You're forgetting some of the best long duration buffs in the game.
And he's far, far, FAR superior out of combat. He's almost as good as a Bard.
And I'd hardly call a boost to anything from attack, damage, or AC to things like checks to overcome SR, Damage Reduction, or DR bypass "nearly nothing".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And I'd hardly call a boost to anything from attack, damage, or AC to things like checks to overcome SR, Damage Reduction, or DR bypass "nearly nothing".
Getting a +5 weapon by level 9 as a swift action is kind'of ridiculous. Lol DR and AC. Throw on arcane accuracy for another +4-9 to-hit depending on level. By the time you do get a +5 weapon, you're such high level that your buffs give you all the extra to-hit you need.
Man, compared to trying to bork a rogue to competent, rofl-stomping as a magus is almost easy.
I was talking about Judgement.
Yeah I can see how you might think a Magus doesn't hold up to an arcanist gish or an inquisitor to a battle cleric, but to suggest their bad is just... weird.
But back to the topic of ACG: Sacred Huntsman inquisitor with animal domain for two animal companions at a way higher total level than the packmaster.
And speaking of the Packmaster: Is there any way to make something like two half level or four quarter level pets work? Like I just can't see how two level 5 wolves do anything in a CR appropriate level 10 fight, nevermind a boss fight.
Especially when only one of them gets teamwork feats and focus.
No, there isn't. It and all of the other, similar variants that many other classes have are useless as well as a result.
They're passable for NPCs, at best.
That's what I figured. It just seemed so bad I actually felt like I was missing something important.
And I'm left wondering who at Paizo thought you needed a counterbalancing mechanic (teamwork feats and focus only on one of the companions) to something that already looked pretty unenticing (two half level companions).
So I'll stick with the Inquisitor archetype and animal domain until Paizo inevitably nerfs it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bane and +5 weapons work on anything. And can be used more times a day than Smite.
You're also, again, completely glossing over the increased utility of the Inquisitor over the Paladin.
You're trying to pass off the whole class as worthless and none of its features worthwhile because no single ability matches Smite's raw power.
RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, to post something completely different and actually more closely related to the initial point of this thread, I thought this was amusing:
Alternate Dwarf favored class bonus:
Swashbuckler: Add 1/4 to the swashbuckler’s effective
class level to determine the extra damage she deals because
of the precise strike deed when wielding a light pick or
a heavy pick. If the swashbuckler has the Slashing Grace
feat or another similar effect, she can treat the battleaxe or
handaxe as a one-handed piercing melee weapon, and she
gains this benefit when wielding the appropriate weapon
for the feat as well.
I don't have the math skills to tell me if this is even remotely worth it, but I do like that they've taken the complaints about the heavy pick swashbuckler and totally embraced it for Dwarves. Perhaps their boost to Con makes up for the lost hit points from the FCB? Their innate resistance to spells and Wis/Con boost makes up for the saves? I think I really want to make a Dwarf swashbuckler who wields a Dwarven Waraxe.
And I'd hardly call a boost to anything from attack, damage, or AC to things like checks to overcome SR, Damage Reduction, or DR bypass "nearly nothing".Getting a +5 weapon by level 9 as a swift action is kind'of ridiculous. Lol DR and AC. Throw on arcane accuracy for another +4-9 to-hit depending on level. By the time you do get a +5 weapon, you're such high level that your buffs give you all the extra to-hit you need.
Man, compared to trying to bork a rogue to competent, rofl-stomping as a magus is almost easy.
The paladin also can increase his weapon bonus when he knows what's coming, and in the highly likely event that it's evil in PFS +4-7 to hit and + Level or double level to damage as well as DR bypass and +4-7 to AC. In the also highly likely event (I haven't seen a PFS paladin without it) that they have oath of vengeance so they get free smites.
In what world is bane or +X Weapon enhancements even close to that.
The WP is almost the exact same problem. That's why I'm annoyed.
The world where Bane + Judgment applies to literally everything in the game, and the Inquisitor rocks some amazing buff spells on top of it.
Sure, he may not have full BAB, but he can buff himself well above full BAB bonuses and easily equal or exceed the Paladin in attack/damage. The Paladin just tends to get one more iterative attack.
Sure, nothing in this game is quite as strong as a Smiting Paladin when it comes to RAW DPR (except some highly specific builds, possibly), but that's not the point. Inquisitors and Magi are both amazing classes that are probably amongst the most well like classes put out by Paizo.
Just because you've never seen one that works well, doesn't mean they don't. I personally think that the Inquisitor, Magus and Bard are probably the 3 most balanced classes in the game. They don't have those same 'easy mode' powers that many full casters possess, nor do they possess many of the crippling weakness some of the martials possess, and the same time, they don't cause the arguments and fighting that classes like Paladins make because they just 1-shotted the enemy or have screwy alignment mechanics.
Short of someone making an awful build, I've always seen those above 3 classes to be welcome additions to any game table.
And I'd hardly call a boost to anything from attack, damage, or AC to things like checks to overcome SR, Damage Reduction, or DR bypass "nearly nothing".Getting a +5 weapon by level 9 as a swift action is kind'of ridiculous. Lol DR and AC. Throw on arcane accuracy for another +4-9 to-hit depending on level. By the time you do get a +5 weapon, you're such high level that your buffs give you all the extra to-hit you need.
Man, compared to trying to bork a rogue to competent, rofl-stomping as a magus is almost easy.
The paladin also can increase his weapon bonus when he knows what's coming, and in the highly likely event that it's evil in PFS +4-7 to hit and + Level or double level to damage as well as DR bypass and +4-7 to AC. In the also highly likely event (I haven't seen a PFS paladin without it) that they have oath of vengeance so they get free smites.
In what world is bane or +X Weapon enhancements even close to that.
Are you forgetting buff spells and arcane accuracy?
By level 12 my to-hit easily reaches +27 while power attacking. That also comes with reach (as in I am large now), and 34 AC, assuming whatever I am fighting has blind-sight. Cause if not, greater-invisibility does a lot. My arcane pool is 27 points.
Now damage is only 2d6+26 per hit before spell strike (I know only 3 attacks at +27/27/22 is just pitiful). That's why I love frostbite which is another 1d6+12 non-lethal cold damage and fatigues the target (also has 12 charges so it alters every hit). If frostbite doesn't works I have to unfortunately take -2 to-hit for an extra attack to channel shocking grasp.
EDIT: Rynjin was talking about the inquisitor but I never was.
Okay, to post something completely different and actually more closely related to the initial point of this thread, I thought this was amusing:
The battleaxe already qualifies for slashing grace. Handaxe doesn't because it's light though.
So an odd FCB.
WP Pales in comparison to Paladin and Cleric.
Inquisitor can't match the raw might of the pally or the raw utility/buffs of the cleric.
It's weaker than either but in between which makes it a nice bridge between them.
WP is just a failed class in an overcrowded design space.
Wow.
No.
|
Well, I was gonna look into it somewhere elwe but.. its sorta off topicish about investigators. But did they give them a ranged studied strike ability?
They can get a Feat that lets them do it (though it has Weapon Focus as a prerequisite). The Studied Combat bonus doesn't even have a range limit, though Studied Strike is limited to 30 feet like Sneak Attack ( Studied Combat being infinitely better than Studied Strike tends to make that a minor issue, IMO).
This makes Ranged Investigators kinda Feat-intensive, but it's doable as a Human (Point Blank shot and Precise shot at 1st, Rapid shot at 3rd, Weapon Focus at 5th, Ranged Study at 7th, Manyshot at 9th, Deadly Aim at 11th and so on). Easier to do with a dip of some sort (a couple of levels of Fighter, for example, which would also upgrade you from Shortbow to Longbow), though dipping on a casting class is always painful.
|
Okay, to post something completely different and actually more closely related to the initial point of this thread, I thought this was amusing:
Alternate Dwarf favored class bonus:
Swashbuckler: Add 1/4 to the swashbuckler’s effective
class level to determine the extra damage she deals because
of the precise strike deed when wielding a light pick or
a heavy pick. If the swashbuckler has the Slashing Grace
feat or another similar effect, she can treat the battleaxe or
handaxe as a one-handed piercing melee weapon, and she
gains this benefit when wielding the appropriate weapon
for the feat as well.I don't have the math skills to tell me if this is even remotely worth it, but I do like that they've taken the complaints about the heavy pick swashbuckler and totally embraced it for Dwarves. Perhaps their boost to Con makes up for the lost hit points from the FCB? Their innate resistance to spells and Wis/Con boost makes up for the saves? I think I really want to make a Dwarf swashbuckler who wields a Dwarven Waraxe.
Racial Heritage(Dwarf)?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have a question about archetypes- are there any archetypes so good they make other archetypes for that class obsolete? I know exploiter wizard is great, but I'm guessing a lot of players will still play other wizard archetypes.
My impression (having not picked up the ACG yet, I have to finish a research paper before I can spare the time) is that the new classes require less optimization and system familiarity. It looks like a brawler is easier to make effective at medium levels than a fighter (optimizing fighters is the topic of many other threads). The hunter gets mixed reviews, but looks like it should be easy to play compared to a druid or even ranger. So my impression is the new classes require less optimization and system familiarity to make effective, but are there any new archetypes that make you say 'everyone playing class X will use archetype Y now that the ACG is release'?.
If anything, the ACG requires that you know a lot more about the system as the characters themselves are more complex.
The Brawler is not the best example, especially compared to the Fighter. You're expected to have a lists of feats that you can apply on the fly with Martial Flexibility. Some other classes, like the Shaman, have a lot going on compared to the Core classes.
The Hunter is not a good example of a class that's simpler to play. A lot of the more negative reviews of the class are due to the fact that its power is easy to miss. Like the Cavalier, the Hunter probably will never be popular due to both relying on a feature that's hard to appreciate and hard to immediately see the benefits of (Teamwork feats) and also due to the fact that people will always see it as "Oh, it's just a druid/ranger that's weaker" even if it isn't.
I like most of the classes in the ACG, but I'd hardly recommend it for those who don't already know the system and know it well.
I have a question about archetypes- are there any archetypes so good they make other archetypes for that class obsolete? I know exploiter wizard is great, but I'm guessing a lot of players will still play other wizard archetypes.
Based on the comments of people who've read the book, it seems the Sacred Fist archetype for the Warpriest is better than the Warpriest class itself and any of the other archetypes it has.
From the ACG playtest, the Brawler looks easier to make effective than a fighter because of the flexibility of picking feats on the fly. A fighter's feat tree has to be planned out from 1st level to be effective at 8th level and higher. For the first four levels it's easy to play a fighter, many combinations of feats work well. But the feat trees have to focused around a concept to be effective from 8th level on. And a Hunter looks like it requires less system familiarity than a Druid. A Druid gets spells, an animal companion, and wildshape. Without optimization a Druid can be effective at medium and higher levels (compared to a non-optimized martial, for example) but it requires a fair amount of system familiarity to make effective (animal companion, summon nature's ally, buff spells, battlefield control spells, damage spells, healing spells, wildshape, etc.).
What the Druid needs to keep track of the Hunter also needs to. But in addition, it must also keep track of teamwork feats as well as two spell lists. In combat the Hunter needs to also coordinate its actions with their animal companion to make use of its class features.
I'm not saying the Druid doesn't have much to keep track of. It does. But the Hunter probably has to keep track of more.
Anyone else really puzzled by the Kata Master Monk archetype? My first thought was "oh cool, a charisma-based Monk!" but it looks like the Monk still relies on Wisdom for all of his class features. The best thing to do is dump charisma as always and rely on your ki pool to fuel panache, but it doesn't stack with Drunken Master or Hungry Ghost so that will deplete quickly... It just looks like an all around really bad archetype.
But back to the topic of ACG: Sacred Huntsman inquisitor with animal domain for two animal companions at a way higher total level than the packmaster.
Unless there is text explicitly saying so, you don't get two...
...Instead it stacks, giving you one super powerful AC.
Are you sure? I figured from the way Divine Hunter reads (instead of two companions your AC gets attribute score bumps if you take animal domain) that then the two animal companions would be the default.
So, for Arcanist, how would you go about making a blaster/battlefield control hybrid? Or a save or suck caster?
Mostly the same way you would a Wizard? It's just, now you've got class features to further add to it.
So, for Arcanist, how would you go about making a blaster/battlefield control hybrid? Or a save or suck caster?
It would be identicle to the blaster wizard... just replace wizard with Arcanist...
SoS arcanist is like any SoS caster... you just abuse the fact that you can ramp your DCs up by 2 more than most people with your pool.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm liking this book a lot, most of all the dirge of doom feats.
The foreboding tone of your dirge is especially effective
at unsettling your enemies.
Prerequisite: Ability to perform dirge of doom.
Benefit: The range of your dirge of doom ability is
extended to 60 feet. Additionally, if a creature is shaken
from another effect, the effect of your dirge of doom is
changed to frightened for that specific creature. This
benefit cannot cause a creature to become panicked, even
if a target is already frightened from another effect.
Normal: The range of dirge of doom is 30 feet. A
creature that is already shaken cannot become frightened
by dirge of doom.
The haunting sound of sepulchral intonations chills the
most stalwart adversary to its very core.
Prerequisites: Improved Dirge of Doom†, ability to
perform dirge of doom.
Benefit: The effect of your dirge of doom lingers with
a target for 2 rounds after the creature leaves the dirge’s
area of effect. If you use your dirge on a creature that is
shaken, it becomes frightened. If you use it on a creature
that is frightened, it becomes panicked.
Normal: Fear effects on a creature end immediately
once it leaves the area of dirge of doom. A fear effect
cannot be made more extreme by dirge of doom and
can be changed only to the frightened condition by the
Improved Dirge of Doom feat.
Stopping at shaken was always a dirge's biggest problem. Meaning it was a lot less useful than inspire courage unless there was a follow-up fear effect. I'm not sure if the same performances stack but if they do this can make a troupe of bards quite frightening, no pun intended. A party of heroes panicking at the sight of 3 performing bards is quite a hilarious mental image.
Intimidating performance also plays nice with this. Allowing a single performer to make every enemy within 30ft frightened (it's 4 feats, though).
Your performance strikes fear in the hearts of foes.
Prerequisites: Ability to start a performance (or raging
song) as a move action, bardic performance or raging
song† class feature.
Benefit: When you start a performance (or a raging
song) as a move or swift action, you can use a standard
action to demoralize a foe (Core Rulebook 99), attempting a
Perform check appropriate to your performance in place
of the Intimidate check. Your performance must be one
with an audible component.
If you can start a performance as a swift action and you
have the Dazzling Display feat, you can gain the benefit
of Dazzling Display by succeeding at a Perform check in
place of an Intimidate check.
Assuming a quicken rod. Round 1: quickened haste, start inspire courage, dazzling display as a standard action. Round 2: virtuoso performance for dirge of doom. Seems quite good. It is perhaps not worth the feats and probably still worse than quickened haste -> courage -> good hope. But it is at least an alternative.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My knee-jerk reaction is that the swashbuckler was done better by a cavalier archetype in the same book.
There's an Inquisitor archetype that kind of does the same thing to the Hunter. And a Wizard archetype that does it to the Arcanist....
I think the real issue with the book is that the very premise was flawed and that created a few issues which plagued the thing from start to finish. Their initial premise was "Like the magus, these will be classes that combine two existing classes". The thing is though, the Magus doesn't really look anything like either a Fighter or a Wizard, and really only has one derivative (and not terribly useful anyways) class feature that hearkens back to the core parents. The Magus wasn't even particularly similar to the Eldritch Knight, the previous arcane gish prestige class.
By comparison, a lot of these new class look like improvements, variations, or replacements for existing materials. The Hunter, as much as I personally like it, looks a lot like druid/cavalier archetype and makes you wonder if a full class was really necessary. The improved AnC was doable via archetype, Animal Focus is handy but not amazing, so what does that really leave? The same is true of almost every other class. The Investigator is good but suffers from weird progression since they were trying not to completely replace the Rogue, the Slayer is painfully uninspired... Really the only classes that actually do something that you couldn't do in some shape or fashion previously are the Bloodrager and the Skald, and that has a lot to do with the fact that Rage has traditionally automatically excluded using a lot of other class' features. And even in those instances they still feel a lot like something that could have been done via archetype, with many of the unique class features feeling tacked on, like Spell Kenning.
I think a lot of these concepts could have been even better if they weren't tied to the idea that they needed to be combining two classes. Hunter and Shaman in particular feel like classes that could have been much better realized if they hadn't been trying to make them hybrids of their parent classes, but I get the same feeling from other classes like the Slayer and Arcanist.
I have really mixed feelings about the book. I bought it, and I'll certainly be using many of the materials, including the Hunter, Investigator, and Arcansit, but I also feel like I'll be using them in place of existing materials, rather than alongside.
Doesn't help that on top of some of the classes doing a poor job standing out on their own they then turn around and give some of the base classes those new abilities.
I'm still scratching my head at that. You're pushing 10 new sleek classes.. and then you give all your old classes archetypes that do the same thing? Hard to really sell the Arcanist as not just another wizard variant when there is, in fact, a wizard variant that picks up most of the class' core mechanics.
Investigator and Skald I give credit for being probably the nicest and most stand out of the list (and I don't even like the skald), but a lot of the rest suffer from being too derivative from the start and made even more derivative by some of those archetypes.
|
|
Doesn't help that on top of some of the classes doing a poor job standing out on their own they then turn around and give some of the base classes those new abilities.
I'm still scratching my head at that. You're pushing 10 new sleek classes.. and then you give all your old classes archetypes that do the same thing? Hard to really sell the Arcanist as not just another wizard variant when there is, in fact, a wizard variant that picks up most of the class' core mechanics.
Investigator and Skald I give credit for being probably the nicest and most stand out of the list (and I don't even like the skald), but a lot of the rest suffer from being too derivative from the start and made even more derivative by some of those archetypes.
Yeah, I'm not sure how you have a class that is basically "X+Y" without it being better than either X or Y, without the more problematic solution we saw of "more powerful X". Considering how spectacularly mediocre many of the wizard's class features are, I suspect it will be a while before I see another wizard that isn't either Void school or Exploiter. Void was at least a regional option from a splatbook, which restricted its use and availability to a certain degree.
Skald, despite seeming like it's pretty mechanically boring to me, is one that I have to agree probably managed to do the best job of being something new without overshadowing its parent classes, and so weirdly, my least favorite class is also the one I'm most okay with.
|
|
Anyone else really puzzled by the Kata Master Monk archetype? My first thought was "oh cool, a charisma-based Monk!" but it looks like the Monk still relies on Wisdom for all of his class features. The best thing to do is dump charisma as always and rely on your ki pool to fuel panache, but it doesn't stack with Drunken Master or Hungry Ghost so that will deplete quickly... It just looks like an all around really bad archetype.
It combines very well with swashbuckler. Now your flurry is getting precise damage. Toss in a AoMF and you can build a quite viable Dex based unarmed swashbuckler
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
My knee jerk reaction is why would anyone play a barbarian instead of an untouchable primalist bloodrager, except maybe for the Invulnerable Rager archetype. You lose Trap Sense for Spell Resistance, and trade ten rage powers for ten rage powers +the first level bloodline power +five feats. They've Rogued the Barbarian. Seriously.
I think I'm going to write the Primalist Guide to Stealing the Barbarians Best Toys and give it to the first person that makes a guide to the Bloodrager.
|
|
Is it because it's banned in PFS and most GM's will ban it anyway?My knee jerk reaction is why would anyone play a barbarian instead of an untouchable primalist bloodrager, except maybe for the Invulnerable Rager archetype. You lose Trap Sense for Spell Resistance, and trade ten rage powers for ten rage powers +the first level bloodline power +five feats. They've Rogued the Barbarian. Seriously.
I think I'm going to write the Primalist Guide to Stealing the Barbarians Best Toys and give it to the first person that makes a guide to the Bloodrager.
You have to admit, there's a certain amount of humor involved when a new book is released side-by-side with a list of the materials in it which are banned. Even all those Summoner archetypes like the Master Summoner and Synthesist got at least a few months play in before they were taken off the table, and that was ostensibly due to how complicated they were and how much table time they ate up. The Primalist may be the first archetype I've seen that's pretty obviously banned for power-related issues before those issues were even proven out at the table.
Is it because it's banned in PFS and most GM's will ban it anyway?My knee jerk reaction is why would anyone play a barbarian instead of an untouchable primalist bloodrager, except maybe for the Invulnerable Rager archetype. You lose Trap Sense for Spell Resistance, and trade ten rage powers for ten rage powers +the first level bloodline power +five feats. They've Rogued the Barbarian. Seriously.
I think I'm going to write the Primalist Guide to Stealing the Barbarians Best Toys and give it to the first person that makes a guide to the Bloodrager.
As a GM I don't ban things out of the PRD just because PFS does. PFS is non-standard and they rarely ban things for power reasons.
Speaking of PFS bans.
Doesn't PFS ban all gun using archetypes outright? Because for some reason Picaroon isn't banned. Which is weird.