I wouldn't even consider the Hunter's "weakness" to be it's main problem. It just... has no niche. What would you make with a Hunter that you can't already make with a Druid or a Ranger with great effectiveness? All of the other ACG classes cover archetypes that just don't really exist in Pathfinder, or if they did they required massive arm twisting to get the rules to do what you wanted them to do.
I think a Ranger/Summoner hybrid would have made a better Hunter. 4th level spells based on charisma, animal companion that becomes stronger than the Hunter with an eidolon-style system, and Summon Nature's Ally as a spell-like ability. Then we'd have the Etrian Odyssey Wildling, or a more magical San.
Hunter could have had a niche.
It could have been a real "Beastmaster" class. Give it a similar system to the Eidolon except you're buying stats, resistances, AC, Saves, ect. Instead we get a weaker animal companion than a Ranger with boon companion.
Honestly, I'd say that's a problem with Boon Companion, not the Hunter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
If a Feat that was never a problem before is suddenly a "problem" because a yet to be released class is obsoleted by it, that doesn't say to me it's a problem with the Feat at all, it's a problem with designing a class that is weaker than an already released Feat.
Boon Companion is a fix to a weakness Rangers shouldn't have had in the first place.
Hunter could have been a Ranger with Wild Shape and different list of spells, but with no Combat Styles or FE.
If you can make an unarmed sort of fighter with the AC, ala Beastlord from EQ, then it'll be worth it.
Boon Companion was intended to make multiclassed characters more viable, not give a straight Ranger the same companion as a straight druid.
Boon Companion was intended to make multiclassed characters more viable, not give a straight Ranger the same companion as a straight druid.
How do you know that? And why should Rangers have a weaker animal companion when Druids are already a far more powerful class?
Boon Companion was intended to make multiclassed characters more viable, not give a straight Ranger the same companion as a straight druid.
Even if this is true, using it in the manner almost everyone uses it (because it's basically tailor made for a Ranger by the number of extra levels it gives) isn't a "problem". It has caused no imbalances.
If an imbalance is suddenly present because of a new class, THAT CLASS is the creator of the imbalance, not the thing that was perfectly balanced before.
If I mix a perfectly delicious orange juice with a perfectly delicious pineapple juice, and it tastes delicious, it is not the fault of my new orange-pineapple juice when I add turnip juice to it and it tastes bad. It is the turnip juice's fault.
Animal companions are an awesome class feature for a while, but eventually they become more of a liability than their worth.
Bad saves, low BAB, hard to give them a decent enhancement bonus, 15 HD at level 20.
Why dominate the fighter when you can more easily dominate the wolf and have it trip the X class? Or dominate the large Tiger and have it pounce charge someone.
If the Hunter had done something to fix those problems then it'd have a niche.
Give it a point system like the Summoner and let it buy
-Saves
-AC
-Enhancement bonus for natural weapon
-HP
-Stats
Suddenly we got a pretty cool sounding class!
Insain Dragoon's idea is pretty cool too. I think it could work.
Personally I find it sad when an Oracle can have a stronger animal companion than the Hunter...
Step one: Be a Half-Elf or Aasimar (both good for Oracles)
Step two: Plas Oracle of Nature (or Lunar)
Step three: Grab the Animal Companion revelation
Step four: Put FCB into pumping up effective level of animal companion
Step five: PROFIT!!!!
I mean when a level 20 oracle has the animal companion of a level 30 druid....
Oh! And lets not forget the new Nature Shaman.... Their level 15 ability makes their familiar into both a familiar and an animal companion, gaining ALL bonuses from both (Combine this with Improved familiar and laugh)
I posted something similar in the ACG playtest, but I forget the exact responses or if that feedback was ever even acknowledged.
What I can tell you is that we probably shouldn't expect anything similar.
Instead we get a weaker animal companion than a Ranger with boon companion.I'm curious where you're getting this assessment from.
Often overlooked fact: A Ranger's Animal Companion shares his Favored Terrain and Favored Enemy bonuses.
So oftentimes they'll be getting a solid boost.
Well... The Hunter's AC does get a permanent Enhancement bonus to its attribute, allowing the hunter to save cash.
Well... The Hunter's AC does get a permanent Enhancement bonus to its attribute, allowing the hunter to save cash.
+6 str= +3 to hit +3 or +4 to damage depending on the animal companion.
Favored enemy= +6/+6 at level 10
Not only that but the Ranger can also get a belt for his animal companion so their total bonus will end up higher.
edit: I realize you're probably poking fun at the Hunter here and I did get a chuckle :) I responded as I did for the people who may agree with what you typed.
Hunter is a waste of page count... It's kinda funny, actually. The classes that I expected to care the least (Bloodrager and Inestigator) ended up being really cool, and the ones I was expecting to be awesome ended up being meh (Swashbuckler) or a waste of paper (Hunter).
Tsc... So many cool things could have been done with the Hunter, but they decided to make him a poor man's Druid based on an awful Ranger archetype. Wasted opportunity.
Eh, the class preview isn't out yet. From what I can recall the playtest feedback was fairly clear in that the class had some issues, there's a good chance they took that to heart and gave it some good tweaks.
It doesn't need tweaks, it needs a total rehaul. The Hunter's design is completely uninspired as it stands now. Even if they change it enough to be good I can't imagine them changing it enough to stand as its own base class.
Eh, the class preview isn't out yet. From what I can recall the playtest feedback was fairly clear in that the class had some issues, there's a good chance they took that to heart and gave it some good tweaks.
The feedback was VERY clear.
Its reception by the designer, however, leads me to believe the final product, much like the other classes he managed (Brawler and Slayer) will be basically unchanged from their 2nd playtest forms, unless another designer came in afterwards and fixed them up once he left the company.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well... The Hunter's AC does get a permanent Enhancement bonus to its attribute, allowing the hunter to save cash.+6 str= +3 to hit +3 or +4 to damage depending on the animal companion.
Favored enemy= +6/+6 at level 10
With a spell slot or against a tight range of enemies. Conversely, at 10th level the hunter's AC has +4 Str and +4 Con, or +4 Str and +4 Dex, etc., for free - and yes, you can buy a belt, but we're talking about 40K worth of free add-ons, which is a lot of cash, even at 10th level - plus a minimum of three teamwork feats, including some ugly ones like Precise Strike and Outflank (beyond whatever new ones come out in the ACG). And the bonus is customizable at will. And the hunter's got greater magic fang coming out her ears, while the ranger has to decide between that and instant enemy.
I'm not saying the hunter's AC is definitively better, but I will say there's really no evidence of the contrary either.
I've only been able to read through the revised playtest so I'm just going to put up what I thought about what I had read.
Arcanist: I'm split on whether I like it or not. It seems fun and potentially powerful depending on the exploits chosen and geared towards. The Potent Magic exploit seems like the best out of them to me, counterspell could be really nice, but since you're at sorcerer spell progression, it may suck if you face a wizard of the same level dropping his biggest spell on you. I will say though that based on the announcement I had read somewhere, what I'm really interested in is the white mage archetype they have planned. An arcane healer you say? Interesting. They definitely can be flexible though. So I do like that.
Bloodrager: This one surprised me at how much I wanted to play it. Which is to say a great deal. The bloodline aspect seems amazing and has for once made me want to play a melee character.
Brawler: I do like the idea of a full BaB unarmed attacker and this gives that possibility. It seems narrow though and it only seems to give me the barest of unarmed attacker vibes. That is to say, when reading it, it didn't quite come across as something I could play as a person who will punch you so hard your not yet created children wince. They also don't come across as particularly tough with no DR, temp Hp, etc.. The martial maneuver is the coolest thing about it for me really.
Hunter: I didn't see anything that truly popped out that was interesting, save for giving the animal companion teamwork feats and giving it a bit of a bonus. That being said it fits the "fighting alongside the animal companion" aspect fairly well I think.
Investigator: While not all that in combat this has got to be among my top favorite new classes shown. The inspiration feature and talents seem like they'd be a lot of fun. I am hoping though that there might be an archetype made for the investigator that makes poisoning truly viable (more financially than rules wise).
Shaman: The spirits mostly seem solid and overall it seems like it could be a fun class, not my first choice to play out of them, but not my last choice either.
Slayer: Seems pretty good. I skimmed over it, and what I saw didn't quite amaze me personally, but it's definitely solid and more combat viable than a rogue.
Swashbuckler: I will agree that having both weak Fort and Will saves make it suck to be martial. That being said, aside from that glaring weak point, I enjoyed the deeds quite a bit.I sort of wish Panache could be increased as Grit could, in that a DM could award some for daring actions. Having it focus merely on scoring crits and killing blows lowers the incentive to do crazy fun things over just attack rinse repeat.
I honestly didn't read much of the Skald or Warpriest so I have not real input on them.
Eh, the class preview isn't out yet. From what I can recall the playtest feedback was fairly clear in that the class had some issues, there's a good chance they took that to heart and gave it some good tweaks.The feedback was VERY clear.
Its reception by the designer, however, leads me to believe the final product, much like the other classes he managed (Brawler and Slayer) will be basically unchanged from their 2nd playtest forms, unless another designer came in afterwards and fixed them up once he left the company.
To be fair he listed some changes to expect for the Brawler and Slayer that sounded positive.
That does hold true for the Hunter who the designer was incredibly proud of despite its horrible and glaring flaws.
I'm actually kind of anticipating Brawler archetypes.
If they think a little outside the "Close combat" box you can get some pretty cool stuff.
EX I thought up randomly:
Cramped Warrior
A warrior specialized in fighting within cramped battlegrounds, such as hall ways or dense battlefieldsPiercing Flurry
May only Brawlers Flurry with piercing weapons and Close weapons
Modifies Brawlers FlurryReady and steady
Replaces dodge bonus to AC with an initiative and CMD bonus (Normally a dodge bonus adds to CMD anyway)
There are definitely some things I could see being fun with the brawler archetypes. They could make one focused on improvised weapons, an effective one at that. Perhaps one could have an ability called Lanky, that increases their reach. Lots of possibilities, but I'll have to wait and see on what they decided to go with.
I'm actually kind of anticipating Brawler archetypes.
If they think a little outside the "Close combat" box you can get some pretty cool stuff.
Personally I'd like it if the Brawler was thinking a little more INSIDE the "Close combat box" to begin with.
If a Feat that was never a problem before is suddenly a "problem" because a yet to be released class is obsoleted by it, that doesn't say to me it's a problem with the Feat at all, it's a problem with designing a class that is weaker than an already released Feat.
+1
And Boon Companion should have been in one of the Core books. In fact Boon Companion should have been in the Core Book itself.There has been a lot of stealth fixes like Boon Companion or shadow strike. Rogues should have got shadow strike for free as a class feature, not as a feat tax.
Well, we get the Slayer, Swashbuckler and Investigator that makes the Rogue obsolete anyway. And if that doesn’t make you happy, we get a new rogue next year.
I guess some people also see the Brawler as a monk fix, but now we get a new monk next year so I’m unsure how the Brawler will compare to the new monk.
My fears are that the new monk won’t be permitted to be powerful enough because that would make the Brawler obsolete. A bit like the Investigator vs the Rogue argument but in reverse.
Personally I'd like it if the Brawler was thinking a little more INSIDE the "Close combat box" to begin with.I'm actually kind of anticipating Brawler archetypes.
If they think a little outside the "Close combat" box you can get some pretty cool stuff.
For the base class yeah, but I believe archetypes are an opportunity to play with mechanics in a way that is outside the box.
Archetypes like
Master of Many Styles
Sohei
Lurring Cavalier
Mysterious Stranger
Arcane Duelist
Sensei
Viking
Synthesis Summoner
ect
All of those make characters who are pretty different from the base class and I'd like to see something similar for the Brawler.
If a Feat that was never a problem before is suddenly a "problem" because a yet to be released class is obsoleted by it, that doesn't say to me it's a problem with the Feat at all, it's a problem with designing a class that is weaker than an already released Feat.+1
And Boon Companion should have been in one of the Core books. In fact Boon Companion should have been in the Core Book itself.There has been a lot of stealth fixes like Boon Companion or shadow strike. Rogues should have got shadow strike for free as a class feature, not as a feat tax.
Well, we get the Slayer, Swashbuckler and Investigator that makes the Rogue obsolete anyway. And if that doesn’t make you happy, we get a new rogue next year.I guess some people also see the Brawler as a monk fix, but now we get a new monk next year so I’m unsure how the Brawler will compare to the new monk.
My fears are that the new monk won’t be permitted to be powerful enough because that would make the Brawler obsolete. A bit like the Investigator vs the Rogue argument but in reverse.
The Brawler isn't "Mystic" at all, so maybe the new Monk will go in a different direction that focuses more on the Monk's Mystic aspect? Possibly losing Flurry of Blows to create new design space.
These new Monk and Rogue classes are "unchained" and I hope that means they're completely new. I'd be happy if we got a Rogue with no Sneak Attack dice and a Monk without Flurry of Blows.