When the ACG comes out how do you think it will influence your Home games and PFS games?
In the Short Term what do you think will happen?
In the Long Term?
Based on the Play test Rule set 2 do you think this book will be power creep?
Do you think any of the classes have an unclear role?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think it will give myself and my players a greater variety for PCs/NPCs and consolidate a lot of archetypes or specific builds into actual classes.
In the short term I expect a lot of use of these classes as it's very easy to make a 4-6 person party with all the basic food groups.
In the long term I expect a lot of use from the Warpriest, Shaman, Bloodrager, and Slayer by myself and my players as those classes fulfilled some niches we wanted to see
Shaman- OMG such a cool divine class that has so many options and fiddly bits for those of us who love fiddly bits
Bloodrager- Full BAB, Spellcasting, Rage, Bloodlines. Finally another option for "Martialesque arcane dude"
Slayer- During the playtest our group pretty much coined this guy as the new fighter
I do think this book has power creep. Thankfully less of the DPR olympics front. I see Slayer, Swash, and Bloodrager as examples of martials being allowed to have a stronger out of combat role as well as more options in combat. Other classes in the book similarly have a lot more kinds of answers to different problems.
Unclear roles? Brawler and Hunter. The Brawler sort of had a role, at the currently written version he is sad. The Hunter description read like the Rangers. In combat the Hunter is simultaneously worse at archery and melee than the Ranger and has an arguably weaker pet (Ranger with boon companion and favored enemy). Yes the Hunter has a spell list, but it's the druid list on a 6/9 progression, which is honestly not too useful. The Hunter is also only better than a druid at Archery and having a slightly better pet. For a beastmaster class the Hunter is pretty bad at its "beastmastery."
As a DM, the Slayer has already impacted my games. I remade every Fighter/Rogue multiclassed NPC from Skulls and Shackles into a slayer. I remade Fighter/Shackles Pirates into Slayers. The one Fighter/Rogue/Arcane trickster? Slayer/Arcane trickster. Every pure rogue in the AP? Slayer. Crossbowman fighters? Slayers. Some fighters? Slayers.
It just felt right, and helped to actually challenge my players. I mean, its basically already a fighter rogue with its huge pile of bonus feats, sneak attack dice, favored foe, skill points, and talents.
I used Bloodrager levels on a Fiendish Griffon too. That was fun and surprised the party, while still being a very manageable encounter.
All in all, I love ACG. Swashbuckler and Slayer really saved the day by providing cooler ways of playing certain character types.
Is there some power creep? Probably. But its in a good place I think. Its more like martials got more narrative power with these classes, considering their new access to skills combined with combat competence.
Short Term - Already have. The current game is an Elder Scrolls game where I made all 10 races and gave them access to lore related racial archetypes. We started in February. I have 82 NPC's already statted out, all of which are ACG classes or these racial archetypes, probably 75% are ACG classes. The only reason I stopped making them was because I decided I wanted to wait till Archetypes came out to keep making them and I had enough for until the ACG is officially released.
I have 5 players in that game. One is playing a warpriest and another is playing a fighter/slayer.
In PFS I'm playing a bloodrager, but have several build ideas already brewing though I want to wait until archetypes come out. Amongst them I have several shaman builds - my favorite being a water based one, a knife throwing based swashbuckler, a warpriest and an arcanist.
In the Long Term - Hard to say! I suspect we'll see a lot more of these guys though. Over all they appear more versatile than many classes.
I certainly see some power creep, but overall (minus arcanist) I look at it as less severe than what came from the APG, though we don't have final drafts or archetypes yet.
Arcanist: Sorcerers will be a tough sell unless someone is really interested in a particular Bloodline. (Wizards remain viable because of standard, non-delayed, spell-casting progression.)
Bloodrager: Unique enough that it steps on no one's toes (but it's spell list is a joke).
Brawler/Slayer: Fighters, Rogues, and core-Monks will all but disappear.*
Hunter: Is bad and steps on no one's toes. (Seriously, nothing about this class is better, or even different, than a Druid or Ranger.)
Investigator: If Slayer is the 'combat-rogue' replacement, then this is the 'skill-monkey-rogue' replacement. Again, no more Rogues.*
Shaman: Unique enough that it steps on no one's toes.
Skald: Kills some archetypes, but otherwise unique enough that it steps on no one's toes. (Not convinced that the concept works, as presented, however.)
Swashbuckler: Kills a PrC dead, but that seems to be the overall goal with this one.
Warpriest: Clerics will start becoming much more spell focused and less combat focused (even if the class can't really support itself that way due to a rather uninspiring spell list for a pure caster).
* - Should be noted that I, in no way, consider the loss of the Core Monk, Rogue, or Fighter to be bad things. They are stale classes that have done an abysmal job of "keeping up" with other classes as new material has presented itself over the years.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Power creep? Maybe the Arcanist, if it doesn't get revised.
I'd expect to see a lot of Slayers instead of Fighters, and both Slayers and Investigators in place of Rogues. And some Investigators in place of some Alchemists, too.
Arcanists in place of some Sorcerers and Wizards also seems likely, but I'm in no way convinced they'll actually replace either entirely, or even come close. We'll have to see what the final version looks like.
Some war Clerics will be replaced by Warpriests...but not a lot more than were replaced by Battle Oracles, IMO. Some Paladin and Inquisitor builds will also be replaced...but I suspect not as many as some people think.
Swashbuckler will now be the go-to class for, well, swashbucklers. This eliminates a few very niche builds for several classes.
Shaman, Bloodrage, and Skald all have unique enough roles that they won't overlap with people too much, though I suppose a few Bard and even one or two Barbarian builds will be subsumed by the Skald, and a few more Barbarian builds by Bloodrager...but not the really good ones.
Hunter and Brawler are both a little weak as presented (Hunter more so than Brawler), and unlike Investigator it's unclear whether that'll be fixed sufficiently...making their place unclear.
As a DM, the Slayer has already impacted my games. I remade every Fighter/Rogue multiclassed NPC from Skulls and Shackles into a slayer.
Glad I'm not the only one. Even though Gortus Svard just kicked my crew's ass because of it (though to be fair I also rebuilt him to take advantage of delicious sword and board-age too...).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I expect it will improve my games, by giving myself and my players more options, and more mechanically effective ways to express a greater variety of character concepts.
Home game - It won't have an impact as I've decided I don't want it in my games. I can see the interest but the new classes just seem superfluous to me and I don't like dual-classing replacements.
PFS - I expect to see loads of these make an appearance as soon as the book comes out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
We already allow MCA material most of the time, so really it's just a bunch more classes.
I'm gonna do the teamwork feat animal companion one though, looks smexy
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think enough of them probably underwent some serious changes in the crunch period between the end of the play test and what went to print so it's hard to say anything definitive. Generally speaking though, the design philosophy behind them seems to be trying to err on the side of underpowered so far as direct class comparisons go, but there's some really fun flavor to most of them. I'd expect maybe four of them to become serious mainstays after the novelty wears off, but that's really more a flavor issue than anything mechanical.
Brawlers in particular are clearly going to replace monks at tables where GMs need their arms twisted to allow for monks. Bloodragers have so much juicy flavor variation it'll take people a while to get bored. People are still going to play monks and barbarians though.
Short term, I am sure lots of people will play ACG classes, they are the new hotness. Many in my group are definately part of the cult of the new. But most of the existing classes will see play as well. I still want to get in an alchemist, inquisitor and a druid somewhere.
Long term: Very few people will play a straight rogue. Investigator or slayer will likely fill that space. I am not sorry to see that happen, as the rogue really needed to be broken up into 'sneaking skillful guy' and 'sneaky cuthroat back alley murderer'.
Other then that I think the impact will be minimal with the possible exception of the arcanist. I am not certain what kind of a problem this class will present, and I am leaning towards banning it from my table, mostly becuse I dont like a class that seems to get the best of both worlds from sorcerors and wizards. I will have to see what it looks like in the final version though.
I do think people will stop trying to play paladins that arent actually very paladin like though. And will play warpriests instead. But thats probably a good thing. Maybe all those paladin threads can be responded to with a 'just be a warpriest and move on' sort of thing. You can now play a charisma focused holy warrior without the endless alignment/code arguments.
Pretty sure no Shaman build will ever replace the cheese that is a "Celestial Huge Allosaurus pounce smiting a dude" Druid
No Bloodrager will be replacing a pouncing Barb with boots of flying.
No Skalds replacing Bards in a balanced group.
Ect
RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32
|
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
And yet, as we created characters last night for an upcoming Skull&Shackles game, my friend who is awesome at rogues is making a rogue. Despite all the ACG playtest classes being available, with the caveat that they would have to be updated when the book came out, no one picked one of them. The rogue player looked at and considered swashbuckler and slayer, and went with rogue instead.
Even with the new stuff the rogue still has effectiveness in the hands of a skilled player.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
It takes a skilled player to even get a rogue to the bogline baseline of a ranger with power attack.
Him picking a weak class for familiarity doesn't make it good.
And yet, as we created characters last night for an upcoming Skull&Shackles game, my friend who is awesome at rogues is making a rogue. Despite all the ACG playtest classes being available, with the caveat that they would have to be updated when the book came out, no one picked one of them. The rogue player looked at and considered swashbuckler and slayer, and went with rogue instead.
Even with the new stuff the rogue still has effectiveness in the hands of a skilled player.
And this will be the case with just about anything in this game. System mastery generally trumps all. For instance one of the players in my group is particularly if not munchkiny, pretty close. Whether he's playing a wizard, or a fighter or a paladin, it generally doesnt matter, his character will shine. Doesnt usually play rogues, but the point stands.
I think the slayer, swashbuckler and investigator make it EASIER to achieve their respective concepts, and not that it wasnt possible before to make a useful rogue. It was always just alot harder to manage then it should be for a core class. Mostly its because the rogues focus is so split. The swashbuckler, slayer and investigator split out those foci and make them concentrated within their class features.
It certainly doesnt mean you cant make a rogue that can succeed against monsters and enemies as I am sure your friend will.
I think after new class excitement is over one of the most important changes to come from the ACG will be the dex to damage feat to come out with the swashbuckler so all dex characters won't have to search for dervish dance/agile/3.x/homebrew or other third party type stuff to get good damage.
Edit: Had the dumb and forgot what core meant.
Kolokotroni - I tend to agree with you the arcanist may have a significant effect on arcane casters. Personally, I really like the hybrid casting mechanism. It all depends on the final class features. The ability to convert spells and magic items into arcane points may put the class over the top as the best arcane caster class.
The_Lake - the dex to damage feat may be a game changer.
I think that the ACG is another example of the subtle power creep that is happening in Pathfinder.
Short/long term: I do not plan on purchasing this book.
Honestly, the only class in the ACG that even has the potential to qualify as "power creep" is the Arcanist and possibly the Shaman. Replacing Fighters/non-archetype monks/Rogues isn't power creep, its balancing. Which is good because those classes have needed to be replaced with working ones for a while now.
I dearly hope the Arcanist gets a nerf, otherwise it's going to be the full arcane class to play, based off the teaser Jason gave in the Fight for the Gauntlet blog post.
The Arcanist received a number of cool new exploits not seen in the play test. Here is one of them. Quick Study (Ex): The arcanist can prepare a spell in place of an existing spell by expending one point from her arcane reservoir. Using this ability is a full-round action that provokes an attack of opportunity. The arcanist must be able to reference her spellbook when using this ability. The spell prepared must be of the same level as the spell being replaced.[/i]
The Shaman had a number of hexes added to the class that can be selected by all shamans (not just those with a particular spirit). Check out this fun hex. Shapeshift (Su): The shaman transforms herself into another form for a number of minutes per day equal to her level, as alter self. This duration does not need to be consecutive, but it must be spent in 1-minute increments. Changing form (including changing back) is a standard action that doesn’t provoke an attack of opportunity. At 8th level, this ability works as beast shape I. At 12th level, this ability works as beast shape II. At 16th level, this ability works as beast shape III. At 20th level, this ability works as beast shape IV.
In addition to the new classes in the book, there are also new archetypes for each of the existing classes in the game. For example, the Rogue has a new archetype called the Counterfeit Mage, which has this fun ability. Signature Wand (Ex): At 4th level, a counterfeit mage can spend 1 hour practicing with a wand to designate it as his signature wand. He can draw that wand as a free action, and can activate it without having to succeed at a Use Magic Device check. He can change his signature wand once per day. This ability replaces the rogue talent gained at 4th level.
With the Arcanist ability above, unless there are some serious nerfs introduced, the Arcanist will be the ultimate arcane class when it comes to Arcane versatility, even beyond that of Paragon Surge/Eldritch Heritage (arcane) shenanigans as a GM is more likely to disallow a feat/spell than a class feature. Though I don't think it will top a Paragon Surge/Eldritch Heritage (arcane) Oracle.
I don't think the Fighter will be completely replaced or marginalized, as the game still needs that non-magical heavy armor toting character that can fight all day long without any limited use abilities.
As for the Rogue? I think he's dead; depending on a couple things. Can a Slayer that focuses a little on being a skill monkey function as well or better than a Rogue that focuses on combat? Can an Investigator that focuses a little on Combat function as well as a skill-monkey Rogue?
The point being, if a Slayer that pays lip-service to skills/social encounters functions better in combat, and as good or nearly, out of combat as a Combat focused Rogue, then you don't need the Rogue. Or, if an Investigator can function as well in combat as a skill-monkey focused Rogue can, then you don't need him.
The only argument that really exists for the Rogue, at this point, is 'what if you want a skill-monkey that can function both in and out of combat?' If the Slayer and Investigator can function well both in and out of combat, then the Rogue is truly dead.
As it stands, at the end of the playtest, the Investigator's combat ability is up in the air (though Stephen said he'd make it better). For the Slayer, considering he's got 6 skill points and essentially the exact same skill set, as long as he chooses well with his skills, he'll cover the skill monkey adequately. Plus, there's a trait for magical traps now.
The hunter is, in my opinion, just a failure of a class combination as it currently exists. I really can't think of any reason why I'd rather choose Hunter over Ranger, even considering the 6th level spell casting.
Outside of the Brawler, Hunter, and Skald, I think all of the other classes fill their own niche adequately. I'm not sure the Brawler, Skald and Hunter were needed combinations, personally. I think those three classes have their niche either adequately filled by other classes or archetypes, or their base classes just do it better.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My group tends to gravitate towards gray area, stealthy type characters. I think they will enjoy the slayer and investigator.
Honestly, the only class in the ACG that even has the potential to qualify as "power creep" is the Arcanist and possibly the Shaman. Replacing Fighters/non-archetype monks/Rogues isn't power creep, its balancing. Which is good because those classes have needed to be replaced with working ones for a while now.I think that the ACG is another example of the subtle power creep that is happening in Pathfinder.
Short/long term: I do not plan on purchasing this book.
What exactly is 'power creep in the shaman? I get the arcanist, but i just didnt see it when i was looking through the shaman. Didnt get to see it at the table at all though.
What exactly is 'power creep in the shaman? I get the arcanist, but i just didnt see it when i was looking through the shaman. Didnt get to see it at the table at all though.Honestly, the only class in the ACG that even has the potential to qualify as "power creep" is the Arcanist and possibly the Shaman. Replacing Fighters/non-archetype monks/Rogues isn't power creep, its balancing. Which is good because those classes have needed to be replaced with working ones for a while now.I think that the ACG is another example of the subtle power creep that is happening in Pathfinder.
Short/long term: I do not plan on purchasing this book.
Well for one it had most of the staple Cleric spells just added to the more offensive druid list.
CoDZilla is a concern.
The Lore spirit despite it's difficulty to wield is outrageously powerful especially at higher levels or at a better point buy than 20.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The hunter is, in my opinion, just a failure of a class combination as it currently exists. I really can't think of any reason why I'd rather choose Hunter over Ranger, even considering the 6th level spell casting.
Better animal companion, better spellcasting, versatile self-buffs from low level (Animal Focus), or Inquisitor-like Teamwork abilities?
I'm not trying to say it's the best class ever, but it does have several legs up on the Ranger to make up for losing BAB, favored enemy, and combat style.
I think it's the Druid, Warpriest, and Inquisitor that are more appropriate comparisons.
Edit: Though, since we're talking about impact on the game, longer term, I think its safe to say that pretty much all rangers (even more so than now) will use Hunter's Bond on the party, rather than an animal companion. If you want a strong animal companion, hunter or druid is a much better choice.
hmm, at my table, i'd say that each time you took this with wandering hex with this ability it would be the same list based on the wording, that you can only change it each level. That seems to me to be the only reasonable way to interpret that bit of rules text. I would park this in the same space as the arcane surge nonsense and say to my group dont be a jerk.
Also how does the druid list make a non-wildshaper a combat powerhouse. Am I missing something big here? Granted my group doesnt play a whole lot of druids, but it I dont see it. Or is this a high level thing (rarely play above 12 now-adays).
|
|
The class of most concern from the OP side is the Arcanist. The Arcanist can pretty much render sorcerers gone (no way should arcanist get bloodline abilities imho).
Now as far being useful without replacing, a good example is the WarPriest. The WarPriest is more martially oriented than a Paladin but by the same token lacks a lot in defenses / survivability compared to a Paladin. All in all, a nice fit for the new class. Being MAD hurts a bit thou.
All combination spellcaster/warriors are MAD, because they're splitting their focus. That's a feature, not a bug.
As for the Rogue? I think he's dead; depending on a couple things. Can a Slayer that focuses a little on being a skill monkey function as well or better than a Rogue that focuses on combat?
Yes. Now, my Slayer is not a SOCIAL skill monkey, but he covers the sneak/scout/disable shit role quite well, and does pretty well in combat (despite the fact that I can rarely roll above a 10 on an attack roll. *sigh*).
All combination spellcaster/warriors are MAD, because they're splitting their focus. That's a feature, not a bug.
Being a little MAD is fine, yes. Magi, Inquisitors, Alchemists, etc. are a little MAD. They generally need 3 stats to function (Dex or Str, Int or Wis, and very likely Con since their HD is pretty low).
Maybe a better example is the Swashbuckler, needing Dex/Cha, and then Wis/Con (not just for HP, but to shore up his unforgivably terrible saves).
The Warpriest is INSANELY MAD. He needs every stat except Int (even that is arguable since he only has 2 skills a level). And I HAAAAAAAAAATEEEEE dumping Int just so I can use all my class features (since Fervor is essentially worthless without Cha, and I need Str/Dex/Con just like any Fighter, and Wis to cast). It's kinda ridiculous.
The hunter is, in my opinion, just a failure of a class combination as it currently exists. I really can't think of any reason why I'd rather choose Hunter over Ranger, even considering the 6th level spell casting.Better animal companion, better spellcasting, versatile self-buffs from low level (Animal Focus), or Inquisitor-like Teamwork abilities?
I'm not trying to say it's the best class ever, but it does have several legs up on the Ranger to make up for losing BAB, favored enemy, and combat style.
I think it's the Druid, Warpriest, and Inquisitor that are more appropriate comparisons.
Edit: Though, since we're talking about impact on the game, longer term, I think its safe to say that pretty much all rangers (even more so than now) will use Hunter's Bond on the party, rather than an animal companion. If you want a strong animal companion, hunter or druid is a much better choice.
Umm what? Ranger animal companion is way stronger. Boon companion+favored enemy.
If someone wants to play a pet focused character the only viable option is summoner anyway.
Umm what? Ranger animal companion is way stronger. Boon companion+favored enemy.
If someone wants to play a pet focused character the only viable option is summoner anyway.
Oracle Half-elf/Aasimar using FCB is stronger as well.
On the player side, I suspect that there will be very little immediate impact unless the book happens to provide feats or archetypes that provide a better mechanical fit for our character concepts than the existing material does.
In a future campaign, the Arcanist might get me to finally play a character who prepares spells.
I am envisioning having a Bloodrager as a Barbarian-equivalent cohort for a Paladin, since the Bloodrager apparently lacks the alignment restriction of a Barbarian.
The Skald might get me to play a Bard-like Squire (since I think he gets proficiency with all martial weapons).
The Swashbuckler could make the Combat Expertise feat chain more playable if the PFS rule of having characters of this class be treated as though they had an intelligence of 13 is applied.
Umm what? Ranger animal companion is way stronger. Boon companion+favored enemy.
Can't a hunter share Animal Focus with their companion? Those bonuses might not be as strong as Favored Enemy, but they're more reliable.
Plus, the hunter gets to spend a feat on something other than Boon companion, and gets the animal companion at level 1.
(An aside, the intent of Boon Companion was clearly meant for multiclass characters, not classes like Ranger with a class level - X mechanic. I wish it would be corrected at some point, but Paizo doesn't tend to release 'balance patches', especially not for 32 page books that are unlikely to be reprinted.)
If someone wants to play a pet focused character the only viable option is summoner anyway.
Unless they don't want to be an arcane caster. Or they would rather have a bear than an eidolon.
It doesn't have to be the most powerful choice to be 'viable'.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If someone wants to play a pet focused character the only viable option is summoner anyway.Unless they don't want to be an arcane caster. Or they would rather have a bear than an eidolon.
My eidolon is a bear. A six armed pouncing flying superbear that speaks dwarvish. Its like a bear+5. A +5 vorpal bear ftw!
Summoners have a pretty varied list and can cast in armor, and even equip a shield if they really want.
It doesn't have to be the most powerful choice to be 'viable'.
A 3/4 BAB animal that can't buff or think for itself very well and has reduced HD may not be the best example of viable. Also not very modular because of the lack of customizing your animal companion. Of course druid, animal/fur/feather domain cleric, and sylvan sorc both do pet master better than ranger or hunter, imo. Dem buffs, dat magic. If you want to focus entirely on your pet only summoner really gets a powerful option that can be customized to your hearts content.
As someone who, to what I can see, was replying; I apologize for engaging in that argument.
To give the parts more worthwhile from earlier:
I maintain, thoroughly, that the core classes, excluding the rogue and sorcerer, remain viable as is, and by extension, the ACG is no more power-creep than that which inevitably exists with multiple options (no individual part that made Pun-Pun was OP, and all that ramble).
The sorcerer is eclipsed only by the Arcanist, a class generally agreed to be over the top currently (to my experience). So I hardly think that will change anything.
Neither the Brawler nor Slayer even touch on matching the fighter for a lot of roles. A Sword-and-Board character is still best as a fighter, and anyone wanting to be more versatile than a switch hitter.
The monk still retains, thanks to all the archetypes in circulation, a very versatile package. The core monk? Still workable thanks to various feats (See Crusader's Flurry for one). I don't think the Brawler will push it out the door for a while yet.
The Rogue - ok, yes - it's probably done, wheezing a final cough in some trick builds; but really, that's a design problem it always suffered. Combat is a key component of the game, and it's not good at it. As a skill-monkey, using the archetypal line-up of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard - it was still being outdone at higher levels.
So, my short and long term plans with the APG? Probably play its classes until I get over my shiny new toy vibe. Definitely play a CG Bloodrager next time someone rolls a Paladin. I adore that RP image.
In other news - going into a campaign soon with the Slayer. My current concern is will I be desperate to want to get sneak attack off independently, or will my party have co-ordination?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And yet, as we created characters last night for an upcoming Skull&Shackles game, my friend who is awesome at rogues is making a rogue. Despite all the ACG playtest classes being available, with the caveat that they would have to be updated when the book came out, no one picked one of them. The rogue player looked at and considered swashbuckler and slayer, and went with rogue instead.
Even with the new stuff the rogue still has effectiveness in the hands of a skilled player.
Slayer and rogue just do not play the same. Slayers are full attackers primarily while rogues are sneak attackers primarily. That reinforces very different play styles.
For slayer players: Would you ever feint with your slayer?
Because I know my rogue would rather feint and sneak attack than full attack and not sneak attack.
Do I think the rogue could stand a damage boost? Yes.
Would slayer being better than a rogue mean that players looking for the rogues play style would play the slayer? No.
Did everyone who tried to make the TWF assassin out of the rogue leap for joy upon reading the slayer? Probably.
Also how does the druid list make a non-wildshaper a combat powerhouse. Am I missing something big here? Granted my group doesnt play a whole lot of druids, but it I dont see it. Or is this a high level thing (rarely play above 12 now-adays).When I talk about combat prowess I mean access to some of the most powerful battlefield control in the game. I don't really care about dealing HP damage as it is a role pretty much any class can fill in. Real, powerful, hard control is however something to be truly feared.
Druids:
Wall of thornsSummon
Summon
Summon
Summon
Dismiss thorns kill enemy.
And that's if the druid is alone. Which he/she won't be.
Not sure how close the classes in the ACG will be to what the playtest showed us, but I am hoping that due to the inclusion of the Hunter we get a lot more general information and crunch for animal companions in general (hopefully going beyond the constant DC 25 Handle Animal checks for anything that's not a trick). An added bonus would be a revised Stealth system for the Slayers, but that's probably a pipe dream.
I'm also hoping that they moved away from the Gunslinger CLAs for the Swashbuckler, so that I don't have to ban it from my home games as well.
For PFS, I think a lot of areas will see another upsurge of people going through lower level scenarios with new characters and probably a greater demand for lower & mid-level mods. Which is unfortunate, because I would much rather see added support for higher-level play, but I recognize I'm in a very odd niche in that regard.
-TimD
And yet, as we created characters last night for an upcoming Skull&Shackles game, my friend who is awesome at rogues is making a rogue. Despite all the ACG playtest classes being available, with the caveat that they would have to be updated when the book came out, no one picked one of them. The rogue player looked at and considered swashbuckler and slayer, and went with rogue instead.
Even with the new stuff the rogue still has effectiveness in the hands of a skilled player.
Slayer and rogue just do not play the same. Slayers are full attackers primarily while rogues are sneak attackers primarily. That reinforces very different play styles.
For slayer players: Would you ever feint with your slayer?
Because I know my rogue would rather feint and sneak attack than full attack and not sneak attack.
Do I think the rogue could stand a damage boost? Yes.
Would slayer being better than a rogue mean that players looking for the rogues play style would play the slayer? No.
Did everyone who tried to make the TWF assassin out of the rogue leap for joy upon reading the slayer? Probably.
um what...
You know WHT the rogue constantly tries to feint? Because he can barely hit anything otherwise... I mean... your logic is so .... wow...