Short opinions on each of the new classes


Advanced Class Guide Playtest General Discussion

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
The Exchange

This thread is meant to be a place where everyone write what they feel about each new class shortly - you don't have to support your claims in any way, just write what you feel about each class. This way, Paizo has an easier time getting the look at the bigger picture of how classes are received.

So this thread is not about anything specific, not about doing anything except providing the most basic feedback: "did you like it? why so?".
I'll start.

ARCANIST: I don't like the class and don't understand why it exists. As far as flavor goes it has the exact same flavor is a wizard, and seems like a purely mechanical concept.

BLOODRAGER: Superb, extremely cool. Some details have to be ironed out (like the dragon bloodline getting the spell "fly" and wings at the same time -what's the point?), but Iv'e been waiting for something like this for years, and this class delivers.

BRAWLER: Don't like it at all. I hate it when a class is completely flavorless. For example, why does the brawler get bonus AC? why do his strikes count as magical or other special things? If a brawler is just a dude who hits things with bare hands, why the supernatural abilities? again, a purely mechanics-driven class.

HUNTER: cute, though I think this could just have been a ranger or druid archtype. I like the idea of teamwork feats for the hunter and the companion.

INVESTIGATOR: I don't like what this class does to a game, and inspiration feels too much like mythic surge (can a mythic investigator ever fail a roll she wants to succeed? I don't think so). However, I can see the fun in playing a rouge with extracts.

SHAMAN: Not half bad, and I like the concept. I don't understand why it casts spells from the cleric spell list instead of the oracle spell list.

SKALD: never liked anything bard related, never will. Next!

SLAYER: seeing as how they can choose to spend slayer talents to get extra feats, I don't see how slayers are anything except an improved version of fighters. Since that negates fighters altogether, I don't like this class unless the "slayer talent as combat feat" option is removed.

SWASHBUCKLER: rather nice, actually. I like the mechanical concept of being able to restore power points by achieving things, and the class as a whole does a decent job of emulating a swashbuckler.

WARPRIEST: Love the concept, disappointed by execution. I wanted warpriest to resemble a paladin except with the ability to chose a blessing and affect some of the powers. Instead, the blessings are really underwhelming, and the other class features are not very impressive.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Look in-between the lines for some of them.

Brawler is like a Boxer. If you ever seen boxing some of their abilities could be considered supernatural. Especially if you look at the Brawler Class as being a Boxer in a world with Magic.

The Cleric & Oracle Share a spell list so do the Sorcerer & Wizard.


I will make this short. I love all these classes. I might not want to play all of them but I love how they put them together. I am just very happy with them and excited to play some of them.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Here's my opinion: The whole concept of Hybrid Classes is inherently unworkable, can we get a do-over?
Maybe try again with around six more focused, unique classes like in the APG? The Swashbuckler, Investigator and Bloodrager all seem salvageable, could start there.


At this point some if not most will be labeled useless and others overpowered.

Most are Salvageable in some form.

Arcanist can be used to base an alternate spellcasting system.

Warpriest can be used to make archetypes.

Slayer, Skald, Shaman, Brawler, and Investigator can be alternate classes if they are altered to fit in with a single class.

Hunter & Swashbuckler could be made into entirely new classes

Bloodrager can either be entirely new or an Alternate Class.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Like, I understand this need to avoid "bloat", but when about half the classes could easily be achieved, on both a conceptual and mechanical level by using archetypes instead...
Actually, why not have an Ultimate Archetypes book or something like that?


@Kaisos_Erranon: I edited my previous post.


Kaisos Erranon wrote:

Like, I understand this need to avoid "bloat", but when about half the classes could easily be achieved, on both a conceptual and mechanical level by using archetypes instead...

Actually, why not have an Ultimate Archetypes book or something like that?

I just want to say that just as an example the Brawler class in here would not be achievable with existing classes purely on its unarmed damage and full base attack and d10 hd.

I love these "mixed" classes and feel that they were needed because using just multi-classing would result in sub par characters due to jumping back and forth between two classes as you level.

Shadow Lodge

Quote:
why do his strikes count as magical or other special things?

This is why fighters can't have nice things. He is just so good at punching, it's magical ;)

Quote:
I don't understand why it casts spells from the cleric spell list instead of the oracle spell list.

Also why does the arcanist use the wizard and not the sorcerer spell list? :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

After getting a good night of sleep, my initial impressions:

Arcanist: This almost seems too good. You get the best things from the Wizard and the best things from the Sorcerer. On the other hand, you also get the worst from the Wizard (fiddly and expensive acquisition of spells) and the worst from the Sorcerer (delayed spell progression), but I am hesitant to call it a wash. You also get Intelligence as your main stat, which makes the class a skill monkey. What the class currently completely lacks seems to be flavor, it occupies a strange, undefined middle ground between Wizards and Sorcerers. 3/5 for kinda-sorta obsoleting the Sorcerer.

Bloodrager: Well, at least you don't get Pounce and your Bloodrage Powers are more limited in choice. But, man, this class seems to want to obsolete the Barbarian so badly. I quite like it, the idea of your special heritage pumping power through your veins was something I always loved about the Sorcerer. Mechanically, it seems to very strong. 4/5

Brawler: Horrible class name, but the class itself is very strong. I only hope that the ACG will provide new ways to enhance your unarmed attacks, the Amulet of Mighty Fists has never cut it. This class has most things I always wanted for the Monk, a non-mystic martial artist. Evasion is kinda missed, though, but we got an item for that. 5/5

Hunter: Do we also get Night Elves to annoyingly bunny-jump all around the room? ^^ I like this class, it brings across your enhanced connection to your animal companion quite well. It would probably benefit from getting better benefits out of it than the normal ones, like some from the familiar list. 4/5

Investigator: Hey, someone just backstabbed the Rogue! Again! Not that I particularly mind, though. Awesome class, obsoletes the Rogue. Again. Please adopt as it is. Even though I hate Sneak Attack.5/5

Shaman: Mechanically this looks strong, but then again it's a full caster. I guess this is the class I was looking forward to the least, since I found Oracle/Witch to be a weird combination. Eh, it seems okay. My low score stems mostly from me being apathetic toward its concept. 3/5

Skald: So, you seriously are giving a quasi-bard the ability to give everybody Pounce and some of the other really good rage powers? This is, depending on the party composition, really, really good or rather okay. I wonder how this interacts with the Bloodragers power set, though? Anyway, decent class, not my personal style, but decent. 4/5

Slayer: Hey, Buffy. :p Aside from my dislike of Sneak Attack, this seems really, really solid. 5/5

Swashbuckler: Oh, how I have awaited thee! Very different, yet strangely similar to my own take on the class, this class has tons of awesome things going for it. Initial confusion about Precise Strike aside, so much goodness. Some not-so-goodness, too, but that is for the class discussion thread. 5/5

Warpriest: Uh, what exactly is the point of this class? The Inquisitor seems to do everything it can and better. The Channel Energy feature is too weak, the spell list is worse than the Inquisitors, 2+INT skills per level is a joke in comparison and it occupies the same niche. Blessings seem really, really weak through the bank. This class badly needs either a full BAB and worse spellcasting, or a major buff to its class abilities. 2/5

So, seven out of ten classes seem awesome, two out of ten seem good, but I can't make heads and tails of their flavor yet and one seems really, really unnecessary and weak. There's room to improve, but not much. I hope they don't nerf the good classes.


Most of these could be set-up using the Gestalt or a Gestalt-Esque System...

Hunter could be a the Druidic version of the Inquisitor... Have 6 Level Casting and have features from the Druid and Ranger alongside some unique ones.


northbrb wrote:
I love these "mixed" classes and feel that they were needed because using just multi-classing would result in sub par characters due to jumping back and forth between two classes as you level.

This is a problem with how multiclassing (doesn't) work, yes. I don't think that this was the right solution.


Lord Snow wrote:
SLAYER: seeing as how they can choose to spend slayer talents to get extra feats, I don't see how slayers are anything except an improved version of fighters. Since that negates fighters altogether, I don't like this class unless the "slayer talent as combat feat" option is removed.

How is the Slayer able to spend talents for feats? As far as I can see, one can only take each talent once including the one that enables the slayer to take a combat feat, the one that gives Weapon Focues to the Slayer and the one that that enables the slayer to take any feat.


I gotta echo Magnuskn. Bloodrager seems a bit too strong.

And I'd change the score on skald to 2/5. Just a bard with a different song. Not enough barbarian in the hybrid. Kill spells, jack bab to at level, make some fun new songs.


Just out of curiosity, What is the title of these kind of classes, Are they just "Classes" Alternate Classes"?


"Hybrids"

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I can't get behind a lot of the classes in this playtest. They're just re-flavored versions of the original classes that bring absolutely nothing new to the table, with maybe the exception of the arcanist and bloodrager.

The Arcanist has the neat ability of letting you prepare spells and the spontaneously casting them. That's great. 4/5

The Bloodrager is a very neat class. Keeping the majority of the barbarian class with a few magus spells, this is a solid looking class. It's humourous that it's Charisma based though. 4/5

The Brawler isn't bad, but it's got a few abilities that I've always hated about the monk. Namely the "magic" strikes. Make it actually magical. Make them a worthy adversary against incorporeal creatures. However, it is nice to finally see the "monk" with full BAB and d10 HD. About time. 3/5

Honestly couldn't care less about the Hunter. I'll take a druid over this any day. Heck, I'll take a ranger over this any day. This isn't a ranger/druid. This is a druid/inquisitor/cavalier. Look at all those teamwork feats. What exactly about this class is supposed to convince me that it's got "ranger" flavor? The fact that it has track? Big deal. 1/5

The Investigator's not too shabby. Honestly, I'd be a little more thrilled if I saw a little less sneak attack and a LOT more alchemy. Maybe a few bombs. 3/5

The Shaman seems like it could have its uses, but the spirits could use a bit more flavour to them. 3/5

The Skald's spell kenning is absolutely useless in battle. You want to cast a 6th level wizard spell? Sure. Going to take you a few minutes though. Hope there's nothing pressing going on, like a final battle that will determine the fate of the world or anything like that. Then there's the inspiring rage. I know you can turn it down, but if you've got a lot of casters in your group, or people who require the mental stats for skills, they'll almost always turn that down. If you've got fellow barbarians and fighters who are looking for a boost, then fine, but this is a terrible ability. I'd take a bard over this any day. At least they're versatile. 2/5

The Slayer, is d8 HD but full BAB. Why? The way it looks like now, it's a weaker version of Kobold Press' Spell-less Ranger. It's nothing more than a wilderness rogue with full BAB. Had the Combat Style been kept in some fashion, I might have cared about this class. 1/5

The Swashbuckler. The one class that SHOULD have all the sneak attack. You want to make this a true swashbuckler, at least give me whip proficiency. The deeds are nice for flavouring the character's swashbuckling acrobatics and feats of wonder. 2/5

The War Priest. Well, I don't hate this class. It seems like it'd at least be of some baseline benefit. The blessings are a nice touch, and it at least still has access to 6th level spells. 3/5

Overall, not impressed. These could have been so much better. The main problem for me here is we're told is basic combining of two classes when one class is so overshadowed by another that you just don't see it at all. That being said, there's times where it's a weaker archetype of the class being used and not the original base version. At least, that's how it comes across when you look at what abilities are available.

The Magus is so much better than any of these. I honestly hoped that it was the staple that the new classes would live up to, but they failed so badly by comparison.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
northbrb wrote:
I just want to say that just as an example the Brawler class in here would not be achievable with existing classes purely on its unarmed damage and full base attack and d10 hd.

Not really as true as it should be. I have a Brawler (Fighter) 9/Monk 2/Ranger 2 that would kick pretty much any Brawler (Class) 13 I could build to the curb, despite only doing a d8 per hit.

Damage dice is pretty negligible in the long run, and if that's all a class has going for it, it needs some definite work.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Unsubstantiated and unfounded opinions follow:

Arcanist: Holy crap, what?

Bloodrager: Dynamite!

Brawler: Love the toolbox, hate the Combat Expertise tax.

Hunter: Inquisitors of Gozreh, don't you feel silly.

Investigator: They say he always gets his man, but can he solve The Case of the Pointless Rogue?

Shaman: Hexes all seem quite modest compared to the witch's; this is probably a good thing.

Skald: Beautiful. When he rocks, everyone throws up the horns.

Slayer: The Investigator's #1 suspect.

Swashbuckler: Panache is cool, deeds are cool.

Warpriest: You're gonna need a ranger dip to track all those resources.


...When I look at the Warpriest, I can't help but think that pretty much the entire class could be emulated by Cleric Spells. The Blessings are a really nice touch, but I feel like I could also just cast Magic Vestement and Divine Power...


When your entire class can be invalidated by a couple of spells, well... you're a Fighter, really.
And that's a problem.


Brawlers are a godsend. They package up all these disparate parts I've been trying to use to make a certain character.

Bloodragers are really neato.

I don't really get the Arcanist, but then again, I'm not one into full casters.

I like the Skald, but I'm worried about a narrow focus for this class.

The rest are alright by me.


My initial reactions are as follows from the least favorable to most:

1. Brawler & Swashbuckler - why bother? We're playing a game about MAGIC and neither of these classes provide spellcasting options. So why even waste the paper to print these when you can already play a non-spellcasting class from the core book.
2. Bloodrager & Skald - almost as bad as the first category but only because these are based on the Barbarian class. Every Barbarian I've ever come across is nothing more than a min/maxed character. So why bother diluting that core class with spellcasting options.
3. Arcanist & Hunter - I consider these to be the "grey" class options. If you can't choose between being either: Wizard/Sorceror or Ranger/Druid then then these offer a nice blend. But just becoz you mix orange with red and get an orange-red doesn't mean you've actually created anything original (or any good).
4. Investigator & Slayer - rogue variants which I think have good potential. However, the rogue is easily the most customized character class already so am not sure how these will provide new true alternate classes. I also think I see some use of the D20 action point (where you get to add D6 to D20 rolls) which I'm not fond of (but will go into that more another time).
5. Shaman & Warpriest - interesting concepts and worth a read. I like the Warpriest becoz I'm sick of the Cleric as a hand-maiden to the figher classes. And I like the combination of arcane and divine in the Shaman.

As stated before, my initial reactions so I have yet to read the details. So more opinions to come regarding the structure of the classes. In addition, I'll probably create a PFS organized play character this week in the latter two categories and be able to give an actual character playtest after that.


Amber Vadalis wrote:

My initial reactions are as follows from the least favorable to most:

1. Brawler & Swashbuckler - why bother? We're playing a game about MAGIC and neither of these classes provide spellcasting options. So why even waste the paper to print these when you can already play a non-spellcasting class from the core book.
2. Bloodrager & Skald - almost as bad as the first category but only because these are based on the Barbarian class. Every Barbarian I've ever come across is nothing more than a min/maxed character. So why bother diluting that core class with spellcasting options.
3. Arcanist & Hunter - I consider these to be the "grey" class options. If you can't choose between being either: Wizard/Sorceror or Ranger/Druid then then these offer a nice blend. But just becoz you mix orange with red and get an orange-red doesn't mean you've actually created anything original (or any good).
4. Investigator & Slayer - rogue variants which I think have good potential. However, the rogue is easily the most customized character class already so am not sure how these will provide new true alternate classes. I also think I see some use of the D20 action point (where you get to add D6 to D20 rolls) which I'm not fond of (but will go into that more another time).
5. Shaman & Warpriest - interesting concepts and worth a read. I like the Warpriest becoz I'm sick of the Cleric as a hand-maiden to the figher classes. And I like the combination of arcane and divine in the Shaman.

As stated before, my initial reactions so I have yet to read the details. So more opinions to come regarding the structure of the classes. In addition, I'll probably create a PFS organized play character this week in the latter two categories and be able to give an actual character playtest after that.

Being someone who almost never plays a magic based class I am very happy to see some new classes with no magic.


Arcanist: A slightly different Wizard. Loses Arcane School, so I don't think I'll be using it much.

Bloodrager: The new hawtness. The offensive/utility bloodlines seem much, much better that the defensive ones.

Brawler: Meh. Changing feats on the fly seems amazing, but it really isn't.

Hunter: It does the job, but it's probably still less fun than a Summoner. Animal Focus should probably be a Polymorph effect granting an untyped bonus, because it's going to run into stacking issues.

Investigator: The new hawtness for Society play, I suppose. Seems like a decent all-round class.

Shaman: Oracle with switchable powers. I like it. I don't get the fascination with putting pretty sparkles on an enemy.

Skald: A half-baked mess. That's a do-over.

Slayer: Seems like a less-sucky Rogue. I approve, but I don't think I'll ever play this myself.

Swashbuckler: It's about what I expected. You get to fiddle around with swift actions and a pool of points. What's with the Gunslinger prohibition?

Warpriest: No.


Arcanist: I had a DM that basically house ruled this.

Bloodrager: Personally I'm not a fan of rage so I would never play this but one of my fellow players is currently playing a barbarian/oracle. This is an arcane version of that so he'd probably love it. I think a lot of other players will too. There is a 3.5 PrC (Rage Mage) that does something similar.

Brawler: I not a fan of unarmed specialist but I love maneuver specialist so I'm torn on this one.

Hunter: Looks like a druidic version of the inquisitor. I like the inquisitor mechanically but not thematically. Share-able bonus teamwork feats = rock. I don't like druids either but I like familiars/companions and think I will like this class. I lot of other players though are going to be asking why give up druid spell progression for this. I think it needs full BAB like the ranger but I then love full BAB and paizo isn't going to let a class have full BAB and 6th level spells, can't say I blame them.

Investigator: I can't bring myself to look closely enough at this class to have much of opinion will probably obsolesce the rogue though.

Shaman: Not a fan of the witch those who are will probably like this class though.

Skald: Rage + bard song, as I said not a fan of rage. Also whats with this name, sounds like an outsider.

Slayer: Meh, never liked favored enemies. I'd rather have the rogue's sneak attack progression (and skill points) and apply more damage to all enemies.

Swashbuckler: I only recently looked at the gunslinger and I like the grit mechanic. When I heard fighter + gunslinger I thought it would be a class that fought equally with bullets and blades but this is better. I often play finesse crit builds so I think I will like this one. Shame its limited to piercing weapons. Crit ranges are better so restoring points should be easier. Opportune parry: the after attack is announced but before roll is made is problematic in our games as they are always done simultaneously. Precise strike: limit on TWF is a shame (good thing you can multiclass with rogue) and the inability use a shield with it seems strange since they are proficient with the buckler so what are you supposed to do with your other hand?. Targeted strike = trip or disarm = awesome. Probably doesn't need the restriction on gunslinger. Overall probably my fav. of the new classes.

Warpriest: The divine magus. I love the magus and never liked playing the cleric though I want to. I was hoping this class would solve that for me. Sadly I can't see much reason to pick this over inquisitor. Needs full BAB IMHO. I'd almost be willing to take an even lower spell progression for it like, 4th level max. Just start me out with something unlike the paladin and ranger. That won't happen though.

Will have to play test some of these in our group to see how hey really shake out. Also I can't wait to see the archetypes for some of these classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For me it's almost fifty-fifty. I really like 6 of the news classes but for the oters... It seems to me like a lost cause...

Arcanist: Yeah, no roleplay, just mechanism that allows arcane spellcaster to be more effective... Like they need it, not for me.

Skald: No synergy, they don't have the good weapon proficiency, and a arcane duelist will always be better. (Skald was a bard in the viking culture who told myth and saga)

Warpriest: Yes, I'll play the archetype battle crusader. Thanks.

Hunter: Never seen something so lame in Pathfinder. Go Druid, Ranger or Summoner, thanks.

For the classes I like:

Brawler: Monk is my favorite class so I really like the idea to have a non-mystic class that relies on punches and kicks.

Swashbuclker: FINALLY! We can play a gentleman with a rapier. The class works for me, it just needs a few up.

Bloodrager: Yes, works again! A good roleplay savor, and it seems really fun to play without be overpowered.

Slayer & Investigator: I really really like theses classes. The had the good idea to break the rogue apart and make two classs that are focusing on one aspect of the rogue: skill monkey & murder things.
(But goodbye rogue...)

Shaman: My favorite one. Really like the concept, the gameplay, the choice... Yeah, favorite one :D


Sorry to be Blunt, if that would be a problem to some:

Arcanist: A wizard with a limited bloodline feature, it doesn't get regular uses for some of them, doesn't get the 20th power if a sorcerer regularly does and basically doesn't get any stronger by levelling up. I'm sorry, but why not make a sorcerer archetype that replace its normal spellcasting by a wizard's one?

IMO, give the arcanist more power over the chosen bloodline without limitation, like being able to use a bloodline power more times than usual, grant the permanent powers and increase evenly the bonus granted by the blood focus, like "This adds 1 per 4 levels to the spell’s caster level and DC".

Bloodrager: Hmmm... I don't see anything wrong with it... except maybe that the spells seem kinda overshadowed by the rest. How about increasing the spells per day by 2 for each level?

Brawler: Pretty good, but I think you just need to add a list of available feats here.

Hunter: Hmmm... one would think that a Hunter would get a Favored Terrain and/or a Favored Enemy. Also, I feel like the Animal Focus doesn't really compensate the loss of 7th, 8th and 9th level spells. You might want to just take the druid and replace some of its features without touching the spell list.

Investigator: FINALLY a good detective class! Nicely done... although, just have the standard Sneak Attack progression, like getting it at 2nd level instead of 4th. Also, will the book come with new spells? Because I'm pretty sure you could have some cool ones to identify blood samples and such, like a real forensic expert ^_^

Shaman: I actually liked the Spirit Shaman back in 3.5. So far, so good ^_^

Skald: Pretty good for a savage bard. However, no alignment restriction? Kinda odd for a mix of classes that normally have one with that. How about "any nonlawful"?

Slayer: Hmmm... not too sure about that one... First, you listed Sneak attack twice XD. Second, how about a talent, or regular feature for the sneak attack, that would make it deal double damage to its favored target? 6d6 looks pretty weak IMO.

Swashbuckler: I see a bunch of problems:
1- "Alternate Classes: Fighter and gunslinger"... why Gunslinger if NOTHING is related to firearms? This class just screams "pirate", and most pirates carry firearms. I don't care how much people hate firearms in PF, make it part of the class, not to mention that you could open a LOT of options for dual-wielding a rapier and pistol. Dude, make it usable with a hand crossbow if you must avoid firearms hate.

2- The book's gonna have new weapons... right? Because I have yet to see the bastard sword version of a deadly Piercing weapon. No seriously, aside from the rapier and trident, it's kinda of a letdown when it comes to weapon selection. Here's a idea:
* Take the Nodachi from Ultimate Combat.
* Make it an Exotic One-Handed weapon, from being a Martial Two-Handed weapon
* Make it deal Bludgeoning and Piercing damage, instead of Slashing and Piercing
* Rename it an Estoc

NOW I have a decent tool to fight with.

3- I'd swap the costs for Stunning Stab and Deadly Stab. I mean, stunning is less dangerous than outright killing, so...

4- I had this problem with the Gunslinger as well. How about increasing the Panache point pool by 1 per 4 levels instead of fixing it to JUST the Charisma modifier?

Warpriest: I'd ditch Channel Energy in exchange of all 9 spell levels IMO.

That's pretty much what I had to say about the classes. Hope that helps.


JiCi wrote:

Sorry to be Blunt, if that would be a problem to some:

Arcanist: A wizard with a limited bloodline feature, it doesn't get regular uses for some of them, doesn't get the 20th power if a sorcerer regularly does and basically doesn't get any stronger by levelling up. I'm sorry, but why not make a sorcerer archetype that replace its normal spellcasting by a wizard's one?

IMO, give the arcanist more power over the chosen bloodline without limitation, like being able to use a bloodline power more times than usual, grant the permanent powers and increase evenly the bonus granted by the blood focus, like "This adds 1 per 4 levels to the spell’s caster level and DC".

The Arcanist's spell-casting-method might bring it to about even strength wise, but it is very dull. DC already scales with level, I don't think you need to make something that scales crazily with level like that.

Quote:
Bloodrager: Hmmm... I don't see anything wrong with it... except maybe that the spells seem kinda overshadowed by the rest. How about increasing the spells per day by 2 for each level?

They'll rarely-if-ever use spells in combat. For out of combat utility, I think their spells-per-day is reasonable.

Quote:
Brawler: Pretty good, but I think you just need to add a list of available feats here.

I agree that it should just be combat feats. Too much debate elsewise.

Quote:
Hunter: Hmmm... one would think that a Hunter would get a Favored Terrain and/or a Favored Enemy. Also, I feel like the Animal Focus doesn't really compensate the loss of 7th, 8th and 9th level spells. You might want to just take the druid and replace some of its features without touching the spell list.

I agree that this does nothing special. Personally I'm happy to drop favoured terrain/enemy, it always felt weird and it sucked hard when you spent half a module without it being relevant. The class just doesn't do anything new/interesting. Animal Aspect should be expanded upon.

Quote:
Investigator: FINALLY a good detective class! Nicely done... although, just have the standard Sneak Attack progression, like getting it at 2nd level instead of 4th. Also, will the book come with new spells? Because I'm pretty sure you could have some cool ones to identify blood samples and such, like a real forensic expert ^_^

Really see no justification to increase sneak attack progression. They seem fine as-is.

Quote:
Shaman: I actually liked the Spirit Shaman back in 3.5. So far, so good ^_^

Shaman good. People happy.

Quote:
Skald: Pretty good for a savage bard. However, no alignment restriction? Kinda odd for a mix of classes that normally have one with that. How about "any nonlawful"?

Bleh, alignment restrictions suck. I, and every GM I've had in the last years, ignore them entirely as long as the character makes sense thematically. I'm glad Paizo is moving away from them.

Quote:
Slayer: Hmmm... not too sure about that one... First, you listed Sneak attack twice XD. Second, how about a talent, or...

No interest in Slayer conceptually, don't wish to pollute it's discussion with my comments.


Arcanist: Boring. Powerful, but boring. The bloodline might as well not exist, getting fatigued when you run out of focus is weird, and the whole thing feels more like a experiment with a revamped casting system than a unique class.

Bloodrager: I've warmed a lot to the idea. Needs serious balancing of bloodline powers, and too many spell lists have save-or-sucks long after they have expired (level 13 Deep Slumber?). Well built Barbarians will still have a place, but these barely-MAD cousins are going to steal a lot of the spotlight.

Brawler: No strong opinion. Doesn't seem to be much reason not to armor up, and the capstone needs to be switched. Knocking foes out of Full Attack range wasn't particularly "awesome" on the Brother of the Seal either, and they at least got it earlier with lots of bonuses.

Hunter: Inquisitor reskin, but weaker. Half the abilities are left off and there are no unique/early access spells. Animal Aspect's stat bonuses don't stack with most buffs and items (unlike Judgment combat boosts), and the skill bonuses are too small and short for significant use. Plus, non-thematic armor and shield restrictions. Probably needs the most work of any class.

Investigator: Cool, they fixed Rogues!

Shaman: Versatile and interesting, a strong contender for many if not most "Cleric" type characters. Like the Bloodrager, the spirits need balancing. The power ranges from huge utility and witch-level offensive hexes, to weak 1/day/enemy debuffs, to the Flame spirit. Some of the Familiar abilities are weird, not sure if I want a pokemon-familiar hanging around.

Skald: I was hoping for more martial skill, but got a song many classes won't want to benefit from and an expensive non-combat schrodinger casting ability instead. Could be very powerful in certain parties and a great enemy cast, but my Bardbarians will likely stay Bard/Barbarians. This could easily have been an archetype.

Slayer: Vanilla. Murdery vanilla, but could have been built with existing pieces.

Swashbuckler: Also made from existing pieces, but puts them together much better than one could otherwise. Fills a niche people have wanted for a long time.

Warpriest: I'm tempted to say "There is already a Cleric/Fighter, and it is the Cleric," but I know people have wanted a combat-oriented holy-type that is not a Paladin. This one doesn't do it for me, but I can't really point out the specific reasons why.


Glutton wrote:

I gotta echo Magnuskn. Bloodrager seems a bit too strong.

And I'd change the score on skald to 2/5. Just a bard with a different song. Not enough barbarian in the hybrid. Kill spells, jack bab to at level, make some fun new songs.

The Blood Rager actually seems just a bit weaker than a Ranger or Paladin to me.


After initial skimming:

Arcanist: No fluff, just a "better wiz". Also, thought the class should get to choose which casting stat it would use (Int or Cha), being both wiz and sorc. Even with that still missing something. Steps on both base classes toes to much with out eithers normal drawbacks for the most part.

Bloodrager: So far so good. Looking forward to Bloodrager/DD for mass dragon style fights! (Yes see Natsu from Fairy Tails)

Brawler: Sounds fun, will see.

Hunter: In some settings might be nice, but not really sure. Right now in a PFed version of Ptolus, animal compainions have issues there.

Investigator: Why no bombs?? Really why no bombs? Otherwise sounds neat!

Shaman: Sounds intersting. Will have to try it and see.

Skald: Only one song, still 3/4th BAB and 8HD, and basically same weapon selection? WTF if it is to be raging battle bard common!

Slayer: Will play one as is. Miss combat style feats though.

Swashbuckler: No dex to damage mechanic, odd? Otherwise, sounds like the rapier will be valid once more!

Warpriest: At first liked it, but more I think about it the blessings seem week and limited use (Heal domain and the summons not included they seem really good) and channel seems super weak. But with out HD or full BAB to really make up for loss of 7th lvl+ spells to really justify it to me.

Will playtest them further to see if opinions change.


Arcanist: when there is a class made that can be more powerful than the wizard there are problems

Bloodrager: I like it but the spell list sucks due to the level it gains access to spell and the choices that they have from the magus list. I could see the spell list as more useful if it was based off con instead of charisma. then again it overshadows the Barbarian

Brawler: for how it scales the AC bonus is irrelevant. The feat mechanic is nice but that is a lot of feats over the course of 20 levels.

Hunter: Utter disappointment and weaker than the classes it was made from.

Investigator:THE ROUGE IS DEAD, LONG LIVE THE ROUGE!!

Shaman: not too bad at all

Skald: Its song is useless all but the most martial of party compositions. If the party could ignore the drawbacks of rage that would make it dramatically better and actually usable.

:Slayer: It needs more damage or a mechanic to more easily trigger sneak attack, otherwise an Inquisitor is better at dealing damage an that buggs me out of principle. The slayer is a meat grinder and it needs to be able to do that better than any other class.

Swashbuckler:I like it but I think its class features need to be reworked. They are underwhelming past level 7. It also needs to get evasion,uncanny dodge, and improved uncanny dodge before lvl 11. IF REFLEX IS ITS ONLY GOOD SAVE!

Warpriest: could definately use spell combat to do what it wants to better, but then all it would be after that is a divine Magus.

Silver Crusade

Kaisos Erranon wrote:

Here's my opinion: The whole concept of Hybrid Classes is inherently unworkable, can we get a do-over?

Maybe try again with around six more focused, unique classes like in the APG? The Swashbuckler, Investigator and Bloodrager all seem salvageable, could start there.

I disagree with the investigator. I think an alchemist/rogue multiclasser would do everything it does but better with more options.

I also like the Shaman and hunter classes and think if they were retooled a bit they would make strong additions.
Outside of that I am pretty underwhelmed with the majority of it and feel that most everything can be done better with a careful character build using existing material...sort of like slayer but thematically more than mechanically.

Liberty's Edge

Amber Vadalis wrote:
3. Arcanist & Hunter - I consider these to be the "grey" class options. If you can't choose between being either: Wizard/Sorceror or Ranger/Druid then then these offer a nice blend. But just becoz you mix orange with red and get an orange-red doesn't mean you've actually created anything original (or any good).

I agree with a lot of this sentiment, specifically for the Hunter (which is the class that I'm most likely to play, and I am VERY likely to play it). My problem is the re-use of Track, Wild Empathy, and especially Woodland Stride.

For a character like this, Woodland Stride at level 5 (when you're really only gaining 1 spell of 1st and 2nd level/day) is really like a dead level. Woodland stride is... very, very underwhelming. It's OK for a solo lone-wolf nature type, but in actual gameplay unless you have a whole party that has it, it's a trivial benefit at best. To me, it's something that should come as an "Oh, by the way" at 1st level (This observation applies to Rangers as well, honestly, for whom it is almost inexplicably a 7th level benefit). 95% of the time, it's a flavor only thing.

This is an opportunity for you guys to really flex your muscles and come up with some new stuff that ONLY a hunter would have. It just feels lazy (please don't misinterpret, I know you guys are not lazy and this is a playtest) to just recycle this mostly pointless class feature into a new class. Something cooler is in order.

All that said, I'm going to actively playtest this class, and will provide feedback after doing so.


Arcanist- This one lacks but is still an interesting idea mechanic wise. 3/5

Bloodrager- I am not a fan of rage, I would have loved a class that totally focuses on bloodline powers with little or no spellcasting but not like this. 2/5

Brawler- I really like this one, it fills a needed niche. 5/5

Hunter- I like the idea but needs something like a fighter attack bonus, magical beast companions, etc. 4/5

Investigator- I like this one but might need some tweeking. 4/5

Shaman- I like idea but it really needs it's own spell list. 3/5

Skald- Like I said I don't like rage and even worse it inspires rage. 2/5

Slayer- I don't like assassin classes, it's alignment should be any non-good and why does it have a fighter's attack bonus. 1/5

Swashbuckler- I really like this one, it was a needed niche. 5/5

Warpriest- I like the domain abilities but lacks otherwise. I was hoping for a fighter attack bonus with this one. 3/5


Lord Snow wrote:

SHAMAN: Not half bad, and I like the concept. I don't understand why it casts spells from the cleric spell list instead of the oracle spell list.

SLAYER: seeing as how they can choose to spend slayer talents to get extra feats, I don't see how slayers are anything except an improved version of fighters. Since that negates fighters...

Just to directly answer these two,

There is no Oracle Spell List, Oracles use the Cleric list

The Combat Trick talent can only be taken once, plus finesse slayer once and weapon training once. They can't take feats for all of their talents.


Hmm, my opinions so far are mostly on a couple reads.

Arcanist: Fascinating way to balance out the Wizard/Sorcerer mix. The Blood Focus has a couple hazy issues with a few Sorcerer bloodlines (Arcana in particular), and I know a few who don't like losing as many spells prepared as a wizard.

Bloodrager: Very interesting how it's done there. Potentially a really fun hybrid to play with. Evaluating bloodlines requires its own thread.

Brawler: Yeah, I wanted a class like this. Seriously, I did. I've been wracking my brain on how to make an effective non-monk bare handed fighter for some time. The ability to spoof a few feats is actually something I hadn't quite considered at the time.

Hunter: Primal Inquisitor action, folks. More geared for tracking than battle, which does necessitate the need for the companion.

Investigator: Probably the best class in this material, all stop. I can play Sherlock Holmes, MacGyver, and/or James Bond in a single class. Granted, Mutagen will probably be the first talent picked up, but many of the talents do a lot of non-combat goodness. The odd addition of weapon proficiency in sword cane makes me really interested in playing the gentleman detective. Probably could have given it the Slayer's Sneak Attack progression instead of what it got. I am so going to enjoy this one.

Shaman: Reminds me a bit of the Spirit Shaman from 3.5, but improved dramatically. The Familiar stuff adds a bit more flavor than I expected. Might be worth a shot at it.

Skald: I want to like it. Really, I do. My Germanic heritage and background in music beg me to like this, but you absolutely have to grind to 20 for it to feel worth it. So I'm sorry, but it's no good.

Slayer: If I'm reading this right, it has Sneak Attack that may be immune to standard SA immunities. I'm getting another 3.5 vibe from Complete Scoundrel, where a feat made a Scout/Ranger practically an ultimate killing machine. Still, wouldn't mind a couple more Sneak Attack dice in this equation. But I may end up having one of my guys in a RotR game try that, since he really wants to make an assassin type.

Swashbuckler: When I heard Fighter/Gunslinger, I thought it would be overly redundant on the weapon proficiencies. This just gives me the Swashbuckler that 3.5 wished it could have built. Other than needing maybe whip proficiency, I've got Zorro on a stick here. Zorro! I am much pleased by this. Even got theme music lined up for it.

Warpriest: Umm, why am I not playing a Cleric? Blessings are an interesting take on Domains, and I might see those being used by Inquisitors. Liberation Blessing in particular sounds fairly beastly, cause freedom of movement for the party for a round isn't too shabby.


I've just skimmed through it and haven't read them all, but my brief thoughts are thus:
Arcanist: Cool! This is how I think all the spellcasters should work.
Brawler: Also cool! I think there's a lot of design space for unarmed combatants, so it's good to see more options.
Swashbuckler: This class is fantastic! Definitely my favourite of them.
Bloodrager: I don't get it, so much.
Hunter: This seems only nominally different from a ranger. So I'm not entirely sure it needs its own space like this. It's sort of like if we stripped all the animal companion stuff out of druid and ranger and stuffed it together.
Shaman: This looks pretty interesting. I think it could be fun.


Arcanist: I really like this as a GM, making arcane enemies easier to run but still able to adapt, and I know a player that will be excited. I feel like the flavor is "what you expect wizards to work like" and if you don't expect wizards to work like this, it doesn't click at all.

I'd rather it pulled back from using the bloodlines, getting its own "special thing to pick" or even just basing it on schools.

Bloodrager: METAL! Ahem, sorry. This seems really cool and really hits a good flavor spot for me, which is really funny considering I would never have considered making this on my own.

Brawler: I loathe floating feats, but I really like the non-mystical monk replacement, so I'm torn. Might just not be for me.

Hunter: I shy away from pet classes at my table, so this probably won't get a lot of use. Seems like a neat approach, though.

Investigator: This is great. The whole is definitely more than the sum of its parts and inspiration is very cool.

Shaman: Another one that'll be cool for GMing, which I didn't think about until one of the actual playtest threads. The mechanics of spirits and hexes also interplay really interestingly.

Skald: I actually think this might be less complicated than a normal bard... which is awesome. I'm really glad to see less complicated options in a book like this.

Slayer: This is a kind of worksman class. He's a slayer. He kills things. Not too many frills, which I actually consider a huge plus. This might actually be the sort of new player option I've been looking for.

Swashbuckler: Looks like fun, although a bit fiddly for my tastes. The Panache options are just sort of overwhelming. I feel like offloading some of them into build choices would help a lot.

I have a player that will love this, but very much not love waiting until 2nd level for Finesse. Finesse isn't sexy, but it's definitely the cornerstone of the archetype and is needed right away.

Warpriest: Paladins for all! I like the idea behind the blessings a lot, especially how they're tied to domains. That said, it feels a bit too much like a multiclass now, so buffing the blessings and taking out other bits would probably be good.

Overall: Pretty awesome. I wouldn't play every class here, but the same applies to all class lists. I have some reservations, but think everything's headed in a good direction overall.

Cheers!
Landon

Liberty's Edge

*What Follows are Opinions only*
Arcanist - An interesting spell progression. I think I would have allowed bloodline points to into bloodline or school, but I am admittedly biased towards wizards. As is though, I think you have effectively eclipsed the sorcerer as a play class. Ammo+flex>Ammo

Blood Rager - This is an excellent idea, but it creates a few dangerous precedents. First, attaching it to another spell-casting spell list with level caps feels lazy... just write it down. Second, Place an alignment restriction on this class please, a dip into paladin creates a truly frightening combination that was never meant to exist.

Brawler - A surprisingly efficient martial class... a little predictable perhaps, but I will be interested to test it out. The knockout ability is frankly terrifying since its based on their damage stat (see assassinate/knockout blow or quivering palm for other similar abilities)but awesome blow is ferociously weak compared to almost every other ability in the class. I think you need a better capstone or take of the size restriction.

Hunter - I cannot express my seething hatred for this class. Not only was it done 5 ways from Sunday in the the animal companion book, but the ranger is already a fighter/Druid hybrid. There is no need to combine these two together and then center it around the animal making another boring pet class. I cannot wait to look at the playtest and see how many Dino Hunters we get. Why not scrap this and create a monk/druid hybrid centered around wild shape? it would remove some of the clunkieness from the druid and create a neat super/martial class option. If I am harder on this its because druids are my favorite class and already struggle competing with Cleric/caveliers/rangers/summoners on a variety of levels and this just seemed like more of the same.

Investigator - Seems interesting, but a few points.
1. Inspiration - adding a d6 to a take 10 or take 20 is nearly impossible to do before results are announced. Also unlimited use on Knowledges, linguistics and spellcraft seem a better fit to a wizard. I can't imagine what makes them infinitely inspired about book learning.
2. Poison Use - Why? most of this class is very holmes-ish when looking at alchemist abilities, I am curious why poison use stood out as a signature ability for them to share. It seems counter intuitive.
3. Investigator Talent: Amazing Inspiration (I see the mythic comparison now). Device Talent, Expanded Inspiration, Intelligence Inspiration, Underworld Inspiration (Again... free skill success)
Overall - the skill system in pathfinder is already a little waning, but having a character who has the skill points to dabble in everything and a number of class ability built around never failing is just kind of boring. A and endless pool resource is redundant and the message sent is just spend for killing and knowing everything is free. Still one of the better classes in the play test despite all this.

Shaman - I actually liked this class alot. Some of the hexes werent hexes they were revelations (See Battle Master) but other wise it had flavor, interest, flexibility. If I know someone who is even breathing in the direction of a huanted oracle I am sending them here... otherwise just an excellent all together concept, with good space dedicated to creating a good selection of spirit options. I also think that this is a class that other developers will build on readily.

Skald - I like the idea, but its a bard Archetype already. I agree that spell keening seems overly punitive. And the rage song is really a martial party concept. That being said, I could see this in a low magic game easily.

Slayer - Between the Slayer, the investigator and the Ninja... Im not really sure anyone will ever play a rogue again. Ever. Honestly, Full BAB, Half Favored Enemy, Half Sneak Attack, and Improved Quarry... its kinda terrifying. The only thing that made me giggle was the talent list where you specified that asterisk entries affect sneak attack and cannot be combined... but there is only one marked with an asterisk...why??

Swashbuckler - Now I am not sure that a dex based melee fighter needed its own class, but what a way to do it. I am actually kind of excited about this one. I think you would have to play it a bit over the top, but Sooo worth it. That being said, there are a lot of questions about action economy that will only be answered after a few plays.

War Priest - I think that Fighter/Cleric is a mis label here. Its much closer to Cleric/Paladin. A very Utility oriented Paladin but still no skill points. (Sorry divine spell casters, now shut up and go back to being too absorbed in prayer to learn to do anything practical). All things being equal its a decent blend of the two and one I would consider in a party that was lacking divine support and martial prowess.

Note**
These reviews reflect the opinions of their author and should not be taken as words from on high. If you would like the on high version of this review please message me with your cc info and you can acquire it for the low low price of 19.95


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Flyer777 wrote:
War Priest - I think that Fighter/Cleric is a mis label here. Its much closer to Cleric/Paladin. A very Utility oriented Paladin but still no skill points. (Sorry divine spell casters, now shut up and go back to being too absorbed in prayer to learn to do anything practical). All things being equal its a decent blend of the two and one I would consider in a party that was lacking divine support and martial prowess.

<Inquisitor sneaks up from behind and slaps you over the head>

"Not learn anything practical, pfft. Here, have a beer, pray to Cayden".

Liberty's Edge

Well Said Magnuskn... I retract my statement that all divine casters are skilless devotees. The ones who hang out with heretics are quite well versed.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The sad thing is that the Inquisitor is better in about every regard to the Warpriest. I honestly don't see the point of designing a new class which is vastly inferior to and occupies the same purpose as a class you designed and published before.


I have not had time to look over all of the new classes, and jumped right to the ones I'm conceptually interested in....

Arcanist: I like the basic direction it's going...but it felt a little...unfinished.
It does a good job of representing something in between a Wizard and a Sorcerer...but seems lacking in something that truly makes it stand apart as it's own class. Maybe some more options on it's blood pool ability to give it some unique character of it's own ?

Investigator: I liked what I see so far...and this is a concept I have been trying to do with other class combinations. I need to play around with it a bit and see what I actually end up with when designing a character.

Shaman: I was a bit disappointed in the inclusion of a familiar, but then I don't like familiars, and always try to find a way to substitute them in Witch or Wizard builds....other than that, I like the direction it's going, and felt it was conceptually the strongest so far.


I would rather have the Arcanist choose between Study, in which it uses Arcane Schools & Arcane Bond, or Innate, which uses the Bloodline System.

Lantern Lodge

My initial thoughts:

Arcanist - A simple mix of Sorcerer and Wizard - really, more of a retool of the spellcasting mechanic. It makes the PC more flexible, at the cost of the cooler class 'powers'. It seems OK...but a little weak on the 'flavor'.

Blood Rager - Seems pretty cool. Cooler than I was expecting, even.

Brawler - I really like this one. However, I would pull back the versatility to gain new feats back to a move action or quicker - a standard action for such a short-term ability is too costly of an action.

Hunter - It seemed like a cool idea when I read the blurb...but the class itself seems a bit underwhelming. I'd make the polymorph 'effect' untyped...or at least not an enhancement bonus. Also, if the idea is to make you better at fighting alongside your animal companion...you could give the bonuses also to the companion. Also, perhaps give the animal a FEW bonus feats/combat feats...or perhaps even allow him to select from ANY combat feats (not just the ones in the PHB druid list), without having to have a 3+ Int. This one definitely needs some work to make it interesting.

Investigator - I like this one. I might suggest making the sneak attack progression +1d6 at 2nd, 5th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 17th, 20th. Give him a little bit more of a combat contribution earlier on, but he still doesn't overshadow the rogue (he'll be down 3 dice by 20th vs the rogue).

Shaman - This one is probably my favorite of the classes - a lot of neat options. Plus, a lot more hexes to pick from (more attack hexes). Obviously, a lot of the hexes act like revelations...but that's OK.

Skald - My least favorite of the classes. It's just too specialized. Too many characters would NOT want to be raging. It works as a specialized bard OK. He seems pretty weak, otherwise. You might consider giving him full BAB.

Slayer - OK...if somewhat boring.

Swashbuckler - This was a good one. I always felt it didn't work well as a P-class.

War Priest - This one was OK. I've seen some commentary that the war priest is better. I disagree. Although you get slower access to higher level spells than a normal cleric, you still have full caster progression. I'd probably get rid of channeling, though...

I'll mull over the classes some more and post some additional thoughts on the class-specific lists at a later date.


Ummm...the Warpriest only has 6 levels of casting.

Lantern Lodge

Rynjin wrote:
Ummm...the Warpriest only has 6 levels of casting.

...OOPS! That didn't make much sense, did it? "The war priest is better than the war priest." <shaking head>

I was actually trying to compare the war priest to the crusader cleric archetype...but even going back to that, it's still comparable. Hm. I'll have to revise that assessment.

Liberty's Edge

Arcanist - Lame. It's an alternate spellcasting system not a class. Like Words of Power. Just give us the system and let us swap it for other spellcasting classes.

Blood Rager - Some interesting stuff in this class but feels like standard multiclassing could have handled it with the addition of an option letting barbarians cast spells while raging.

Brawler - I see the need for a non-magical monk but wonder if that could have been an archetype

Hunter - Lame. This is a ranger alternate class, if not an archetype.

Investigator - Not sure this class couldn't be replicated by standard multiclassing. I like it, but that's personal affection for the trope and less a reflection of the class.

Shaman - I like the idea of a class heavily tied to the spirit world with a spirit familiar. But the oracle and witch flavour and mechanics seem to get in the way. This might work better when not being forced into the "hybrid" box.

Skald - Problematic. It induces rage but then can't cast spells or do much else in combat. Benefits of this class depend on the group.

Slayer - Dislike. Damage dealer is a character build not a class concept. And high DPR builds can already end encounters quickly, we don't need to up the bar.

Swashbuckler - I can see this being needed. Might need some work but there's some good stuff.

War Priest - With paladins being limited to LG this class does serve a purpose. It works I guess.

All in all the classes really look like they're being made just to make new classes. They came up with the idea of the book and the idea of hybrid classes and these are just the least bad classes. Most don't exist because there was a huge gap and the table but instead because there was a huge gap in the book.

1 to 50 of 64 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Advanced Class Guide Playtest / General Discussion / Short opinions on each of the new classes All Messageboards