How do you think the ACG will influence your games? Long and Short term considerations


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>

Kolokotroni wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Eirikrautha wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Good bye dragon disciple. You can now play it from level 1
I must have missed something. Explain, please...?
Well, thematically speaking, Bloodrager sorta does that. Which is what I assume he's talking about.
Yeah I guess he means draconic bloodline blood rager. My hope is to be able to do both, and allow the dragon disciples bloodline ability to extend blood rage, that would be fun. Dont know if we ever got an answer to that question in the playtest.

Ahh, thanks folks! I've got a Dragon Disciple on my bucket list, and the statement piqued my interest. Now I'll have to page through bloodrager and see...


Kolokotroni wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Eirikrautha wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Good bye dragon disciple. You can now play it from level 1
I must have missed something. Explain, please...?
Well, thematically speaking, Bloodrager sorta does that. Which is what I assume he's talking about.
Yeah I guess he means draconic bloodline blood rager. My hope is to be able to do both, and allow the dragon disciples bloodline ability to extend blood rage, that would be fun. Dont know if we ever got an answer to that question in the playtest.

I never saw one and I was looking. Right now I feel that bloodrager + dd is a terrible combo with too many loose variables. I really hope they clarify it in the acg, and that it extends bloodrage for the bloodragers.

I personally think dd is thematic enough that it won't die though. Referencing the dd prc guidethe dd is still a much better choice for both the caster dragon and the switch hitter, tthough the beast is better off going straight bloodrager unless we get some clarification on the class interacting with the prc.


Some of the classes are thematic and fill some nice niches in certain campaigns, settings and adventure paths. For example, I like the idea of a swashbuckler instead of a fighter if I'm running an adventure path dealing with pirates, coastal cities and the like. I like the idea of Skalds if I'm running a campaign that's set in lands dealing with certain sorts of barbarians. I think there's a nice niche for these sorts of classes. The same with the shaman.

What I don't like is a class like the Slayer. It doesn't fill a niche, it pilfers from two classes to make an "uberclass." I'd hate to see classes like the rogue and ranger be rendered 'obsolete' because the slayer gets the best of both worlds. I prefer to see PCs multiclass to gain access to the different class attributes.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Gwaithador wrote:

Some of the classes are thematic and fill some nice niches in certain campaigns, settings and adventure paths. For example, I like the idea of a swashbuckler instead of a fighter if I'm running an adventure path dealing with pirates, coastal cities and the like. I like the idea of Skalds if I'm running a campaign that's set in lands dealing with certain sorts of barbarians. I think there's a nice niche for these sorts of classes. The same with the shaman.

What I don't like is a class like the Slayer. It doesn't fill a niche, it pilfers from two classes to make an "uberclass." I'd hate to see classes like the rogue and ranger be rendered 'obsolete' because the slayer gets the best of both worlds. I prefer to see PCs multiclass to gain access to the different class attributes.

I don't see the Slayer horning in too much on the Ranger's territory, except perhaps for those urban rangers with Favored Enemy (humanoid, human). The ranger's spells and animal companion still create lots of dynamics that the Slayer can't get in on.

The Rogue may be a bit of a different story, but.... There's still a couple areas where a Rogue will be able to do something better than a Slayer with the same stat spread. None of those areas are combat-related.


Gwaithador wrote:
What I don't like is a class like the Slayer. It doesn't fill a niche, it pilfers from two classes to make an "uberclass." I'd hate to see classes like the rogue and ranger be rendered 'obsolete' because the slayer gets the best of both worlds. I prefer to see PCs multiclass to gain access to the different class attributes.

On the other hand, the rogue is underperforming, and there are still things the ranger can do the slayer can't(Animal companion /Spells/ Favored Enemy)


Gwaithador wrote:

Some of the classes are thematic and fill some nice niches in certain campaigns, settings and adventure paths. For example, I like the idea of a swashbuckler instead of a fighter if I'm running an adventure path dealing with pirates, coastal cities and the like. I like the idea of Skalds if I'm running a campaign that's set in lands dealing with certain sorts of barbarians. I think there's a nice niche for these sorts of classes. The same with the shaman.

What I don't like is a class like the Slayer. It doesn't fill a niche, it pilfers from two classes to make an "uberclass." I'd hate to see classes like the rogue and ranger be rendered 'obsolete' because the slayer gets the best of both worlds. I prefer to see PCs multiclass to gain access to the different class attributes.

In his current form the Slayer is most definitely weaker than a Ranger is many many many MANY ways.

Also of course the Slayer is better than a silly NPC class like the Rogue. NPC classes exist for a reason.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

In his current form the Slayer is most definitely weaker than a Ranger is many many many MANY ways.

Thats kind of the problem. You can't have a ranger rogue that doesn't obviate the rogue without it being worse than the ranger.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

In his current form the Slayer is most definitely weaker than a Ranger is many many many MANY ways.

Thats kind of the problem. You can't have a ranger rogue that doesn't obviate the rogue without it being worse than the ranger.

This is an unfortunate truth. The Core Ranger is already like 1 campaign trait away from being able to do just about anything the Rogue can do plus a bunch of other stuff. There's no way to combine Rogue and Ranger that doesn't equal either Rogue + or Ranger -, except in very specific circumstances.


Gwaithador wrote:
What I don't like is a class like the Slayer. It doesn't fill a niche, it pilfers from two classes to make an "uberclass." I'd hate to see classes like the rogue and ranger be rendered 'obsolete' because the slayer gets the best of both worlds. I prefer to see PCs multiclass to gain access to the different class attributes.

I was putting together a character and trying to decide between slayer and ranger. I came out that ranger was still a mechanically stronger fit for what I was trying to do, and more flavorful for the particular build.

The slayer wasn't that far behind. What I'm saying is, rogues were already a third (neigh 8th) rate choice, even for "roguish" things, so many classes(using archetypes) outperform them at being a rogue its dumb. But I don't think the slayer invalidates the ranger.


I can see the rogue in my games being now an NPC class. I doubt anyone will play a rogue now. Between the Slayer and Investigator that pretty much covers what the rogue can do. Now I don't see this as bad thing just a welcome evolution to the game.

I also think I'll change the rogue to NPC CR of level -2.

I don't see the fighter being eclipsed at all. No more so than Ranger, Barbarian, Paladin did with just the core rule book. I still like the fighter as it is the best for tanking and getting feats early.


Slayer may be inferior to Ranger, but it's certainly not bad off like the Fighter/Rogue/Monk are, and I really like how modular it is. You can basically make the Slayer a spell-less Ranger with Sneak Attack. Or a full BaB Rogue with Favored Target. Or a better version of the Fighter. Or any number of things because of how many options his Slayer Talents sort of give him.

Or WILL give him, at least, I'm holding out for actually unique Slayer Talents.


Even if the Slayer is weaker than the Ranger I still love it. Especially since it has the opportunity for expansion thanks to the talent system. If they treat slayer talents like Rage powers, then I can easily see the Slayer joining the Ranger in overall power.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
Even if the Slayer is weaker than the Ranger I still love it. Especially since it has the opportunity for expansion thanks to the talent system. If they treat slayer talents like Rage powers, then I can easily see the Slayer joining the Ranger in overall power.

Nope, they'll treat them like rogue talents.

Advanced slayer talent to do something mundane like start fires or build camp or use the craft using leathers from a deer.

Inception.


Not just expansion due to talents, but won't ACG even have some archetypes?

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Adam B. 135 wrote:
Not just expansion due to talents, but won't ACG even have some archetypes?

Hell yeah it will. Word is some of the archetypes for the new classes are absolutely golden.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Not just expansion due to talents, but won't ACG even have some archetypes?
Hell yeah it will. Word is some of the archetypes for the new classes are absolutely golden.

Golden Paladin.

Exactly the same as the old paladin, but all his armor is golden. BOOYAH!

I haven't seen anything about the new archetypes. We might get another alchemist torchbearer archetype. Never know!


I really want to see a Swashbuckler Archetype for 2WF that actually makes it viable for a non-Ranger combat style character.

Also a Warpriest archetype that simply trades out the blessings for Inquisitions/Domains >.> <.<

Brawler Archetype that can flurry with different weapons

Hunter Archetype that trades the animal companion for an eidolon (I CAN DREAM)

Slayer who can sneak attack on a full attack with his ranged weapon.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

3 people marked this as a favorite.

FYI, there's a big bunch of spoilers planned for tomorrow morning on the blog. Figured the folks in this thread might like to know. :)


yay!


Jiggy wrote:
FYI, there's a big bunch of spoilers planned for tomorrow morning on the blog. Figured the folks in this thread might like to know. :)

inb4 sadness.(and anger, and love. Which all lead to... the dark side!)


Ssalarn wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Not just expansion due to talents, but won't ACG even have some archetypes?
Hell yeah it will. Word is some of the archetypes for the new classes are absolutely golden.

With archetypes in there, I just hope for one thing. A bigger (and revised) set of Bloodrager bloodlines and Warpriest Blessings.

Speaking of Warpriests, lemme get on topic. I had a Warpriest NPC lead a group of Fighter NPCs. They synergized very well, with everyone being basically full BAB, but also having buffs from a Cleric. The Fighters were 8th and 7th level and the Warpriest was 9th level. While I will say I felt that the Warpriest had more tools to use, he did miss some fighter class abilities, such as armor training (he was SLOW)and having crazy numbers of feats. He hit just as hard (sometimes harder) than the fighters, and actually was quite hard to kill. Will this class replace the Fighter? no. Gameplay wise it is not "big strong guy who swings sword" the way fighter is. He has too many non-swing sword options. Playing a warpriest as a fighter will be the wrong way to play him, as the player should focus on using all of the Warpriests kit.

Of course, that still leaves Slayer and Swashbuckler really stepping on the Fighter's toes. If there is a heavy armor Slayer archetype, that may deal a strong blow to Fighter.


Jiggy wrote:
FYI, there's a big bunch of spoilers planned for tomorrow morning on the blog. Figured the folks in this thread might like to know. :)

Unless it gets delayed for the third time. I've woke up both today and yesterday, excited at the thought of teasers, and dismayed they got delayed both days. Tomorrow, I'm waking up grumpy.


Adam B. 135 wrote:
Of course, that still leaves Slayer and Swashbuckler really stepping on the Fighter's toes. If there is a heavy armor Slayer archetype, that may deal a strong blow to Fighter.

You could always take a single level dip in a class that gives heavy armor, and you can always wear up to medium without any proficiency before suffering penalties with the use of armor expert and mithral. Heavy armor isn't really fighter only. There already are already better classes at defending through AC and other means than the fighter.


Adam B. 135 wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Not just expansion due to talents, but won't ACG even have some archetypes?
Hell yeah it will. Word is some of the archetypes for the new classes are absolutely golden.

With archetypes in there, I just hope for one thing. A bigger (and revised) set of Bloodrager bloodlines and Warpriest Blessings.

Speaking of Warpriests, lemme get on topic. I had a Warpriest NPC lead a group of Fighter NPCs. They synergized very well, with everyone being basically full BAB, but also having buffs from a Cleric. The Fighters were 8th and 7th level and the Warpriest was 9th level. While I will say I felt that the Warpriest had more tools to use, he did miss some fighter class abilities, such as armor training (he was SLOW)and having crazy numbers of feats. He hit just as hard (sometimes harder) than the fighters, and actually was quite hard to kill. Will this class replace the Fighter? no. Gameplay wise it is not "big strong guy who swings sword" the way fighter is. He has too many non-swing sword options. Playing a warpriest as a fighter will be the wrong way to play him, as the player should focus on using all of the Warpriests kit.

Of course, that still leaves Slayer and Swashbuckler really stepping on the Fighter's toes. If there is a heavy armor Slayer archetype, that may deal a strong blow to Fighter.

Don't forget if you gave the Warpriest heal blessing: he can swift action heal.


MrSin wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
Of course, that still leaves Slayer and Swashbuckler really stepping on the Fighter's toes. If there is a heavy armor Slayer archetype, that may deal a strong blow to Fighter.
You could always take a single level dip in a class that gives heavy armor, and you can always wear up to medium without any proficiency before suffering penalties with the use of armor expert and mithral. Heavy armor isn't really fighter only. There already are already better classes at defending through AC and other means than the fighter.

Yes, the Slayer can 1 level dip for heavy armor. He then loses access to his Combat Style feat talents, or use the Evasion talent. The Fighter will always be that guy with full speed in armor, reducing ACP, and increasing max dex bonus. Among Paizo classes, he is still the footslogging fullplate class. Cavalier is the mounted fullplate class (and I doubt he will ever see competition for that roll).

And I didn't mean fullplate for AC purposes. I meant fullplate for theme purposes. Sometimes people wanna be the "heavy armored guy," and the Fighter still is unique-ish for that theme. Sadly, it means that anyone who wants to play that theme is probably stuck playing a fighter.


Adam B. 135 wrote:
Yes, the Slayer can 1 level dip for heavy armor. He then loses access to his Combat Style feat talents, or use the Evasion talent.

I was actually wondering about this earlier today - the Slayer talent doesn't seem to make note of the armor restrictions that are applied to the Ranger. Can Slayers use combat style talents while wearing heavy armor?


Adam B. 135 wrote:
I meant fullplate for theme purposes. Sometimes people wanna be the "heavy armored guy," and the Fighter still is unique-ish for that theme. Sadly, it means that anyone who wants to play that theme is probably stuck playing a fighter.

I just fluff whatever I wear to what I want it to be for the sake of imagery. So long its not egregious most people I know don't care.

The game itself actually favors snagging mithral or celestial.

Liberty's Edge

Adam B. 135 wrote:
Yes, the Slayer can 1 level dip for heavy armor. He then loses access to his Combat Style feat talents, or use the Evasion talent.

Mithral Full Plate has none of these consequences (though you still need the Proficiency)...and you don't need to take Fighting style until 6th level or so even if going straight Feats...so wearing normal Full Plate 1st-6th and grabbing Mithral Full Plate some time within a level or two thereafter is very viable. So...Fighters are the guys who can wear Heavy Armor cheaply. Yay?

Scarab Sages

Maybe it's just me and my curmudgeonly attitude, but so far the ONLY one I like out of the ACG playtest is the Slayer. And even then, I think it's still kind of limiting.

I like the flavor of most of the classes, but I just don't see how they are so earth shattering like so many people here seem to.

Get off my lawn!


Can we get a Warrior/Adept hybrid?


Tels wrote:
Can we get a Warrior/Adept hybrid?

That would be too broken, so no. Full BAB and 5th level spells? Ranger and Paladin only get 4th!


chaoseffect wrote:
Tels wrote:
Can we get a Warrior/Adept hybrid?
That would be too broken, so no. Full BAB and 5th level spells? Ranger and Paladin only get 4th!

But they don't have at-will orisons!!!


chaoseffect wrote:
Tels wrote:
Can we get a Warrior/Adept hybrid?
That would be too broken, so no. Full BAB and 5th level spells? Ranger and Paladin only get 4th!

...If I said that I'm not entirely certain if this is serious, would you respond 'mission accomplished' or 'yes, this is serious'?


Being so sincere right now.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I'm not sure if anyone's mentioned it yet, but I think the ACG could do A LOT to revitalize the Fighter and Rogue.

New combat feats, new rogue talents, new archetypes, new weapons, new traits ...we could be getting a whole new take on some of these "weaker classes". It's not just the playtest classes, we were promised a lot more with this book. Think of what the APG did for the core game, that's pretty much what I'm expecting here.


I see everyone talk about how the hunters are bad or suck, but they have to be that way, because if there is more than 1 hunter in the group they become really good to broken depending on number hunters. Me and my friend did a pair, elf hunter twins and they were out preforming everything and wiping out everything, a party of 4 hunters would destroy any other group. The problem is the team work feats being shared with the AC. They can use those feats to become monsters.

Slayers will kill off the Rogue, that was inevitable. I think that is their purpose to make a better Rogue. The slayer will not get rid of the fighter, I know because I played tested a slayer also and built him almost exactly the same as my fighter/hell knight and my fighter hell knight out preformed him in every way. The slayer fixes what was broken and upgraded that much needed in the rogue, but the fighter still has a place, I know people always say they suck, but they don’t they the most flexible class in the game you can build them any way you want. Do to large number of feats. Yes they are weaker than the paladin, and the barb has lots of tricks it can do, but they still work and people still play them because of the complete customization that is possible with the class.


KainPen wrote:
The problem is the team work feats being shared with the AC. They can use those feats to become monsters.

Teamwork feats are weird. A lot of them are subpar even when they work, and you have to have a friend with a teamwork feat to make it work. With 2 hunters 4 members of your party are running with teamwork feats and built around teamwork feats.

Teamwork feats work best if the class is built around giving people a way to use them imo, but awkwardly that might mean teamwork feats are flawed in execution themselves.

KainPen wrote:
The slayer will not get rid of the fighter, I know because I played tested a slayer also and built him almost exactly the same as my fighter/hell knight and my fighter hell knight out preformed him in every way.

You ran numbers and looked up their skill points and special abilities? Ideally if they had the same equipment/feats the slayer would have roughly the same bonus to attack damage from his studied combat as the fighter and then have his sneak attack on top of skill points and saves and the fighter is going to have a few feats which probably aren't going to add up to those saves and feats. Its also not a fighter comparison if its a hellknight is it?

KainPen wrote:
Do to large number of feats. Yes they are weaker than the paladin, and the barb has lots of tricks it can do, but they still work and people still play them because of the complete customization that is possible with the class.

Fighter's are actually that customizable. What they get is feats, so they're as customizable as feats allow, and most feats aren't fighter only so everyone has access to the same abilities and feats rarely actually give you options. When I play a barbarian, I get access to feats and rage powers, and most of the time rage powers are so good I give them up for feats, and when I make a rogue rogue talents are so awful that I actually try to trade them out for feats. Fighter has few skill points and actual options that others won't get, so they aren't really that customizable.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Tels wrote:
Can we get a Warrior/Adept hybrid?

I'd play it!

Tels wrote:
But they don't have at-will orisons!!!

Oh well that's a deal breaker then...


MrSin wrote:
Tels wrote:
Can we get a Warrior/Adept hybrid?

I'd play it!

Tels wrote:
But they don't have at-will orisons!!!
Oh well that's a deal breaker then...

House-rules man! House-rules!


MrSin wrote:
KainPen wrote:
The problem is the team work feats being shared with the AC. They can use those feats to become monsters.

Teamwork feats are weird. A lot of them are subpar even when they work, and you have to have a friend with a teamwork feat to make it work. With 2 hunters 4 members of your party are running with teamwork feats and built around teamwork feats.

Teamwork feats work best if the class is built around giving people a way to use them imo, but awkwardly that might mean teamwork feats are flawed in execution themselves.

KainPen wrote:
The slayer will not get rid of the fighter, I know because I played tested a slayer also and built him almost exactly the same as my fighter/hell knight and my fighter hell knight out preformed him in every way.
You ran numbers and looked up their skill points and special abilities? Ideally if they had the same equipment/feats the slayer would have roughly the same bonus to attack damage from his studied combat as the fighter and then have his sneak attack on top of skill points and saves and the fighter is going to have a few feats which probably aren't going to add up to those saves and feats. Its also not a fighter comparison if its a hellknight is it?

Teamwork feats seem like that are under power and they are because not a whole group ever takes them, the more people that have them the stronger they are. Most people have certain build in mind so they don't want to work as team, so the those feats get neglected, but with the hunter they do not. you start off with two characters having and getting a benefit from them, add another hunter, now you got a full parties worth of characters getting those benefits, add a 3rd hunter now 6 characters have those benefits, a 4th and 8 have it. there is an exponential increase in the feats. Hunters like the brawler can do a quick swap of to a team work feat everyone can use. Not to mention you now have 4 mid-range casters. We had these feats on our hunters Shake it off+ Calvary formation, + Calvary charge, + seize the moment with high critic range weapon, + Large cat AC. It was a blood bath. all creatures had +3 to all there saves, we took up large size creature square and moved and attacked at the same time. So we never lost those bonus. If someone critical AOO all around. Now if you have 4 hunters setup this way it is even worse, all creatures have the max +4 to saves, take up large creature two squares and all attack at the exact same time odd are one of them is going crit and spring off 8 Aoo.

I only had two levels of hell knight so it was a far comparison as going into prestige class actually weakens you. Loosed out on a feat and another level of weapon training. The slayer has a lot of trap functions built into and the slayer is a bit more MAD then fighter also. I took skill focus twice as fighter, for intimidate and use magic device. That alone made up for skill points difference, I found the slayer still had more skill points I was putting them in things he was really never going to use, or one that would be used to replace the rogue role which is not really much of one. The wizard and cleric really had the other skills covered in the group and had far better numbers. My slayer had more hp then the fighter because I used the favored class bonus for him for hp, while for fighter I used them for skill points. But the slayers ac was lower by about 5 points so was getting hit more often and taking more damage due to lack of heavy armor, natural armor). Armor check penalty on the slayer reducing the skills which armor training has all but got rid of on the fighter reducing the skill point difference even further. Damage you would think would be higher in the slayer due to favored target and sneak attack it was not. I found myself having to waste feats to make sneak attack more reliable getting hit with feat taxes from dazzling display and shatter defense, and weapon focus.

This play test made me realize what others have said for a long time sneak attack does not = the same strength as feat and disable trap is not worth a class feature. You don’t even get a lot of sneak attack dice with the slayer which make it even more worthless.

While favored target is awesome, it eats up the action economy, swift actions later, this good be really bad in mythic campaign as most mythic ablitys uses swift actions. But for these two in a normal Campaign I found my fighter was able to use arcane strike all the time, that works on all targets, while for the slayer I keep having to switch especially if party member kill the target I just studied. Both had arcane strike but I could almost never get it off with the slayer. Also lack of weapon training made me less accurate except to favored target. So you constantly find our self-having to pick a new target every round. While the fighters bonus it does not matter he it works against all targets.

The slayer is still a very good class, and I think in a solo adventure there is no better class choice as it can literally do everything easily without much customization or building. it a strait out of the box jack of all trade character(sounds like what a rogue is supposed to be hu?) but it just did not seem to kill off the fighter like one would think. but you can stick a fork in the Rogue It is done.

Silver Crusade

It looks like the classes will get at least one significant change in the final product. It will be possible to multi class into the base classes.

This opens up some interesting possibilities (and possibly headaches). My ftr/cleric would obviously be better served as a warpriest/cleric.

Without SOME restrictions this looks like it may be problematic. Lots of interesting dips open up.

blog post


2 level barb dip then bloodrager so you can grab a bunch of rage powers?

Also Skald hurray!


MrSin wrote:


You ran numbers and looked up their skill points and special abilities? Ideally if they had the same equipment/feats the slayer would have roughly the same bonus to attack damage from his studied combat as the fighter and then have his sneak attack on top of skill points and saves and the fighter is going to have a few feats which probably aren't going to add up to those saves and feats.

A Slayer can easily have a Feat every level as well, almost continuously through 10th. (2nd Combat Style, 4th Combat Trick, 6th Combat Style, 10th Combat Style).

Continuously if he's Dex based.


Insain Dragoon wrote:

2 level barb dip then bloodrager so you can grab a bunch of rage powers?

Also Skald hurray!

You can't multiclass barbarian/ bloodrager because the bloodrager is already part barbarian.

Grand Lodge RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

2 level barb dip then bloodrager so you can grab a bunch of rage powers?

Also Skald hurray!

You can't multiclass barbarian/ bloodrager because the bloodrager is already part barbarian.

That restriction's been removed, as per one of the spoilers in today's blog. Curious to see the results of that fact...


That spell seems pretty bad honestly, seems bad for a second level spell.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Insain Dragoon wrote:

2 level barb dip then bloodrager so you can grab a bunch of rage powers?

Also Skald hurray!

You can't multiclass barbarian/ bloodrager because the bloodrager is already part barbarian.

in the blog post linked above, they said they removed the multiclassing restrictions.


Insain Dragoon wrote:
That spell seems pretty bad honestly, seems bad for a second level spell.

Yeah, unless you are leading an army of mooks it feels pretty bad.

Then again, all healing is kinda bad, and out of combat it's all about cost efficiency, so I guess it's a flavorful way of doing things if you really must stabilize someone maybe?


"flavorful" should not be synomynous with "bad"

Any other ACG classed you think could benefit from multiclassing?


I wonder how they have accommodated the classes for that. Getting a Brawler dip for any Monk who traded away flurry, or the Brawler fighter seems rather good.

In fact, DEX Punch-fighter could get kinda silly with multi-classing. Swashbuckler1 (weapon finesse)/Gendarme Cavalier1(power attack) Fighter(brawler)3 (2 feats, brawler weapon training)/ BrawlerX/ MonkX

101 to 150 of 230 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How do you think the ACG will influence your games? Long and Short term considerations All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.