Why do Brawlers get the ability to bypass damage reduction. Makes no sense, they are not magical or mystical driven characters or have some mystical bloodline. Don't like the class.
|
Why do Brawlers get the ability to bypass damage reduction. Makes no sense, they are not magical or mystical driven characters or have some mystical bloodline. Don't like the class.
Same reason fighters do - since they pretty much can only do damage, the least that can be done is to make them good at it.
Why do Brawlers get the ability to bypass damage reduction. Makes no sense, they are not magical or mystical driven characters or have some mystical bloodline. Don't like the class.
I don't understand this comment. Does this mean that you think that you must have magic in order to bypass DR?
I mean, the Fighter can even just take a feat to ignore some DR. They are not magical or mystically driven. They are the plainest of the plain, in fact.
This right here is the best point I have seen raised regarding the SB and its lack of good fort save.Obviously the poor fort is there to preserve the fighter's niche :P
Good fort and ref would just make him another "fighter but better" class for combat, which the game does not need IMHO.
A good fort save is not the fighter's niche. Retaining their mobility, and not being married to a particular weapon group or fighting style are where the fighter excels, and they have nothing to worry about on either front from a swashbuckler.
If you want to argue based on theme, there are only three existing classes with poor fort saves who don't also have 1/2 BAB progression and d6 HD. Rogue, oracle, summoner. The class which, in theory, is specialized in avoiding combat and dealing with all the other problems a party will face, the class which is explicitly frail or crippled due to their curses, and the wizard variant which only has 3/4 BAB and d8 HD as an odd quirk of design symmetry thanks to their odd spell list.
Arguing that a good fort save "doesn't make sense" for a swashbuckler is arguing that people specifically trained as experts in a style of swordplay should be less capable of shrugging off injury than clergy, entertainers, scientists, ranged combat specialists, wizards who also know how to use a sword on the side, and magic users who use summoned monsters to fight their battles for them.
...
It incorrectly says that Bards have a good Fort save; they do not.
Why do Brawlers get the ability to bypass damage reduction. Makes no sense, they are not magical or mystical driven characters or have some mystical bloodline. Don't like the class.
Why do you have to be magical or mystical driven to bypass damage reduction?
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion on ACG classes:
Arcanist: So. Insanely. Broken. Definite proof that Paizo either doesn't give a f@&$ about game balance or is really bad at it (Probably a mix of both). As if being a 9th level arcane caster with access to their whole list wasn't enough to make a class tier 1, they also gave Arcanists a bunch of extremely powerful class features. Boosting CL and save DC of spells is amazing, and Magic Exploits (or whatever they are called) are interesting, but seriously overpowered.
Seeing Arcanists in the same game as CW errata makes me think Paizo sees game balance as a joke. Harsh? Probably. But still true.
Bloodrager: Possibly the best designed class in the book. Seems very fun to play and well balanced, although a bit too similar to Barbarians. I wish their class features were more different from each other. Bad news is, I think they one-up every Barbarian build other than (Beast Totem + Superstition + Spell Sunder).
Brawler: Cool class, but very one dimensional. It has some interesting abilities, and it's great to finally see another option for unarmed combatants, but I'm not sure if it'll have many valuable combat tactics other than full attacking.
Hunter: Waste of word count. Hunters are underpowered, boring and pointless. It's just a worse druid based on a terrible Ranger archetype. Doesn't fill any niche, doesn't allow for any character concept that couldn't be done much better with Druid, Ranger or even Inquisitor. Paizo could have given as a Wildshapping Ranger without FE, FT and a different spell list, but no. They decided to play it safe and created the most unnecessary of classes. If it isn't vastly reworked from the playtest version, Hunters will add nothing to the game.
Investigator: Another incredibly well designed classes. It seems all problems I had with its "Study Enemy" ability have been fixed. Love it. Finally a Rogue that works!
Shaman: Seems interesting enough. Can't make any meaningful comment, though. Barely checked the class.
Skald: No comments. Had no interest in the class. Never bothered with it.
Slayer: Another cool class! Could have done a few things differently, but I like it.
Swashbuckler: So much disappointment... This is the very definition of wasted opportunity. Such a cool character concept, that could have opened so many different options to the game. I wanted martial with real mobility, interesting class features and great flavor. Instead, all we got is yet another "stand still and full attack, don't do much of anything useful out of combat" class. Swashbucklers are incapable of living up to their class description. They are no more agile than a Fighter with weapon finesse and just slightly more useful out of combat ("Look! I have 4 skill points! That means I'm versatile, right?" ¬¬'). All Swashbucklers have is damage and AC. Just a cool concept strangled by bad mechanics. And having another class with the worst saves in the game doesn't really help either.
Warpriest: Seems pretty cool as well. Simple, but interesting. There are some fun ideas here, and allows for more (effective) character possibilities.
My opinion on ACG classes:
Arcanist: So. Insanely. Broken. Definite proof that Paizo either doesn't give a f*&# about game balance or is really bad at it (Probably a mix of both). As if being a 9th level arcane caster with access to their whole list wasn't enough to make a class tier 1, they also gave Arcanists a bunch of extremely powerful class features. Boosting CL and save DC of spells is amazing, and Magic Exploits (or whatever they are called) are interesting, but seriously overpowered.
Seeing Arcanists in the same game as CW errata makes me think Paizo sees game balance as a joke. Harsh? Probably. But still true.
Bloodrager: Possibly the best designed class in the book. Seems very fun to play and well balanced, although a bit too similar to Barbarians. I wish their class features were more different from each other. Bad news is, I think they one-up every Barbarian build other than (Beast Totem + Superstition + Spell Sunder).
Brawler: Cool class, but very one dimensional. It has some interesting abilities, and it's great to finally see another option for unarmed combatants, but I'm not sure if it'll have many valuable combat tactics other than full attacking.
Hunter: Waste of word count. Hunters are underpowered, boring and pointless. It's just a worse druid based on a terrible Ranger archetype. Doesn't fill any niche, doesn't allow for any character concept that couldn't be done much better with Druid, Ranger or even Inquisitor. Paizo could have given as a Wildshapping Ranger without FE, FT and a different spell list, but no. They decided to play it safe and created the most unnecessary of classes. If it isn't vastly reworked from the playtest version, Hunters will add nothing to the game.
Investigator: Another incredibly well designed classes. It seems all problems I had with its "Study Enemy" ability have been fixed. Love it. Finally a Rogue that works!
Shaman: Seems interesting enough. Can't make any meaningful comment, though....
According to the Arcanist preview it kept Quick Study. (full round action to swap spells)
|
From what I have read, the advanced classes seem to be very interesting but I can't help feel that they are edited and recycled concepts of the current classes. The warpreist, for example, comes across as a religious person who is better equipped to kick some backside (ie, hybridising a cleric with a fighter). So in conclusion, the advanced classes sound good but they lack imagination.
I actually like the concept of the hunter. Something actually designed to work WITH your animal companion. There is quite a bit in literature where the companion is more then just a buddy, but an integral part of a team. In the druid, the druid seriously overshadows his ac, cuz well druids are awesome. In the ranger, there isnt really alot of interaction in abilities. Its just a dude who is a ranger who also has a wolf, its not integral to the concept of the class (hence the ability for both druid and ranger to NOT have an animal companion). And even the summoner that focuses on the 'pet' still mostly has the sidekick mentality, just the other way around.
My hope for the hunter is that it will actually take the idea of someone working with an animal as a team to a better level then exists in current material. The teamwork feats thing is a great start. I just hope they get additional improvements in the final printing.
From what I have read, the advanced classes seem to be very interesting but I can't help feel that they are edited and recycled concepts of the current classes. The warpreist, for example, comes across as a religious person who is better equipped to kick some backside (ie, hybridising a cleric with a fighter). So in conclusion, the advanced classes sound good but they lack imagination.Eh, the Warpriest was best characterized in its own thread as being reduced to 3/4 BAB, D8 HP, Good Fort and Will save, low Skill Points and 6/9 levels of casting from the Cleric list. Compare that to a standard Cleric which gets: 3/4 BAB, D8 HP, Good Fort and Will save, low Skill Points and 9/9 levels of casting from the Cleric list. I dont see them kicking serious backside until i find the cool new ability in the book that they havent hinted at yet in any of these threads.
You mean besides having scaling damage on their weapon, the ability to swift action cast any buff spell on themselves and the ability to swift action enhance their weapon? Or the ability to swift action heal themselves OR cast any prepared healing/condition removal spells? You dont see how the warpriest might have some advantages over the cleric who has to take a standard action (read not attack) to do these things?
From what I have read, the advanced classes seem to be very interesting but I can't help feel that they are edited and recycled concepts of the current classes. The warpreist, for example, comes across as a religious person who is better equipped to kick some backside (ie, hybridising a cleric with a fighter). So in conclusion, the advanced classes sound good but they lack imagination.
Um.... what...
You are aware that the ACG classes ARE HYBRIDS between two classes right?...
10.) The Hunter need not exist at all. I can't figure out what new niche it fills or what edge it has on EITHER of its parent classes. The ranger only needs a single Feat to make its AC just as good. The Druid does literally everything better. Same companion, more spells (and spell levels), same BaB, Wild Shape, and a ton of other stuff. The Hunter in the incarnation shown by the second playtest was pretty much a waste of wordcount.
To me, it looks like a class that is designed to actually use the teamwork aspect of teamwork feats. For a cavalier, teamwork feats are essentially a cooldown that the character saves for niche situations. For an inquisitor, they are cool tricks that ultimately don't require any buddy assistance. The hunter, on the other hand, reliably uses all teamwork feats the way they were intended to be used and is overall less restricted than the inquisitor (some feats, like Feint Partner, do not function with solo tactics).
The real test of whether or not the Hunter is going to be an effective class will be whether or not the Advanced Class Guide produces some strong teamwork feats that are worth using, in my opinion.
From what I have read, the advanced classes seem to be very interesting but I can't help feel that they are edited and recycled concepts of the current classes. The warpreist, for example, comes across as a religious person who is better equipped to kick some backside (ie, hybridising a cleric with a fighter). So in conclusion, the advanced classes sound good but they lack imagination.Um.... what...
You are aware that the ACG classes ARE HYBRIDS between two classes right?...
So are some of the existing classes. Like the paladin (cleric-fighter with unique skills and abilities but limited alignment) and the inquisitor (cleric-fighter or cleric-ranger with unique skills and abilities).
One of the comments made a lot about the warpriest when it was first announced is that, really, that class kinda sounded familiar and done already...
The Paladin class is a bit of a throwback to early editions of D&D though, MagusJanus. The strict alignment and behavioural restriction mean that Combat/Divine hybrids have previously been very limited. Arguably the Warpriest could supercede or replace the Paladin from a mechanical standpoint, without these restrictions. Or they could just open up Paladins to any alignment and be done with it.
According to the latest info on Warpriests, they specifically altered the class to prevent it from displacing the paladin. So I don't really see that happening.
A pity. Holy warriors come in many flavors.
I actually like Paladins, but their morality differentiating them from a LG Cleric or Warpriest seems daft. Apart from the mechanical weakness of rogues, the roleplaying void between some players/GMs with regard to Paladins keeps these forums too busy.
While the Warpriest might thematically replace the Paladin the "holy warrior" concept, mechanically they work very differently.
The paladin relies on full BAB, high base HP, good saves and passive abilities (divine grace, fear immunity etc) to do well in combat and relies on active abilities (Smite Evil, Aura of Justice, Divine Bond) to go above and beyond only when the situation calls for it - the paladin is a perfectly viable frontliner without using his (fairly limited) spells and x/day abilities.
In comparison the Warpriest* has medium BAB, lower base HP and worse saves, and so relies more heavily on active abilities (Fervor, Blessings, Sacred Weapon)that he in turn can use more frequently in order to be competitive in combat. The Warpriest is underwhelming on the frontline if he's not actively burning resources to keep up.
It's a bit like the barbarian and the magus. Both are good melee combatants, but the barbarian has excellent damage output even when he's not in rage while the magus heavily relies on using spell combat and spell slots and/or arcane pool points to maintain a good attack bonus and output meaningful damage.
Which is a little odd, since the Warpriest blog seemed to imply that the Warpriest was an attempt to make an alignment-free paladin. From a flavor perspective that could well be a success, from a mechanical perspective I don't think they quite nailed it. An "alignment-free paladin" should ideally have full BAB and 4th level spellcasting, same as the original class.
*All based on the revised play test version of the class, taking into account the updates shown in the blog and subsequent posts from Jason.
10.) The Hunter need not exist at all. I can't figure out what new niche it fills or what edge it has on EITHER of its parent classes. The ranger only needs a single Feat to make its AC just as good. The Druid does literally everything better. Same companion, more spells (and spell levels), same BaB, Wild Shape, and a ton of other stuff. The Hunter in the incarnation shown by the second playtest was pretty much a waste of wordcount.To me, it looks like a class that is designed to actually use the teamwork aspect of teamwork feats. For a cavalier, teamwork feats are essentially a cooldown that the character saves for niche situations. For an inquisitor, they are cool tricks that ultimately don't require any buddy assistance. The hunter, on the other hand, reliably uses all teamwork feats the way they were intended to be used and is overall less restricted than the inquisitor (some feats, like Feint Partner, do not function with solo tactics).
The real test of whether or not the Hunter is going to be an effective class will be whether or not the Advanced Class Guide produces some strong teamwork feats that are worth using, in my opinion.
IMO "Can use certain kinds of Feats" is not a strong enough concept to base a class off of. Again, a Druid could also take Teamwork Feats if he wanted...and then still has Wildshape and 9 levels of casting, along with the same amount of BaB to play around with.
The Hunter just wasn't very well thought out.
I'm pretty much in agreement Kudaku, mechically they're very different but in terms of flavor they're similar. Most people would be very hard pressed to differentiate between a LG Warpriest and Paladin in a Police lineup. The gradation between Fighter and battle-oriented Cleric has yet another step in it.
I'm pretty much in agreement Kudaku, mechically they're very different but in terms of flavor they're similar. Most people would be very hard pressed to differentiate between a LG Warpriest and Paladin in a Police lineup. The gradation between Fighter and battle-oriented Cleric has yet another step in it.
Unless you use a dtect alignment spell... Paladins pretty much radiate LG... literally.
I'm pretty much in agreement Kudaku, mechically they're very different but in terms of flavor they're similar. Most people would be very hard pressed to differentiate between a LG Warpriest and Paladin in a Police lineup. The gradation between Fighter and battle-oriented Cleric has yet another step in it.
As long as they're mechanically different I think there will still be a call for an unaligned (or at least alternate aligned) paladin.
Personally I find the class mechanics of the paladin very appealing, but I find the code of conduct limitations distinctly unappealing - I'd never play a paladin in a home game without either modifying or removing the code.
Unless you use a dtect alignment spell... Paladins pretty much radiate LG... literally.
To be fair a Lawful Good warpriest would radiate LG as well.
I'm pretty much in agreement Kudaku, mechically they're very different but in terms of flavor they're similar. Most people would be very hard pressed to differentiate between a LG Warpriest and Paladin in a Police lineup. The gradation between Fighter and battle-oriented Cleric has yet another step in it.As long as they're mechanically different I think there will still be a call for an unaligned (or at least alternate aligned) paladin.
Personally I find the class mechanics of the paladin very appealing, but I find the code of conduct limitations distinctly unappealing - I'd never play a paladin in a home game without either modifying or removing the code.
Unless you use a dtect alignment spell... Paladins pretty much radiate LG... literally.To be fair a Lawful Good warpriest would radiate LG as well.
Not to the extent of Paladins. If I remember right, Warpriests do not have the Aura ability that Paladin's and Cleric's have. Additionally, Paladins pretty much have a supercharged version, making Detect good around a Paladin a very bad idea.
Not to the extent of Paladins. If I remember right, Warpriests do not have the Aura ability that Paladin's and Cleric's have. Additionally, Paladins pretty much have a supercharged version, making Detect good around a Paladin a very bad idea.
Clerics and paladins have the same aura radiation under detect spells, and while the play test Warpriest didn't have the note, I'll be extremely surprised if the final version doesn't have the same aura that clerics have.
Thank you everyone for your input. I believe that my question has been answered, "Are they advanced classes awesome?" Yes. While not perfect, it's usually the flaws that make something fun and memorable. That adage may fail when applied to D&D, but it depends on the style and personality of the player. Thanks again.
Incidentally the Brawler may end up being pretty good in the final release. According to SKR it's only getting buffs.
It's already better than the fighter in a lot of ways too.
|
Monks can have great DPR, if you build for it. The Brawler's big issue though is that it somewhat obsoletes the Sohei. It has full BAB, can flurry with non-monk weapons from level 1, can flurry in armor, and has Unarmed Strike damage progression, not even counting it's floating feat abilities.
Especially since the hybrid multiclass restriction was removed, you can have a MoMS 2/Brawler x.
I just reread the Skald part of the ACG playtest, and as Arachnofiend says - they can hand out greater beast totem to the whole party. Stick them in a party with a 2 or more martials, a combat pet and summons and it'll be brutal.
Step 1: Skald gives the entire party pounce in round 1 as a swift action.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just reread the Skald part of the ACG playtest, and as Arachnofiend says - they can hand out greater beast totem to the whole party. Stick them in a party with a 2 or more martials, a combat pet and summons and it'll be brutal.
Step 1: Skald gives the entire party pounce in round 1 as a swift action.
Step 2: ???
Step 3: Profit.
This is indeed an awesome trick, though it doesn't kick in until 11th level at the earliest (12th unless you're willing to spend a Feat).
Still really cool for a melee heavy party, though.
Alternatively, giving a healing focused arty (say, a Witch, Life Oracle, and Paladin to go with the Skald) all Lesser Celestial Totem is pretty absurd, too. Especially if everyone grabs Fey Foundling, too. A 4th level Paladin with Fey Foundling and Lesser Celestial Totem can Lay on Hands for 2d6+8. At 12th, make that 6d6+24. Those numbers are also correct for Channeling Energy at those levels, for either the Paladin or an Oracle of Life (who can Channel as a Move Action with Quick Channel). 90 HP of healing per turn on the Paladin, and 45 on everyone else, at need at 12th level is nothing to sneeze at.
That requires much more coordination, and is probably still not quite as good as Pounce...but on the other hand, it's also only one Rage power and off the top of my head. And going up the tree they'd all get Invisibility Purge on adjacent creatures to boot.
Monks can have great DPR, if you build for it. The Brawler's big issue though is that it somewhat obsoletes the Sohei. It has full BAB, can flurry with non-monk weapons from level 1, can flurry in armor, and has Unarmed Strike damage progression, not even counting it's floating feat abilities.
Especially since the hybrid multiclass restriction was removed, you can have a MoMS 2/Brawler x.
I always felt that the Sohei was meant to be the Mounted Monk, but everyone largely ignored the mount stuff for the fight good stuff.
|
|
I always felt that the Sohei was meant to be the Mounted Monk, but everyone largely ignored the mount stuff for the fight good stuff.Monks can have great DPR, if you build for it. The Brawler's big issue though is that it somewhat obsoletes the Sohei. It has full BAB, can flurry with non-monk weapons from level 1, can flurry in armor, and has Unarmed Strike damage progression, not even counting it's floating feat abilities.
Especially since the hybrid multiclass restriction was removed, you can have a MoMS 2/Brawler x.
It would have helped if they actually had a mount.
The Lesser Celestial Totem Skald combined with a Life Link Oracle does indeed throw out a lot of party-wide healing, Deadmanwalking. At level 10 everyone in the party has the equivalent of fast healing 15 from Life Link alone, without considering Channels, Energy Body or casting... (And it should work, as Life Link is technically healing rather than fast healing, which is unaffected.)
Unfortunately, as Lesser Celestial totem is based on class level rather than character level Oradins won't benefit as much.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
IMO "Can use certain kinds of Feats" is not a strong enough concept to base a class off of. Again, a Druid could also take Teamwork Feats if he wanted...and then still has Wildshape and 9 levels of casting, along with the same amount of BaB to play around with.
The Hunter just wasn't very well thought out.
I disagree.
The druid CAN take Teamwork Feats, but the Druid can't be guaranteed a teamwork partner who shares all of her teamwork feats for everything. Even if she could be, the druid doesn't get bonus teamwork feats, so those feats count against the feats she can normally select. Plus the druid doesn't give those feats to her animal companion for free, so she would have to spend her animal companion's feats selecting those teamwork feats as well. This is a perfect example of where the parent class CAN do something, but isn't as efficient at it as the offspring class.
I do, however, think that the Hunter's class features are too bare compared to other 6-level spellcasters (Bard, Inquisitor, Summoner, and Alchemist have cool things to look forward to at every level, for example). Hopefully we'll be seeing the final Hunter in the coming weeks.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I just did a bit of napkin math over in the "Min-Maxing Cure Spells" Thread, and have come to the conclusion that a Life Oracle taking advantage of a Skald's Lesser Celestial Totem can put out in excess of 400HP of healing per turn in a four-man party (+ Animal Companion) at level 10. This is quite a lot, really.
If a class is only useful when you have an entire party of them (and all using the exact same build repeated 4 times), it's not useful. I'm not seeing anything there that a Barbarian probably couldn't do better, or an Inquisitor if you want to compare it to another 3/4 BaB class, not to mention the Ranger and Druid.
The problem with that party is you essentially need to be hanging out in a big square, because that's the only way you're all adjacent to each other, and it still doesn't grant any huge benefits for the restricted mobility and vulnerability to AoE attacks.
Seize the Moment + Paired Opportunists is nice, but doesn't make up for the fact that the Hunter gets jack all else. Given the option between a few extra AoOs, and 9th level casting + Wild Shape, or Favored Enemy + Combat Style, I'll take the latter two every time.
What I REALLY want from the ACG is an option for Dex to damage other than "play x class", "dervish dance with a scimitar", or "agile weapon".
There is a pretty good chance this is going to happen, actually. There were some hints dropped in the Swashbuckler thread that we may get something similar" to dervish dance but presumably a bit more open in weapon choice.