issue with the Gunslinger. My biggest gripe with it is that after level 5...what's the point of sticking with the class, really?
But Cavalier is just "Fighter! With a horse!" which might be cool if it weren't for the fact that the class is very "Halfling or GTFO" in most campaigns that don't involve alot of open field pitched battles.
And Summoner is...ugh. They're hard to run, and full of ambiguous rules. Balance-wise they're pretty okay, IF you can make sure a player hasn't accidentally (no air quotes, I mean a legitimate accident) made an overpowered monstrosity you now have to audit because he screwed up how many limbs he has or whatever 2 levels ago.
Alchemist is pretty nice: There are lots of different ways to build them, they multiclass well, and a well-built Alchemist can always contribute and never overshadow.
Magus is fun to play, but kind of narrow, and the rules get really poor if you stray too far from the core concept.
Witch is a nice idea, but the actual Hexes need rebalancing and the narrow flavor lock does nothing good for the class.
I'm a bit biased but I love summoner...
Nearly complete artistic license of how the eidolon looks, followed eventually by create demiplane that gives you again nearly complete artistic license of how your transplanar hidey hole looks?
For the player with a vivid imagination, this combination cant be beat.
No idea how balanced it is, but the Inspiring Commander from Rite Publishing is something I've been wanting to play for a while. Couple that archetype with the Order of the Dragon and you've got one heck of a cheerleader.
Well... mechanically speaking inquisitors (tried), magi (tried) and alchemists (theory) are very good. Cavaliers have the problem go small race or go beast rider (and use your pet just like a ranger uses his). Oracles are quite good, they suffer problems for being spontaneous casters of course but in my opinion it's a better way to do a spontaneous version of a prepared caster than the sorcerer is. I don't want to speak about the rest (summoner, witch and gunslinger).
for coolest, i really like the oracle. one GM i've played with for years had (back before pathfinder existed) tried cleric variants that were based more on gaining additional granted powers as they level and i think the oracle is both a mechanically well designed take on that, and a cool and natural concept for someone chosen by some divine power as a vessel.
for best designed... that's really tough to say, and i think it probably depends on how you interpret what is best. oracle is well designed but has an issue with other classes dipping to pick up really potent powers for other builds (sidestep secret for your paladin, anyone). i think the alchemist is pretty well designed for the most part too- but you get (somewhat) problematic dips from barbs and other melees for the mutagen (which should maybe have an Int req to craft, and/or scale with level more), bombs are fairly useless if you multiclass much, and the vivisectionist can tend to overshadow a lot of rogue builds. i think my vote might go to the inquisitor- its interesting, it does have its own little niche, and the mechanics are balanced pretty nicely where you shouldn't really feel underpowered at any level, but there's not really abusive dips or any levels where you just overpower others.
for worst- i have to go with summoner. the synthesist is a mess, gives way too many bonuses with a 1-2 level dip, and is actually the least terrible type of summoner! a regular summoner is worthless at multiclassing but completely overpowered when straight classed. with even a little bit of effort the eidolon can challenge most PC builds at damage output (sure, its no rage-lance-pounce barb, but it'll out damage a bow fighter in a lot of scenarios), and the summoner gets a turn on top of that! add to that the skilled evolution which can instantly make the eidolon super good at just about any skill, or permanent flight, or any of another half-dozen things that they can do that nobody else can, and you end up with an interesting idea for another pet class that just wasn't (IMO) executed very well.
OP, the problem is that there is no objective call on what is otherwise a very subjective issue.
Didn't ask for an objective call, I asked for opinions :) I'm just curious about what the general consensus is and what the arguments for the opinions is.
They're something to factor in for future builds or GMing. For example: I had a bit of a prejudice against Alchemist because a bomb-throwing mad scientist just didn't fit that well with my perception of PF. The builds and characters I've seen on these boards have shown me how it can be used, which is slowly turning my opinion around.Conversely, Summoner is a class of which I initially loved the idea. I'm completely obsessed with custom-creating anything so I loved Eidolons. A from the ground up fully customized character? Hell yeah! But the stuff I've read on these forums have kinda turned me around on it.
Your opinions and arguments are very refreshing for my perspective on these classes :)
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Best Designed is subjective of course.
For me, the Inquisitor is wonderfully designed. Enough skill points and abilites for variety, and the spell list is diverse enough that it can fill multiple roles (My Inquisitor of Shizuru is a self buffer/combatant, my inquisitor of Erastil is going to be a party buffer/divine bard).
3PP, I love SGG's Vanguard. Just the right mix of spells and melee for my tastes. With a few tricks as well to make them unique.
Oracle - well designed
in my opinion suffers somewhat from the revelation mechanic. The additional revelation can be a trap feat as a character can end up taking all the revelations in their mystery with feats and end up empty handed at middling levels. I think this should either be remedied with additional revelations in follow-up books, 'standard revelations' that are added to all mysteries, or some feats that work within the existing revelation mechanics that would entice a player to take something other than extra revelation. (modifications of existing powers, or something)
Inquisitor - seems good.
I've had one player who embraced this class and he always felt like he was getting access to something cool at each level up. I'm not sure "flavor wise" this class is as flexible as it could be, but it seems to offer alot of interesting abilities and spells.
Cavalier - seems lacking
Same player I had who liked inquisitor seemed less enthused with the Cavalier he played first. Several more games have come and went and this seems the least played class amongst my gaming friends.
Alchemist - always fun
Might not be thematically appropriate, but everyone loves the unrepentant damage dealer. Vivisectionist archetype might be restricted to NPCs.
Witch - ever present
I don't remember the last game we had that didn't have a witch, the 'hexes never run out' mechanic makes witch the favored class of several players. Having go-to abilities that stay relevant in power level and are never expended makes this class unequaled in some respects.
Summoner - beloved by me
I love my summoner, so I am openly biased on behalf of them. I am a huge fan of pets in game (the scaling power level of animal companions was a huge selling point to me on Pathfinder) and I think the concept of a build-your-own animal companion class is awesome. Some of the archetypes are over balancing in point-buy games, so buyer beware.
the oracle is a fine class. and i hate it as it shows, in my opinion, the many design flaws of the sorcerer.
i like the witch very much as well as the alchemist.
|
Mechanically the Inquisitor is probably the best built base class in the Paizo books right now. The Samurai is a very nice advanced class since it takes the abilities of the Cavalier that are dependant upon cohesive group design and campaign variables and largely replaces them with abilities that buff the Samurai himself in some way (feats, Resolve, etc.).
I personally like the Cavalier quite a bit, but I get where people are coming from in regards to Tactician being less than ideal in play environments like PFS where you don't know who you might be playing with. Paizo really dropped the ball as well in not ensuring that Teamwork feats worked within the parameters of the two classes that were designed to showcase them. It's just silly that a Cavalier who dips one level of fighter to ensure he can take Coordinated Charge with Greater Tactician is going to be vastly more effective than a straight Cavalier.
The Witch is really, really well built as well, though for some reason it just never sees much use in our group. I think the name Witch is just a little off-putting or something.
There actually is stuff to the Cavalier outside of the mount. It's challenge ability is the closest thing to an actual taunt mechanic for a heavy melee build. Resolve gives you options to deal with debilitating conditions, so I wouldn't entirely discount it. The various orders give a fair number of flavor choices.
Yeah, it has some stuff, but it seems like you're missing out on a big portion of the class in campaigns where a horse is not doing so well.
I do like the Samurai archetype though, the whatsit, Iaijutsu Master? Sword Saint, that was it.
Anyway, it replaces all of the Mount related stuff with lackluster non-Mount related stuff that at least you can use in most campaigns.
Has a much better feel to it, I think.
I'm playing in Kingmaker, and I'm having fun learning how to play a magus well. The cavalier is doing really well, especially since there are lots of outdoor encounters, so it miht be campaign-situational. We also have a rogue/witch and he has fun, especially since he can heal, which is unexpected and makes him super versatile.
Do have to say that I really like the oracle. A great take on spontaneous casting for a 9-spell level progression divine caster. Playing one in Ways of the Wicked(Fire Mountain Games), and with the LE bent plus High CHA, the GM allowed me to pick up Leadership, which has been tons of fun making/rping an evil intelligence gathering organization (the Citizen's Information Alliance)
I'm hoping that one of my player's in the Wrath of the Righteous campaign I'm starting up soon chooses to play Inquisitor because it does look like a well-made class that will fit in that AP almost as splendidly as a Paladin does.
Every non-CRB class I've played personally has been really great.
Inquisitors get a lot of cool stuff. Probably my favorite Divine class. They all play kinda similarly, unfortunately, but even the narrow-ish niche they're in allows for enough subtle nuances to keep them interesting.
And their built-in "Serious Business" attitude led to a very fun idea for an Inquisitor of Sun Wukong who takes the act of playing pranks ludicrously seriously.
I'm playing 2 Oracles at the moment, one a Dark Tapestry Oracle in a Cthulhu themed PbP that specializes in "Weird spooky s*$* magic", and it's fun. And a JuJu Oracle in Way of the Wicked with an undead skirmishing army. 3 Fast Zombie Crocodiles, 2 Burning Bloody Skeletal Hellhounds, a Fast Zombie Giant Preying Mantis, and about 30 Bloody Skeletons lining hallways make for pretty good defenses (and helps with the food issue the group was having before I arrived. =)), and I have a Fast Zombie Minotaur and a bigass Fast Zombie Constrictor (former Animal Companion of a dead character) for personal defense.
Both play VASTLY differently, and yet both are very fun.
Alchemists, IMO, are the best "Rogue" class in the game. With just enough magic stuff to give 'em an edge, bunches of skills, and a way to boost their Dex and such, they're great for that. Top that off with the ability to nova like nobody's business with Bombs, and you've got a pretty badass class.
For me, Cavaliers are about the only new class I consider well-designed and balanced. Witch and Oracles come close, but a couple Hexes (e.g. Slumber) and some really weak "curses" push them towards the cheese. Avoide those issues and they aren't bad at all. Problems with the rest:
Alchemists - bombs break AC, DR, and SR all at once
Inquisitors - far too many swift actions, no code of conduct
Magus - again lots of swift actions, nova way too easily, and frankly get too many spells per day
Summoners - standard action summons + Eidolon complications (too strong in general, and you can wipe out the party if you zap the summoner himself) {*Great* bad guys though!}
Gunslingers - flavor *gag* + break AC like nobody's business + one-trick pony + never-ending Grit
|
Everybody confuses the Oracle's Curse, as if it is something that's supposed to be crippling.
It is more of a "cursed with awesome" thing.
That is the point.
Actually, I don't have much of an issue with the Gunslinger. My biggest gripe with it is that after level 5...what's the point of sticking with the class, really?
Gunslingers are a great class, and they do get some cool tricks at later levels... Unfortunately, PF firearms rules are terrible.
But Cavalier is just "Fighter! With a horse!" which might be cool if it weren't for the fact that the class is very "Halfling or GTFO" in most campaigns that don't involve alot of open field pitched battles.
You know... I don't like Cavaliers. I don't dislike them either, but they are the one class I'd not give a damn if it disappeared. But this "the horse won't fit" problem is often exaggerated. Large creatures are not hard to fit. When was the last time you heard anyone saying that Wild Shape and Animal Companions are way too restricted because of their size?
And Summoner is...ugh. They're hard to run, and full of ambiguous rules. Balance-wise they're pretty okay, IF you can make sure a player hasn't accidentally (no air quotes, I mean a legitimate accident) made an overpowered monstrosity you now have to audit because he screwed up how many limbs he has or whatever 2 levels ago.
Vanilla summoner would be balanced if it didn't have a 9-level spell list disguised as a 6-level one. Master Summoner and Synthesist would still be broken. The survivability Synthesists get more than compensate for the loss of action economy, to the point where it's very likely that anything the GM creates to challenge it will completely obliterate other martial characters.
|
But Cavalier is just "Fighter! With a horse!" which might be cool if it weren't for the fact that the class is very "Halfling or GTFO" in most campaigns that don't involve alot of open field pitched battles.You know... I don't like Cavaliers. I don't dislike them either, but they are the one class I'd not give a damn if it disappeared. But this "the horse won't fit" problem is often exaggerated. Large creatures are not hard to fit. When was the last time you heard anyone saying that Wild Shape and Animal Companions are way too restricted because of their size?
Well Animal Companions can come in multiple sizes, and can remain medium sized for the whole of the character's career, furthermore Rangers and Druids aren't reliant on their animal companion to shine. Cavaliers are at their best when mounted and are worse than a lot of options when unmounted.
It's a valid complaint. The Cavalier is great but only in specific campaigns (Kingmaker springs to mind).
Well Animal Companions can come in multiple sizes, and can remain medium sized for the whole of the character's career, furthermore Rangers and Druids aren't reliant on their animal companion to shine. Cavaliers are at their best when mounted and are worse than a lot of options when unmounted.
It's a valid complaint. The Cavalier is great but only in specific campaigns (Kingmaker springs to mind).
Valid? Yes. But still often exaggerated.
Tigers, wolves, horses, rocs and T-rex are common choices for AC. They also become Large at one point or another. Large creatures are not difficult to fit at all. There will be some inconvenience sometimes, but it's not a deal-breaker.
The over-dependence on charge is a real problem. Fitting large creatures is not, except in specific campaigns/situations.
Now, I don't like cavaliers. IMHO, they're extremely boring and quite underpowered. But I don't think being small-sized is that much of a necessity.
Alchemist, inquisitor, and Summoner are great classes I enjoy playing.
Non Paizo? Wilders and Souldknives from Dreamscarred Press are amazing!
Witches are great as far as hexes go against mooks, but they lose effective against BBEGs and then the spell list is fairly paltry when compared to say a wizard since I don't think the added on divine spells make up for the loss arcane ones.
Witches can bump their Hex DC's high enough to matter even against BBEG's - especially if it's not a Will-strong BBEG. I disagree that it's "great" that they can endlessly take out mooks (even if just one per turn).
However, I was very impressed with the spell list. There's a few new nasty ones, but they did a very good job of limiting the list. I was initially very concerned about a caster with blended arcane and divine spells (ala the Shugenga). Witches have very limited direct damage spells, so much that my wife's Witch/Rogue arcane trickster concept may be quite difficult to pull off effectively. That is good balance, and the Hexes are just a bit iffy, and mostly just a couple of them.
Extracts are still magical, not just chemicals. It's logical to assume that there's a limit to how many chemicals you can imbue with magic just like there is for pure magic. And even if that doesn't cut it for you, a "horribly gamist" set to their power is a lot better than a "horribly simulationist" one that just doesn't work mechanically.
The Inquisitor list is hit to miss, depending on what you wanna do. They have a good number of spells that can force the enemy to see them as priority #1 on the battlefield, and have a solid number of support and self-buff spells. It kinda goes with their design as being "The Selfish Bard".
If that's NOT what you want...then yeah you're gonna be pretty disappointed by the list. I wouldn't say boring, just pretty narrowly focused.
I REALLY don't know what your issue with Oracles are. Honestly seems like you're speaking from a pure theory perspective there, not a practical one.
As for "The Wizard who casts but can fight as a last resort", isn't that what Eldritch Knight is for? And honestly seems like a poorly designed idea for a class to start with. It would just be "Wizard, but with light armor and 3/4 BaB" because that's all you would need for a Wizard who could fight as a last resort.
I am really fond of the Alchemist because it seems really able to go places by itself. Like in one Campaign, I was playing the big heavy melee fighter of the group and my friend was playing ranged skill and knowledge guy, but we were both Alchemists. Granted we had different archetypes, but it still gave me a great deal of respect for the class.
Same class and I am a man who transforms into a giant beetle who stabs you in the vital spots, while he is a goblin who specializes in fire and skills? Love it.
I only used the Inquisitor once, but I enjoyed it using it as a progression from my cleric, showing she had become more combat oriented by multiclassing into it (not optimal I know but the retraining rules were not out yet and I was not that concerned with it)
Inquisitor: Looks good
Oracle: Sees lots of play in our groups. No problems so far.
Witch: Nice class with only one drawback: If you try to get creative with your spells in combat you get to hear: Just evil eye it.
Alchemist: Sounds nice. Never got to try it out.
Cavalier: Small or GTFO, Huntmaster doesn't work with several orders.
Gunslinger: No guns, no gunslinger.
Summoner: Have seen the master summoner in play, didn't like what I've seen. Don't like claims that there is no problem when the eidolon is stronger than the fighter at first level because that evens out later.
In my subjective opinion an interesting idea but execution is bad. Strong casting + SLA + Eidolon feels too much.
I could allow it under the hr that the summoner chooses either the SLA OR the eidolon class ability.
|
I want a wizard that can fight when spells run low or enemies get into melee. I couldn't care less about casting spells through my weapon and breaking action economy makes me queasy. I'd give up power and especially endurance for a plan B when spells run low as long as I keep the utility spells on the schedule module writers expect them at....
That's what Transformation is for.
==//==
OP: Samurai are awesome -- they wail like hell on everything a paladin is nerfed against. More durable than any other cavalier variant by a long shot, IMO, and make their saves better than fighters or rangers.
Alchemists are by far my favorite. They're pretty close to being my favorite class out of anything. I love the versatility and the flavor of them - narrowing them down to stereotypical mad scientists is missing out on so much! I've played a vanilla alchemist, a pacifist good-doctor type, a bookish alchemist with an unhealthy thirst for knowledge, and an explosive-slinging bombardier. I still want more.
Then I went and read City of the Fallen Sky, and I loved alchemists even more.
The only thing I don't like is how they're basically intertwined with the crafting rules, and I've never really cared for them. Fortunately, my DMs tend to handwave a lot of that annoyance away.
As for worst? Summoner. Plenty of people have argued that already, so I'll just let it go.
And I want to echo the whole cavalier thing. I like the cavalier, I really do, but he just doesn't... work? It's not just the mount, either.
|
|
However, I was very impressed with the spell list. There's a few new nasty ones, but they did a very good job of limiting the list. I was initially very concerned about a caster with blended arcane and divine spells (ala the Shugenga). Witches have very limited direct damage spells, so much that my wife's Witch/Rogue arcane trickster concept may be quite difficult to pull off effectively. That is good balance, and the Hexes are just a bit iffy, and mostly just a couple of them.
I've got a Rogue/Witch Arcane Trickster that I love. Two suggestions for your wife: Prehensile Hair Hex (it gives you Touch Attacks at Reach) and consider going Winter Witch to beef up her Cold attacks.
As for the OP:
I love the Witch (as you may have gathered). I haven't played an Oracle or Inquisitor, but am very interested in both of them. I have played a Magus and consider it so-so.
If you need a dedicated healer [WHY?] there's the Vitalist. They're Why. Basically the only option for healers where it's actually worth taking time healing when you could be doing something else. Their something else can ALSO be healing, or life-draining enemies, and so on. Yes they're healers and all about healing, but holy **** are they ever GOOD at it.
Can you imagine using gestalt rules with Cleric and Vitalist? It gets amazing!
|
|
Does a Skulking Slayer Scout still count as a rogue? If not, then this. If so then, the alchemist would be my 2nd choice. It gives options for melee (mutagen), with magical powers, ranged options, and archetypes to hone in on your choice and make your character be really good at what it does. Its how I think all class:archetype ratios should be.