Arcanist: Yes, I know my Wizard would be better off as an Arcanist but I just gots to have my extra daily spell because you never know when you are going to need to cast Discern Next of Kin, seriously, my Wiz has way too many sexy cousins to bother remembering their names.
Bloodrager: Because even if there's a bunch of new classes, we didn't want to dilute the possibility that a newbie will pick a class that kills their PC when the temporary CON bonus fades away.
Warpriest: I remember when the fools said Inquisitors and Clerics were strictly better than the Warpriest. Now everyone's found out that swift action buffs means you can end the encounter faster so you can get back to trying to romance the Wizard's hot cuz.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont know if everyone is so hot on the warpriest, at least the base version anyway. The cleric is still strictly better. The inquisitor is still better all around. I really don't think the combat ability was in question with the swift action buffs, but as an overall class it seemed lacking. I haven't played one so I don't how easy it is to burn through spells in an actual game. Ferver is also a daily resource that is used for other things, so I doubt a player is just going to use it for every combat.
I like the arcanist, and I like the slayer, but it really needs some good talents other the ranger ones which give you the ranger bonus feats.
The bloodrager is pretty nice.
I haven't seen a shaman in action yet. I only saw a playtest hunter, and I didn't care for it. I might look into the updated version one day.
Investigators are not bad.
I still don't care for the swashbuckler.
I don't have one with any of the classes.
Absolutely, my least used class book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Great thread idea.... I've only been playing PF for about 3 years. ACG was kind of the first big change in the game dynamic that I came across.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I must say, I actually really quite like some of the ACG classes. Slayer is a very solid option for pure martial - if I had a player want to make a pure fighter, I'd recommend Slayer first for the most part.
I actually really enjoy hunter - feel they're neglected a bit. The super-good animal companions (especially with the archetype that gives them the Celestial template) appeals to me a lot.
Swashbuckler, though very weak, is a really fun class - I especially love Opportune Parry and Riposte, and in home games I make them a bit more powerful.
Investigator is one of my favourite classes - they're so versatile, which makes them especially good for PFS and the like where you have to be able to do a bit of everything.
Brawler provide a nice level of flexibility to martial classes that is normally sorely lacking.
Warpriest is nice - it allows you to play a martial-like character which is poweful due to the swift-action buffing, and still be helpful out-of-combat to the party via wands and scrolls and the like.
Arcanist, Skald and Shaman are mechanically excellent, though not that interesting to me. Bloodrager is an OK choice, and is somewhat interesting, but not hugely.
Bloodragers, Slayers, Brawlers and Swasbucklers have all made it into my NPCs.
I've never actually used the full casters from the book, though I have run an Exploiter Wizard to great effect.
I'm beyond excited to play an Empiricist Investigator, I may have him as an NPC.
We have a swashbuckler(me) and a hunter in our current party.
I like the swashbuckler, brawler, hunter, and investigator. Bloodrager is ok, don't care for most of the others. Also was really disappointed in the Shaman.
Arcanist and Shaman: Powerful, but meh, I don't want to play them.
Bloodrager: Can never bring myself to really play one. Never liked Bloodlines that much.
Brawler: Decent for punching things with gauntlets. I like them for Gestalt games so I can have an actually good class put together with punchy stuff.
Hunter: I hate pet classes.
Investigator: My favorite of the batch, really.
Skald: Why did this need to exist?
Slayer: One of my longest running current characters is a Slayer, but that will be fixed soon. After 7th the class offers little, but at least of the pure martials it's one of the best. Great for NPC Rogues when I rebuild them in APs.
Swashbuckler: Started off trash, remains trash today. Good for dips and Gestalt I guess.
Warpriest: Decent. It's only for very, very specific things I can bring myself to choose this over an Inquisitor. Another good class for Gestalt since I can get around that really stupid 2+Int skills that way, and a better choice than a Fighter for a combatant if nothing else.
The archetype that gives Weapon Training is particularly notable since now they can swoop in on Advanced Weapon Training stuff.
Overall, the book was a disappointment with a few diamonds in the rough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Investigator stood me up.....again!
Hunter is my new BFF.
Investigator is awesome and most my characters take a level of bloodrager.
Bloodrager: Can never bring myself to really play one. Never liked Bloodlines that much.
Skald: Why did this need to exist?
Bloodrager: Did you know you can ignore them and get 2 rage powers instead? Because Primalist Archetype lets you when you want (like Qiogong).
Skald: Could have been a Bard archetype easily, but oh well.
But the ability is cool: granting everyone Rage powers at same time as Bardic music boosts.
And there is a feat to get Fast Heal to all by tenth level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^Which feat is this?
Ironically, Bard already had a Savage Skald archetype which has a similar concept but different mechanics; it is probably not as good as the Skald class overall, but better at some specific things (and not just having more skill ranks per level).
The variety has made dipping a lot more common place for me. Many classes have good abilities for the first five levels and then peter out till level 10 or so. If you're doing pfs till 12 or homegames that don't get to 14 wasting levels 5-10 is a pretty bad idea so.. dip dip dip.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bloodrager: Did you know you can ignore them and get 2 rage powers instead? Because Primalist Archetype lets you when you want (like Qiogong).Bloodrager: Can never bring myself to really play one. Never liked Bloodlines that much.
Skald: Why did this need to exist?
I do, but it makes me feel dirty.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I initially looked at the ACG classes, I wasn't particularly impressed with them, but when I was looking at character concepts and means to optimize those character concepts, I would go time and again to those ACG classes.
For example, when I was wanting to construct a Blaster Caster, I would go either full Wizard with Admixture Evocation for flexibility, or I'd go full Sorcerer for the Orc Bloodline damage boost. But now, with the Blood Arcanist archetype, I get the best of both worlds, and with the proper build, I can one-shot Tarrasque-like creatures in a single round.
Another example is making a more melee-focused Dragon Disciple, because going Sorcerer or Bard, which are 1/2 and 3/4 BAB, respectively, was stupid. With the release of the Bloodrager, I have access to a class that is significantly stronger in melee, but can still cast spells (though usually self-buffs) and have the flavorful and mechanical benefits of the Dragon Disciple. Although this is still somewhat a WIP, it's still very fun to work towards.
The way I see it, the ACG enabled combining things that I wanted to fulfill a specific character goal in mind, but weren't possible due to the limitations and requirements that those things were barred by (such as having class levels, or not existing at all). To that end, the ACG doesn't have much original value, but it certainly improves upon something that needed to happen.
Only ever took 2 things from this book as far as classes go: Arcanist and Hunter.
I used hunter a few times, it doesnt perfectly fit my fav concept idea for pet classes, since i really like having companions who are actually smart and such, but having that occasional wolf and ranger combo going is always nice from time to time haha.
On the other hand arcanist i didnt use much, since i favor the sorc a lot more, but i did have fun with this one too, even if again it isnt exactly what i look for in my usual PCs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Warpriest: I originally thought this was a stupid idea and just butting into an already crowded niche. But now I can see...that my original idea was almost entirely correct, but I did find a way to justify it's place somewhat: The warpriest is to the inquisitor as the magus is to the bard. The magus analog is especially important because the Warpriest swift action buffing is comparable to the Magus' Spell Combat, the difference being that the Magus has both buffs and attack spells to work with from the arcane list while the Warpriest will much more exclusively be using buffs. Unfortunately the Warpriest's oversaturation of swift actions is still annoying (sacred armor and sacred weapon should be able to activate with the same action imo), but we've got the awesome Arsenal Chaplain archetype to alleviate that some.
When the warpriest uses this ability, he can also use his sacred weapon ability as a free action by expending one use of his fervor.
Best designed = Warpriest, Bloodrager
Worst designed = Shaman
Why is this here = Brawler, Hunter
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Investigator: This originally struck me as too restrictive in its flavor and focus. Now though I find that I like the way Studied Strike works much more than the way Sneak Attack works (obviously SA is more powerful, but the idea of closely studying an enemy for multiple rounds and then landing a single finishing blow is much more flavorful than attacking as many times as possible, which should make it more difficult to land with precision). However, the fact that the class doesn't really come online until 4th level is a major hindrance.
This I feel is a disservice to the class.
If you go str based at lv 1-2 you are 1 accuracy behind the fighter and expert at skills.At lv3 pick up the mutagen. Now you are +1 accuracy to the fighter and +3 damage for a long time per day.
At lv4 yes you get a nice boost with studied combat, but you've been doing great up to this point.
Like being an expert at skills starts at lv1 and just goes up from there. And your combat is fine early and takes till lv3 (if you're not using extracts to buff before lv3) and then you just get stronger from there.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Best designed = Warpriest, Bloodrager
Worst designed = Shaman
Why is this here = Brawler, Hunter
The warpriest is pretty badly designed in a few ways. First, it's too swift action starved, which just feels bad. Second, the blessings are all over the place balance-wise, going from nearly useless to probably overpowered. Third, Sacred Weapon damage behaves oddly, giving the class too much incentive to use weird-low-base-damage weapons.
I'd say the Shaman is very well designed. It just has one spirit hex in need of a nerfing.
The Hunter could have used different mechanics, but a combat oriented pet class is something a lot of people have wanted. The ranger can technically do this, but takes 4 levels and a feat to get going.
The Brawler suffers from coming out just a short time before the unMonk, which overshadows it for most character concepts.
|
|
I have been surprised at how much I have enjoyed the various classes out of the ACG.
Hunter: Originally, my thoughts were "why?" on the hunter class. The teamwork feats plus the beefed up animal companion / animal focus have made this class really a lot of fun to play due to the variety of options available. Outflank, Pack flanking, Precise strike, and Intercept charge have all really proven useful.
Warpriest: Another class that I originally thought was "meh". The swift action of spells due to fevor has really been interesting to see in play. The ability to not waste rounds getting ready really sets this apart from your typical "battle" cleric. Reach warpriest in particular are very interesting.
Bloodragers and Slayers have also been impressive even thou I have only seen them played briefly.
The only class that I would say has been a disappointment is the Shaman. The decision to go with an unique spell list with minimal support after release has made the class very "meh". I still think the druid spell list during the beta worked much better. If more diffraction from Druid was needed then base the class on charisma like the oracle class which the shaman was based on.
When the book was first announced I was really interested in the Investigator and Swashbuckler and to a lesser extent the Brawler.
On the flip side the Arcanist, Hunter and Warpriest just made me wonder why they even bothered. A sorcerer/wizard hybrid when those two classes are practically just variants of one another anyways? A ranger/druid hybrid when the ranger was already more or less a fighter/druid hybrid? And how would the Warpriest define itself when Clerics, Oracles, Paladins and Inquisitors could all already fit the 'divine fighter' archetype pretty easily?
They turned out a lot better at defining themselves and staying interesting than I thought.
Post release I'd say the most 'why?' class is the Skald. Skalds are fun and cool, so I'm not saying they're a bad class, but more than any other class in the book they really feel like an archetype. A bard Archetype.
As for the three classes I was hyped for? The Investigator turned out great. I adore that class, though it's frustrating that basically all of its archetypes are mutually exclusive.
The Swashbuckler is a mess of overly cautious design and hyperfocus on a single combat style leaving it very underwhelming unless you're doing the one thing it's designed to do and even then it's not great.
The Brawler is... one class feature and a bunch of other stuff that's so forgettable that the class hasn't gotten any direct support since ACO, outside a few feats they can skip pre-reqs for.
The decision to go with an unique spell list with minimal support after release has made the class very "meh"
Doesn't the shaman get new spells every splatbook like other casters?
Arcanist: "Did they really need to combine these two classes? Couldn't they have thought of a better idea?" But when I saw the way Arcanist casting worked and the Quick Study exploit, I was quickly won over. Now my opinion is mostly the same, but with a slightly different perspective. It isn't that Wizard and Sorcerer combined to make a cool class...it was that I just f****** hate strict Vancian casting systems, so modifying the wizard's casting is exactly what I would have asked for. I dearly hope that Arcanist casting becomes the norm for prepared casters if/when PF2 comes out.
When Art Haus was putting out it's D20 versions of World of Warcraft and Everquest, what they did have their wizard types prepare spells and then spend spell slots to handle them. Much as if sorcerers could change their spells known by reprepping each morning.
Design Manager
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My opinion on the ACG classes honestly hasn't changed much since it first released, other than the fact that I've come to like the Bloodrager more than I did initially.
Hunter is still one of my favorite classes, I still like the Brawler, I still find the Swashbuckler's swift action glut annoying, still don't care for the Arcanist one way or the other. Skald and Investigator both seemed solid at release and my opinion there hasn't changed.
Honestly, I feel like the main thing the ACG did was shake things up just barely enough from the previously established design trends that the game felt wider and more accepting for the much better books/classes that followed, like Occult Adventures and Ultimate Intrigue.
I don't know that classes like the Vigilante, Mesmerist, Occultist, and others would have been as good as they are if the game hadn't stretched and flexed a bit following the ACG first, and it seems like, for Occult Adventures at least, the quality of the archetypes released after the ACG improved a fair bit.
The hunter has been my favourite one. I really like the concept of the dedicated pet class.
Not so huge a fan of leaving your companion dead to double up on personal bonuses. I'd guess they set it up that way so that the death of a hunter's companion doesn't grind the adventure to a halt while the hunter spends time getting a new one, but I wish it had been handled in a way that doesn't encourage poor treatment of the companion.
I'm still not sure what to do with early-level bloodragers. They feel like they're missing half the class until spells come in at 4th level. I would have liked to have seen the weird spell progression of the Medium make its debut on the Bloodrager instead. Cantrips during those first 3 levels would have improved my opinion by a lot.
The hunter has been my favourite one. I really like the concept of the dedicated pet class.
Not so huge a fan of leaving your companion dead to double up on personal bonuses. I'd guess they set it up that way so that the death of a hunter's companion doesn't grind the adventure to a halt while the hunter spends time getting a new one, but I wish it had been handled in a way that doesn't encourage poor treatment of the companion.
I don't really consider having ONE permanent hunter's focus to make up for the total loss of what I can do with my pet. So I don't feel encouraged to lose her. You ONLY get one permanent focus for the death of your companion no matter how high a level you are.
I'm still not sure what to do with early-level bloodragers. They feel like they're missing half the class until spells come in at 4th level. I would have liked to have seen the weird spell progression of the Medium make its debut on the Bloodrager instead. Cantrips during those first 3 levels would have improved my opinion by a lot.
They followed the design of a 4th level caster that was there. Paladin, and ranger both gain spells at lv4 and don't get cantrips.
BTW there's the enlightened bloodrager from arcane anthologies that gets the casting like a medium, meaning they get cantrips.
|
|
Investigator (Empiricist): I started one in PFS for Emerald Spire. The character was a lot of fun to play...
until the TPK. (sniff)
Hunter (Feral): I know, I know. I probably should have played a druid or kept the animal companion, but this archetype was better suited to the character's history. Besides, I like spontaneous casters. At this point, my DPR pales beside that of the blasty sorcerer and kineticist, but I contribute. I can use archery well in mu own form, and engage in melee effectively as a tiger.
And I really shine out of combat. With my +25 Perception modifier, I don't miss much. I am also a very effective scout. Enemies tend not to notice when there's one more crow or rat around.
I like the slayer, arcanist, brawler, and the swashbuckler, even though the latter is a bit on the weak side.
I'm indifferent about/uninterested in the hunter, shaman, skald, and bloodrager.
I don't understand why anyone would want to play a warpriest over a cleric.
And I really don't get the investigator. What does he do?
Arcanist: Haven't played one yet, but it looks cool.
Bloodrager: Truly incredible class. You can do a lot of shenanigans with it. One of the best martials in the game, and easily gives the paladin a run for its money.
Brawler: Love martial flexibility and the class is neat. Wish that there was a way to make the class work with more than just close weapons and monk weapons.
Hunter: Didn't think I'd like this one, but its awesome in very subtle ways. Glad it exists, and is fun to play.
Investigator: This class is my soulmate. Nothing is more intoxicating to me then to roll a bunch of extra d6s to dominate skills.
Shaman: It looks cool, but I can't get over how bad Level 1 is.
Skald: Its a very strong class if you have a party that can fully maximize its buffs.
Slayer: Surprisingly easy to play and a lot of fun. This is a great beginner class that is still interesting to a veteran player.
Swashbuckler: Not crazy about the class. Like its parent, the gunslinger, its sort of trapped in a very small subset of weapons (light/one-handed piercing melee weapons with a 18-20 crit range) and the line between "incredibly powerful" and "oh my god why am I playing this?" is distressingly thin.
Warpriest: Excellent class. It surprises me how many people still underestimate the power of the fervor class ability. Fervor might very well by the single most powerful class feature in the game, aside from spells.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
After reading this thread, it seems that we have to give Paizo a hand.
It seems that every class gets some love from somebody. Seems like overall the book did it's job. Gave everybody something they liked.
And my favorites are
Warpriest
Skald
Investigator
Arcanist- Seems mechanically interesting, haven't tried or seen played in my group.
Bloodrager- Love it. Not only does it full an arcane Paladin equivalent space nicely, I've found the bloodlines wonderfully thematic.
Brawler- Okay. In the hands of anyone who doesn't already know the system well it's about as good as the fighter. The shield archetype is fun though.
Hunter- sounds promising, untried and unseen though.
Investigator - I initially found this class baffling as to why it existed. In the process of building one (a mastermind) as an NPC villain I understood the purpose. I still don't think I'd play one, but I'd fully suggest one to a player who wanted great skill competence combined with a versatile suite of pseudomagical effects.
Skald - Love the class concept, but it's utility is entirely dependant on the makeup of the party.
Shaman - I was very interested in the class at first, and although that interest was dampened somewhat by reading their oddly conjoined systems (for a book with the most advantageous possible combination of spontaneous and prepared casting in the Arcanist, the awkward fusion of the two in the Shaman is particularly baffling) I was still excited to see a player try one. It was a disappointment.
Slayer- quite fun. This is basically the WoW style rogue that players have been oft-disappointed trying to create from the actual Rogue. The sniper archetype is especially great, so long as the DM is willing to work out ways to allow sneak attack damage consistently with ranged attacks.
Warpriest- I still don't really see the need for it. The best thing I can say about it is that it's great if you want to use a whip or other low damage weapon. The unarmed archetype looked like a fun idea, but I was already familiar with Monk and didn't care to learn a new version.
Edit: oops, I realise that I forgot Swashbuckler. That's okay though, because that's an accurate representation of my views on it.
The slayer could use some more/better talents. It is especially lacking in advanced talents, as many of them are no better than the non-advanced. It also could use more exotic archetypes that aren't just variations of "kill specific things".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wait, are we answering this unironically for some reason now?!
Ok, here's the rundown:
Arcanist: Good class design, flimsy flavor and cohesiveness. Rarely something is ever concepted as a Arcanist over Wiz/Sorc if not thinking about the mechanics.
Bloodrager: A good tool to offer the ever-popular arcane warrior option to players, but I feel it didn't depart far enough from Barbarian to have its own flavor. Mechanically solid except for ragedeath.
Brawler: A great class in theory. Lack of support makes that this class is actually barren of mechanical alternatives. The other issue is the option paralysis that Martial Flexibility generates. Honestly, MF is only good because the feat system is so cluttered. I find Advanced Weapon Training to be a better solution to that than MF - as AWT makes your feats worth more because they can be spent in more powerful options, rather than giving you a lot of potential random feats.
Also I'll never stop being let down by Maneuver Training. On a class where flexibility is king, why the specialization?
Hunter: Good design and cohesive. Don't like companion classes, but this is is elegant enough.
Investigator: A success in every way as long as you ignore the fact that they removed the Studied Strike variants from most of the game. Should have had shield proficiency.
Shaman: Mechanically, amazing. Gameplay-wise, wandering spirit creates option paralysis and makes the GM too reliant on keeping the ACG at hand. Lack of elegance kills it for me.
Skald: Too situational a class pick. Wish you had an archetype that had only selfish buffs (like the Dervish Dancer or the Archaelogist Bards) for when nobody can benefit from your rages.
Slayer: Others have said it better - a great class for newbies, still powerful overall. A bit too straight forward with its archetypes in general but I think it's the best execution in the ACG, pun intended.
Swashbuckler: Small design mistakes compounded and made this into Dip: The Class. The concept of a grit-based melee character is super strong though. I do hope we get something like that soon.
Warpriest: The class is almost excellent - they just missed the landing. It should have had 4 skill ranks/level and the increased damage dice should have been an option, not baseline. Don't make me feel bad about going Greatsword Warpriest! Molthuni Arsenal Chaplain fixes the latter though.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say the Shaman is very well designed.
Lets see now...
9th level casting - Y
Cast in armour - Y
4 skill points lvl - Y
D8 HD - Y
3/4 BAB - Y
Witch hexes - Y
Spirit hexes - Y
Spirit abilities - Y
Powered up familiar - Y
Access to animal companion - Y
Access to Oracle revelations - Y
Spontaneous and prepared casting - Y
Bonus metamagic feats - Y
Poach spells from Wizard and Cleric list - Y
I say this with complete certainty... there has never been a more farcical, OP class in the history of Paizo....!
If however the above is your idea of well designed then I sincerely apologise in advance.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My initial feelings about the Warpriest are pretty online with my 2 years later view. Its playable, but not ideal. Its fa too dependant on Swift Actions, which is, or should be cool, but in play is really more annoying than anything. Fervor is really the one stand out ability, but without a way to increase it, and because it is a pool for multiple abilities rather than just Swift Casting, its something that looks a lot better on paper than it generally is in play.
Taking a look at how Battle Clerics/Oracles, Inquisitors, and the Magus play probably would have done a lot of good, as each tends to do the Warpriests job better overall except a few things, or rather except at a few levels, but also tend to have many more options besides just combat. The Battle Cleric "comes online" a tad later, but has a lot more staying power, wider range of play, better ability to fill more roles, (while being pretty close to on par in combat). Similarly with the Inquisitor, who is just built to work with itself so well, and do its combat job well AND everything else, too. I think Magus is the big one, mainly because, I think too many people compare it too incorrectly. The Magus did it right, allowing offense, buff, or whatever while the Warpriest is all about buffs, and specifically self only buffs. The two are really nothing alike, and the Warpriest just doesn't fill the "divine Magus" niche.
Sacred Weapon is good, but in play I tend to feel like Im doing it wrong by using a weapon that a "priest of war" would use. Instead it rewards the use of non-Warpriesty weapons, which just feels wrong. I really get the impression that there where a lot of hands in the pot for its class design, and everyone wanted to get their little baby or concept in, but didn't realize how it all worked in unison.
DESPITE both its parents being 2+Int, Int dumping classes, it really hurts here, as there are even more skills needed to do the classes basic job, and just no way to really handle that, which combined with the Classes overall lower spellcasting and fewer utility spells, tends to leave the class even worse off than the Fighter in non-combat situations.
Changing one or two things as the baseline for the class would have gone a long, long way here.
1.) Making it a straight up Full BaB class would make Fervor feel more like a boon than a pool for too many things. Some people seem to think its too good, but I just don't see it.
2.) Make Sacred Weapon Damage an either/or option, so weapons like the Greatsword get some benefit instead of increased damage dice, while the dagger is still viable. (It wasnt before???)
3.) Rather than having Fervor be a pool for swift casting, channel energy, and self healing, just have Swift casting ability be an unlimited, once per combat ability and reduce the book keeping significantly.
4.) Blessing are probably the most unevenly balanced mechanic I've seen, with some being basically must have (Good), while others are just junk, (usually unless you have a specific build such as Air working only on Ranged weapons, but the main deities with ranged Favored weapons don't have access to the Air Blessing).
5.) Pick one theme or goal for the baseline class and stick to it. Weapon specialist, Paladin of any Alignment, battle priest, divine magus, etc. . .
All that being said, its not a bad class, and there are some good ideas in there. Most of the time I'd probably go battle Cleric, Paladin, or Inquisitor, but not always. It stands out at level 2 and again at around 12-15+, and does offer some possibilities that are harder to pull off otherwise.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'd say the Shaman is very well designed.
Lets see now...
9th level casting - Y
Cast in armour - Y
4 skill points lvl - Y
D8 HD - Y
3/4 BAB - Y
Witch hexes - Y
Spirit hexes - Y
Spirit abilities - Y
Powered up familiar - Y
Access to animal companion - Y
Access to Oracle revelations - Y
Spontaneous and prepared casting - Y
Bonus metamagic feats - Y
Poach spells from Wizard and Cleric list - YI say this with complete certainty... there has never been a more farcical, OP class in the history of Paizo....!
If however the above is your idea of well designed then I sincerely apologise in advance.
*yawn* still weaker than core Wizard and core Cleric. Shaman's toolbox is super versatile but isn't either infinite (Clerics with their spell list which expands on a monthly basis) or able to wreck the game to the point where the GM gives up and breaks into tears (Wizards).
Arcanist - I knew from thr moment I saw it that the class would be amazing and my buddy Pipedreamsam proved me right. The casting is incredibly versatile, and it's probably the only arcane full caster ever play (they mostly bore me).
Bloodrager - I was hyped for this class since I made a Destined bloodrager that crushed Beastmass back in the playtest, and it only got better after release. I'm happy with the class in general.
Brawler - Cool mechanics, but it's a feat-based martial class with low Will saves. Wasn't interested before, still not interested now.
Hunter - The best pet class thanks to Teamwork feats and Skirmisher Tricks. This class was grossly underappreciated during the playtest by most but people have realized just how awesome this class can be since then. Please don't kill your companions for buffs, the loss of Teamwork feat synergy is t worth it for anyone who isn't just dipping.
Investigator - People thought they wouldn't be strong enough at Levels 1-3, but that's silly. Early levels are almost entirely about lucky rolls rather than class bonuses, and their skill and Combat mechanics are strong. My opinion remains unchanged.
Shaman - It looked cool, it was strong in the playtest, and it had versatility most casters can't match. I was very interested at first, but the change in spell lists killed my interest for a while afterwards. Now I think they're okay, but the spell list really needs some new additions.
Skald - The most metal class of all time, bar none. I rebuilt a villain in Kingmaker as this class and the fight was infinitely more interesting. I enjoy this class even if they don't have too much variety in builds.
Slayer - Thought it was great then, think it's great now. Could use more talents though.
Swashbuckler - Strong in combat, but not much else. Imo boring without archetypes. Flying Blade is pretty fun!
Warpriest - I've never had as much interest in divine casting classes as others but this class seemed well-built if a bit redundant. I like it.
Replies in bold:
9th level casting - With a pretty limited list.
Cast in armour - Like a druid, but without shield proficiency
4 skill points lvl - Like a druid
D8 HD - Druid
3/4 BAB - Druid
Witch hexes - But just the lesser hexes. No major or grand hexes.
Spirit hexes - How are these OP, except for Arcane Enlightenment, which needs a nerf
Spirit abilities - Are mostly meh
Powered up familiar - Is still a familiar, and it's also required for preparing spells, so you can't risk it in combat
Access to animal companion - At a level most people won't even reach. Oracle has most of these abilities and can get a Companion from level 1.
Access to Oracle revelations - Not really. Just some hexes that are similar to such. And the number of hexes is still limited.
Spontaneous and prepared casting - Like a Druid or Cleric
Bonus metamagic feats - Which costs a hex and can only be taken once
Poach spells from Wizard and Cleric list - Cleric spells at one level lower, and only for some races. And I've already implied that Arcane Enlightenment is broken.
Basically, if you take away Arcane Enlightenment, there is nothing very unbalanced about the shaman. So, it's a well designed class with one broken optional option. I'd say it's more versatile, but less powerful than a druid.