Does a Slayer with the Trapfinding talent (ACG p. 54) put the Rogue out of business?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Vivisectionist Alchemist, Archaeologist Bard, even the Seeker Sorcerer put the Rogue out of business.
Vivisectionist Alchemist, Archaeologist Bard, even the Seeker Sorcerer put the Rogue out of business.
I am still seeing the Slayer as a better deal though.
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
Does a Slayer with the Trapfinding talent (ACG p. 54) put the Rogue out of business?
That store's been closed so long they still have pogs sitting on the shelf with the dust.
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."
I think a part of that is that Paizo doesn't seem super keen on new mechanics.
By this time in 3.5's lifetime we have stuff like Incarnum and Binders and Initators and so on doing normal things in a new way. Paizo seems stuck on vancian casting and full attack martial combat. There's really nothing that isn't either one of the two or a mix of them.
Swashbuckler really hurts (imo) here... because there was a lot of potential for it to do something different and actually feel like a duelist darting around back and forth... but in the end it's still all about standing in one spot and full attacking until something is dead. Which is a shame.
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.
I feel like the Investigator and Skald do a decent amount of work to feel different. I mean they're clearly derivative. Pseudo sneak attack + alchemy and bardic music + rage isn't very inspiring, but they mesh together in a way that makes it work at least a little bit differently than the parents.
And while the class itself doesn't feel like it breaks any new ground. Stuff like Martial Flexibility is kind of neat.
Warpriest and Hunter in their current state feel too much like Cleric-1 and Druid-1 to me. Arcanist is... well you combined the two most similar classes in the game, what can you expect?
Slayer is ultimately held back by the fact the game is just built around full attacking. Its mechanics are.. slightly nifty, but Quarry and Studied Target are both kind of the same concept applied sightly differently (and worse, they're the same core principle as the Investigator's Studied Combat).
Bloodrager, thanks to Primalist, simply feels like it overlaps with its parent class too much, but it's not too bad.
Mind you this negativity is out of love, not hate. I actually enjoy the Hunter, Bloodrager and Swashbuckler... I just feel like they could be so much more from a design perspective.
In terms of power I'd probably go... Arcanist > Shaman > Skald > Bloodrager > Hunter > Warpriest > Investigator > Slayer > Brawler > Swashbuckler.
But I'm nowhere near sold on my own list since I haven't had a chance to play them enough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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."I think a part of that is that Paizo doesn't seem super keen on new mechanics.
By this time in 3.5's lifetime we have stuff like Incarnum and Binders and Initators and so on doing normal things in a new way. Paizo seems stuck on vancian casting and full attack martial combat. There's really nothing that isn't either one of the two or a mix of them.
Swashbuckler really hurts (imo) here... because there was a lot of potential for it to do something different and actually feel like a duelist darting around back and forth... but in the end it's still all about standing in one spot and full attacking until something is dead. Which is a shame.
Have to agree on this. I think a lot of this stems from Pathfinder's origins as a reaction to 4th edition. After all, Pathfinder got its start by appealing to gamers who hated change, and wanted to go back to the way things used to be.
There's also the much heavier AP/campaign setting focus of Pathfinder working against innovation. 3.5 never really worried the details of how to incorporate Incarnum/Psionics/ToB/ToM/etc into their existing campaign settings and pre-written adventures, it was just kind of handwaved that they'd always been around, we just never had rules/fluff about them until now.
Since Paizo actually wants to integrate everything smoothly into Golarion, there's a bias towards adding classes that aren't too different from anything we currently have. It's easy to say that almost every new class from the APG onwards is something that could've been represented by a core class with the right build, though usually not as well as a class with dedicated mechanics.
That generally tends to presume the kind of advance notice I seldom ever get.Yes, but those versions can be activated pre-combat.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.
Yeah I know that feeling. If it's a standard action buff that doesn't make me completely immune to whatever is happening or affect the entire party with something good it's just not really economical enough to consider most of the time.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
There's also the much heavier AP/campaign setting focus of Pathfinder working against innovation. 3.5 never really worried the details of how to incorporate Incarnum/Psionics/ToB/ToM/etc into their existing campaign settings and pre-written adventures, it was just kind of handwaved that they'd always been around, we just never had rules/fluff about them until now.
Since Paizo actually wants to integrate everything smoothly into Golarion, there's a bias towards adding classes that aren't too different from anything we currently have. It's easy to say that almost every new class from the APG onwards is something that could've been represented by a core class with the right build, though usually not as well as a class with dedicated mechanics.
Games Workshop has in recent often been charged with being a miniatures company and not a game company. Their miniatures have become more expensive, they put a large emphasis on painting, and a lesser one on tournament play, implying that they want to be in the market of selling collectibles and not tabletop game pieces.
I think a similar criticism could be levied at Paizo. Let's not forget that Mythic Rules exist partly so that the AP writers could reasonably throw very high level devils/demons/dragons/monsters at a party without having the characters actually progressing to those high levels. I would wager that most of Paizo's revenues come from Adventure Paths and setting material, and I would agree that maintaining those is (and probably should be, if I want them to keep offering product/competition) their primary goal.
Now, Paizo certainly isn't jacking their prices sky-high like GW is, but they do seem to have a similar laissez faire attitude when it comes to maintaining game balance, in exchange for maintaining internal D&D's traditional character archetypes. That's been fine most of the time, but I'm getting more than a little bored of it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Now, Paizo certainly isn't jacking their prices sky-high like GW is, but they do seem to have a similar laissez faire attitude when it comes to maintaining game balance, in exchange for maintaining internal D&D's traditional character archetypes. That's been fine most of the time, but I'm getting more than a little bored of it.
I think it's unfair to compare Paizo to GW. I played Warhammer Fantasy for decades before giving up because of:
1. High prices and ridiculous rules around regional pricing2. Their Ivory Tower attitude to what gamers actually wanted and any reasonable criticism about the game or how they treated the players.
3. Lack of transparency and communication with the Warhammer community.
4. Incredibly unbalanced rules between armies from 5th edition all the way through to 8th edition. The lack of game balance was far higher than anything you see with Pathfinder.
Paizo actually listen to their community and are reasonably responsive to them. As you mentioned, their prices are very fair and they are quite willing to admit when they may have made a mistake which I don't think happens that often.
These are just my personal opinions but it is echoed by those who used to play Warhammer with me.
Someone who knows more about investigators, question on them for the rating thing..
The new "debuffs" aren't usuable for a long time? I'm gathering that from people but I don't have my own book till paydayish
Yeah the earliest one is a trip one that comes in at 9th level. The others come in much much later to the point where it's pretty pointless.
|
Vivisectionist Alchemist, Archaeologist Bard, even the Seeker Sorcerer put the Rogue out of business.I am still seeing the Slayer as a better deal though.
It's certainly closer thematically. Better mechanically? Probably not.
Yeah the earliest one is a trip one that comes in at 9th level. The others come in much much later to the point where it's pretty pointless.Someone who knows more about investigators, question on them for the rating thing..
The new "debuffs" aren't usuable for a long time? I'm gathering that from people but I don't have my own book till paydayish
Investigator still rocks even without them, though.
Investigator still rocks even without them, though.
Yeah the earliest one is a trip one that comes in at 9th level. The others come in much much later to the point where it's pretty pointless.
Well yeah, but I just wish they were better options. I'd be really surprised if any Investigator took them.
Great without them, sure. Doesn't change the fact that defeaning at level 15 is a bit cringe worthy.
I dunno, that talent that Sickens a foe that you've studied every time you hit them seems pretty good. You don't even need to use studied strike to do it. Every hit, they're just sick.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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).
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.
Comparing the spell list of a class with 6 level of spells to that of the summoner will always give you the impression that the other class spell list is lacking, but that isn't a problem of the other class spell list, it is a problem of the summoner spell list. 45% of the spells in his spell list in the APG are at a lower level than other classes.
Use the bard as a comparison, he only get 12% of his spells at a lover level than other classes.
Now, Paizo certainly isn't jacking their prices sky-high like GW is, but they do seem to have a similar laissez faire attitude when it comes to maintaining game balance, in exchange for maintaining internal D&D's traditional character archetypes. That's been fine most of the time, but I'm getting more than a little bored of it.
I think it's unfair to compare Paizo to GW. I played Warhammer Fantasy for decades before giving up because of:
1. High prices and ridiculous rules around regional pricing
2. Their Ivory Tower attitude to what gamers actually wanted and any reasonable criticism about the game or how they treated the players.
3. Lack of transparency and communication with the Warhammer community.
4. Incredibly unbalanced rules between armies from 5th edition all the way through to 8th edition. The lack of game balance was far higher than anything you see with Pathfinder
I (obviously) think the comparison holds some water, but I agree how much more severe GW's flaws are. Game Workshop looks much more like a dinosaur scratching and clawing to try and not go extinct than a miniatures game company these days.
"3D printers aren't going to be a threat to our business"
The ratings you post are a bit useless if you post them in a vacuum, how would rate the basic, advanced or alternate classes?
Seems to me that everything is above 5/10 and the average was well above that so seems like there are barely any negatives
Yeah, as it happens I am actually pretty pleased with most of the book. Divine Protection, the entire fiasco with dex-to-damage and the Arcanist bring it down a bit. I probably would have rated the spell section pretty low, since I haven't seen very inspiring stuff there. But the rest is good.
And I don't think I need to rate all the other classes which had come out before to rate these ones. That seems like a strange way to do a light review of the new stuff.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The spell section gets an 11/10 for me solely because you can make a whip out of a chain of spiders now
The spell section gets an 11/10 for me solely because you can make a whip out of a chain of spiders now
That is so metal!
Anyway to get a Skald to do that?
It's on the Bard list, so Skalds can totally cast it.
You can also make whips out of Army Ants or Centipedes, if you so desire.
Yep, it's a 2nd level Bard spell so Skalds can cast it. There's also a 5th and 6th level variant that allows you to make a whip out of centipedes and army ants, respectively.
The ratings you post are a bit useless if you post them in a vacuum, how would rate the basic, advanced or alternate classes?
Seems to me that everything is above 5/10 and the average was well above that so seems like there are barely any negatives
Yeah, as it happens I am actually pretty pleased with most of the book. Divine Protection, the entire fiasco with dex-to-damage and the Arcanist bring it down a bit. I probably would have rated the spell section pretty low, since I haven't seen very inspiring stuff there. But the rest is good.
And I don't think I need to rate all the other classes which had come out before to rate these ones. That seems like a strange way to do a light review of the new stuff.
Yeah I agree. As far as the Merit of these classes compared to others go, I think it's only important that the classes exist within the power level of the already released classes, and nothing I have seen so far suggests they are noticeably weaker, and only Arcanist could be considered more powerful (although I think that is debatable given the power level of wizards already).
I have to agree there. Despite most of my complaints I do like the book. I feel like the Swashbuckler could be a bit better and the Arcanist could be a bit worse and despite my complaints about Warpriest and Hunter being cleric/druid -1 respectively.. they're actually really solid classes because cleric-1 isn't really bad anyways.
The spell section gets an 11/10 for me solely because you can make a whip out of a chain of spiders now
The real question is how is functions with a Whip Magus who took it via the arcana to add a Wizard spell to his list. Do my whip feats apply to it, like extra range? What if I take the new iffy dex-to-damage feat (the one people made a huge topic about) for whips? Can I Spell Strike through it? These questions must be answered for science.
|
Skald is the Bardbarian. Which makes it the best class ever 11/10.
Thock looks at the pitiful and little +2 to Str & Con and laughs. That is nothing compared to a full rage + inspire courage. A little barbarian + lots of bard + some Dragon Disciple is the only true Bardbarian.
Paizo... Nice try at making a Bardbarian.
(I love the rest of the book though, it rocks!!)
The real question is how is functions with a Whip Magus who took it via the arcana to add a Wizard spell to his list. Do my whip feats apply to it, like extra range? What if I take the new iffy dex-to-damage feat (the one people made a huge topic about) for whips? Can I Spell Strike through it? These questions must be answered for science.
Think so. All three Vermin Whips (Spiders, Centipedes, Ants) say they function like whips other than that they make touch attacks and deal swarm damage (they even have a provision saying that they always do lethal damage unlike a normal whip).
River whip should work like a normal whip that makes touch attacks too.
|
|
Skald is the Bardbarian. Which makes it the best class ever 11/10.Thock looks at the pitiful and little +2 to Str & Con and laughs. That is nothing compared to a full rage + inspire courage. A little barbarian + lots of bard + some Dragon Disciple is the only true Bardbarian.
Paizo... Nice try at making a Bardbarian.
(I love the rest of the book though, it rocks!!)
At 13th level, the +6 Str, +6 Con Hakon notes his Pounce and Spell Sunder + Strength Surge, both provided to the entire party free of charge, with Rage Cycling built in, plus 5th level spells, and laughs back.
Little more Bard and little less Barbarian than the version you cite (in the sense that it winds up with lower personal Str and slightly lower BAB...in exchange for awesome party buffs and better spellcasting), I admit, but much better synchronicity of abilities.
The class review was nice, but I would rather see them ranked 1-10 than rated 5-10.
Edit: like someone did deeper in the responses.
The class review was nice, but I would rather see them ranked 1-10 than rated 5-10.
Edit: like someone did deeper in the responses.
Yeah, well. Not my problem if my opinion ain't that close to yours.
And yet, how powerful shaman, given a new list of spells and archetypes? He is focused on?
I still have not received the book...
And yet, how powerful shaman, given a new list of spells and archetypes? He is focused on?
I still have not received the book...
I will be honest, I haven't really gotten deeply into the whole class, since I am not that big a fan of the class concept and when I looked at the spell list, the things I really look for (buff spells, blasting spells) were conspicously lacking.
|
I threw together an aasimar hunter for PFS (hooray, celestial AC) so with rebuilding and all I'm fairly familiar with the Hunter. I agree with the previous poster(s) who pointed out that the eventual FAQ for the Hunter's Tricks class feature is going to have a huge effect on the Hunter's effectiveness. Some of those tricks are better than feats. Okay, a lot of them are. Who wouldn't want a second chance to hit on every missed melee attack?
I've been beefing up my animal companion's defenses, but frankly I wonder if the hunter himself is the weaker of the pair.
Even without the Hunter's Tricks stuff, if you build the character and his/her animal companion carefully, I don't think there should be a problem being useful until at least level 15. Past that point I imagine you'll spend combat much waiting for your casters to get a flying thing onto the ground so you and your AC can Coordinated Charge it. Animal Focus isn't incredible but could be a nice boon in low-magic games.
I haven't read through the other classes in great depth yet, but my wife has been playing Brawlers lately. The hot-swappable combat feats seem to work pretty well when other members of the party play teamwork-heavy classes, so I'd imagine they'd integrate pretty well with hunters and inquisitors and certain Cavaliers. It's somewhat situational, but when it works, it's incredible. It should make for a class that teams well with the random assortment of teammates you end up with in PFS.