Knee-jerk reactions from the Advanced Class Guide


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 905 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

Well, it does say "punch". So I think it's meant to be an actual unarmed strike, maybe even strictly one made with the hands.


Did you know that stabbing someone with a spear can be called a punch. Using a Fist mounted weapon such as a punching dagger or cestus too. Aside from that we run into the problem of punch not actually being a gameplay term. If it said "unarmed Strike" we'd be in a different situation though and most of it would be hunk dory.

Also what does that last line mean?

Quote:
If any of the attack rolls are critical threats, make one confirmation roll for the entire attack at your highest base attack bonus. If it succeeds, the entire attack is a confirmed critical hit

Does that mean all the damage is multiplied? Just the one hit? Does no damage get multiplied and it just counts for crit feats?

This book has way too many messy wordings and needed at least another couple weeks at the editing table.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I agree. A lot of things in the ACG feel rushed, sloppy, and not balanced greatly. Don't get me wrong, there is a ton of very cool stuff. But it has more ambiguity and problems than most products, even some top 3rd party ones.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Agreed. I think the ideas behind a lot of the content was really good and had potential, but this does not feel like a professionally made book.

I remember SKR having a big lecture explaining that this book was already constraining production schedules in order to get a Gen con release and that's why we only got a 2 week playtest. Maybe the constraints were worse than we thought and it resulted in a much less polished product than is Paizo standard.

Kind of reminds me of 3.5 splat books.


Does Pummeling Strike only work with unarmed attacks? The fluff says yes but the text doesn't say either way.


RAW nope. This is a method for any character to obtain pounce and super clustered shots on a full attack. They just gotta tax themselves an improved unarmed strike feat.

Quote:
If any of the attack rolls are critical threats, make one confirmation roll for the entire attack at your highest base attack bonus. If it succeeds, the entire attack is a confirmed critical hit

What does this even mean?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yay for pummelling charge with a keen falcata! pounce + triple fullround damage in a single feat chain! OP feats are not caster only anymore!

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Companion, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Charter Superscriber

Finally! The Nature's Fang archetype for Druids - now I need to wrap my head around the Slayer to see if this is what I want.

And I love the rings of Natural Attunement and Summoning Affinity. Actually, a lot of the magic items and their subtle mechanic in this tome are pretty nifty (like the recharge side effect of electricity damage on the Spark Staff)


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Oh, and as for Blessing uses per day, I believe it is 3 + 1/2 Warpriest level. You choose which power you use for each use.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sadly, this book is worse than I had feared. My initial thoughts:

- Divine Protection is ridiculously broken for Oracles.

Reasons the Arcanist is broken:

- an Arcanist can use School Understanding to take any 1st level Wizard School power as a 1st level Wizard. This sounds restrictive, but it allows the Arcanist to pick the two quite powerful 1st level School powers which are not level-dependent, those being Versatile Evocation and Prescience from the subschools of Admixture and Foresight, respectively. These powers were balanced for Wizards of these schools by other restrictions (ie. Evokers' other school powers are crap and Diviners get the worst bonus spells), but this balance has been lost with the Arcanist able to pick and choose. If Wizard subschools are not allowed with this exploit (which I would suggest is a very good idea), there needs to be an errata for this, and fast.

- the ability to counterspell as an immediate action is simply broken, especially after 11th level when Greater Counterspell comes online.

- the Quick Study exploit takes all the thought out of spell preparation. The Arcanist with this exploit simply has no chance, ever, of not having the exact spell he needs at his fingertips.

- refilling points in the Arcane Reservoir through Consume Spell appears to be doable at a cost of 1000 gold/extra pool point/day through 1st level Pearls of Power. If this is not the case, and the pearls only work for spells "cast" (as it says in the text) and not "consumed", there needs to be errata which clearly states this. As it is, people playing Arcanists will use this as an all-too-cheap way of replenishing their extremely potent AR points.

- the Potent Magic exploit makes the Arcanist rather easily the best save-or-suck caster in the game, able to manifest the effects of Spell Focus + Greater Spell Focus, on demand, for any school, as a free action.

- the Swift Consume exploit allows the Arcanist to "nova" to a ridiculous degree. Especially at high levels when the costs of burning mid-level spells, and/or wand charges aren't prohibitive, the Arcanist with this exploit will be able to summon however many reservoir points he needs in combat as a swift action. Not only does this make the Arcanist that much more powerful, but it also encourages him to be the worst offender when it comes to 15-minute-workday syndrome.

--------------------------------------------------------------

tl;dr - an efficient Arcanist is the new undisputed best class in the game, with maybe only some super-Oracle builds with now untouchable saves (thanks to Divine Protection) there for competition. The ACG is as bad as the worst of the 3.5 splatbooks. The last thing Pathfinder needed was more powerful full-casters. Awful design work.

Liberty's Edge

3 people marked this as a favorite.

My first reaction (that nobody else seems to have already commented on anyway):

Daring Champion Cavaliers are probably better Swashbucklers than the Swashbuckler Class...and the new kings of DPR at high levels. Why? Precise Strike adds their level to damage. Also, Challenge adds their level to damage. So...double their level to damage on all attacks while Challenging is now a thing. Go Order of the Dragon (or a few other Orders) and you get +5 to hit by 20th level as well. TWF (easy as hell to do, given the Dex-focus of the build), and it gets worse.

Add to that the fact that their good Fort save actually has better synergy with the Dex focus than the Swashbuckler's good Reflex, and the fact that they can get Order benefits, and we're talking some serious badassness.

I'm actually cool with all this...except for the poor Swashbuckler getting left in the dust in a lot of ways. That part's annoying as hell.

My other first impression is that there are a lot of typos. This book really would've benefited from another go with the editing department, both for form and for content. I like almost everything conceptually, and much of it mechanically...but, just for example, who thought Charmed Life was balanced with Divine Protection? A single Feat should not generally be several times better than what amounts to 5 levels of a Class's class features (it being all they get at those 5 levels).

In short, there are some problems.


Yeah, I was looking at Daring Champion and went "Woah", then quickly averted my eyes. ^^


Slashing Grace (Combat)
You can stab your enemies with your sword or another
slashing weapon.
Prerequisites: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus
with chosen weapon.
Benefit: Choose one kind of one-handed slashing
weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your
chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a
one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and
class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a
swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike) and you can
add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength
modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be
one appropriate for your size.

Dervish Dance for any weapon, with better requirements (Weapon Focus instead of Perform(dance) 2). Human Swashbucklers can get this at level 1. Human or Half-Elven Swashbucklers get Dex-powered Katana's at level 3, if that's your thing :)

EDIT: or Daring Champion Cavaliers. Sweet Jesus.


Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Deadmanwalking wrote:

My first reaction (that nobody else seems to have already commented on anyway):

Daring Champion Cavaliers are probably better Swashbucklers than the Swashbuckler Class...and the new kings of DPR at high levels. Why? Precise Strike adds their level to damage. Also, Challenge adds their level to damage. So...double their level to damage on all attacks while Challenging is now a thing. Go Order of the Dragon (or a few other Orders) and you get +5 to hit by 20th level as well. TWF (easy as hell to do, given the Dex-focus of the build), and it gets worse.

Add to that the fact that their good Fort save actually has better synergy with the Dex focus than the Swashbuckler's good Reflex, and the fact that they can get Order benefits, and we're talking some serious badassness.

I'm actually cool with all this...except for the poor Swashbuckler getting left in the dust in a lot of ways. That part's annoying as hell.

My other first impression is that there are a lot of typos. This book really would've benefited from another go with the editing department, both for form and for content. I like almost everything conceptually, and much of it mechanically...but, just for example, who thought Charmed Life was balanced with Divine Protection? A single Feat should not generally be several times better than what amounts to 5 levels of a Class's class features (it being all they get at those 5 levels).

In short, there are some problems.

Daring Champion is just better for dips, too. Unless you plan on having a decent enough Charisma to make use of plenty of Parry/Ripostes. That's totally possible, at which point Swashbuckler 1 is probably better than Cavalier 1. The free Teamwork feat is nice, too.

I only skimmed the magic item section. Are there Gloves of Dueling for a Swashbuckler?


Deadmanwalking wrote:

My first reaction (that nobody else seems to have already commented on anyway):

Daring Champion Cavaliers are probably better Swashbucklers than the Swashbuckler Class...and the new kings of DPR at high levels. Why? Precise Strike adds their level to damage. Also, Challenge adds their level to damage. So...double their level to damage on all attacks while Challenging is now a thing. Go Order of the Dragon (or a few other Orders) and you get +5 to hit by 20th level as well. TWF (easy as hell to do, given the Dex-focus of the build), and it gets worse.

Oh, dear lord. That sounds great. I actually want to play that more than a swashbuckler just because of the save change.

And I have to say that I am really not a fan of Divine Protection either. Any character that could or would take it would be getting the same benefit as all 3 save-boosting feats, or better, in the case of Oracles.

I wonder how long it will take for Pummeling style to get nerfed.

Liberty's Edge

Green Smashomancer wrote:
Oh, dear lord. That sounds great. I actually want to play that more than a swashbuckler just because of the save change.

Yeah, it's now right after Empiricist Investigator (which is wonderful) on my 'must-play' list.

Green Smashomancer wrote:
And I have to say that I am really not a fan of Divine Protection either. Any character that could or would take it would be getting the same benefit as all 3 save-boosting feats, or better, in the case of Oracles.

Yeah...I'm less than pleased with that one. The only Cha-to-saves Feat that leaps out at me as a god idea is one with Charmed Life as a prerequisite. That'd bring Swashbuckler back up to parity with the Cavalier option, be thematically solid and mechanically easy to implement.

Green Smashomancer wrote:
I wonder how long it will take for Pummeling style to get nerfed.

My suspicion would be that it won't be long until it's made explicit that it only works unarmed (or possibly with close and/or monk weapons), but that it won't be nerfed beyond that.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

Did you know that stabbing someone with a spear can be called a punch. Using a Fist mounted weapon such as a punching dagger or cestus too. Aside from that we run into the problem of punch not actually being a gameplay term. If it said "unarmed Strike" we'd be in a different situation though and most of it would be hunk dory.

Sorry, but I think that's a really strained interpretation. AFAIK, you stab people with a spear. It's a bit iffier with the punching dagger, true enough.

But I think this is a case where the writer thought that he was using perfectly clear English - and where most of us understand exactly what he meant - but a few people want to pick at the slightest ambiguity in the text to try to twist it into something it was never meant to be.

You don't pummel someone with a spear, and punching is pretty dubious too. It has IUS as a prerequisite. I can't fault the writer for thinking his meaning was unambiguous.

Insain Dragoon wrote:


Also what does that last line mean?

Quote:
If any of the attack rolls are critical threats, make one confirmation roll for the entire attack at your highest base attack bonus. If it succeeds, the entire attack is a confirmed critical hit
Does that mean all the damage is multiplied? Just the one hit? Does no damage get multiplied and it just counts for crit feats?

It sounds like they took that from the gunslinger:

Ultimate Combat wrote:
Dead Shot (Ex): At 7th level, as a full-round action, the gunslinger can take careful aim and pool all of her attack potential into a single, deadly shot. When she does this, she shoots the firearm at a single target, but makes as many attack rolls as she can, based on her base attack bonus. She makes the attack rolls in order from highest bonus to lowest, as if she were making a full attack. If any of the attack rolls hit the target, the gunslinger's single attack is considered to have hit. For each additional successful attack roll beyond the first, the gunslinger increases the damage of the shot by the base damage dice of the firearm. For instance, if a 7th-level gunslinger firing a musket hits with both attacks, she does 2d12 points of damage with the shot, instead of 1d12 points of damage, before adding any damage modifiers. Precision damage and extra damage from weapon special abilities (such as flaming) are added with damage modifiers and are not increased by this deed. If one or more rolls are critical threats, she confirms the critical once using her highest base attack bonus -5. For each critical threat beyond the first, she reduces this penalty by 1 (to a maximum of 0). The gunslinger only misfires on a dead shot if all the attack rolls are misfires. She cannot perform this deed with a blunderbuss or other scatter weapon when attacking creatures in a cone. The gunslinger must spend 1 grit point to perform this deed.


It says something about a feature when it gets pre-banned from organized play. I didn't even know pre-banning was a thing.

Sovereign Court

Green Smashomancer wrote:
It says something about a feature when it gets pre-banned from organized play. I didn't even know pre-banning was a thing.

Oh, it brings back memories from Magic: the Gatherin :P


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm extremely happy with Slashing Grace, and I'm glad that such a great feat is in a setting-neutral book with a logical prerequisite instead of being buried in a campaign-setting book with a prerequisite that all but bars it from a lot of its possible recipients.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think the Hunter is the most powerful non-full caster in the book, with the possible exception of the Skald, who seems pretty boring but very solid mechanically.
Has anyone else really looked at the finished Hunter yet?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Ssalarn wrote:

I think the Hunter is the most powerful non-full caster in the book, with the possible exception of the Skald, who seems pretty boring but very solid mechanically.

Has anyone else really looked at the finished Hunter yet?

I'm too baffled by teaching your companion Ranger tricks that rely on having a companion to understand how a base Hunter works.

Silver Crusade

I've really only looked at Bloodrager, but my first knee-jerk response was to the Untouchable Rager archetype. "If you're going to take away your spellcasting, why not just play a barbarian? Oh, right, flavor."

I've been toying around with the idea of a natural attacker for a while now. I thought it was going to be a Ranger, but Rageshaper has gained my attention. If I'm reading it right, does that mean that at level 4 my claw attacks while raging will both be 2d6, or 1d8?

For Those Without the Book:

Untouchable Rager gives up your spellcasting (all of it) for 8+CL+other small bonuses spell resistance while raging (and later at all times).

Rageshaper makes it so that a Bloodrager ups the damage of any natural attack (singular) gained from a polymorph spell by "one die". This also counts for the 1d6 claws gained while bloodraging from a couple of the bloodlines.

There's also the archetype that lets you give up a bloodline power for rage powers. Combine that with the fact that some new rage powers mimic Bloodline powers almost exactly, you basically get any bloodline that you want.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Exactly as I messaged a friend about it last night:

Arcanist is a better wizard than the wizard
Bloodrager is almost as good a barbarian as the rage mage
Brawler is a better monk than the monk
Hunter is a better druid than the druid
Investigator is a better rogue than the rogue, but who am I kidding, what isn't these days
Shaman is almost as good an oracle as the oracle
Skald is almost as bad a bard as the bard
Slayer is a better ranger than the ranger
Swashbuckler replaces crappy gun rules and grit with crappy feat and panache
Warpriest was a bad idea from the word go and I'd be making less fun of it if they called it BATTLEPOPE like I wanted them to

My friend: Not fond of the ACG, huh? =p
Me: There's some good stuff in there. =p
My friend: I just found the best thing in the book. (He links me the art of the antipaladin kicking a piglet) You can totally tell that was supposed to be a puppy.
Me: Maybe somebody at Paizo yelled at Wayne to not make it a puppy?

Then cue discussion about how he was going to break the warpriest's sacred weapon ability with kukris and Slashing Grace until I told him the feat as written was absolutely worthless.

My friend: New game. "Let's play 'Break Warpriest's Sacred Weapon With Shuriken.'"
Me: XD
Him: Wait. Shurikens are exotic, aren't they? New game. Let's play "Break Warpriest's Sacred Weapon With Darts."


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens, Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Also, I feel like a Sacred Huntsman Inquisitor is just as strong as a Hunter. Different spell lists, but you're trading... well, extra tricks for Bane? Am I missing something?


magnuskn wrote:
1.) The Arcanist is crazy powerful and does not feel nerfed at all. Yeah, yeah, charisma to some abilities, whatevs. You still got a ton of really powerful things left to do with your exploits without needing the attribute at all. Crazy. Powerful. Want Dimensional Steps as a supernatural action? You got it. Want to counterspell as an immediate action? Here you go. Bonus metamagic feats or item creation feats every second level? Why not?

Why not? Because it says in the book no Arcane Exploit can be taken more than once. And they finally made counter spelling more appealing. Awesome. :)

I'll agree on Dimensional Slide though. That's crazy.

Kastar wrote:
Slashing Grace (Combat)

Problem. Slashing Grace doesn't let you use Weapon Finesse with the one-handed slashing weapin. You're attacks are still based of BaB + Str. Maybe I'm missing something.

Snorb wrote:
Skald is almost as bad a bard as the bard

Whoa. Bards are not bad!

Silver Crusade

Okay, I've made a <dedicated thread> for discussion/FAQ flagging of the Pummeling style question.

Have at it!

:-)


Ssalarn wrote:

I think the Hunter is the most powerful non-full caster in the book, with the possible exception of the Skald, who seems pretty boring but very solid mechanically.

Has anyone else really looked at the finished Hunter yet?

What am I missing here? The Hunter only has a 3/4 BAB, no really useful self-buffs to get better in combat, only 2/3 spellcasting and his class abilities really don't seem all that good, aside from having a good animal companion. Unless you think that the class should be about the animal companion, not the Hunter.


Azten wrote:
Why not? Because it says in the book no Arcane Exploit can be taken more than once. And they finally made counter spelling more appealing. Awesome. :)

Ah, missed that about the exploits. But I think counterspelling as an immediate action is still insane. It breaks every single opponent spellcaster encounter in an AP.

Geez, just noticed that it also is as strong as a mythic ability (Flexible Counterspell). So much for "the developers feared that giving dexterity to damage would be too good for a non-mythic ability". <sigh>


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Since you asked: Pure, unadulterated bloat. There isn't a single archetype within that I couldn't already realize without the book. Worse, much of it is demonstrably more powerful than what came before. The Arcanist in particular seems obscene.

However, as a PFS GM, I am expected to have access to this resource. The fact that the PDF price is so reasonable makes that a lot easier to swallow.

Just so I don't sound like a total downer: I really liked the art in this book. The anti-paladin is priceless. :)

Liberty's Edge

Azten wrote:
Problem. Slashing Grace doesn't let you use Weapon Finesse with the one-handed slashing weapin. You're attacks are still based of BaB + Str. Maybe I'm missing something.

The way Swashbucklers work is what you're missing. They treat any one-handed piercing weapon as finnesseable (basically) and since the Feat makes the weapon count as piercing...

Still not that useful for non-Swashbucklers (other than Daring Champions, who get the same thing)...though it can be used with whips and Aldori Dueling Swords by anyone.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Xethik wrote:
Also, I feel like a Sacred Huntsman Inquisitor is just as strong as a Hunter. Different spell lists, but you're trading... well, extra tricks for Bane? Am I missing something?

I need to reread that archetype, I'm not familiar with it yet. Sounds interesting though.

magnuskn wrote:
Ssalarn wrote:

I think the Hunter is the most powerful non-full caster in the book, with the possible exception of the Skald, who seems pretty boring but very solid mechanically.

Has anyone else really looked at the finished Hunter yet?
What am I missing here? The Hunter only has a 3/4 BAB, no really useful self-buffs to get better in combat, only 2/3 spellcasting and his class abilities really don't seem all that good, aside from having a good animal companion. Unless you think that the class should be about the animal companion, not the Hunter.

The simplest and most obvious trick I found was the Hunter getting +6 to attack by level 3 at the latest (potentially as early as level 1) by having his companion use aiding attack while they know Outflank. If you do wait until level 3, it's probably more like +6 to hit +1d6 damage on the Hunter and +4/+1d6 on the companion's attacks.

There's also a certain lack of clarity. Since the pet learns Skirmisher tricks as handle animal tricks, does that mean he can use them whenever he could use a handle animal trick? The current text would indicate yes, which means the companion gets an ability intended to replace Ranger spellcasting in exchange for not learning sit or fetch (mild exxaggeration, but not by all that much).

By combining the Ranger and Druid lists, gaining spells shared by both lists at the lower level, and then using Bard progression, the Hunter ends up spellcastign elements that in some way mirror the Summoner; that is, he gets spells before any other core or base class has access to them. The fact that if his companion dies he gains its focus in addition to his own and increases the duration of all of his nature's ally spells from rounds to minutes/level also makes his dependency on his companion much less of a weakness.


magnuskn wrote:
Geez, just noticed that it also is as strong as a mythic ability (Flexible Counterspell). So much for "the developers feared that giving dexterity to damage would be too good for a non-mythic ability". <sigh>

Or cha to will saves for swaschbuclker will be too OP, but divine grace s a feat for oracles is Ok.


Nicos wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Geez, just noticed that it also is as strong as a mythic ability (Flexible Counterspell). So much for "the developers feared that giving dexterity to damage would be too good for a non-mythic ability". <sigh>
Or cha to will saves for swaschbuclker will be too OP, but divine grace s a feat for oracles is Ok.

Well, yeah! You know those pathetic casters need all the help they can get! How else will they keep with the their a Martial Overlords?


Snorb wrote:

...

Slayer is a better ranger than the ranger
...

Oh, give me a break. Exaggerate much?

Slayer does make for a great Rogue, but lets not get carried away here.


So, Counterpunch. Available to a handful of classes. Only one of which, with its other parent class, really ever fights unarmed, and the parent class can never take it. It doesn't qualify.

I am annoyed.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Havoq wrote:
Snorb wrote:

...

Slayer is a better ranger than the ranger
...

Oh, give me a break. Exaggerate much?

Slayer does make for a great Rogue, but lets not get carried away here.

I've got to agree with this. The Slayer doesn't really even get into a lot of the stuff that makes a Ranger a Ranger. He does pretty much tromp all over non-Trapfinding Rogues though, and no small number of Fighters.


Nicos wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
Geez, just noticed that it also is as strong as a mythic ability (Flexible Counterspell). So much for "the developers feared that giving dexterity to damage would be too good for a non-mythic ability". <sigh>
Or cha to will saves for swaschbuclker will be too OP, but divine grace s a feat for oracles is Ok.

Don't worry, you can still take Steadfast Personality for Charisma to saves... As an Insight bonus to Will saves against mind-affecting effects only. Also it probably doesn't stack with Charmed Life.


It is beyond me that they keep using combat expertise as a feat TAX for stuffs that have nothing to with figthing defensively.

Slayer's Feint wrote:


Prerequisites: Dex 15, Acrobatic or Slayer level 1, Combat Expertise, Acrobatics rank 1
Benefit: You can use Acrobatics instead of Bluff to feint in combat.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Nicos wrote:

It is beyond me that they keep using combat expertise as a feat TAX for stuffs that have nothing to with figthing defensively.

Slayer's Feint wrote:


Prerequisites: Dex 15, Acrobatic or Slayer level 1, Combat Expertise, Acrobatics rank 1
Benefit: You can use Acrobatics instead of Bluff to feint in combat.

At least Swashbucklers can use CHA in place of INT to qualify for it... So that's something.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Ssalarn wrote:

The simplest and most obvious trick I found was the Hunter getting +6 to attack by level 3 at the latest (potentially as early as level 1) by having his companion use aiding attack while they know Outflank. If you do wait until level 3, it's probably more like +6 to hit +1d6 damage on the Hunter and +4/+1d6 on the companion's attacks.

There's also a certain lack of clarity. Since the pet learns Skirmisher tricks as handle animal tricks, does that mean he can use them whenever he could use a handle animal trick? The current text would indicate yes, which means the companion gets an ability intended to replace Ranger spellcasting in exchange for not learning sit or fetch (mild exxaggeration, but not by all that much).

By combining the Ranger and Druid lists, gaining spells shared by both lists at the lower level, and then using Bard progression, the Hunter ends up spellcastign elements that in some way mirror the Summoner; that is, he gets spells before any other core or base class has access to them. The fact that if his companion dies he gains its focus in addition to his own and increases the duration of all of his...

Sure, he gets those spells earlier... but most of them really do not help him all that much in combat. And getting his companions animal focus traits is not compatible with the teamwork feats.

It's not that I think I would be unhappy about playing the class, but it really doesn't seem to have a good focus where it excels. I guess you could sell him as a nature focused skill monkey with great help from his animal companion. But the people who say that the class is better than the Druid don't know what they are talking about, because the Druid will rock the Hunters socks off in almost every capacity.


So I heard there was a feat that let you use linguistics for out of combat face skills? If so that is pretty sweet: I love linguistics but it is such a crappy skill and it's nice to see it buffed. Imagine, magi and lore wardens who can be face characters. Also tengu would love that. Please tell me I was not lied to.


FanaticRat wrote:
So I heard there was a feat that let you use linguistics for out of combat face skills? If so that is pretty sweet: I love linguistics but it is such a crappy skill and it's nice to see it buffed. Imagine, magi and lore wardens who can be face characters. Also tengu would love that. Please tell me I was not lied to.

It's true. It requires Skill Focus (Linguistics) and only applies to Bluff checks to lie, Diplomacy checks to change the attitude of a creature, and Intimidate checks to force someone to cooperate. It could be handy but the Cha-to-Int traits will probably see more use.


Athaleon wrote:
FanaticRat wrote:
So I heard there was a feat that let you use linguistics for out of combat face skills? If so that is pretty sweet: I love linguistics but it is such a crappy skill and it's nice to see it buffed. Imagine, magi and lore wardens who can be face characters. Also tengu would love that. Please tell me I was not lied to.
It's true. It requires Skill Focus (Linguistics) and only applies to Bluff checks to lie, Diplomacy checks to change the attitude of a creature, and Intimidate checks to force someone to cooperate. It could be handy but the Cha-to-Int traits will probably see more use.

You lost me at skill focus. Damn. I knew it was too good to be true.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Insain Dragoon wrote:

I generally find your posts to be from a steady and pretty balanced POV, so I'd be happy to copy and paste stuff if you have any other requests.

<text removed for length>

Come on people...How am I supposed to fit two more feats into my TWF, dual-Falcata wielding, Oath of Vengeance Paladin's build without bonus feats! No BBEG lives past the first round ever again!

Seriously though, this feat line looks a bit on the broken end. Consider the kukri wielding TWF's. Large crit range, many opportunities to crit, any single crit makes the whole sequence of attacks a crit.

Don't base balance decisions on 20th level:
How about if we swap the weapon to Falcata and consider a 20th level fighter. Our fighter has 9 attacks(speed weapon full twf chain), 30% chance to crit per attack, a x4 crit multiplier, and only needs one attack in the entire sequence to crit. Make the fighter mythic and that is a x5 crit multiplier.

I am expecting clarification on what weapons can be used with this feat. Either only unarmed or only the close weapon group is what I expect.

Liberty's Edge

Azten wrote:
Snorb wrote:
Skald is almost as bad a bard as the bard
Whoa. Bards are not bad!

I'm allowed some bias here, because the last bard I played was in Wrath of the Righteous, and as I infamously described in that AP's obituary thread, he caught filth fever in the second session of the game, consistently failed every single Fortitude save over the next four or five sessions to shrug it off (thanks to his unmodified +0 Fortitude), and died of giant black widow poison in what I told my DM was "a mercy kill, thank God." (Yes, he failed every save vs. poison, too.)

Bards are absolutely fine once they survive the Level 1-3 Speed Bump, and I wholly admit that, but God did not want Nial Landen to live. XD

Ssalarn wrote:
Havoq wrote:
Snorb wrote:

...

Slayer is a better ranger than the ranger
...

Oh, give me a break. Exaggerate much?

Slayer does make for a great Rogue, but lets not get carried away here.
I've got to agree with this. The Slayer doesn't really even get into a lot of the stuff that makes a Ranger a Ranger. He does pretty much tromp all over non-Trapfinding Rogues though, and no small number of Fighters.

I already picked on the rogue before (with the investigator), and the slayer's a ranger/rogue. He's just a slightly better ranger with sneak attack instead of magic... so... yeah. Slayer is a better rogue than the rogue. Damn. =/

Paizo Employee Design Manager

magnuskn wrote:


Sure, he gets those spells earlier... but most of them really do not help him all that much in combat. And getting his companions animal focus traits is not compatible with the teamwork feats.

It's not that I think I would be unhappy about playing the class, but it really doesn't seem to have a good focus where it excels. I guess you could sell him as a nature focused skill monkey with great help from his animal companion. But the people who say that the class is better than the Druid don't know what they are talking about, because the Druid will rock the Hunters socks off in almost every capacity.

During like the first 10 levels of play they're very neatly balanced to each other. The Hunter may need his animal companion more, but he also gets a lot more out of it.

As far as the spells he gets earlier not helping him in combat...
He gets delay poison earlier than any other class by several levels, which is potentially a big deal. For damage and control he's got early access to spike growth, wind wall, he's the only divine caster and 3/4 BAB class to get gravity bow so early, super early access to lead blades, early access to badger's ferocity which is potentially powerful dependent on group composition, early access to ricochet shot which combos well with the new teamwork feats and many Hunter playstyles...
And that's just a quick browse through of the first couple levels of spells. Access to Lead Blades at 1st level alone puts the lie to the idea that they don't have built in ways to boost their damage output without the companion. With the companion they can apply huge boosts to accuracy and damage far earlier and faster than almost any other class.


Hmmmm Idk about Pummeling Style. Sure you get pounce, but then you lose dragon style. Monks kind of already blast through DR. I see this style being a good boost to brawlers or MoMS/Brawler builds.


If you can finagle a way to get two swift actions, or take the customary MoMS dip, Dragon Style plus Pummeling Style is sick. If you really commit to it (Why?), you could tack of Jabbing Style. After all, you *are* swinging all those times, and just adding up the damage...

Silver Crusade

Reposting. :-)

Joe M. wrote:

Okay, I've made a <dedicated thread> for discussion/FAQ flagging of the Pummeling style question.

Have at it!

:-)

301 to 350 of 905 << first < prev | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Knee-jerk reactions from the Advanced Class Guide All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.