|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, here comes the ramblings of a very tired, bored man:
Arcanist: At first glance, arcanists play like the mage from the D&D5 playtest. This is not a complaint. The complaint is that despite being a hybrid sorcerer/specialist wizard, you get none of the wizard specialization abilities nor permanent access to her sorcerer bloodline abilities. Having to split Blood Focus on what's essentially Spell Focus (Specialized School) or using something that you should already have access to is just not something I want in a class.
Bloodrager: I actually kinda like this. Having magus spells but only while raging is a pretty reasonable tradeoff for less HP and having your rage powers chosen for you (by alternate universe sorcerer bloodlines, it seems!) I only think that bloodrage should be (2 + Con mod) rounds/day and have spellcasting available from first level, but I was never too good at that Precious Thing called "game balance."
Brawler: I, uh... Wasn't there already a fighter archetype that let you fight unarmed reasonably well? This loses the fighter's weapon training in exchange for maneuver training. I don't really like maneuvers, and I would really prefer the +X to hit/damage bonus to fisticuffsmanship over, say, tripping someone or pushing them away or playing Monkey Snatches the Peach. The class plays like a tougher, armored monk, but I just want a monk class that can hadouken someone with ki, or run on walls/water, or can move their speed and flurry like Kenshiro from Fist of the North Star.
Hunter: "It's like the druid and the ranger combined to form a new class... called the druid." This is a druid with less spells. You can easily excise what little ranger aspects the hunter has in exchange for boosting Animal Focus's duration and/or uses per day, but at the same time, this could easily have been a druid archetype.
Investigator: My best friend said "Investigators feel more like Jack the Ripper than Sherlock Holmes" when he looked over this, and I gotta agree with him. I didn't know investigators enjoyed stabbing people in the back, or had experience crafting and using deadly poisons. The common complaint about this that I've seen, both here and on Something Awful, is that investigators make the rogue obsolete, and I can understand why- sneak attack and rogue talents belong to the rogue, and yet another class poaches those. Inspiration to improve d20 rolls is interesting, but I don't think you should have to blow an investigator talent (or, Heaven forbid, a precious feat!) to improve the +1d6 you get. You should get more/bigger dice as you level, I think.
Shaman: I was expecting something like a Shadowrun Returns shaman, where you can summon elementals and have them fight for you. Instead, we got this. It's an oracle that's not shackled with its curse. Replacing the curse is the wandering spirit, which looks to me like an oracle mystery you can just swap every day if you want (in addition to your permanent mystery/spirit). Spirit choices influence your choice of hexes, but I don't see why you can't also pick hexes from the basic witch's hex menu. The flavor's interesting, I'll give it that.
Skald: It's a bardbarian!! Singing your allies into a berserker rage is interesting from a flavor point of view, but I would prefer the bard's singing to actually help me (why is it "accept a crappier barbarian rage, or get nothing at all?" Also, glad to see that the "unconscious targets are willing targets" rule that lets you get teleported or married while unconscious also lets you get enraged through music!) I'm just not enjoying this mechanically. Bards get more useful music, and barbarians get a more potent rage.
Slayer: It's a ranger! With less hit points and trading spells for sneak attack! Why wasn't this a ranger archetype?
Swashbuckler: It's a gunslinger that trades guns for rapiers. Some of the deeds are interesting, but I don't think this can do anything a fighter can't already do. And if you're using rapiers as a fighter, why are you a fighter?
Warpriest: Don't we already have a cleric/fighter combination? I think it's called the paladin? Why would I play a warpriest which is just a paladin without its iconic Smite Evil ability? Could I just play a cleric and call myself Battlepope instead? Why can't we have a class called Battlepope?
Final Thoughts
The bloodrager and shaman are pretty all right, and need a little tweaking. Arcanist is salvageable-- it needs a lot of work regarding blood focus. The investigator fills that nice "illusionist/thief" niche, but my real issue with it is that the investigator, like the ninja, makes the rogue obsolete.
Slayer and hunter, in the opinion of One Fan, could be better served as archetypes for their base classes, instead of twenty-level new classes.
My main issue is with the swashbuckler, the warpriest, the skald, and the brawler, and it's a big issue: What do these classes do that makes them stand out from the gunslinger/fighter, or the cleric/fighter, or the bard/barbarian, or the fighter/monk? In my eyes, they just seem mashed together in a melange of "eh, this looks fine enough to me."
I just don't understand what the hell happened. Three years ago, we got the alchemist, cavalier, inquisitor, oracle, summoner, and witch. Two years ago, we got the magus. Those classes were awesome. They were unique (aside from magus supplanting the eldritch knight, but who actually uses prestige classes?) They had their own distinct feel and playstyle, and it was wonderful. Why can't we have anything like that in Advanced Class Guide?
Why can't we have a monk that's like Sabin from Final Fantasy VI, who can suplex the damn tarrasque?
Why can't we have a class called the sentinel, whose sole job is to take the beating for the party and draw aggro and say "Hey! You! Hit me! Attacking me's a lose/lose game!"
Why can't we have a psionicist class, who can manifest a few psionic powers infinitely, but at great personal risk of head explosion or psychic nosebleeding?
Why can't we have a class that can summon elemental beasts from nature, and control them at the risk of having them escape control or turn on their controllers?
It's stuff like that that I want in my D&D, and my Pathfinder.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcanist: Love it! The one thing that irks me though (and I may be misunderstanding something) is that it seems to do EVERYTHING better than the wizard. I can see where the Sorcerer is still stronger than the Arcanist (more spells, better bloodline stuff), but the only thing the wizard seems to have over it is spell progression that's one level faster.
Bloodrager: Looks really cool, though the spell progression is so incredibly slow that I worry a bit.
Brawler: Oooh, a full-BAB monk! I like this one. I feel like most of what it does could already mechanically be done with other classes, but it gives me a new and useful method of creating a monk-like character in a situation where the mysticism of the monk itself (or the exotic theme of the martial artist archetype) wouldn't fit.
Hunter: Loving the animal teamwork. Normally I avoid animal companions and mounts because I just don't have fun with them, but the Hunter looks like it might actually prove to be really good at being THE 'animal companion class' in my future game
Investigator: Somebody got a bit too reliant on mommy-alchemist and daddy-rogue. This is one of the two here that I really don't like (the other being warpriest) because it really doesn't seem to bring in any new material, or interesting combinations of old material. The alchemist and rogue abilities don't feel synergized, they just sort-of sit there beside each other.
Shaman: So... It's a witch that casts like a cleric that also has something sort-of equivalent to an oracle mystery? Neat, I can think of some cool things I could do with this.
Skald: I am sad that you don't have full BAB progression, but I forgive you because you are a Bardbarian.
Slayer: I'm feeling like this one most captured the sort of hybrid style that the Magus has, mostly because the Magus is basically a Wizard/Fighter/Eldritch Knight condensed into one class, and this fellow is basically a Rogue/Ranger/Assassin, or just a Ninja (minus a few of the more instant-death-ish abilities). It's neat. I look forward to the potential for a good aligned non-asian-themed character super-specialized to take down single targets like this guy does.
Swashbuckler Isn't this basically a Gunslinger with the Duelist Prestige Class wielding a melee weapon?
Warpriest: See... The thing about Fighter/Cleric hybrids is that we already have two of them. They're called the Paladin and the Inquisitor. More than any of the other hybrid classes, this one is going to need something truly unique to it to stand out, and right now it doesn't have that. Right now it's a cleric that traded its ability to cast well for loads and loads of feats (waitaminute, it's a divine Eldritch Knight!)
Actually Gluttony, the Wizard has several abilities better than the Arcanist. Most specifically: Familiars and Bonded Items. And I do consider the Bonded Item to be perhaps the most handy item for Wizards I've seen. If it increased in power as the Wizard leveled up, it would be even better (say +1 spell for every six levels).
|
Arcanist: I was really looking forward to this class. Especially as a nice alternate spellcaster to wizard or sorcerer. But, I will admit, I do not like the mixed bloodline thing. That is for sorcerers...leave it there. I would love to see instead an ability to surge their magic more. The ability to enhance spells on the fly, but at a cost. This would make them unique. 4/5
Bloodrager: I was not actually looking forward to this class, but it came as a nice surprise. It is well thought out, unique, and overall very nice. Needs a bit of love to refine it, but overall I am glad for this class to be add to my games. 5/5
Brawler: I have been waiting on a full BAB monk without supernatural powers for a long time. And this delivers...almost. I feel the ability to choose a feat on a whim is either TOO POWERFUL or no strong enough. Either way, it will add a very complex feature that will only add more book keeping and slow game down. I HATE THE FLEXIBLE FEAT FEATURE. It is poorly designed and needs to be reworked. That being said, the class as a whole is nice. 3/5
Hunter: I was really looking forward to this class as much as the arcanist and it failed...hard. None of my players will ever tough this class, nor will they even playtest it. It is inferior to both the ranger and the druid, and has no "RANGER" in it. I feel like a full BAB, plus the shifting ability of the ranger archetype would actually help fix this class. Overall concept great, but mechanically fails. 2/5
Investigator: Probably my favorite class in the book. Unique, loves what it adds to the game. Needs very little refinement. Good job guys! 5/5
Shaman: Love the concept, but again I feel this class fails at what should be a good concept. Why the oracle and witch...I don't feel that is the strongest combination for the concept. Why not druid and witch. I feel like these classes make more sense then oracle. 2/5
Skald: Love bards, love barbarians. Hate the combination. I am sorry, there is nothing about this that is any good. I will never play this, my players will never play this, and if they did, I would never "
"accept" their community rage. Please remove this class for a better combination. 1/5
Slayer: I love the concept enough to almost remove the inquisitor from the game. I have very little to say on this other than well done. It needs only a little bit of tweaking to polish this class. 4/5
Swashbuckler: I (and all my players) hate the gunsligner, and this is coming from a guy who runs steampunk and futuristic games. That being said, I LOVE this concept and the class. This does what a prestige class and archetypes have failed at. WELL DONE. The class is unique and offers something that has been missing from the game. Like the Investigator, I am excited to see this at my games. 4/5
Warpriest: I am sorry, but I hate this class as much as the skald. I love clerics (played two in the last year) and fighters. However, this is not a combination that needed to happen unless you where going to do a "paladin-like" build without all of the Lawful Good tie down. I love the concept of a heavy armor, divine magic enhancing fighter...but the inquisitor already does this nicely. I am sorry, this class is not unique, adds nothing interesting to the game, and simply needs to be removed for a better hybrid concept. 1/5
All in all, a very strong start to a book I will definitely be getting. However, the two concepts I feel are too weak or unnecessary need to be removed. There are plenty of other hybrid concepts that I feel deserve to be made rather than warpriest (which is what a CLERIC IS SUPPOSED TO BE) or the Skald (just a bad combo). Statistically a 3.1/5
What about these concept builds.
Cleric/Wizard or Oracle/Sorcerer (I am sorry the Mystic Theurge takes too long to get to)
Sorcerer/Monk (all out magical monk, very Asian-like spellcaster that mixes martial arts with magic)
Bard/Cavalier (war leader, champion, king of sorts)
Ranger/Witch (a companion that grants spells)
Sure I'll bite . . .
Arcanist-- completely extraneous, flavorless and useless
Bloodrager-- cool, does its own things though it is basically the Rage Mage from 3.5 made into a base class
Brawler-- monk without the monk stuff that doesn't do anything interesting next!
Hunter-- eh, I guess it makes sense to have a 6 level Druid/Ranger caster. . . but how often is anyone going to want to play this instead of one or the other of those?
Investigator-- meh? Alchemist doesn't inspire me so the chance of a lesser alchemist with Sneak attack doing it for me is low
Shaman-- second good class. Spirit Shaman is an actual thing that is missing from the game.
Skald-- idk, the abilities don't seem interesting enough to justify this being separate from the Bard Archetype and possibly a Barbarian Archetype
Slayer-- "guy who kills stuff real good" can I say meh more?
Swashbuckler-- the thousandth take on this trope that isn't any closer to getting it than any of the other 999
Warpriest-- its good for one level.
All in all, 2 good classes and a class that will never be played for anything but the 1 level splash. . .
I was told I should offer some constructive criticism instead of merely complaining, so here:
Arcanist: This class has little conceptual reason to exist and is almost guaranteed to have a fairly significant effect on game balance, being measurably more versatile than either of its parents... which is odd, given that what little flavour it has boils down to it being bad enough at sorcery that it needed to turn to wizardry. For some suggestions, it needs a cap on spells known, less spells per day, and some actual class features to make up for that. The blood surge ability is interesting and could be expanded upon pretty heavily.
Ultimately it needs to be both weaker in terms of raw spellcasting than both the Sorcerer and the Wizard, but with interesting enough mechanics to make it a viable choice over either.
Bloodrager: This is going to be a common refrain throughout, but it desperately needs its own spell list; getting 4th-level Magus spells so late is not viable. It's a nice idea overall though!
Really this needs to separate itself from the Barbarian more. Some Bloodlines are underpowered and having them do more for the class in exchange for some unfitting barbarian abilities would be a great idea.
If it had its own limited spell list, you could also have the Bloodrager cast them as Swift actions, like the old 3.5 Battle Blessing feat for Paladins, giving them an actual reason to cast in combat.
Brawler: If the Monk had a full BAB and a d10 HD from the start like it probably should have, this class would have little reason to exist either.
As others have stated already, the late-level abilities the Brawler gets are much too weak given the level it gets them at, the Brawler Strike should be made into a more appropriate (Ex) ability that accomplishes the same thing, and really the instant-feat ability is going to cause a huge amount of issues... a more limited selection (maybe of Style feats alone?) would be better.
Taking some ideas from the Martial Artist archetype would probably help as well.
Hunter: Kind of a blatant Druid nerf, isn't it? Frankly I think this needs to be completely reworked; throw in some Summoner-ish pet-improvement mechanics, give it (again) its own list of spontaneously-cast spells based around this, have it gain temporary buffs based off of the abilities of the companion it selects (not using enhancement bonuses to stats, why was this idea even considered) and you'd have a class I'd be willing to play.
Investigator: Very powerful, probably the best class in the book, but that's exactly the problem with it. This, and although the class is going for a Victorian-era detective-type (sword canes!), the Extracts and SA don't mesh well with the concept; better to do more with the Inspiration mechanics, give it some variant of Tactician, bonuses to social skills, refluff Extracts to something conceptually sensible (Vigors?) with a more limited, specific list... still, I love the idea.
Shaman: This probably should have been the spontaneous Druid caster rather than what it is. -Very- flavour driven, but the abilities it gets, like with the Investigator, don't always seem especially Shaman-like.
Give it 1/2 BAB, no armor, the Druid list, spontaneous casting, and replace the familiar with an incorporeal spirit animal of some sort(?) I saw a suggestion to rename Hexes "Totems", that could work, and I love the Spirit-swapping mechanic, that could be expanded upon quite a bit.
Slayer: Giving rogues Assassinate as an advanced talent and making a fighter/ranger archetype that lets them select rogue talents as feats/combat styles would remove the need for this class, I think.
Still, one of my favorites, but I think it's far too generic a concept to work as a standalone class.
Skald: Oh boy. The inspire rage mechanic needs to be changed in a way that doesn't interfere with 90% of other classes, like other people have said, but in the end I think this was better off as an archetype. Granting rage powers to allies is -very- cool, however, and I'd love to see it done in some other way.
Swashbuckler: I... don't have much to say here, I quite like the idea. It needs a Dex-to-damage ability, the actual Weapon Finesse feat, and to remove some of the restrictions on Precise Strike (why can't it use that with Buckler?), but as a whole it needs few changes other than some more polish.
Warpriest: This is a Cleric nerf, nothing more. I'm pretty certain a Crusader Cleric with a one-level dip in Fighter is just as good if not better, it's just not... necessary?
For a fix, you could drop the spellcasting entirely, give it full BAB and focus totally on the Blessings... maybe have each Blessing grant a list of short-duration SLA swift-action buffs with some sort of use/day mechanic? Grant the buffs to everyone within 30 feet as a full-round action for double usage? A self-healing mechanic? Things like that.
I don't expect anyone to take these seriously as "that ship has sailed", but I can at least try.
Actually Gluttony, the Wizard has several abilities better than the Arcanist. Most specifically: Familiars and Bonded Items. And I do consider the Bonded Item to be perhaps the most handy item for Wizards I've seen. If it increased in power as the Wizard leveled up, it would be even better (say +1 spell for every six levels).
Ah, true, I forgot about familiars. I suppose that's definitely a big thing the Arcanist loses out on.
Bonded items though... doesn't the 'recast one spell per day that you already used' thing basically fall flat in comparison to spontaneous casting anyways? (Bonded items are also kind-of a liability in many cases.) Aside from the potential of a nice free masterwork weapon or something, I'm not seeing how a bonded item really remotely counts as something useful to a wizard.
Arcanist: Semi-spontaneous wizard without an arcane bond? Sounds fun! Arcane bonds can be such a pain. Call this a wizard archetype, and drop the sorcerer bloodline.
Bloodrager: A bit MAD, but looks fun. Maybe give them CHA-based rage or CHA to AC like the lore oracle.
Brawler: Looks fun, needs to approach the Lore Warden fighter in terms of maneuver skill. Give it free Combat Expertise at the very least.
Hunter: I think this should be full BAB and 4 spell levels, but that might be too ranger-like for some.
Investigator: Do not change this unless it is really broken somehow. I love this class and will play it for my next character. Just let me take Extra Investigator Talent as a feat.
Shaman: This is not a witch/oracle, this is a cleric with oracle mysteries and a familiar. I still like it, though.
Skald: Looks fun, but maybe let party members choose between 1/2 rage or 1/2 controlled rage (from the urban barbarian). I would like playing a skald, but only if the other party members benefit from the rage.
Slayer: Great class, but not something I personally would play. Also, favored target might want a distance limitation or some way to stop me from using favored target on people I've never met.
Swashbuckler: Looks fun, but I should get the Weapon Finesse feat at first level, and treat Aldori Dueling Sword and Scimitar as piercing weapons.
Warpriest: Looks okay, but I would rather have an all-alignments paladin alternate class.
As a forwarning, I'm a sucker for interesting mechanics or roleplay ideas. Therefore, if something feels really dry on flavor, or just replicates another class, then I tend to not care about it. Unfortunately, I kind of felt like these classes were the result of someone taking two different classes, shoving them together, and saying 'Here ya go!'. I'm thankful this is the playtest, and have high hopes for these classes in the end.
Arcanist: Hm. Interesting. I don't feel like it has a huge edge on either the Wizard or Sorcerer, but I definately feel like it has its niche. However, flavor-wise, I find it extremely lacking.
Bloodrager: These bad boys come in three varieties: 'Big', 'Bigger', and 'OH MY GOODNESS IT'S COMING THIS WAY!' Honestly, the rage powers were just ripped out, and replaced with some bloodlines and spells. I feel like the Bloodrager could stand to have another Barbarian ability or two taken away, and have their spells and bloodlines fleshed out a little more, but these guys are pretty awesome. The Bloodlines are in need of a good balancing, but promises a lot. Flavor-wise, I enjoy them.
Brawler: My reaction to these guys is a resounding 'Meh'. While I'm glad that the monk essentially got a boost to offensive power with them, it just feels forced to me. Flavor-wise, I'm just unsure of the difference between a Fighter who brawls, and these guys. Were Brawlers kicked out of the monastery before they learned what Ki was? With that being said, I can see a friend or two of mine enjoying them.
Hunter: Also meh. These guys just feel like reskinned rangers to me. It doesn't help that it seemed to me that every class feature they got was copy and pasted from another class. Flavor-wise... Again, they feel like rangers to me.
Investigator: Now, these guys I like, but I'm willing to say I'm biased. I've pretty much fallen for the Vivisectionist Alchemist, and these guys remind me a lot of good old Vivi. I like the access to knowledge skills, and am intrigued by the Inspiration, though that looks like it could get rather unwieldy. Flavor-wise, they don't really stand out to me by themselves, but what I could make with them could be fun.
Shaman: I think it needs work. This is a weird case where, on one hand, they did try to be rather clever and innovative with new mechanics, but on the other, feel like an awkward meshing of two classes. Flavor-wise, they don't stand out to me. But, that's partially because I'd already been using Witches and Oracles as 'Shamans' in my games. I have high hopes for it, though.
Skald: I like Norse mythology. Skalds are part of this mythology, to one extent or another. I do not like this Skald. I feel like it really is just a Bard that swaps out a few songs for the rage ability, an ability which may or may not be useful, depending on the group composition. I like classes that work well in a group. I do not like classes that require a certain group. Flavor-wise, I love them. But I hope they get refined.
Slayer: Interesting. I like these guys, and they are very adept at stabbing things repeatedly, then killing them, but I feel like they are still slightly unwieldy. I like the idea of having an assassin based class, and these guys could do it, but they currently just feel more like combat specialists to me, good at working on one guy at a time. Flavor-wise, I've always been a fan of assassins. I think that the longer a kill takes, the greater the diservice you are doing yourself and your victim-- both in the pain you are inflicting to the guy, and in the amount of time it takes to wash your clothing of the blood. If they can get this guy streamlined, I'll probably really enjoy myself with it.
Swashbuckler: Pretty cool, but I feel like they're a bit shoehorned into certain decisions and choices. But, then again, I've never been a fan of the Swashbuckler persona. Being loud and flashy seems counter-intuitive to me in a fight. Pretty much the reason I like assassin types in the first place. Flavor-wise, I feel like they do a good job of evoking the Swashbuckler image people love. I just won't be using it myself, generally speaking.
Warpriest: Ooph. This one hurt. I feel like it's a more watered down Cleric, honestly. I actually had some really high hopes for this one, considering that the Magus is essentially a hybrid of Fighter and Wizard. I hope they get some work. Flavor-wise, again, they feel like a watered down version of the Cleric to me. The buffs to armor and weapons is kinda cool, but not enough for me to feel like these guys are the Millitant arm of their respective faiths.
Of course, your mileage may vary. I have high hopes for pretty much every class presented with the playtest, and thoroughly look forward to getting with my buddies to try them out.
|
|
Arcanist I'm honestly not sure what to think. I like the method of casting and the metamagic versatility, but this doesn't feel different enough from either of its parent classes for me. It occupies a confused middle ground.
Bloodrager This was by far the class I was most excited about, and is the type of class that best fits my play style. When I first read through it, my thoughts were that it felt too much like a barbarian with spellcasting stapled onto it, which likely made it a strict upgrade to barbarian. Having playtested it, I still agree with the former sentiment but not the latter. It does need its spells blended more seamlessly with its combat, but the class is currently a downgrade to the barbarian. Without better mechanical blending, the spells don't fit the class and barely see use, and certainly don't compensate for the lack of rage powers (and consequently rage-cycling). This is my pet class of the bunch, and I will fight like hell for improvements to it throughout the course of the playtest.
Brawler I wasn't at all interested in this class based on its description, but this comes across to me as among the most conceptually and mechanically well done of the bunch. It has a lot of interesting mechanics and really feels like a street fighter.
Hunter I like some of what's going on here, most notably the teamwork feats shared between hunter and companion, but there's not nearly enough new ground otherwise. This is struggling to find both mechanical and conceptual reasons to exist.
Investigator This class feels like such a conceptual mess to me. What about drinking liquid spells, or sneak attacking, or using poison feels like an investigator? Mechanically, this seems pretty strong, but it's a hodge podge of random abilities with seemingly no connection to its name or concept.
Shaman This class seems awesome, but is organized in such a needlessly confusing way. This is one of the bigger hits for me, but it needs some streamlining.
Skald I love the concept of inspiring rage. I don't like much else about this class, though. I'd be a lot happier with full BAB, the loss of spells, and a much bigger mechanical focus on being a competent combatant and party buffer. I'd ditch the knowledge and skill-focused aspects of this class, and try to find more interesting ways to borrow from the bard's cooperative nature and the barbarian's combat prowess.
Slayer This class seems really cool on first read. I need to absorb it a little better, but preliminarily I like what I see. If any class should ever get bonus ways to see in the dark or otherwise bypass concealment, though, it's this one. Wouldn't it be great to have a class that used sneak attack but had inherent ways to mitigate some of the massive problems with sneak attack?
Swashbuckler I had zero interest in this class, but I have to say it seems close to perfect. This is without a doubt one of the best first drafts.
Warpriest I'm not sure what's going on here. It feels like this class kind of wants to be the divine magus, but it's afraid to commit. I say ditch the channel and typical divine baggage and make that optional stuff through some sort of healing focused domain or something. Instead, focus on blending divine power with a warrior's might. I like the divine riffage on the magus's arcane pool, but otherwise this class is coming off as a weak cleric. It's a warpriest. It shouldn't be as versatile as a cleric, but it should be better equipped for war.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't understand what the hell happened. Three years ago, we got the alchemist, cavalier, inquisitor, oracle, summoner, and witch. Two years ago, we got the magus. Those classes were awesome. They were unique (aside from magus supplanting the eldritch knight, but who actually uses prestige classes?) They had their own distinct feel and playstyle, and it was wonderful. Why can't we have anything like that in Advanced Class Guide?
THIS.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I just don't understand what the hell happened. Three years ago, we got the alchemist, cavalier, inquisitor, oracle, summoner, and witch. Two years ago, we got the magus. Those classes were awesome. They were unique (aside from magus supplanting the eldritch knight, but who actually uses prestige classes?) They had their own distinct feel and playstyle, and it was wonderful. Why can't we have anything like that in Advanced Class Guide?THIS.
Because people want to play a Fighter/Cleric or an Assassin or a non-mystical unarmed warrior without having to drive a stick thru their eye.
Heck, I want that. My all-time favorite 2ed PC was a Half-Cleric LN Fighter/Cleric of Rao. Now, Inquisitor came close, but it's very focused on various support abilities and being a divine SkillMonkey. I don't want a SkillMonkey, I want a divine StabraCadabra. And not a carbon copy of Magus because that would be, well, cheap.
|
|
Consolidating my posts here for easy reference.
I kind of knew we would be getting a Spirit Shaman (or as SKR told me, an Arcana Unearthed) style caster in the book. That is awesome. I love that casting style and would like it as an option for all prepared casters, not something restricted to a single class.
As to the rest of this class though, there is nothing good. This problem stems mostly from the lack of room between Sorc and Wiz, it is a sandwich with just bread. The blood focus is wonky and awkward, and the remaining levels are filler till you get to a PrC. Like the Sorc though, getting to a PrC is lagged by the spell level delay. The spell level delay though is extra problematic for the Arcanist who gets Scribe Scroll, but will have to scribe all his scrolls at a higher caster level, and thus cost, for minimal gain.
My solution to this class is a total revamp. Either as a Wiz/Rogue Beguioer type, or Wiz/Oracle Occultist. Probably the former since you could keep the name and iconic art you already ordered.
As a wiz/rogue, have it keep the spellcasting, but get rid of the delay, work it off of Int maybe block Evok/Necro/Trans schools, give it Trapfinding and a few more class skills (and maybe 4+INT/level) along with Arcanist talents like: Still/Silent bonus feats, +1/2 level to Cha checks for charmed opponents, reroll bluff, etc. Ditch the blood focus entirely. There is a good class just a few feet off the port bow, but you will have to change course to get to it.
I love this class conceptually, but I think it needs more Sorc, less Barb. I would like to see it dropped to 3/4 BAB d8HD. It should get more a focus on the spellcasting, less on melee. Let it cast spells in rage from the getgo, give it full magus spell progression and rework the rage.
Rather than have the rage identical to a Barbarian's, hiw about a rage that boosts DCs, spell penetration and damage for spells? A few rage abilities could be blasting pure arcane power as line, burst or cone. Thematically like an arcane Wilder, or the Incredible spellcasting Hulk. Get him angry and he explodes all over you. Give an arcane failure chance while not raging to show how he needs to go all or nothing.
Right now it steps too much on both Barbarian and Magus, but there is a good niche for a Sorc/Barbarian blend if you just adjust the focus.
I really like this class. Mechanically and flavorwise it needs just a little tweaking, but it is headed the right way. I like close weapons group vs monk weapons. I would like to see the class make use of improvised weapons as well.
I am a little confused about brawler flurry calling out two handed weapons. Can he flurry with a glaive? Doesn't sound broken, but does sound unBrawlerlike.
I will (jokingly) chalk this class up to Sean playing too much WoW instead of working ;)
The concept though is standard in fantasy of a warrior and animal companion kicking ass. Wejust have to get this class to focus there and stand out from its parents.
Step 1 - New name. Beastlord, Beastmaster, Tamer, Animalist, Zookeeper. Hunter is an antonym for this class and a totally inappropriate name.
Step 2 -Just drop the spellcasting entirely. Give it some SLAs to make up for it and focus it more as a martial/skill class. Maybe speak with animals at will, combat styles was a good suggestion. A bonus feat list that you and your companion share with feats like Bodyguard on it or just add a bunch more teamwork feats into the game.
This class only needs some minor tweaking and is one of the ten I look forward to playing since I love druids but hate wild shape mechanically.
Wow! Great flavor and great mechanics. Shame they have nothing to do with each other. The flavor is Sherlock Holmes, but the mechanics are Jack the Ripper. That leaves two options.
1 - Reflavor the class. May I suggest Murder Hobo? It would be great for villainous characters who sneak up on people and slip poisoned daggers between the ribs.
2 - Now, more likely you already ordered iconic art for an Investigator. So what do we do to make him one? Ditch poison use AND sneak attack entirely. Maybe firearm profiency or at least repeating crossbows. Net proficiency too. I would also like this character to use the Inquisitor spell list. They can still be extracts, but Inquisitor gets some really appropriate spells like Interrogation that Alchemist doesn't and so Inv should use that list.
Other good ability additions could be Quarry, or ways of taking an enemy prisoner alive through nonlethal, nets and manacles, etc.
I like it conceptually but want some mechanical changes to bring it more in line with the flavor.
Familiar should be a bonded item. Shaman sticks are a staple.
Would like patrons to be invokved somehow.
Druid or Witch spell list. Not cleric.
Maybe summon nature ally as an ability like Summon Monster for Summoners?
Edit: Forgot to add, this class should cast spells like the Arcanist. It is a good system and we should get a divine caster who does it too.
This class is way too focused and specific, and better served as an archetype (from which it was derived).
Bardbarian is a cool idea though and we can still do something with it. How about a Warchanter or Warchief class and give it multiple options for its performance (or a building block system to give different abilities to his performance). For example instead of just rage he could choose at first level rage, fast healing 1, movement bonus, save bonus. At higher levels he can mix lower level songs or do more powerful ones. Give everyone energy resistance, the diehard feat, etc. Like the communal spells but with a duration of the performance. It would be a much cooler and newer class than what we have right now.
This class is pretty good mechanically. I would like it to get the poison use we are strippin from the Investigator. My onky concern is with the party role. Essentially this is a Serial Killer base class. He might be more fitting as an evil PrC (like some sort of...assassin). Maybe we csn lighten him up a bit, make him more of a scout/skirmisher than a killer?
My first response is "weapon finesse at second level is just mean". Every swash is dumping Str. That is the point of the class. Don't make them suffer through first level without finesse.
In general I know I am a minority here but I dislike this concept as a base class. Swashbuckler works pretty well as a fighter/rogue multiclass and I could build a superior swashbuckler with fighter/rogue/duelist. I know that isn't changing any opinions at Paizo though, so just at least give the poor bastards who use this class finesse at first level.
Now I come to the last class, and sorry Paizo, the worst. i know you say cutting or replacing a class is out of the question but if there is one exception this is it. I feel this class is not only bad on its own, it will actually be detrimental to the health of the game.
Firstly, this is a niche that is already crowded by several PrCs and two base classes. In fact, the Cleric is so good at being a figthter/cleric you had to tone it down from 3.5 to PF. Mostly though this class really treads on the Paladin's toes.
There is design space though for a cleric hybrid, just not with the fighter. How about instead a Cleric/Monk with ki healing abilities, the two classes multiclass pretty nicely already since they both love wisdom and being able to not lose unarmed progression would rock.
Or cleric/wizard. A d6 1/2 BAB robed cleric with a prayer book, scribe scroll, lay hands/mercy and hell even blessings. Both would be positive additions to the game. Warpriest is a negative one.
Even if you disregard my pleas to completely redo this class, at LEAST change the name to Templar or something. Warpriest is a kind of goofy name.
Thread closed. Please post your comments in the respective thread for each of the ACG classes, otherwise we'll end up with a hundred parallel discussion threads.
And opinions based on just reading the class are all well and good, but we can really use more playtest feedback.