Presently I think the best Hunter is the archetype that gets Wildshape and throws Fido in the garbage.I would be happy to be wrong about the Hunter, honest to god I would love to be wrong.
If I get a chance I'll even set up a game with a Ranger and Hunter to see how their strengths compare.
If you can prove us wrong and show just how cool and awesome a Hunter can be I would be overjoyed! Please find some way to prove us wrong.
The Wildshaping Hunter vs. the Animal Focus Druid. At very low levels, the Hunter might be slightly ahead with unlimited Animal Focus (worth about two feats) and a bonus feat at level 2, but the unsupported summoning fcous of the Hunter seems a poor trade for the Druids full casting progression and access to exotic wild shapes.
Druids also happen to be OP.....
Depending on the group you may not have to bring your A game and that's what I consider Hunter for.
A party of just 1-6 and 1-4 casters would be pretty fun and cool without super crazy stuff happening. Perfect party fro Hunters.
Comparatively if I get into a party with
Wizard
Cleric
Bloodrager who's getting beast totem
Me
My slot would have to be something that belongs at that level of power so I wouldn't feel overshadowed. Druid probably so I could serve on the front line.
Studied Combat needs only one Feat to be useful in ranged combat, that's not too bad. And Investigator is actually great in combat if built for it (with +15 BAB and +10 Studied Combat to both hit and damage, they actually max out at +25 to hit, +10 damage, which isn't too far off from a Fighter's +26 to hit and +6 damage...and that Fighter number includes Gloves of Dueling). Studied Combat is a buff on par with a Dawnflower Dervish's version of Inspire Courage (which makes the Dawnflower Dervish equal to many full BAB classes), and Inspiration can add even more to attack rolls at need (and cheaply if you focus your Talents on it). And all that's on top of having all an Alchemist's self-buff stuff in melee combat (they can even grab Mutagen). All told it's very solid in combat and phenomenal outside it. That's an 8/10 even in a more traditional game IMO...unless you build them poorly for the kind of game they're in, of course.
Not to forget that you can make a mutagen for yourself if you build this way and have super-useful buff extracts, like Haste and Heroism. The class really is fine in combat, you just need to delve a bit under the hood.
|
Not to forget that you can make a mutagen for yourself if you build this way and have super-useful buff extracts, like Haste and Heroism.
Absolutely!
The class really is fine in combat, you just need to delve a bit under the hood.
I dunno if it's that far under the hood. Just Quick Study and actually doing the stuff other classes do to be good at combat (Power Attack, decent stat investment, buff spells/extracts, etc.) does a lot of the work, with Combat Inspiration doing most of the rest, along with Mutagen if you want it.
I honestly feel like most of that's pretty obvious if you don't go in with the assumption that they're bad at combat.
Well, it looked like more of a skill focused class at first, but the synergies are there at second look. Studied Strike still is not worth very much, IMO.
|
|
Well, it looked like more of a skill focused class at first, but the synergies are there at second look.
I think my favorite part is that it still is a skill class. And can be so while still being good at combat. That just makes me happy. :)
Studied Strike still is not worth very much, IMO.
Eh, it's free bonus damage on your last attack before you run out of them on a Studied Combat. Plus, if you've got a good idea how close they are to death, you can push them over with it if you do it right. It's not particularly good, but it's not actively awful.
|
Druids also happen to be OP.....
Depending on the group you may not have to bring your A game and that's what I consider Hunter for.
A party of just 1-6 and 1-4 casters would be pretty fun and cool without super crazy stuff happening. Perfect party fro Hunters.
Comparatively if I get into a party with
Wizard
Cleric
Bloodrager who's getting beast totem
MeMy slot would have to be something that belongs at that level of power so I wouldn't feel overshadowed. Druid probably so I could serve on the front line.
How is the bloodrager getting beast totem? The inability for bloodragers to get pounce is the ONE thing that keeps them from being the perfect character.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
How is the bloodrager getting beast totem? The inability for bloodragers to get pounce is the ONE thing that keeps them from being the perfect character.
The Primalist Archetype can trade a Bloodline Power for two Rage Powers. As many times as they like. They explicitly don't qualify for Extra Rage Power, so that means you won't get it until 12th level, but it's doable.
How is the bloodrager getting beast totem? The inability for bloodragers to get pounce is the ONE thing that keeps them from being the perfect character.The Primalist Archetype can trade a Bloodline Power for two Rage Powers. As many times as they like. They explicitly don't qualify for Extra Rage Power, so that means you won't get it until 12th level, but it's doable.
*cue maniacal laughter*
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Beast Totem spellcasting dervish of doom, GO!
Or, alternately, you can have a Skald Raging Song your Beast Totem.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Stuff
More stuff
Maybe I should have mathed a little harder before writing my review. I mean, even if studied combat only lasts a few rounds, most foes are dead before that even matters. I love being wrong when it comes to things like this. Now if only I could be wrong about divine protection or the arcanist.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
In order of best designed to least well designed.
Slayer: Mostly due to simplicity. Honestly, it would have taken a staggering level of incompetence to mess this one up, but it's one of my favorite classes now.
Bloodrager: It's a Barbarian with neat magic shit, and it pulls that off well, without seeming like it gets too many or too few class features.
Investigator: Really cool class, Inspiration is a solid mechanic, and they fill a skill monkey role well without being gimped in combat. Between several good Feats and Talents making them more powerful in combat, and those options not being too intensive, by end-game you have a very god skill monkey with good, if not situationally amazing combat ability. Only real gripe: Status affecting Studied Strike add-ons are useless. Why? they come in far too late. News flash: At 17th level, Blinded is not a huge deal. Confused is even less of one at 19th.
Shaman: I don't really like it, not really my cup of tea, but nothing really jumps out as broken about it.
Skald: Ditto Shaman.
Brawler: Somewhat disappointing, but not BAD. Despite Awesome Blow still coming in at 16th taking the third place spot for "Good, nearly unanimous feedback that was summarily ignored for no discernible purpose."
Hunter: I still think it is basically unnecessary, feeling more like a Druid or Ranger archetype than a new class, but at least it's not a BAD archetype any more.
Swashbuckler: Coming in at #2 on the "Ignored feedback" list, basically nothing was changed about this class between it first being previewed in the first round of playtesting to now. For some reason. Pretty much everyone agreed several things needed to happen. Better saves, lessened reliance on Precise Strike for damage (or a main damaging ability that isn't negated by several common enemy types and magical items), things that made it feel "Swashbuckler-y" (making Derring-Do not cost Panache would have been a solid start). None of these things were addressed. It's pretty sad when an archetype for a class whose default flavor is as far from a Swashbuckler as you can get manages to pull off your job better than you.
Arcanist: From a flavor perspective, it's uninspired. It fills no new conceptual niche. From a mechanical perspective, it has some pretty busted shit, pretty much obsoleting the Sorcerer.
Warpriest: It does basically nothing right on the Divine Warrior concept. It's worse in most ways than any other similar class, and is made up of a hodge-podge of uninspired and poorly synergistic mechanics (Sacred Weapon lasting only a round/level? EVERYTHING relying on Fervor? Why?). Hands down the worst class in the book. This is #1 on the "Not listened to feedback" list, mostly because not only was feedback on the class ignored almost entirely, but several things were changed for the WORSE in the final version.
Exploiter Wizard: This is a Wizard. With all of a Wizard's broken toys. It adds all of the Arcanist's broken toys on top. Somebody actually thought this was a good thing.
Giving some anecdotal feedback on the Swashbuckler (I have been playing one at 13th and 14th level for a few weeks now and playtest to released product are basically similar), the class plays pretty well, but has noticeable weaknesses, due to a large part of its damage coming from precision damage (way too easily negated by multiple factors) and the two low saves. Although on the latter Charmed Life helps a lot.
Aside from those two problems, the over-reliance on swift/immediate actions is the most problematic thing. Do not try to play this class in a mythic campaign, since you are only adding more ways to want to spend your one swift action to your bag of problems.
Panache is a pretty fun resource, you can spend it pretty freely since you will probably recover it very fast, anyway. Last session (when finally I had the chance to fight something which had not improved concealment or was immune to precision damage in another way), I had a very solid damage output (to the tune of something like 140-150 damage per round) and had no problems recovering the panache I spend on ripostes and other stuff. The problem rather was deciding on what to spend my swift action of the round.
|
|
I fail to see how "I need to choose between several options to see what swift actions I should use. " is worse than: "My class has no class based uses for a swift action."
Having ways to use your swift action is a strong action bonus, not a penalty.
I have a hard time seeing how having good swift action bonus is a drawback.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how "I need to choose between several options to see what swift actions I should use. " is worse than: "My class has no class based uses for a swift action."
Having ways to use your swift action is a strong action bonus, not a penalty.I have a hard time seeing how having good swift action bonus is a drawback.
An overabundance of Swift/Immediate actions both results in an overall poor action economy, because you're limited to a hard maximum of one of your features a round, and is generally poor balance when it relies on an Immediate to shore up its atrocious saves (a necessity) and another Immediate to use its signature defensive ability.
You either end up holding out, waiting to use Charmed Life at a critical moment, or you fail to do so and are stuck with the game's worst saves.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I fail to see how "I need to choose between several options to see what swift actions I should use. " is worse than: "My class has no class based uses for a swift action."
Having ways to use your swift action is a strong action bonus, not a penalty.I have a hard time seeing how having good swift action bonus is a drawback.
The problem is that you can't use the "not as good" ones, because you need the swift/immediate action for the stuff which really helps. Doubling your precision damage on one hit is not as good an option as having had to use Charmed Life or Riposte when it was not your turn. For that matter, Riposte is not as good an option as having Charmed Life available. Things like Dizzying Defense, Dodging Panache and Menacing Swordplay are just not usable class features, because you need the swift action for simply more important stuff.
Mythic gameplay (grantedly a corner case) just excerbates the problem.
I have only one thing to say on this subject at the moment.
The Warpriest is bad and it should feel bad. The Blessings are terrible and nearly everything it does is severely limited. The fact that it relies way too heavily on swift and immediate actions has already been mentioned. On top of the fact that most of it's Sacred Weapon and Armor Bonuses can be bought. Hell this class could be at least workable if they gave it Domains or Inquisitions or both.
Not very happy with the swashbuckler.
I know they're fixing it, but being able to get dex to damage with a battleaxe but not the classes iconic rapier is definitely facepalm worthy.
The class is billed as mobile: it doesn't have any mobility built into it. No dodge bonuses for aoos, no speed increases, no pounce, no charging around corners.
Precision damaged based: Immune to precision damage monsters come up a LOT in the scenarios and adventures. Then they have DR or incorporeality on top of it. Meaning you're dealing NO damage.
All of the deeds are nice and all, but if you're fighting a melee person your one immediate action is going to be parry riposte. If you're fighting a caster its going to be extra damage.
On that note, the weakest saves in the game and Charmed life is almost unusable because you'll always be using your immediate action for something else.
It very much seems to be either a dip class, or a high level fighter class (around 12 + is where that extra damage really starts to kick in)
Charmed life should just be a passive +cha to saves. Don't tell me it's too broken for the Swashbuckler but perfectly fine for the friggin' oracle. Or give them a good will save in class. Or both.
As for the hunter. I think it's being underappreciated, but I do see a few things that irk me with it.
-Not having a custom spell list really hurts: Summoner and Inquisitor get their own spell list, which means they get thematically appropriate 7/8/9ths on their list. Hunter just draws from the Druid list, so he's stuck at real 6th level stopping point. Not gamebreaking again, but can hurt later on
-The way he's portrayed as a woodland warrior with a pet... when he's not necessarily any better at fighting than the druid (which in and of itself is silly). Which I think partially highlights why the class makes me cringe: You're basically trading 7-9ths for teamwork feats and focus and I'm just not sure if it's really wortwhile.
It would have been really nice if the Hunter had some feature that made it more martial than the druid other than it just not having enough spells.
|
Oh, I was notified of the Wizard also getting in on the Arcane Exploits fun with one of its new archetypes, so I am definitely not counting the class out. Sorcerers remain my favorite arcane spellcasting class, no matter how OP Arcanists are. :p
The counterspelling thing really irks me, because it very likely can break most single opponent encounters in AP's which involve spellcasters. I'll admit that I misread the section a bit and missed that you need a spell one level higher (until lvl 11 at least). So it is not as good as the mythic Flexible Counterspell. Until level 11.
I hope that people figure the Hunter out soon, I am rather disposed to liking the class. :p
The OP is simply wrong on the Hunter. If you're playing a Hunter YOU ARE basing your play style on working with your Animal Companion, the team work feats give both the hunter and the companion a force multiplier that's unavailable to either the Druid or the Ranger. And you're not completely hosed if you lose your companion, or take an archetype that does without. You've got access to a nice range of short term buffs from attribute boosts, skill boosts, and evasion.
And you've got access to the best ranger spells before the ranger can get them. and a nice quota of skill points.
Yeah, the Hunter is really shaping up to be the most underestimated class of the release. He's easily more potent than the Slayer and Swashbuckler, more versatile than the Brawler, and takes off much more quickly than the Investigator.
He's also got the best AnC in the game and a spell list that's actually one of the better ones for the "PFS levels".The only "downside" is that they also introduced an insanely good Inquisitor archetype that gains the awesome companion with equally good synergy while giving up almost nothing by comparison.
Yeah, the Hunter is really shaping up to be the most underestimated class of the release. He's easily more potent than the Slayer and Swashbuckler, more versatile than the Brawler, and takes off much more quickly than the Investigator.
Admittedly, the playtest version of the Hunter was not very good, and most of the improvements weren't immediately obvious with a quick read-through.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hunter actually looks solid.
Someone just ran an Arcanist in a one-shot I was running. The limited slots is a real balancing factor. The exploits are strong, but the character nearly died or was shut down in 3 out of my 4 serious encounters (all technically CR 12-13 against a level 12 20-point buy party of 4). Probably not the most optimizing player, but this class isn't automatically Roflstompnewblords like some people are making out to be.
Brawler looks good. It and the monk are neck and neck which is impressive since the monk has ki and the brawler is just a mere mortal,
Investigator has replaced 90% of what I want to do with a rogue. Studied combat is amazing! That alone makes the class pretty good at combat. Studied strike, extracts, and talents are just gravy. Oh and 6+int skills actually do make it better at skills than an alchemist, since there is no reason not to pump int, studied combat is so much to-hit that you could throw 14s in str and dex and only give those stats item boost and your to-hit is fine, fighter levels with extracts.
Fighter Archetypes: It cost 400 gold for an alchemical allocation potion. Which would allow you to re-use your mutagen. So you can have that up at all times at the levels where you need it and can then afford to replace weapon training with spont feats. This is a pretty kick-ass fighter. In the one-shot I mentioned earlier a player used the tech-guides archetype for the fighter and then used a lot of tech equipment (I let him craft the tech himself for WBL because all the stuff was crazy expensive), not ACG related but without him they were probably going to die at the first room.
Rogue Archetypes: Underground chemist is nice, essentially brings back 3.5 flask throwing build. Counterfeit mage is pretty useless, wands are an easy DC to beat at higher levels where the rogue can both afford wands and starts to really really need them. We get it, the rogue is suppose to suck. Please stop rubbing our faces in it.
|
|
Yeah, the Hunter is really shaping up to be the most underestimated class of the release. He's easily more potent than the Slayer and Swashbuckler, more versatile than the Brawler, and takes off much more quickly than the Investigator.Admittedly, the playtest version of the Hunter was not very good, and most of the improvements weren't immediately obvious with a quick read-through.
There were a few subtle changes whose ramifications are really big but easy to overlook, I'll give you that.
Still, they've now got the only AnC in the game that actually has the potential to bring as much to the battlefield as an eidolon, combined with early access to some great spells like Lead Blades and Gravity Bow. Being able to swing a 2d8 to 4d8 weapon right at level 1 can be a pretty big deal all by itself, and the AnC stays much more relevant at later levels.
The OP is simply wrong on the Hunter. If you're playing a Hunter YOU ARE basing your play style on working with your Animal Companion, the team work feats give both the hunter and the companion a force multiplier that's unavailable to either the Druid or the Ranger. And you're not completely hosed if you lose your companion, or take an archetype that does without. You've got access to a nice range of short term buffs from attribute boosts, skill boosts, and evasion.
And you've got access to the best ranger spells before the ranger can get them. and a nice quota of skill points.
Oh, as I said in my initial post, I probably will be overruled in my opinions when people get a deeper look at the classes and options.
But I still think that the Hunter itself (not the animal companion, which is great) is not so good. Those buff spells you and Salarn are talking about are either short duration (also attribute boosts are later superseded by enhancers or even Animal Aspect) or depend on the Hunter actually hitting an opponent. Which is where I see the problem with the class. It completely misses all those critical "+ to hit" buffs other casters can get, at least where spells are concerned. Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Bless, Prayer, Haste, Heroism, Greater Heroism, Good Hope and Wrath are all not available to the Hunter.
|
|
My issue, as others have chimed in before, is not in the chassis, but the scaling. At low levels, the hunter is very strong, and is probably one of the best E6 classes. If you are playing in a low level or low to mid level scenarios, like PFS, the hunter would be a strong choice. But it peaks in relative strength to other classes very early, basically in the 5-7 range. It starts falling behind too much in damage and attack versus the combat focused classes, including magi and inquisitors along side full BAB classes, and starts falling behind in spell availability to the full casters. It does a lot of things ok at mid to high levels, but nothing well. A lot of people are not concerned with high level play, but if you are I would be hesitant about the hunter.
Considering the Hunter's various abilities and the availability of some of the best Teamwork feats, he's actually strong well through 12th level and doesn't really start falling behind until 15th level, when literally every other non-full caster besides the Summoner (who's really just a full caster on disguise), loses ground to the full casters.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually think it's a really solid class, I just can't help but feel though that it's still functionally a druid-1. Or summoner-... some value less than one but still resaonably high.
My biggest gripe is design more than power though: The class is presented as a martial combatant but doesn't actually have anything that makes it better in a fight than the druid (which is often presented as hippie in a robe).
Granted, combat skills vs casting basically never favors the former, but the principle of it still stings.
They did listen. Most of the respondents returned a response that the WarPriest was severely broken with it's Sacred Weapon operating at Full BAB.
Never understood why the Paizo forums seems so scared of martial classes and things like high BAB.
Skirmish tricks and ranger spell list on 6/9 casting is being under appreciated here. Mix that in with the other class features and you got something pretty nice.
|
|
I fail to see how "I need to choose between several options to see what swift actions I should use. " is worse than: "My class has no class based uses for a swift action."
Having ways to use your swift action is a strong action bonus, not a penalty.I have a hard time seeing how having good swift action bonus is a drawback.
The problem is that you can't use the "not as good" ones, because you need the swift/immediate action for the stuff which really helps. Doubling your precision damage on one hit is not as good an option as having had to use Charmed Life or Riposte when it was not your turn. For that matter, Riposte is not as good an option as having Charmed Life available. Things like Dizzying Defense, Dodging Panache and Menacing Swordplay are just not usable class features, because you need the swift action for simply more important stuff.
Mythic gameplay (grantedly a corner case) just excerbates the problem.
Your immediate action reset at the end of your turn. Sure using it eat the next swift action, but either you use it every round or you have your swift available during your turn and it still reset after you have used the swift action. Either way you use a swift/immediate action every round. Plenty of classed don't get to do that.
|
|
As for the hunter. I think it's being underappreciated, but I do see a few things that irk me with it.
-Not having a custom spell list really hurts: Summoner and Inquisitor get their own spell list, which means they get thematically appropriate 7/8/9ths on their list. Hunter just draws from the Druid list, so he's stuck at real 6th level stopping point. Not gamebreaking again, but can hurt later on
Magus. A personalized spell list and he get almost nothing at a lower spell level (nothing with the spells in UM).
The summoner is a 9 spell levels class masquerading as a 6 spell levels class.Which is where I see the problem with the class. It completely misses all those critical "+ to hit" buffs other casters can get, at least where spells are concerned. Divine Favor, Divine Power, Righteous Might, Bless, Prayer, Haste, Heroism, Greater Heroism, Good Hope and Wrath are all not available to the Hunter.
Again Magus, beside haste he miss all those spells and he is a good melee fighter.
Warpriest: It does basically nothing right on the Divine Warrior concept. It's worse in most ways than any other similar class, and is made up of a hodge-podge of uninspired and poorly synergistic mechanics (Sacred Weapon lasting only a round/level? EVERYTHING relying on Fervor? Why?). Hands down the worst class in the book. This is #1 on the "Not listened to feedback" list, mostly because not only was feedback on the class ignored almost entirely, but several things were changed for the WORSE in the final version.They did listen. Most of the respondents returned a response that the WarPriest was severely broken with it's Sacred Weapon operating at Full BAB.
Keep also in mind that Sacred Weapon can be activated as a swift action. Other versions of this power require a standard action to activate.
Yes, but those versions can be activated pre-combat.
Magus. A personalized spell list and he get almost nothing at a lower spell level (nothing with the spells in UM).
The summoner is a 9 spell levels class masquerading as a 6 spell levels class.
Yeah. I know the magus gets stuck with only 6 levels of spells... but that's not really relevant when I'm comparing it to the summoner or inquisitor (done on purpose because summoner and sacred huntsman inquisitor both do the hunter's job better than the hunter).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, here is my
Martial Flexibility:3 more uses from the playtest makes this ability actually usable[in PFS I never got around to using it, because it had so few uses], other then that there doesn't seem to be too much of a change. I like the "Swiss Army Knife Fighter" feel it gives to the class, and will definitely be using it as soon as it becomes a swift-action activate for all sorts of things.
Maneuver Training:Neat, but until I get around to making and playing a trip-master or dirty-trick master, I won't use this more than on the rare occasion there is a combat maneuver superior to punching someone in the face. Overall, I wish an archetype would trade this for more uses of Martial Flexibility, but perhaps this is more of a personal taste issue.
AC bonus:Nothing bad, but also nothing to write home about.
Brawler Close Weapon Damage:Awesome. Just awesome. Now all sorts of weapons are viable choices, such as the Punching Dagger, a personal favorite of mine. Definitely one of my favorite abilities.
Knockout:So, Stunning Fist+, right? It gives a harsh debuff, and most importantly has a Str/Dex-based DC, making it more practical to pump up. Also, IIRC the attack doesn't have to overcome DR to hit.
Other:I only really skimmed the class[didn't have time to read it thoroughly, and still don't own it], so I don't know about the other features. Still, overall I'll give it a 5 for power[not higher because the class has a poor will save, no spells, and no equally powerful/cool abilities like a barbarian's rage powers], and a 7 for design[not a bad design, just slightly clunky, though definitely more streamlined than the playtest].
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
How do you do a review on a class you've admittedly not even read through?
How can you expect that review to be taken seriously?
Judging a class is like judging a dog show: you have to judge it for the standard of what it is. You can only judge how well a brawler fights, not how well it casts spells.
The "Brown fur" arcanist looks pretty cool. You can spend points to boost transmutation spell stat boosts, AND spend points so as to use "personal" spells at a range of touch. I think we might finally see some ocasional use of a bunch of rarely-used transmutation spells. They can actually be used on the right peeps now.
Warpriest: It does basically nothing right on the Divine Warrior concept. It's worse in most ways than any other similar class, and is made up of a hodge-podge of uninspired and poorly synergistic mechanics (Sacred Weapon lasting only a round/level? EVERYTHING relying on Fervor? Why?). Hands down the worst class in the book. This is #1 on the "Not listened to feedback" list, mostly because not only was feedback on the class ignored almost entirely, but several things were changed for the WORSE in the final version.
Hey now, remember when the class needed charisma for Fervor and other class features, and how obscenely MAD the class was? There was some stuff that was listened to.
It's also not even top 3 when it comes to least necessary classes from this book. That goes to the Arcanist, Hunter, and Swashbuckler. At least the Warpriest can be the alignment agnostic Paladin people have always clamored for.
Firstly, never said Warpriest was an unneeded concept. It had the potential to be what everyone wanted.
Second, Arcanist, Hunter, sure. Unnecessary, pretty much unwanted.
Swashbuckler though? That was, hands down, the MOST REQUESTED CLASS pre-ACG announcement.
|
|
How do you do a review on a class you've admittedly not even read through?
How can you expect that review to be taken seriously?
Glad you asked!
As some of you may know, I am not the best at manipulating the internet text medium. I did read through any abilities that I noticed a significant change in[skimmed all abilities that met the 2nd priority here], and were in levels that I might actually expect to play in[I notice a lot of campaigns fall apart at around level 12ish, and a lot of comparisons are done around this level. After that, I didn't feel a need to read through the class]. Noticed significant changes in Martial Flexibility, Brawler Close Weapons[? anyone mind sharing the name of the scaling close weapon feature with me, I've forgotten it], Brawler's Cunning, and Knockout. Mostly, 3 of those didn't exist.
As for being taken seriously, might I ask what I missed/miss-evaluated? If its my rating, here is the
Then I rated design quality on a different scale. Specifically, a similar scale with Rogue the bottom and Inquisitor the top. Its abilities pushed it too strongly towards certain feat taxes[combat expertise specifically], because without said taxes a fair portion of the class features would functionally be "dead weight" which is a bad thing. It wasn't a class that would invalidate another class[well, maybe CRB-only monk], so that brought it up a little, and it was good at what it was designed to do[unarmed strike combat] so that helped balance it. But some of its features were a little too clunky for my taste[the way that Martial Maneuvers works was the main thing. It burns a charge for every feat, letting you burn 3 at once, and the additional charges spent/time used it was on a different progression from the way it gains an increase in the time spent using it[Move/Swift/Immediate]. Still a great feature, but a clunky one, meaning that this dropped it from an 8[which is only a little[1/2] behind the barbarian, its most powerful mundane peer].
Yeah, I probably should have used just one scale for both Power and Design quality, but I felt they should be a scale of best to worse, and the best was different for each. Note that this is all my opinion, and you are welcome to think differently.
Firstly, never said Warpriest was an unneeded concept. It had the potential to be what everyone wanted.
Second, Arcanist, Hunter, sure. Unnecessary, pretty much unwanted.
Swashbuckler though? That was, hands down, the MOST REQUESTED CLASS pre-ACG announcement.
Have to agree with this, a lot of people wanted swashbucklers. The only other classes that had anywhere close to as many requests are the Brawler (though usually in the form of a monk archetype rather than its own class) and a full BAB 4-level arcane caster like the Bloodrager.
Highly requested? Yes.
But it's also something that probably didn't need a brand new class to do. Making the relevant PrC and archetype options less terrible would have accomplished the same thing because really a Swashbuckler is just some sort of specialist rogue or fighter.
The problem I see with Mr. Swash is that.. honestly it ends up being probably the single most narrowly defined class in the game because its concept is too specialized and there's so many rules in it to make sure you can't try anything else with it. Can't TWF cuz you lose your damage, can't use anything other than a rapier or slashing weapon, can't even use guns when the classed is built on the gunslinger chassis!
Firstly, never said Warpriest was an unneeded concept. It had the potential to be what everyone wanted.
While I'm not a fan of the class, I probably have a different definition of "worst class in the book" than you do. At this point in Pathfinder's lifespan, I'd honestly rather have a bad class that tries something new or different, or fills some niche (even one as tiny as what the Warpriest fills), then be unnecessary or mechanically repetative.
I'd rather Paizo publish something akin to a truenamer than something like the Shaman, at this point, basically.
Second, Arcanist, Hunter, sure. Unnecessary, pretty much unwanted.
Swashbuckler though? That was, hands down, the MOST REQUESTED CLASS pre-ACG announcement.
As others have said: It's a concept that isn't new to the game, and just hasn't been realized yet. It's a fighting style better handled by a prestige class or archetype than an entire class.
This isn't even a case like with the gunslinger where there is an entirely new combat style being introduced into the game. The swashbuckler is the equivalent of there being a class called "Legionnaire" that solely focused on sword & board. Or something called a "brawler" that only focuses on close combat weapons. I mean sure, that is a combat style that needed some love, but I wish that class brought something else to the table.
And yes, the criticism of "doesn't really bring anything new to the table" is a criticism that could be laid at the feet of almost every class in the Advanced Class Guide. I'm not exactly high on this book.
And yes, the criticism of "doesn't really bring anything new to the table" is a criticism that could be laid at the feet of almost every class in the Advanced Class Guide. I'm not exactly high on this book.
Have to agree, to some extent. The focus on hybrid classes ensured that pretty much everything we got would be, at best, an interesting variant or tweak to previous material. The ACG classes aren't bad by any means, but it's hard to get too excited by more of the same.
It probably also doesn't help that Paizo's class design principles have gotten a little stale after so many books. "Oh look, it's another class with a limited pool of uses/day abilities balanced around he average number of encounters in a Paizo Adventure Path. Never seen that before."