What however is problematic is the poor editing of the class. For example the Quick Study talent says it lets an investigator use his studied combat ability as swift action instead of a standard action, but the studied combat ability says it’s a move action. Stuff like this is really problematic.Eh, I looked through that chapter. From what I can tell, the editing is actually about equally bad throughout.
I'm annoyed about that, but wouldn't be inclined to single out any particular class due to it.
Thank for the link! good work. Edir: I meant awesome work!
I didn't mean it just pertained to the Investigator. I meant the editing is more problematic than my minor complaints :)
I meant using the abilities on their own. Counterspelling may not seem to be terribly OP, but regardless of Dispel Checks this ability is very powerful, especially when the PC faces a Boss with this ability (boss being higher levels than the PC’s) or when the PC’s fighting creatures that cast spells that can easily be Counterspelled. This ability can easily kill a blaster that mostly relies on adding meta magic to low level spells such as fireballs.
As for Quick Study, we seem to agree. I just want to point out that I’m in no way saying it is too good to use in battle. It is actually rather awkward to use in battle, the problem is more that it can be use before and after the battle. The balancing factor of the class is its limitation. Removing the limitation is to remove the balance. Pearls of power are cheap and add Quick Study and you have a full arcane caster that is far better than the Sorcerer. As pointed out by Deadmanwalking, the wizard is still probably just as good as the Arcanist (or even more powerful).
Ultimately, a boss with the ability will be ridiculously powerful even if you put a limit on the number of times per day. Bosses are generally by default the highest example of the 15 minute adventuring day. Even with a limit of 1+Cha/day, that's still 3-5 spells a higher CL boss will be able to semi-reliably shut down. On the other hand, they're giving up the ability to Quicken spells against you. Balancing for use by a nova-ready boss seems silly to me.
As for blasters, I hadn't considered a possible interpretation that it would be the level of the unadjusted spell that determines the level of the spell needed to be expended as part of the action. If so, then that might screw over blasters a good bit. But I'm going with the interpretation that it's dependent on the spell slot used to cast the spell. If that's incorrect, then that's something that needs to be addressed. If not, you're still expending a valuable resource(spells) to only have a chance at countering something. It does incentivize the heck out of boosting your caster stat if you're building a counter-spell focused arcanist.
Are pearls of power usable by the Arcanist? I thought that they'd be forced to use the Runestone of Power instead by the way their spells work. Not much better, but twice the cost, so at least there's that. That said, if they put an X+Cha/day limit on Quick Study, I don't think it would significantly weaken the class. Realistically, how often will you need it more than 2-3 times a day anyway?
Aside from that, if it doesn't represent power creep over the wizard, I can't really call a full arcane casting class power creep.
| 1 person marked this as FAQ candidate. |
Are pearls of power usable by the Arcanist? I thought that they'd be forced to use the Runestone of Power instead by the way their spells work. Not much better, but twice the cost, so at least there's that. That said, if they put an X+Cha/day limit on Quick Study, I don't think it would significantly weaken the class. Realistically, how often will you need it more than 2-3 times a day anyway?
I meant Runestone and it doesn't really change how I feel.
More stuff
We disagree on some stuff and that is cool. I think we should drop this.
We disagree on some stuff and that is cool. I think we should drop this.
We are derailing things a bit, perhaps. Aight for now, though I reserve the option of discussing this particular topic further in other threads if it's brought up there at a later time.
I haven't been able to look closely at the classes, but here are my initial thoughts.
Arcanist: The concept is mildly interesting, but I don't know what niche it is supposed to fill.
Bloodrager: Again, I don't know what its niche is supposed to be.
Brawler: Some interesting abilities, but overall, the class seems to be mediocre. I prefer the Brawler archetype.
Hunter: Completely redundant.
Investigator: Interesting. I can see myself playing one.
Shaman: The best class in the book. I've never had much interest in playing a Druid, but always wanted to play a druid character. Now, I can. The spell list needs some work, though.
Skald: This is not a class, it's a Bard archetype. I might try it out, though.
Slayer: Should have been called Hunter. A good substitute for the Ranger for people who don't like spells (although we already have the Skirmisher archetype).
Swashbuckler: I'm not interested in playing one, but extending the grit mechanic to other classes is a good idea. I can see why other people would be interested in this.
Warpriest: Completely redundant. The Cleric already is a fighting priest and has an even more "fighty" archetype in the Crusader.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not a fan of the hybrid class concept. Want two classes? Dual class then. But hey.
Arcanist - I can't get my head around this one. My gaming buddies rave about this class but everytime I read through it I just come back to thinking that I'd rather just play a basic sorcerer.
Bloodrager - Another one I just don't get the need for. A fighter/mage (Magus) is fine I suppose but a barbarian/sorcerer just seems unnessecary.
Brawler - Want to play a pugilist type, play a monk.
Hunter - I really want to like this one but I feel the ranger does it better and more enjoyable to play.
Investigator - I like the concept for this one but I don't know how well it fits into a traditional D&D style game. CSI: Pathfinder and you're fine. Still, I have one ready to try out in PFS.
Shaman - A slightly better version of the witch which is no bad thing.
Skald - Interesting class concept that I need to see in action before I can really say anything.
Slayer - I really like this one a lot, but I wish the slayer talents were better.
Swashbuckler - We have a local PFS player who made one of these during the playtest and has converted over to the ACG version. He plays it well but I find the class to be a waste of space. It doesn't hold its own and the pernache mechanic seems weak to me.
Warpriest - Really wanted a strong battle cleric class and this is ok but not what I wanted. Needed to be a bit stronger. As it stands I'd most likely just take a cleric.
The classes are ok in general but I find the book better for it's feats, spells, archetypes and boosts to the core classes.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I've read through the classes and archetypes, and gone through the new feats and SOME of the new spells in the ACG. I've also had the chance to actually PLAY a few of the classes thus far, not just in the playtest. We've run a few one shots and I'm currently running two APs (Wrath of the Righteous and Reign of Winter) with hybrid classes. While some clarification on a few things would be nice, and overall work on the wording of a few things, I've thus far enjoyed what I've seen/played. Here's my take on a few.
Arcanist- Really, really enjoy this class. I was not interested at all in it when I first heard about it, being a wizard purist I did not want a replacement. And it's not, imho, a replacement, nor is it for sorcerer. It feels very strong by itself thus far, and it captures something I've been looking for for a while- someone that uses magic differently. At low level I never even cast a single spell, I just burned through my exploits and it was FUN.
Bloodrager- Have not yet played this one, though I did use it as an enemy. I'm running Wrath and I redesigned "A certain NPC" in book 3 as a bloodrager. It's surprisingly simple to work with, and has the potential for a lot of damage, both physically and magically. They have a strong spell list, and their bloodline powers are handy. I don't like that most of them only function while raging, but being able to cast a spell AS they enter rage is a huge boon. They do feel very metal.
Brawler- Have not yet tried this one, and I agree with a few posters that martial flexibility would, imho, require a lot of prepwork unless you know the feats like the back of your hand. It does let me make a captain america type character that I've been wanting to for a while, at least in the form of an archetype...
Hunter- We have one in our Reign of Winter party, but thus far it's been (as many have said) spells as an afterthought. Most of the focus has been on the pet, and shooting. It seems boring in play thus far, but I'm hesitant to judge it fully without seeing animal focus and the skirmishes come into play.
Investigator- I've been a fan of this one in theory for a while, but every time I try to play it it feels... slightly not done. It has very little offensive capability, and while I understand that's rather the point, it keeps coming down to this: it feels more like a very elaborate NPC class than a player class. There are a lot of cool tricks, and the theme is strong, but in play it just feels weak/overshadowed. More playing is required.
Shaman- Feels... overly complex. Less than the playtest, but I don't think this is a class I'll be playing. To be fair, I've been corrected before; I didn't like the summoner when it first was introduced until I actually played it. This may be the same, but I can't, for the life of me, get a character idea to play with it.
Skald- Conceptually, I really like this. It definitely feels different from a bard, and there's a lot of buffing going on while still having the ability to do something yourself. That holds up in play, though I'd imagine the strength of that depends on the player/character.
Slayer- Very simple, and one of the few classes with a rogue-talent-like class feature in which I don't mind using talents for feats. I find I end up taking the ranger combat style chain and then floundering for what else to take for lower level talents, but the combat is sound, the theme is sound.
Swashbuckler- This one I haven't played, but it feels like it fits a lot of character ideas I've had. I worry that the class may be a touch overpowered, but I haven't played it yet to see. Reserving judgement.
Warpriest- I love this class. It hearkens to mind the 'alternate' paladins from the 3.5 unearthed arcana book. Granted, Warpriest is not a paladin, there are many features it shares with them. Being able to be any alignment (with deitific consent) really helps it fit a niche that was needed, I feel. I'm playing one in Wrath of the Righteous, and there's so much it can do. I've full healed the party, taken out a dragon, provided strong buffs, and have a good grasp of the fact that swift actions are something I want more of in my life. Being a mythic game takes up a lot of the actions a warpriest can usually accomplish, however.
All in all I like this book and really like the options presented.
Here's a relevant post you might want to read, and this followup post, too.
Interesting, although I'm a bit confused. The final version of the class does have several rogue and advanced rogue/ninja talents select-able by the slayer. Does that mean just a few specific options were cut?
Either way, it was mentioned in another topic that if things were cut for space, a web supplement adding in the missing options would be sweet. I know a lot of people would like to know what blessing of the faithful does.
Since a couple people mentioned it, I'll elaborate on my wording choice. Piss-poor is probably not how I should have said it, because as people mentioned, things like the ranger's combat style are really nice. But when I read through the section on the slayer, I ended thinking to myself "That's it? That can't be all. Where's the cool stuff?"
Of the many "Slayer Talents" in the book, only 3 regular Talents (Foil Scrutiny, Slowing Strike, and Deadly Range) are unique, and none of the Advanced Talents are.
As Rynjin mentions, only a handful of the slayer talents are unique (In fact, Deadly Range is a copy-pasted Ninja trick.) Since the class itself is a fairly simple chassis, talents are the place for the class to distinguish itself with each slayer made. And the section on slayer talents was so short and so copy-pasted from other classes that it really... doesn't do that. Foil Scrutiny feels like it should be the first talent in a chain to foil divination. (See things like the Mastermind archetype.) Or how about something that synergizes poison and death attack? An assassin swooping in during the night and slaying the king with a poisoned dagger is a classic image. But really, the best things to take are the combat style feats, evasion, trapfinding- staple and powerful abilities, but nothing that really makes the class "pop" and feel like something that stands out.
I don't dislike the slayer. I think studied target is amazingly well done. I like that it makes assassinate somewhat viable. I like that it's a 'rogue' that won't have to worry about whiffing constantly with a poor to-hit. But aside from the existence of the Sanctified Slayer archetype, which is a whole new can of worms, the biggest issue with the slayer is a talent list that feels extremely derivative and uninspired, even compared to the investigator in the same book.
Isn't Assassinate an unique advanced talent?
Isn't Assassinate an unique advanced talent?
It is derived from the assassin PRC, albeit with some slight (and mostly positive) changes.
Isn't Assassinate an unique advanced talent?It is derived from the assassin PRC, albeit with some slight (and mostly positive) changes.
oh, I see.
Anyway, I think Sean’s post explains the lack of choices. If feats were one choice (you could pick more than once?) it would be more versatile. That said, I agree the Slayer lack talents, especially unique Slayer talents.Still a great class.
|
I agree to some parts with your analysis about the Shaman and Investigator (and also to some extent the Skald). A lot of the stuff in this book just seems to be too complicated. Shaman is a good example of this. I’d go as far as even saying it is more complicated that it needs to be.I've been doing in depth reviews
Yeah, I really want to like the shaman. There are just too many moving parts.
Studied combat is one of those things that may not be ‘too complicated’, but is sure is more complicated that it needs to be.
Agreed on studied combat, you're just saying it more clearly than I did :)
People can certainly handle that much complexity, but the end result isn't different enough to justify the added tracking.
Cheers!
Landon
Isn't Assassinate an unique advanced talent?It is derived from the assassin PRC, albeit with some slight (and mostly positive) changes.
And before it was a slayer talent, it was a master ninja trick. The only reason its reprinted is that the slayer determines the DC with Intelligence rather than Charisma (like a Ninja does).
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank for the link! good work. Edir: I meant awesome work!
Thanks, I try. :)
I didn't mean it just pertained to the Investigator. I meant the editing is more problematic than my minor complaints :)
Ah, gotcha. Agreed entirely, then.
Investigator- I've been a fan of this one in theory for a while, but every time I try to play it it feels... slightly not done. It has very little offensive capability, and while I understand that's rather the point, it keeps coming down to this: it feels more like a very elaborate NPC class than a player class. There are a lot of cool tricks, and the theme is strong, but in play it just feels weak/overshadowed. More playing is required.
Studied Combat makes this very much not the case. Investigators, if built with combat in mind, kick a lot of ass. If built with combat not in mind they do more poorly, but that's true of any class.
Interesting, although I'm a bit confused. The final version of the class does have several rogue and advanced rogue/ninja talents select-able by the slayer. Does that mean just a few specific options were cut?
Yet another followup post by me.
As for this...
BTW, could you explain this to me?
Any talent effects
based on rogue level use the slayer’s class level. A slayer
can select this talent multiple times. If the rogue talent
has a prerequisite (such as the major magic rogue talent
requiring the minor magic talent), the slayer must fulf ill
the prerequisite before taking that rogue talent. This
talent can be selected multiple times; each time, it grants
the slayer a new rogue talent.
I can't, because my Word doc stops at "... use the slayer's class level." I didn't write the text after that.
Which given that you can't take that PrC in PFS, and it's not available to the rouge or ninja, makes that effectively a "unique" talent you can't get any other way.Isn't Assassinate an unique advanced talent?It is derived from the assassin PRC, albeit with some slight (and mostly positive) changes.
Incorrect. It is available to the Ninja as a Master Trick, and has the exact same name and wording besides the fact that the DC is based on Cha instead of Int.
It's not derived from the Assassin PrC at all. It's actually BETTER (one round of study vs 3).
Then it's not the same trick. it may be similar in it's chassis, but the fact that it's Int based makes it different.Which given that you can't take that PrC in PFS, and it's not available to the rouge or ninja, makes that effectively a "unique" talent you can't get any other way.Isn't Assassinate an unique advanced talent?It is derived from the assassin PRC, albeit with some slight (and mostly positive) changes.Incorrect. It is available to the Ninja as a Master Trick, and has the exact same name and wording besides the fact that the DC is based on Cha instead of Int.
No. No it doesn't.
Copy-pasting something and changing three letters does not make it unique.
I realize some modern journalists may have begun to mislead the public on this fact ("I swear it's not plagiarism! I changed like 5% of it!"), but don't listen to them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcanist - I can't get my head around this one. My gaming buddies rave about this class but everytime I read through it I just come back to thinking that I'd rather just play a basic sorcerer.
The draw of the Arcanist for me is that it lets me play the book-wielding, intellectual, study-focused spellcaster character without having to deal with the Wizard's prepared casting or do some hodge-podge archetype/bloodline finagling with the Sorcerer and then try to fiddle in a roleplay reason why I can only cast a handful of spells when I have this magical tome full of them. For those of us who dislike prepared casting, the Arcanist was a perfect solution. It lets me do everything - roleplaying-wise and mechanics-wise - that I could want out of the Wizard, without having to deal with the mechanics of the Wizard that I detest.
BTW, could you explain this to me?
Any talent effects
based on rogue level use the slayer’s class level. A slayer
can select this talent multiple times. If the rogue talent
has a prerequisite (such as the major magic rogue talent
requiring the minor magic talent), the slayer must fulf ill
the prerequisite before taking that rogue talent. This
talent can be selected multiple times; each time, it grants
the slayer a new rogue talent.
Does this mean he can takle Combat Trick more than once?
My take: no, he can't. Not being able to take a rogue talent more than once is a property of rogue talents which does not appear to have been changed. The text you bolded states that he can take the slayer talent "Rogue Talent" more than once, selecting a new rogue talent each time. This gives no provision for taking a talent multiple times and in fact, precludes you from doing so.
Incidentally, it's possible to interpret from the second bolded text that you cannot select -any- rogue talent more than once, even those that can normally be taken multiple times. I think that's probably not the intent, but I'd say combat trick more than once is a definite no.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Meh…..
Just that many more rules to keep track of. Also they only cover a limited number of class combinations. Which just makes it feel incomplete to me. I'll just have my players stick with multi-classing in my games.
The only one that stands out to me is the Swashbuckler. I don't use Gunslingers in my campaign setting so Swashbucklers are kind of a unique new element to add and not just a "frankenclass" to me.
Basically my thoughts on hybrid classes are while that's nice if you choose to use them they're not entirely necessary and I won't be using them in my games.
I like them all except for the arcanist. It's not that I think it's over powered it's just every time I try reading the class I glaze over. Something about it just doesn't interest me. I like all the other classes, they interest me.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't care for it,it'll be the first of the Paizo splatbooks that I won't be purchasing.All of it just seems so derivitive.I know this is the intent,but it still seems not to add much.It also invalidates old classes and generally muddies the character creation process.
It seems like paizo is under the delusion that if they make every possible class people will stop multi-classing. This will never happen,not unless you outlaw multi-classing.
It's been my experience with gamers that they very rarely want to play what their given...and will multi-class even when it's not optimal.
I like that there are more options...I just don't care for these.I'm looking forward to seeing what's in the UNCHAINED book.
I like them all except for the arcanist. It's not that I think it's over powered it's just every time I try reading the class I glaze over. Something about it just doesn't interest me. I like all the other classes, they interest me.
You gotta figure that 9 of 10 is a pretty darn Like-to-Don't-Like ratio.
I'm about the same—pretty ambivient about the Hunter, but I also have an NPC who would be perfect as a Hunter so maybe I'll rebuild him, have him help along the PCs a bit, and get back to you on my thoughts on the class. Spontaneous Wisdom-based class that can use most of the Druid Spell List is pretty awesome in my book.
stuff
Thanks Sean!
Stuff
I think this is just simply a matter of bad editing. They simply printed some part of the text twice.
Instead of this:
unwitting allyUC, or weapon training. Any talent effects
based on rogue level use the slayer’s class level. A slayer
can select this talent multiple times. If the rogue talent
has a prerequisite (such as the major magic rogue talent
requiring the minor magic talent), the slayer must fulfill
the prerequisite before taking that rogue talent. This
talent can be selected multiple times; each time, it grants
the slayer a new rogue talent.
My guess is that they meant this.
unwitting allyUC, or weapon training. Any talent effects
based on rogue level use the slayer’s class level. If the
rogue talent has a prerequisite (such as the major magic
rogue talent requiring the minor magic talent), the slayer
must fulfill the prerequisite before taking that rogue
talent. This talent can be selected multiple times; each
time, it grants the slayer a new rogue talent.
The cut down on words saves a whole line. If they had edited the text correctly they could have kept Sean’s suggestion to also include a feat as an option for a rogue talent or an advanced rogue talent. I actually suspect someone made a mistake and the intention wasn’t to remove “feat” as an option. Rogues actually get “feat” as one of the advanced rogue talents and the lack of advanced Slayer talents seem to indicate that they made a mistake.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think the Slayer would have greatly benefited from having "take a feat" as an advanced talent option - it would really help for those who want to play a character who focuses on the fightery aspects of the slayer after they've used Combat Trick, Finesse Rogue, Weapon Training and the combat style talents, which would be around level 12.
I might houserule that talent into my game, actually. Thanks for the idea! :)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcanist: The player in me likes the arcanist. The game designer hates it. I'd definitely play it, because it's the closest thing you can get to being a ray specialist or warlock-like blast specialist. I always wanted to play a mobile mage that fancied himself a spell sharpshooter, teleporting short distances and firing powerful blasts (using the blasting exploits). However, the pool and exploit class feature feel more powerful than bloodlines or schools. The ability to up your CL or DCs whenever you want is a huge boon. The prepared versus spell slots also really confuses me.
Bloodrager: A solid, thematic class. This feels like one of the first 4-level spellcaster martials where the spells actually fit the class.
Brawler: At first, the brawler didn't excite me, but then it grew on me. Martial Vertasility is like Paragon Surge. At first, it seems ho hum. But when you start thinking about the possibilities, you realize it's quite a powerful ability that's limited only by your creativity with it. Quite a brilliant class with such a low word count.
Hunter: Okay, so I'm basically a druid that loses wildshape and spell levels 7-9 so I can have a slightly better spell list and give teamwork feats to my animal companion? I appreciate the use of teamwork feats, but I'm not seeing the appeal here. In addition, this was a missed opprotunity to have a dedicated shapeshifter class that specializes in hunting down creatures like an animal.
Investigator: A skill monkey class that's very flavorful, has some combat utility and concept potential, and looks really fun play? Count me in!
Shaman: Pretty cool, though the feature bloat was a little dizzying. Also, the spirit abilities are all over the place. Some of them are as awful as those rays from sorcerer bloodlines, and then there's one that gives you channel energy as good as a cleric. I do feel like it steps on the toes of the witch a tad bit much.
Skald: While not bad, it did not appeal to me whatsoever. It feels a tad too similar in theme to the bloodrager for my tastes. I'd rather have a monk/magus than this.
Slayer: Simple, sweet, and solid. A martial that gets really exciting class features at level 10 and higher.
Swashbuckler: I honestly don't think it's as bad as everyone else says. I'd still play it, but I can't deny the issues surrounding it. Even something as simple as giving Mobility feat for free, or letting you use Charmed Life after you rolled would have really helped this class.
Warpriest: Somewhat disappointing. I'm really glad it no longer scales off of Charisma and that you can use Fervor more often. However, the class has so much unnecessary feature bloat. No body cared about sacred armor or getting the bonus abilities from sacred weapon that are basically just a bad version of magus's arcane pool. I cared about the pseudo-BAB because it was the only way to make a full BAB ranged priest character without becoming a paladin.
Other considerations...
Blade Adept (Arcanist Archetype): I really liked this. As a bonus, the archetype offers a way for players to make an Eldritch Knight with a blackblade without having to get 7 levels in magus.
Bolt Ace (Gunslinger Archetype: It has problems, but I totally welcome this.
Eldritch Scion (Magus Archetype): I got really excited for this archetype at first, but then I started reading. Did the designer not understand that swapping prepared Intelligence casting for spontaneous Charisma casting is actually a bad trade that's only desireable for character concept purposes? Yet they felt the class needed to be punished for this "incredible" boon by removing spell recall, adding a pointless secondary resource pool, and forcing you to waste arcane pool points just to use your primary class feature. To add insult to injury, this terrible archetype and two arcana are the only material my favorite class got out of this book.
Unlettered Arcanist (Arcanist Archetype): I don't understand the point of this. Why would you trade a spellbook for a witch familiar, which was deliberately designed to hinder the witch? Why would you trade the best spell list in the game for the worst 9-level spell list in the game?
Hunter: Okay, so I'm basically a druid that loses wildshape and spell levels 7-9 so I can have a slightly better spell list and give teamwork feats to my animal companion? I appreciate the use of teamwork feats, but I'm not seeing the appeal here. In addition, this was a missed opprotunity to have a dedicated shapeshifter class that specializes in hunting down creatures like an animal.
Check out the feral hunter archetype: Feral (Animal) Focus on self with no duration limit, Wild Shape at 4th (as druid of equal level, but only animal forms), and +1 creature with summon nature's ally (as long as the creatures summoned match the animal category being used for Feral Focus). Pretty close to what you're asking for.
I dislike multi-classing, so I was eagre to see this. I haven't had a chance to run with any of them yet, but here's my thoughts from reading:
Arcanist: Didn't interest me at all. Then again, I rarely find full arcane casters interesting.
Bloodrager: So many ideas! There seems to be alot you can do with this class, and it sounds fun. I keep thinking up character concepts that would work well with it. Definitely want to try it in play.
Brawler: Seemed like it would take a lot of bookkeeping, or mid game book searching, to use effectively. I doubt I'll use it. The shield throwing archetype is cool though.
Hunter: Wasn't impressed at first glance, but when I went back and read over it thoroughly, it actually sounds decent. The teamwork with animal companion thing rescues teamwork feats from the dumpster I had thrown them in for every class other than Inquisitor, and the animal focus ability sounds like it lends increased versatility to the animal companion.
Investigator: I don't really get the appeal of this class, it's just not for me.
Shaman: I like the concept, but not as fond of the execution. The odd mix of prepared and spontaneous casting seems unnecessary, and I feel like wandering spirit/hex would have been better as archetype abilities, while the main class should have been focused in one spirit. In a way, it shows what an Oracle without a mandatory curse could have been like, but it keeps the Witch's bothersome familiar reliance. I'd still like to try one sometime.
Skald: Really like this one. It feels much more impressive to me than the Bard, and when I saw the Skald's Vigor feat, it really crystallized as great combat support. The only thing I hoped to see but didn't was a "Valkyrie" archetype.
Slayer: This is what most of the players who have played Rogues in my games have seemed to want. Finally, an effective, sneaky damage dealer. I expect this one will see some use. I especially like Studied Target, as it had the versatility that I always felt was lacking from Favoured Enemy.
Swashbuckler: It's interesting to me, but since I have houserules to allow Dex based combatants already, it doesn't seem necessary to me. It also has the "already built, no choices" feel that I disliked from the gunslinger. Could be fun, but I personally won't be in a hurry to play it.
Warpriest: I don't see anything in this class that would convince me to play it instead of a Paladin (already houseruled away from being only LG in my games), or a Cleric. Rather than a pile of features that all run off of different uses/durations per day, I feel like it would have benefited from maybe a Fervour Pool, which you could spend points from to enhance weapon, or armour, channel energy, or use the effects of listed now with Fervor.
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
slayer: if a rogue is considered crap and it has full sneak attack then why would a class with less sneak attack be good? and if you say because of feature X or Y then im trying to decide why not just go get X or Y at max potential. Am trying to find this reason but have not found it.
A Rogue is crap because it has an OVER RELIANCE on Sneak Attack, which isn't that good, and doesn't have much to back it up.
The Slayer gets less Sneak Attack, but that's fine, because the Sneak Attack it gets is a cherry on top of all the other stuff it gets. I hardly ever use it on mine, and it's still a good class.
The Slayer gets skills nearly as good as a Rogue, but is as good a straight combatant as a Ranger, and is much more flexible with what its target is as well. It gets to pick and choose many good features, some as simple as bonus Feats (Combat Trick, and the ever excellent prerequisite ignoring Combat Style Feats...they make wonderful Two-Weapon Fighters), and cherry picking some abilities that are less than stellar on some characters, but a full BaB class can make solid use of (like Assassinate, which is much more reliable in the hands of a character who can have an almost guaranteed chance of at least CONNECTING with the target, being Full BaB, attacking Flatfooted AC, and having a +1-+5 bonus to attack/damage...not to mention that said bonus also boosts the DC of the ability. Assassinate goes from being a meh to decent Ninja Trick to a potentially devastating OHKO move as a combat opener).
In short, they combine the best of both worlds, essentially making the Rogue everyone always wanted, skilled but also highly effective in combat, and doubling as the Spell-Less Ranger that everyone wanted, without all the suckage the Skirmisher archetype exemplifies.
I love the Slayer class because I really love the Rogue/Assassin characters in games, but before the ACG's release could never really make to my satisfaction in Pathfinder.
|
I have a tendency to think that the whole idea of "hybrid classes" was a bit flawed from the start and this book could have been even better if the new classes hadn't been chained to their predecessors.
The Slayer is one of the places I really see this. Mechanically it's very solid and well-balanced, but it really feels... boring. It's more "multiclassing made easy" than "cool and unique new thing".
I have similar feelings about the Shaman who I think took some good steps by gaining a unique spell list but still was just too hampered by the baggage of desigining within the space defined by the parent classes. Sure, it's a really solid class, but I don't know that much about it would actually say "shaman" to me if you handed it to me with the class name erased.
I think my favorites from the new classes were the Hunter, Investigator, and Brawler.
The Investigator is pretty much entirely solid. Other than a slow start in combat competence this is just an all around great class.
The Brawler I like a lot, the problem I've had to date with it is that the people most drawn to the class have been people I would normally discourage from playing casters due to their lack of bookkeeping/math skills; the Brawler requires you to have some stat cards filled out beforehand with the math pre-worked on whatever feats you're going to be spontaneously grabbing, otherwise it's a serious drag on table-time. That's only partially the class' fault though. In the hands of a prepared and/or skilled player it's really cool, and very solid.
The Hunter, despite being the class that many people felt was thematically the least necessary, is my favorite, and the one that does something I just couldn't do as well as I wanted with Paizo core materials previously. The excellent synergy between the base class and pet allows for great gameplay, the fact that you don't have any per day, per use, or Solo Tactics mechanics to deal with but instead have all of your feats working right out of the gate with your pet is great, and the fused Ranger/Druid spell list is very solid. My only disappointment here was that the archetypes (with one exception) were just terrible.
Speaking of archetypes...
It is my understanding that some of these archetypes became very different between submissin and editing, and that in some instances really solid stuff became the dreck that was left behind. In other instances there was just poor editing that revealed gaps you might never have noticed otherwise (like the Ecclesitheurge). Whatever the miscommunication was, the archetypes suffered the worst in this book. Many of them are just bad, as though the writer or editor never got a chance to make sure it lined up with the finished version of the class. Other errors are even more bizarre, as though a rough draft were printed instead of a polished archetype. The Bolt Ace, for example, is a gunslinger archetype designed to disdain firearms and use crossbows, yet the class still gets a battered firearm and various abilities in support of firearms, but no additional proficiencies in the advanced crossbows (repeating, double, etc.). It takes a great archetype and drops it down a notch to a good one (I still really like the Bolt Ace).
Man, I hope the Bolt Ace gets an errata for that, I just kind of assumed it would get all those proficiencies and lose the firearms stuff. Seems like an annoying oversight. Will definitely be houseruled until errata comes (however long that may be).
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hey, some people banned it before it was ever printed...
What made me laugh a bit was that there were PFS "pre-bans" where stuff was banned in organized play before the book was even released.
That being said there isn't really anything ban-worthy in the book. Most of the issues are related to poor editing or execution as opposed to balance. Balance-wise the book is very solid, though there are a few ambiguously worded items that could tilt one way or another depending on final interpretation.
Hunter: Okay, so I'm basically a druid that loses wildshape and spell levels 7-9 so I can have a slightly better spell list and give teamwork feats to my animal companion? I appreciate the use of teamwork feats, but I'm not seeing the appeal here. In addition, this was a missed opprotunity to have a dedicated shapeshifter class that specializes in hunting down creatures like an animal.
[.
Having now played a Hunter for 7 levels, I can say that this class rocks. It's essentially a druid/ranger with an animal companion even better than the druid's, if you make good use of your teamwork feats, in addition to animal focus buffs. I've effectively recreated my Elf Huntress from Warcraft who's now riding her Tiger companion.
Animal Focus is an under-appreciated class feature which gives amazing on the spot adaptability with it's swift action boosts. I can instantly switch from an archery strategy to one where I'm a superior flanker with my pet, thanks to the ability to switch out teamwork feats.
Got to agree with Lazar here, the Hunter is rock solid. Great mechanics, much better balance than the druid, lots of cool different ways to spec your character. They dropped the ball big time on the shapeshifting archetype though. Feral Hunter is just bad, and trades out all the wrong things.
As I've said before, it feels like the archetypes were one of the most poorly executed parts of the book. Having heard some of the authors chime in on the differences between what they submitted and what was released, it sounds like some of that may have been poorly executed "fixes" post-submission, some of it was archetypes being pushed into the final product without thorough editing, and a few were just conceptually weak to begin with.My favorite archetypes are probably the Bolt Ace, Daring Champion, Ecclesitheurge and Vanguard. Two of those had very apparent editing errors, but all 4 are useable, well-balanced, thematically interesting, and do something notably different from the core class. The Vanguard in particular is a little gem that doesn't leap out and announce itself, but is actually really good, with lots of solid potential, and which has the distinction of being one of the (as far as I've noticed) error free bits of content.
|
|
Banning to not deal with ambiguous wording is a common form of banning.Hey, some people banned it before it was ever printed...What made me laugh a bit was that there were PFS "pre-bans" where stuff was banned in organized play before the book was even released.
That being said there isn't really anything ban-worthy in the book. Most of the issues are related to poor editing or execution as opposed to balance. Balance-wise the book is very solid, though there are a few ambiguously worded items that could tilt one way or another depending on final interpretation.
I never said it wasn't. It's just a little nuts that non-crafting stuff was getting banned by organized play before the book even shipped, particularly when there really isn't that much in the book that's actually that powerful compared to the existing material.
The one big issue that would be problematic from a balance perspective depending on interpretation would be the Pummeling Style chain and which weapons that's intended to work with. The weirdly powerful "if one crits it all crits" wording is a little bonkers for anything outside of 20/x2 crit weapons (and even then is still really good).
Eldritch Scion (Magus Archetype): I got really excited for this archetype at first, but then I started reading. Did the designer not understand that swapping prepared Intelligence casting for spontaneous Charisma casting is actually a bad trade that's only desireable for character concept purposes? Yet they felt the class needed to be punished for this "incredible" boon by removing spell recall, adding a pointless secondary resource pool, and forcing you to waste arcane pool points just to use your primary class feature. To add insult to injury, this terrible archetype and two arcana are the only material my favorite class got out of this book.
Agreed 100%.
|
|
Eldritch Scion (Magus Archetype): I got really excited for this archetype at first, but then I started reading. Did the designer not understand that swapping prepared Intelligence casting for spontaneous Charisma casting is actually a bad trade that's only desireable for character concept purposes? Yet they felt the class needed to be punished for this "incredible" boon by removing spell recall, adding a pointless secondary resource pool, and forcing you to waste arcane pool points just to use your primary class feature. To add insult to injury, this terrible archetype and two arcana are the only material my favorite class got out of this book.Agreed 100%.
I found that one a little odd myself. You would think that swapping spellcasting type A for spellcasting type B would be a wash.
Banning to not deal with ambiguous wording is a common form of banning.Hey, some people banned it before it was ever printed...What made me laugh a bit was that there were PFS "pre-bans" where stuff was banned in organized play before the book was even released.
That being said there isn't really anything ban-worthy in the book. Most of the issues are related to poor editing or execution as opposed to balance. Balance-wise the book is very solid, though there are a few ambiguously worded items that could tilt one way or another depending on final interpretation.
I never said it wasn't. It's just a little nuts that non-crafting stuff was getting banned by organized play before the book even shipped, particularly when there really isn't that much in the book that's actually that powerful compared to the existing material.
The one big issue that would be problematic from a balance perspective depending on interpretation would be the Pummeling Style chain and which weapons that's intended to work with. The weirdly powerful "if one crits it all crits" wording is a little bonkers for anything outside of 20/x2 crit weapons (and even then is still really good).
I'd argue that Divine Protection is really absurd. Oracles getting a +5 or more to all saves at such a low cost is really ridiculous.
It's not so brutally good for any other class, but I don't think they can reasonably say "it's banned, but just for oracles" so it needed to go.
|
|
Banning to not deal with ambiguous wording is a common form of banning.Hey, some people banned it before it was ever printed...What made me laugh a bit was that there were PFS "pre-bans" where stuff was banned in organized play before the book was even released.
That being said there isn't really anything ban-worthy in the book. Most of the issues are related to poor editing or execution as opposed to balance. Balance-wise the book is very solid, though there are a few ambiguously worded items that could tilt one way or another depending on final interpretation.
I never said it wasn't. It's just a little nuts that non-crafting stuff was getting banned by organized play before the book even shipped, particularly when there really isn't that much in the book that's actually that powerful compared to the existing material.
The one big issue that would be problematic from a balance perspective depending on interpretation would be the Pummeling Style chain and which weapons that's intended to work with. The weirdly powerful "if one crits it all crits" wording is a little bonkers for anything outside of 20/x2 crit weapons (and even then is still really good).
I'd argue that Divine Protection is really absurd. Oracles getting a +5 or more to all saves at such a low cost is really ridiculous.
It's not so brutally good for any other class, but I don't think they can reasonably say "it's banned, but just for oracles" so it needed to go.
True, but that's not really an interpretation issue, that's a "they said the feat would be too good for a martial class but went ahead and printed it for casters" issue, which is something else entirely.
...Agreed that it's just silly though. One of the Paladin's defining class features handed out as a feat with very little in the way of real prereqs was kind of crazy-sauce.
Opinion about classes (more fluff than mechanics) :
Arcanist - 2/10 - I homeruled out sloting spells in favor of mana points. Therefore arcanist as basic class is kinda spare - just a wizard with sorcerous bloodline. Theurge would be better as a basic.
Bloodrager - 10/10 - just something I waited for. Creative us of sorcerous bloodlines)
Skald - 6/10 - not sure if necessary. Could be bard archetype.
Swashbuckler - 5/10 - was done before on it own rights. Deserve more than being a hybrid.
Shaman - 3/10 - definitely deserve something totally unique, not a witch/oracle mix.
Warpriest - 2/10 - with paladins, priests, clerics, inquisitors... warpriest is absolute spare. Better just make paladins avialable for all gods and all aligments.
Hunter - 4/10 - while definitely there should be more warriorlike warden kind of druid, hunter is just ranger with better pet, too much ranger to become something new
Slayer - 8/10 - nice counterpoint to more sneaky and subtle assasin classes.
Investigator - 7/10 - not sure about alchemist/rogue dynamics, but still cannot stop loving fluff
Brawler - 8/10 definitely cool.
I wouldn't say the Hunter is my favorite, but I have warmed to it with its final release. It was basically pure garbage in the Playtests, and not much about it changed...but the small, subtle changes made gave it enough unique, interesting tricks to justify its existence in my book. I basically swapped my opinions of Warpriest and Hunter with the final release, going from thinking the Warpriest was kinda neat and the Hunter was trash to the other way around.
Though the Sacred Packmaster is still probably better. The Inquisitor spell list is just soooo gooooooood.
|
I'd argue that Divine Protection is really absurd. Oracles getting a +5 or more to all saves at such a low cost is really ridiculous.
It's not so brutally good for any other class, but I don't think they can reasonably say "it's banned, but just for oracles" so it needed to go.
Just make it 2nd prepared spells (like what they did with Glorious Heat) and suddenly it's perfectly fine. Sure there might be a few extra Cha focused Clerics out there just for this, but all in all, so what. And with the Aasimar no long legal, it's now even less a good option.