Has it already begun? Already, I see people throwing in bids for this or that from ACG when someone asks how to build a ranger, Oracle, sorcerer. I know people say these options are to further reduce multiclassing but I see a lot of unsolicited "be a x from ACG instead of y from older material". What gives? What are the implications going forward?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think a lot of people are just excited about having something new to play with.
I know I was keen as anything to run a Bloodrager in Iron Gods when it comes up, but since then I've also been going back to the older classes and thinking "oh, I could play a gunslinger. Or an alchemist. or this new Spellscar archetype for cavaliers, they look pretty boss". Most of my players aren't all that interested in the new classes either, so here at least it doesn't seem to be that big of a thing.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Slayer might marginalize the Rogue, but Rogues have been marginalised for a long time.
The Warpriest is an option for a more combat focused Cleric, but their casting can't really compare. Combat focused Clerics will still exist, and will still be better casters than Warpriests. It's not a bad thing to have this spectrum of choice from very casty to very fighty with significant middle-ground.
I have no idea how the Arcanist will pan out. They seem quite a bit too good, though they obviously still have downsides. People will still play Wizards and Sorcerers despite their existance.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
Another is that multiclassing has always been a poor option from the start of 3.0 onwards.
Categorically false. 3.0 (and still in 3.5) had several classes that had no/practically no class abilities. There was no downside to multiclassing.
Why play a 3.X Fighter instead of a Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin, Duskblade, etc unless you need the extra feats, then just dip?
Why stay single class Sorcerer when a large number of PrC advanced spellcasting, but also provided class features?
That is probably the biggest positive change I see in PF from the 3.X, is that all classes have class features making a single class character much more interesting to play.
For the OP, I think a lot of it is the "ooooh, bright, new, shiny" syndrome.
For the most part, I agree. There are a few that do a certain type of X class far better than before, but that's only good if you were trying to play that type of X to begin with. War priests are awesome combat clerics. So if you want to be a combat cleric, then be a war priest... but of course you have to be willing to give up the benefits of being a cleric in the non-combat situations.
Or you have things like blood rager that can do something no one else can do (cast while raging) and want to utilize that capability to the fullest. Or you want an even better animal companion having ranger type and are fine losing a bunch of the woodsman features in order to have a better companion.
It is all about focus. You'll see a number of standard builds for various base classes be supplanted by these new classes for the above reasons, but they won't (can't) cover all the same spread of options as the current classes do. Arcanist is awesome for a very specific type of wizard and sucks at many other types of wizards.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I personally have been waiting for a base swashbuckler class for some time! Previously, I would have to split rogue and fighter then perhaps move into duelist to get anything close. Now, the base class fits the concept perfectly!
Just watch out for incorporeal undead. The class is basically useless against them (immune to bleed, immune to precision damage, half damage from magical weapons, can't crit). I had a swashbuckler in my game that would do 1d4+12+14 damage on a hit, 2d4+24+14 on a crit (which was often). Then he fought a banshee and would do (1d4+12)/2 damage. It went poorly for the party.
Otherwise the class is down right violently scary.
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
Has it already begun? Already, I see people throwing in bids for this or that from ACG when someone asks how to build a ranger, Oracle, sorcerer. I know people say these options are to further reduce multiclassing but I see a lot of unsolicited "be a x from ACG instead of y from older material". What gives? What are the implications going forward?
It isnt that the older classes are being marginalized (except the rogue, who, lets face it already was). Its that people generally know what to expect and what to do with the existing classes. They have been around for years at this point. They for many that space has been reasonably well explored. I know what concepts I can execute well from the existing classes. Most experienced players know what they do well.
But usually when someone comes to the boards looking for advice, they are looking for something that the existing classes/options dont fit easily or well. They dont come in saying, 'hey i want to be a really sneak, charismatic, katana weilding guy who has a sort of monkish feel. What should I play?'
They come with concepts or goals that are NOT easily filled by the existing classes. Many of the ACG classes do that. "I want to play a rogue type character that is more competant in combat". This is a REALLY common ask. Before the slayer, this is fairly tough to execute. It can be done, but its hard. Now the answer is, 'Play a slayer, it is designed to do that.' Thats what new base classes bring you. The easy answer to concepts that fit neatly within them.
For me, the blood rager, brawler, hunter, investigator, swashbuckler, slayer, skald and warpriest all fit into concepts, that while workable before, are much more neatly fit by these classes. If someone says they want to be the dashing fencer who swings in on a rope and fights with a rapier, I'm going to tell them to be a swashbuckler. Not because it has replaced the fighter, but because its MUCH easier to make this specific concept work with a base class that was intended from the start to fit that concept.
I dont for instance think a swashbuckler outperforms a paladin in combat, or in general power. It hasnt replaced the paladin, or even the fighter, it just fits in a space that neither of those classes (nor the poor rogue) fit very well on their own.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
no
well, except for the rogue
by multiclassing, the poster meant doing something like a fighter-rogue for 12 levels.
Dipping a level or two of fighter for a feat was a thing. Generally, dipping is something you do to gain pre-reqs, NOT to enjoy the benefits of the class.
And yes, 3E+ has made multi-classing a very poor choice. There is no synergy and benefit at all to being a fighter-rogue, mage-priest, or druid-ranger. You're effectively less then the sum of your parts, compared to a single classer.
3E got around this with prestige classes.
PF wants you to stay one class, and introduces archetypes, and now these new classes.
===Aelryinth
Has it already begun? Already, I see people throwing in bids for this or that from ACG when someone asks how to build a ranger, Oracle, sorcerer. I know people say these options are to further reduce multiclassing but I see a lot of unsolicited "be a x from ACG instead of y from older material". What gives? What are the implications going forward?
The only reason why I think someone might say be an X instead of Y is that it would fit your concept better. I should hope someone would tell me to play a Ranger if I told them I wanted to be a wilderness survivalist that worshiped nature and had a particular enmity towards Dragons.
Ranger honestly is still in a very good spot considering how lackluster the Hunter was from the playtest. Slayer doesn't touch it easily since the Ranger has so much more utility.
I don't see why someone wouldn't play an Oracle or Sorcerer based on the ACG classes either.
Rogues on the other hand, well I hope they finally include some good options in the ACG for them.
It might. Although the APG classes might not outclass the Core ones, I actually prefer the APG classes over the Core ones, at least flavor wise. So I expect the same response for ACG classes as well.
Core classes are the standard iconic classes that everyone knows. They are familiar, which can be equated to boring, because the concepts are so well exercised by fiction across the board. Video games, books, board games, and other table top adventures in any number of systems.
Base classes (APG) are interesting because they are newer concepts that aren't exactly iconic, so they feel new and that the can provide fresh life to the story. This is doubly so for veteran players. And then there are the few missing-from-fantasy iconic ideas, such as the Gunslinger and the Alchemist (mad bomber or Dr. Jekyll) that open players up to new classic stories they want act upon.
ACG are even less common concepts for the most part, though I suspect the Swashbuckler will be the primary one to fall into the "new classics" because of the popularity and the general difficulty of representing it with previous classes. Investigator is also an iconic concept but it will see less use because it is not designed to be, or meant to be, a combat-focused character (which runs counter to the general rule that Pathfinder is a game best structured for deeply simulating combat).
So the Advanced Classes will provide people who told certain stories with less-than-optimal combinations of Core and Base classes to tell the stories a bit more easily, but they are rarely new stories. So we'll see a solid use of those classes, but not the kind of explosion of use that the Base classes provided.
We'll also see a great jump in usage of the Advanced Classes at first and probably won't see a sustained level until next August once people have hammered out all the possible considerations and optimal builds and the "new shiny!" wears off. So don't read too much into the initial popularity either.
|
Oh, I think the Investigator might end up seeing a LOT of use, but in urban campaigns where intrigue and information play a bigger role, rather than in dungeoncrawling campaigns that focus on raw killing power. I think it's a godsend for people who wanted to play a detective rogue but were disappointing that so many other classes got useful investigative magic, leaving the rogue in the cold. I think the Investigator is for people who want to play Sherlock.
I think the Slayer is going to kick the rogue out of the "dirty fighter" niche that the rogue wasn't doing well in anyway.
I sorta expect the Arcanist to undergo some major balancing into the final print, so not sure about that. But so far, despite the "proven superiority" of wizards, sorcerers still see plenty of play, so I don't think another arcane class is going to cause an older one to be marginalized into oblivion.
I agree; the Investigator will get a majority of use in a minority of games.
People like sorcerers because they play differently and are far more flavorful than a boring ol' wizard. Plus usually far less record keeping and decision making. Arcanist have even less spells, but they can modify them all kinds of ways. They also will have a different dimension of stuff to track (arcane points or whatever those are), similar to a magus. So really, it is the caster version of a magus, right? Wait, heh, that didn't come out sounding sane.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Funny, I've got someone slated to play as a Investigator in my next session.
The important thing is that not everyone wants to play combat-focused characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Has it already begun? Already, I see people throwing in bids for this or that from ACG when someone asks how to build a ranger, Oracle, sorcerer. I know people say these options are to further reduce multiclassing but I see a lot of unsolicited "be a x from ACG instead of y from older material". What gives? What are the implications going forward?
No, and honestly you need to compare each ACG class to the parent classes. The hunter, as an example, is not even close to a druid in overall usefulness.
I think they can be a good way to avoid having to multiclass, but for the most part the parent classes do their jobs better than the ACG hybrids.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Warpriest will probably give the fighter some heavy competition. I mean, its basically full BAB with spellcasting and better saves. It just lacks armor training and on average, 1 hit point a level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The Warpriest will probably give the fighter some heavy competition. I mean, its basically full BAB with spellcasting and better saves. It just lacks armor training and on average, 1 hit point a level.
This is pretty true except people who want to play a fighter dont do it because of its power. Usually they do it because their concept doesnt involve magic. If divine magic is ok for their concept, they are already playing a paladin, inquisitor or just cleric. The warpriest doesnt marginalize any of those.
The Warpriest will probably give the fighter some heavy competition. I mean, its basically full BAB with spellcasting and better saves. It just lacks armor training and on average, 1 hit point a level.This is pretty true except people who want to play a fighter dont do it because of its power. Usually they do it because their concept doesnt involve magic. If divine magic is ok for their concept, they are already playing a paladin, inquisitor or just cleric. The warpriest doesnt marginalize any of those.
Then play a Ranger who gives up spells, a slayer, a barb (Urban Barb if you really are opposed to berserking), Cavalier, Samurai, ect.
No reason to gimp yourself by playing a fighter.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Interest amongst my players is mainly where a new ACG class better matches a concept than any of the existing classes.
In one of my games we have a ranger character who, early in the game, saved the wolf animal companion of a fatally injured druid. The wolf has become an essential part of this character's persona, but the ranger animal companion rules haven't really done the concept justice. We rebuilt him as a hunter using the playtest rules, and it's just prefect.
The investigator and bloodrager are also favourites, as is the Shaman. In each case it's more about the concept than the 'power' or optimisation potential.
The Warpriest will probably give the fighter some heavy competition. I mean, its basically full BAB with spellcasting and better saves. It just lacks armor training and on average, 1 hit point a level.This is pretty true except people who want to play a fighter dont do it because of its power. Usually they do it because their concept doesnt involve magic. If divine magic is ok for their concept, they are already playing a paladin, inquisitor or just cleric. The warpriest doesnt marginalize any of those.Then play a Ranger who gives up spells, a slayer, a barb (Urban Barb if you really are opposed to berserking), Cavalier, Samurai, ect.
No reason to gimp yourself by playing a fighter.
All I was trying to say is that the existance of the warpriest wont really change who plays fighters and why. My point is that the overlap that the warpriest has conceptually with the fighter (guy who fights) already exists with the paladin, inquisitor and to a lesser extent the cleric. War priests are divine warriors. If your intent is to play a divine warrior, you arent playing a fighter to begin with. So the fighter is unaffected by the war-priest's existance.
The feat boon companion makes the Ranger animal companion scale at the same level as the Ranger. This allows the AC to be a real force to be reckoned with as favored enemy is the strongest class feature an animal companion has access to.
How is that Hunter doing in your game? My interpretation of the class is that it's an incredibly weak one.
The feat boon companion makes the Ranger animal companion scale at the same level as the Ranger. This allows the AC to be a real force to be reckoned with as favored enemy is the strongest class feature an animal companion has access to.
How is that Hunter doing in your game? My interpretation of the class is that it's an incredibly weak one.
Um, since when to animal companions benefit from favored enemy?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How is that Hunter doing in your game? My interpretation of the class is that it's an incredibly weak one.
The other classes have changed between the playtest and final release. Jason has spoiled some of those changes as part of the Gauntlet challenge. I'm sure the Hunter will too. Don't write it off yet.
How is that Hunter doing in your game? My interpretation of the class is that it's an incredibly weak one.The other classes have changed between the playtest and final release. Jason has spoiled some of those changes as part of the Gauntlet challenge. I'm sure the Hunter will too. Don't write it off yet.
Even without the changes I like the class. Its the only class that really puts anything into the idea of working WITH your pet. Sure druids and rangers can fight along side them. But the idea of the teamwork feats (especially ones tailored to the hunter) seems like untread ground. I think animal focus needs some work and hopefully it gets it but I already really like the class, and will at some point get to play one.
I agree: the second round of the class was pretty cool. But people who still feel it was too weak (compared to say, the Inquisitor) should know it isn't done baking till we have the book.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've also been going back to the older classes and thinking "oh, I could play a gunslinger. Or an alchemist. or this new Spellscar archetype for cavaliers, they look pretty boss".
You said "older classes", but didn't actually mention any old classes. On the other hand, you used the word boss as an adjective.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree that Rogues will be marginalized by the ACG classes because the rogue is alread marginalized by its own.
Um, since when to animal companions benefit from favored enemy?The feat boon companion makes the Ranger animal companion scale at the same level as the Ranger. This allows the AC to be a real force to be reckoned with as favored enemy is the strongest class feature an animal companion has access to.
How is that Hunter doing in your game? My interpretation of the class is that it's an incredibly weak one.
A ranger's animal companion shares his favored enemy and favored terrain bonuses.
Um, since when to animal companions benefit from favored enemy?The feat boon companion makes the Ranger animal companion scale at the same level as the Ranger. This allows the AC to be a real force to be reckoned with as favored enemy is the strongest class feature an animal companion has access to.
How is that Hunter doing in your game? My interpretation of the class is that it's an incredibly weak one.
Since always?
A ranger's animal companion shares his favored enemy and favored terrain bonuses.
Also anyone can take those teamwork feats can't they? It seems to me that the Hunter gave up almost everything that was worthwhile for combat to get those teamwork feats.
Full BAB
Favored Enemy
Favored Terrain
Beast Shape
Full casting
Rangers are better at
-melee
-Archery
-Having an stronger Animal Companion
Druids are better at
-Spellcasting
-Melee
I guess the hunter can be a better spellcaster than the Ranger, but it gives up so much to be that. It can also be a better Archer than the Druid, but that seems a waste.
That all said I really hope that these last few months were kind to the Hunter. I love the concept, but the last shown execution was so saddening.
Um, since when to animal companions benefit from favored enemy?The feat boon companion makes the Ranger animal companion scale at the same level as the Ranger. This allows the AC to be a real force to be reckoned with as favored enemy is the strongest class feature an animal companion has access to.
How is that Hunter doing in your game? My interpretation of the class is that it's an incredibly weak one.
A ranger's animal companion shares his favored enemy and favored terrain bonuses.
Huh, I literally have read over that line dozens of times... you learn something every day.
I imagine the ones that would be marginalized are only the ones that have already been marginalized before the ACG. If a current class stands well on its own, I highly doubt it will be marginalized even if one of the ACG classes plays very similarly to it (like the Barbarian and the Bloodrager.)
I imagine the ones that would be marginalized are only the ones that have already been marginalized before the ACG. If a current class stands well on its own, I highly doubt it will be marginalized even if one of the ACG classes plays very similarly to it (like the Barbarian and the Bloodrager.)
Agreed!
Barbarian and Bloodrager are similar, but both are viable.
Brawler and Monk are similar, but both do different things.
Slayer and Rogue are similar, but the Slayer wont become dead weight.
Shaman is a new full caster with a unique playstyle. Even though it uses the same list as the Druid its class features wont invalidate the Druid.
Makes sense. Also rekindles my interest in rangers:) Hunter is actually sounding cool as well assuming they get their animal starting at 1st level :?)
Warpriest invalidates pretty much all other 1 level dips. Best 1 level dip since 3.0 Ranger since its 2 feats, a blessing, all armor proficiency, plus a spell.
It doesn't invalidate Fighter or Cleric for more than 1 level though.
For the hunter: wouldn't it have been simpler just to make a ranger archetype that trades away spellcasting for the hunter's teamwork with the companion thing?
A ranger archetype would've had full BAB and no casting. Hunter has 3/4 BAB and six level casting.
For the hunter: wouldn't it have been simpler just to make a ranger archetype that trades away spellcasting for the hunter's teamwork with the companion thing?A ranger archetype would've had full BAB and no casting. Hunter has 3/4 BAB and six level casting.
6th level casting off the DRUID list.
Warpriest invalidates pretty much all other 1 level dips. Best 1 level dip since 3.0 Ranger since its 2 feats, a blessing, all armor proficiency, plus a spell.
It doesn't invalidate Fighter or Cleric for more than 1 level though.
It never invalidates the Cleric.
Compared to a fighter though the Warpriest is leagues above and beyond. The ONLY downside is that you can't get power attack until level 3, but after that the Warpriest dominates the fighter.
|
I'd argue that a combination of Warpriest and Slayer (Slayer because they can get extra Feats every two levels for the first 12 levels if they like, and are full BAB) invalidates Fighter quite a bit...but that was already the case to a large degree.
Likewise, Investigator and Slayer go a long way towards invalidating Rogue. But that was already accomplished long ago, and at least now you can have a non-magical sneaky guy (Slayer) who's pretty solid mechanically.
It's possible Arcanist will somewhat invalidate Sorcerer...but changes to the final version might really put the kibosh on that. Hard to tell.
The rest? No invalidation there, IMO.
|
'Are the ACG classes going to marginalize standard classes?'
This may just be me but. I always thought that, for the most part, the classes from the APG and the ultimate books overshadowed the CRB classes.
Now the ACG with overshadow the APG, etc classes, and put the CRB classes in the dark.
Put I could be wrong as the ACG is still in the works.
I think these classes from core, APG, and Ultimate books still have a solid space
Magus
Bard
Barb
Druid
Paladin
Ranger
Wizard
maybe sorc
alchemist
Summoner
Inquisitor
Oracle
Witch
Samurai
Situational (Campaign by campaign basis)
Gunslinger
Cav
Anti Pally
Woah, that's most the classes in the game!
Presumably because you're basing your estimation on theory craft instead of actual play. I'm playing one in Dragon's demand and she does well. She's not a supreme ranger, nor a supreme druid, but she's doing better than a druid/ranger of equivalent level.The feat boon companion makes the Ranger animal companion scale at the same level as the Ranger. This allows the AC to be a real force to be reckoned with as favored enemy is the strongest class feature an animal companion has access to.
How is that Hunter doing in your game? My interpretation of the class is that it's an incredibly weak one.
Better at what? Probably not better at casting, or at being a skill monkey who fights on his own, because that's what the ranger and druid are specialized in and you don't have full BAB or full casting, but you do have something else your getting right?
Edit: oh... I see, better than a ranger/druid multiclass.
"Better than a multiclass" is really REALLY a bad argument.
A straight Ranger or a straight Druid is stronger in just about every situation a Hunter would be in.
In theory craft and actual play the Hunter in the ACG draft 2 is a bad class.
Once again this may change when the final version is released, but as it is currently the Hunter is a sad joke.
I feel they should have aimed to make the animal companion almost as strong as an Eidolan by using
-a new chart that doesn't skip AC hit dice
-by making the AC get a d10 and full BAB on the chart
You know, something to actually make this AC strong.
Aside from that I really can't understand why someone would multiclass Ranger and Druid? Seems a really odd choice in multiclass options.
|
|
The Arcanist is far and away the most powerful class in the book atm. I am hoping for some more balancing there. Eliminating school / bloodline abilities would be a good start.
Clerics are more powerful than Warpriests but the class still has good flavor. Blessings could be improved and bumped up requiring more levels in class.
The others I have not seen in play enough to make a decision on yet.