|
| 10 people marked this as a favorite. |
2 years later, I can't help but feel like the unchained rogue mugged the poor swashbuckler in a dark alley and took her best things.
And did them better.
In all fairness, the Unchained Rogue was the first Rogue that actually could mug someone in a dark alley without having to take a special feat for it, so it's understandable that she might have gotten a little overzealous.
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.
The huge problem is that it can have all of the abilities I listed all of the time!! There is nothing in the entire game that comes even close.
It takes all of the good bits from a whole load of classes and has none of the disadvantages.
"The sum of the parts becomes greater than the whole."
I completely disagree with almost all of what you have written... eg)
- It can wear metal armour
- There are some excellent hexes, all of which give great combat persistence and versatility by themselves
- Spirit abilities scale up through 1st/8th/16th
- Its spontaneous casting ability is better than either cleric or druid and thanks to wandering is hugely more versatile
- Having familiars is always good...I have not been in a single game where one died. Even if one did it can still be replaced.
- Archetypes like Speaker for the Past and Unsworn up the stakes even further
- There is nothing to state that metamagic feats can only be taken once
- The combo of wandering hex and wandering spirit is devastating
- Even without Arcane Enlightenment the class would still be very powerful
....... etc etc etc
Saying its OK without Arcane Enlightenment is exactly like saying criminals are absolutely fine aside from the fact that they keep on committing crimes!!!! Until the ability is nerfed (which it won't be), your argument I'm afraid is irrelevant.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Replies in Bold
- It can wear metal armour - Ok, like an oracle then. Casting in medium armor is hardly unique or powerful
- There are some excellent hexes, all of which give great combat persistence and versatility by themselves - Yes, class abilities should do things. It's still no more than its contemporaries. And there are a limited number of hexes you can take at any given level. By the time you can have a lot of them, they tend to get overshadowed by the spells anyway.
- Spirit abilities scale up through 1st/8th/16th - Yes, and most of them are merely ok. They are mostly made up of one good ability and 2 flavor abilities
- Its spontaneous casting ability is better than either cleric or druid and thanks to wandering is hugely more versatile - Barely better really. And if you rely on Lore, for Arcane Enlightenment, as your wandering spirit, you don't even get to swap your wandering spirit around without losing your wizard spells
- Having familiars is always good - I have not been in a single game where one died. - Then your familiars have either been staying out of combat or your DMs have been going overly easy on you.
- Archetypes like Speaker for the Past and Unsworn up the stakes even further - And the Spirit Guide Oracle can do most of the Shamans tricks even better than the Shaman. Lots of classes have OP archetypes.
- There is nothing to state that metamagic feats can only be taken once - The "free" metamagic hex can only be taken once and cuts into the limited number of hexes you have.
- The combo of wandering hex and wandering spirit is devastating - It's versatile sure, but so is a cleric or wizard leaving a spell slot empty to prepare a needed spell in the field
- Even without Arcane Enlightenment the class would still be very powerful - It's powerful sure. It's just not stronger than a wizard or even a druid.
- It can wear metal armour
Which only matters until like level 3 because dragonhide isn't even that expensive.
- There are some excellent hexes, all of which give great combat persistence and versatility by themselves
There's also a lot of bad ones.
- Spirit abilities scale up through 1st/8th/16th
Yeah, so? They're also the majority of the shaman's class features and frankly aren't that good for most spirits.
- Its spontaneous casting ability is better than either cleric or druid and thanks to wandering is hugely more versatile
Versatile, yes, but given how small and weak the shaman's spell list is you're still never really doing more than playing catch-up with the other 9th level casters.
- Having familiars is always good...I have not been in a single game where one died. Even if one did it can still be replaced.
Yeah it can be replaced. After a day of not being able to cast spells and for a chunk of gold. It's still a pretty damn vulnerable spell source. Though ignoring that.. familiars are pretty good, yeah.
- Archetypes like Speaker for the Past and Unsworn up the stakes even further
Speaker for the Past takes away the familiar and wandering spirit you think are so amazing for some mediocre bonus spells and revelations instead of wandering spirit abilities. The latter is basically a 1:1 trade except you lose flexibility, the rest I guess is how much you value shitty bonus spells vs a familiar.
Unsworn is pretty great and very flexible, but it delays the progression of all of your class features pretty significantly for what it does and I don't think you can just ignore that either.
Saying its OK without Arcane Enlightenment is a bit like saying criminals are absolutely fine aside from the fact that they keep on committing crimes!!!!
No it's like saying there's one really amazing ability and outside of that the class is stunningly mediocre at everything.
The class is really versatile because it can change out so much each day... but when you realize that most of that flexibility is just already baked into other class' spell lists it becomes a lot less impressive.
Arcanist: I really dislike this class, especially the Sorcerer+ archetype. Generally disallowed by mutual agreement in the groups I play with.
Bloodrager: Played one of these- lots of fun and a good fit for new players. The bloodlines let it fit lots of concepts, and the 4/9 casting means they get a new mechanic once they've played for a bit.
Shaman: Nice for Witch with a bit more survivability. Personally, I mostly just use the Spirit Guide Oracle to get something like Crossblooded.
Brawler: Unchained Monk made this less of a big deal.
Investigator: Very popular with my players. Wish it got a combat ability sooner, but it has great archetypes.
Swashbuckler: Not bad for a pure martial. I like how little Inspired Blade needs by way of feats.
Haven't done anything with the others. Just don't really care too much about them.
I've played:
Investigator
Swashbuckler
Hunter
Warpriest
Liked all of them. Enjoyed the Swashbuckler's active defenses.
|
I like it. It's a pretty solid book. From what I've seen, the hybrid classes introduced in the ACG have been a pretty substantial and well-accepted addition to the game. Kudos!
So far, I've gotten to play 3 of the classes...
Brawler- Love the Brawler! If you know what you're doing, Martial Flexibility is a hoot. I kept a cheat sheet next to me, a list of combat feats I qualified for and could pick up on the fly. A total of 23 of them at first level! Fun! First time I've ever played a martial who felt like she could do literally anything.
Shaman- Love, love, love the Shaman! Terrific class. More so than w/ the Oracle, this gives me the non-aligned (to a specific deity) divine casting class I was looking for. I love the primitive/tribal feel to the class. I went with the Speaker for the Past archetype, because I hate that whole familiar-as-liabilty-because-it's-also-your-spellbook type thing. Still very flexible. Fun class.
Warpriest- Still a fun class with lots of potential. The action economy kills it a bit. The Artifice Blessing was fun, though. Golem bothering you? Adamantine door in your way? Stone wall? No problem. Bam, Bam, Bam, all done.
There's a couple more classes in the ACG I'd like to play, namely the Slayer and the Hunter. I'm relatively new to the game. These are the first new classes that have come out since I started playing. They feel like my classes. I'd say the ACG is a hit, at least in terms of how well received it's been in games around here. Much more so than the occult classes, which are still not allowed in many games...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My biggest problem with the Shaman is organizational -- I don't know off the top of my head how to fix it, but it shouldn't take weeks to figure out how to use it.
I dispute that Swashbuckler is garbage. It's got decent saves so long as you spend one trait, which is a pretty low cost. With Inspired Blade, you're good at Dex combat from level one with a single feat. Nice static damage boost starting at three, and you're full BAB with decent skills.
I dispute that Swashbuckler is garbage. It's got decent saves so long as you spend one trait, which is a pretty low cost. With Inspired Blade, you're good at Dex combat from level one with a single feat. Nice static damage boost starting at three, and you're full BAB with decent skills.
In my opinion, the base Swashbuckler is hot garbage.
...but, there's an archetype for everything and almost all of them improve the class' power at the cost of weapon variety. At a certain point the deeds, in my opinion, aren't worth more levels in the class. But for those first 1/2 of levels it's alright.
Arcanist - Oh joy, another full arcane caster for Paizo to spoil. Throw it in the hated pile with the rest of them.
Bloodrager - Get rid of primalist and it makes a fantastic martial caster, and one of the top dogs of reach fighting.
Brawler - As a PC class...it lacks spells so I'm gonna pass on it. It's ability to pull feats out of its bum makes it interesting as a mook or boss npc class though.
Hunter - I'm mildly interested in this one, it lets me have a full power AC without a feat or being a druid and I can be good at lance charging without being a class without spells.
Investigator - Looooove. Extracts, skills, inspiration, move action aid another, studied combat, this is what the rogue should have been from the start and I just love it!
Shaman - I constantly forget this thing exists. It's a full prepared caster so it's probably broken, but since it's arcane it's at least not shatter the game with your finger broken.
Skald - Way too party dependent for my tastes, though it's good for making mundane classes suck less.
Slayer - No spells here and I can do the shield fighter thing better as a ranger, but decent for NPCs for the party to fight.
Swashbuckler - No worse than the other mundane classes lacks offense but has poor man's divine grace for the fights that matter. Inspired Blade is also an amazing dip for anyone wanting to be a dex based character, doubly so for cha and int based classes.
Warpriest - I haven't seen this one and since it's a half-caster I'd have to see it in action.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
To put it simply: The ACG is a rushed mess. And it shows.
Arcanist: aka: "Why Ever play a Sorcerer Again?". An utterly overpowered and completely unnecessary class. Shows a complete disregard for game balance and doesn't really allow any character concept that couldn't be achieved before. Should have been an alternate casting system instead.
Bloodrager: While I consider this one to be a mostly well-designed class, it poaches way too much from the Barbarian. The ability to steal Rage Powers is particularly bad in that regard. But other than that, a good class.
Brawler: A decent beat-stick. Too bad they went with "Flurry, But Not Really" for its main offensive tool... I wouldn't play one except in gestalt games, but the class is okay.
Hunter: It's a functional and balanced class... But it adds nothing to the game. Like the Arcanist, it doesn't allow any character concept that couldn't be achieved just as well via other classes. It should have been a Druid, Ranger or Inquisitor archetype. Trade the Druid's Wildshape for the buffed Animal Companion and you basically got this class. Why Paizo decided to ignore all the feedback asking for a full-BAB wildshaping class is beyond me... I guess they still think having slightly faster attack progression is more powerful than full casting. ¬¬'
Investigator: This one is a great class! Not perfect, but really freaking great. Finally a Rogue that works and retains the Rogue "feel". One of the best designed classes in PF, IMHO.
Shaman: Powerful class, as all full casters are... Although not as much as it seems at first, honestly. Still, the biggest flaw of this class (and the reason I just can't get excited to play one) is how convoluted it is... Whoever designed this one seems to have forgotten how to keep things simple and functional. Other than that, it's okay.
Skald: Again... Why is this not an archetype? Seriously? Why does this need to be whole different class? It's interesting, but nothing in it justifies being a base class.
Slayer: Uninspired but balanced and fun. There's nothing new going on here... But the class works. You can make a Rogue that can fight or a Fighter that can tie his shoes! That's groundbreaking for Paizo! Pretty much all of its mechanics are recycled, but the class still feels whole and functional.
Swashbuckler: Wasted opportunity. Instead of a fun, dexterous, mobile class... We get yet another BFG suffering of Stand-Still-or-Suck Syndrome . Except it uses Dex for damage... Except not really! Because of Paizo's paranoia that Dex-to-damage will somehow break the game. This is a dip class at best. And it made me completely give up on participating on future playtests: A lot of great feedback was given and nearly all of it went completely ignored, so instead of getting Zorro, we got Dippy McSucky.
Warpriest: It's a functional class, I suppose... But, keeping up with the ACG's theme, doesn't really add anything to the game that couldn't have been better done as an archetype. Other than a few very, very niche builds, there's basically no reason to take this one over an Inquisitor.
The ACG is a very, very subpar product. There's good stuff in it, but it's not nearly enough to compensate for the amount of bad stuff. It's rushed, poorly planned, poorly designed, poorly printed, poorly errata'd and simply not worth my money. I still amazes me that this is an actual Pathfinder First Party product.
At least the backlash was strong enough that Paizo decided to listen to it, for once. And their following book is actually pretty good, so there's that!
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
People have been asking for a martial shapechanger basically forever. Instead Paizo combined the ranger with the druid and got something based on one of the worst mechanics in the game. It's at least not a summoner, but companions are generally bad for table flow unless being used as mounts, make martials redundant at low levels when martials are supposed to be useful, and peter out into uselessness as anything but a 2x2 meat wall at high levels because their attack bonus progresses too slowly. The hunter itself also has an attack bonus that progresses too slowly for something that isn't a natural attacker. Paizo should have learned not to give anyone intended to actually fight unaugmented medium BAB from the core rogue.
Hunter: It's a functional and balanced class... But it adds nothing to the game. Like the Arcanist, it doesn't allow any character concept that couldn't be achieved just as well via other classes. It should have been a Druid, Ranger or Inquisitor archetype. Trade the Druid's Wildshape for the buffed Animal Companion and you basically got this class. Why Paizo decided to ignore all the feedback asking for a full-BAB wildshaping class is beyond me... I guess they still think having slightly faster attack progression is more powerful than full casting. ¬¬'
I'd actually contend assertions that the Hunter isn't a functional class that adds to the game. There are tons of things that the Hunter can do that the classes it draws from can't, particularly since it pulls from both the Druid and Ranger spell lists and has casting right from level one, allowing it to cast spells like lead blades way ahead of other characters.
Comparing it to the Core Rogue because it has 3/4 BAB is also severely short-selling it. You have better proficiencies, spells like lead blades and aspect of the falcon, and can generate tons of bonuses to hit by leveraging your animal companion and teamwork feats. I find that more often than not, the Hunter is a better contributor than either the Druid or Ranger during the first 4 levels of the game, and is capable of staying very much on par with Druid until about 15th level when the casting gap finally pushes the Druid fully ahead on all fronts.
I'll certainly agree that not including a martial shapechanger was a missed opportunity, but the Hunter is a great "beast master" option that wouldn't be fully done justice by an archetype.
I do think the entire concept of "hybrid classes" had some holes in it though. I think classes like the Shaman and Arcanist would have been much better served if they'd been conceptualized and designed from the ground up, rather than trying to hammer the concepts together using pieces of existing classes.
I'd actually contend assertions that the Hunter isn't a functional class that adds to the game. There are tons of things that the Hunter can do that the classes it draws from can't, particularly since it pulls from both the Druid and Ranger spell lists and has casting right from level one, allowing it to cast spells like lead blades way ahead of other characters.
Comparing it to the Core Rogue because it has 3/4 BAB is also severely short-selling it. You have better proficiencies, spells like lead blades and aspect of the falcon, and can generate tons of bonuses to hit by leveraging your animal companion and teamwork feats. I find that more often than not, the Hunter is a better contributor than either the Druid or Ranger during the first 4 levels of the game, and is capable of staying very much on par with Druid until about 15th level when the casting gap finally pushes the Druid fully ahead on all fronts.
I'll certainly agree that not including a martial shapechanger was a missed opportunity, but the Hunter is a great "beast master" option that wouldn't be fully done justice by an archetype.
I said it is functional . But it's barely more than an archetype. How is it significantly different from, say... A druid that trade Wild Shape for the buffed Animal Companion and spontaneous SNA for Teamwork feats?
A different buff spell? +2 skill points per level?
Take an Inquisitor with the Feather domain and give bonus teamwork feats to its AC instead of Bane and you have a Hunter! The character would play pretty much the same 90% of the time.
It's not that Hunters aren't different... They simply aren't different enough. They barely an archetype. There's no character concept that can be achieved via Hunter than couldn't be achieved just as well via Druid, Ranger, or Inquisitor with the right selection of feats/archetypes, unless you have a very, very narrow definition of that concept.
Similarly, the Skald is also different from the Bard... Just not enough to justify a completely different class, IMO.
It's like Paizo just wanted a class named "Hunter" to attract people who play MMOs and games where that's the name given to Ranger/Druid-like classes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I have to disagree with the hunter adding nothing. Even its most basic concept, fighting along side your animal ally, is something that doesn't work great in the base game.
Druid doesn't support martial combat well. The ranger doesn't get his companion until 4 and it's mostly an afterthought. Ditto with animal domain druids. The summoner can sort of fake it if you're willing to flex the fluff a bit, I guess, but it has a bunch of other baggage that doesn't really help either.
I guess there's a cavalier archetype, but that's pretty limited too.
|
I have to disagree with the hunter adding nothing. Even its most basic concept, fighting along side your animal ally, is something that doesn't work great in the base game.
Druid doesn't support martial combat well. The ranger doesn't get his companion until 4 and it's mostly an afterthought. Ditto with animal domain druids. The summoner can sort of fake it if you're willing to flex the fluff a bit, I guess, but it has a bunch of other baggage that doesn't really help either.
I guess there's a cavalier archetype, but that's pretty limited too.
I am going to agree. Pet focused druid builds are actually pretty awful at fighting alongside their pet. The animal focus (especially when doubled), teamwork feats, ranger spells, and martial weapons / armor all combine to make both the hunter and pet much more effective in combat. I have been very happy with my hunter.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pet classes, like summoners, have no place in a multiplayer game that isn't entirely based on group combat with ultra-streamlined wargame style mechanics rather than mechanically complex characters and RPG style mechanics.
That's really a matter of taste. You could use the same argument against full casters, as they have so many spell options, to choose from and then read the specifics of, that they can take much longer than a companion class played by a prepared player.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Druids are actually very capable combatants, pet or no pet. And they can easily share their buffs. A single archetype switching Wild Shape for Animal Focus would be just as effective...
Also, a single feat brings Ranger and domain animal companions to full progression. Again, a simple archetype would suffice and do pretty much everything a Hunter does... While saving time, effort and resources that could have been spent making the ACG a better book. We'd have fewer classes, but they would probably be better designed and more unique.
But that's just my opinion, of course... We can always agree to disagree.
I have to disagree with the hunter adding nothing. Even its most basic concept, fighting along side your animal ally, is something that doesn't work great in the base game.It shouldn't. If one person has a pet he's controlling twice as many characters as everyone else. If everyone has a pet suddenly you're dealing with an 8 or 10 character party.
Pet classes, like summoners, have no place in a multiplayer game that isn't entirely based on group combat with ultra-streamlined wargame style mechanics rather than mechanically complex characters and RPG style mechanics. Or real time computer games where player attention is a finite resource.
And how are they any worse than a full caster who makes half the team sit on their rump often in and out of combat?
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Druids are actually very capable combatants, pet or no pet. And they can easily share their buffs. A single archetype switching Wild Shape for Animal Focus would be just as effective...
Also, a single feat brings Ranger and domain animal companions to full progression. Again, a simple archetype would suffice and do pretty much everything a Hunter does... While saving time, effort and resources that could have been spent making the ACG a better book. We'd have fewer classes, but they would probably be better designed and more unique.
But that's just my opinion, of course... We can always agree to disagree.
Having played both, animal focus is much, much better than wildshape for character that goes into combat. Wildshape + Natural spell is amazing for casters thou. Outflank + Pack flanking (teamwork feats) is a +4 on almost every attack. Add some more teamwork feats and you would be surprised at how effective hunters are. Ranger pets are truly an after thought even with boon companion (when it is not banned) without animal focus / teamwork feats.
I use to think that teamwork feats were a waste of space due to how few players used them. Hunters add an additional element to the game that is rarely used for me in making an animal companion interesting. In the end, different players find different things interesting.
Spoiler'd to avoid/mitigate walls of text. You were warned.
Bloodrager: Kinda the opposite of the above the flavor of a raging spellcaster is a unique mix of previously divorced ideas, arcane expertise and untrained martial prowess. Mechanically I like it, but its super similar to barbarian. Free.action buffs are awesome but many are similar to rage powers in terms of power. I like it overall though.
Brawler: I love this class' theme. But I feel bad for those that don't because it is kinda restricted. Mechanically its great, martial flex being a great tool for combat and knockout being nice for ending encounters. I am sorry that it is very restricted in terms of weapon and fighting style.
Investigator: I like the theme, and the mechanics aren't bad, but I just haven't been pulled in to this much. I like the idea but prefer alchemist for it. I am super sad there's no way to enter Master Chymist for the real Dr. Jekyl/Mr. Hyde bit. I will probably make one at some point though.
Hunter: Mechanics are neat, with teamwork feats and a better animal companion make for interesting combinations for a well prepared player. But thematically I have two problems. One, it feels like an archetype. Two, if you care about your animal companion so much why is it in melee combat? It seems like a good way to get it killed and the class has few ways to defend the companion beyond magic. I am fine with druids because they are more laid back than hunters, and are more "survival of the fittest" geared. Its why I figured they wildshape, because humans aren't the fittest in melee. But with hunter I am sad there aren't many bodyguard options for your animal beyond a defensive focus and a few buffs.
Shaman: I like this class thematically, I like it mechanically, but it is way to endgame-oriented. It feels really fragile at low levels and a tad too strong at high levels. I think some more support is needed to balance this out. Its not stronger than wizards, but IMO it is way too back heavy
Skald: I like the metal feel, and giving everyone rage is awesome, but it needs access to unchained rage IMO. A lesser version, sure, but this is based on a buff that confuses a lot of new players ore ones who aren't good with quick math. There are fixes to this, but not where I would like them to be.
Slayer: The better ranger. No racism, no dependence on a GM liking your favored enemy or terrain, no two for one turns, just a cold calculating whirlwind of death focused exclusively on you.
Swashbuckler: Not a fan. Saves aren't amazing, supposed to be mobile but isn't, limits weapon choice, and crams in so many meh abilities to the same action choice.
Warpriest: Mechaincally this works as long as you ration your resources, but thematically its very similar to a crusader cleric. With so few skill, I doubt I will ever pick it over Inquisitor.
Arcanist: More a variant wizard than sorcerer. Annoyingly confusing mechanics that generate a lot of questions. For example: Can an arcanist leave spell slots open to prepare as needed throughout the day? Nobody has ever answered that question and that's just the first one.
Bloodrager: Not much better than a barbarian with a few magic rage powers. Usually too busy fighting to cast spells. Nice if you want a more interesting barbarian. If you want to be the bezerker trope though, barbarian is still better. If you want a "gish" build, go magus.
Brawler: It's OK. I like just monk better. If you want to get away from the "asian" flavor of the monk for a different kind of bare-handed fighter, it will do.
Hunter: Not any better than a ranger. Redundant class. Skip it.
Investigator: Studied strike is a little hard to get used to. Alchemy is superfluous. I prefer the Sleuth and Psychic Detective archetypes. Max out your Perception and social skills and you'll be the non-combat god. Piss off your GM when he tries to hide something! One of my favorites.
Shaman: Fun class to play but maybe a little too many options with not enough opportunities to take them. Also, I really feel the familiar should have been ethereal and visible only to the shaman, but heh, it's still fun. My second favorite.
Skald: Just "OK" if you are in a party that likes the combat bonuses. Mostly it is really not much better than a standard bard with savage skald archetype. They should have dumped spellcasting! It is all wrong for the concept. What should have happened is that the class should have had better rage bonuses and a full BAB for another all martial class.
Slayer: Boring! Really, really mind-numbingly boring. Just play a rogue and you will have way more fun. Least liked class ever.
Swashbuckler: The panache talents get a little ridiculous in terms of power. It seems front-loaded. It gives some excuses for some witty roleplaying though. Nice attempt, but it needs even more pirate/Princess Bride flair as it gains levels.
Warpriest: Not too exciting at 1st level, but by 5th level it is a nice class. The swift action buffs are nice. I didn't mind it and it is on par with a cleric. My 3rd favorite.
Slayer: Boring! Really, really mind-numbingly boring. Just play a rogue and you will have way more fun. Least liked class ever.
Are you talking about unchained rogues?
For people who think the Swashbuckler is lacking or down right sucks. What would you do to the class to improve it/make it to your liking?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The first and smallest thing the swashbuckler needs is a good fort save. It's hard to be up in melee without a good fort save. And that may be all I would do to the class.
I wouldn't say the Swashbuckler sucks, but the most interesting and useful abilities are gained at 1st level. It suffers from the same sip problem as gunslinger does, and MoMS monk did (and sort-of still does).
Swashbuckler's Finesse and Opportune Parry/Riposte are both at 1st.
Charmed Life is a complete joke, and most of us know it.
Yeah, Precise Strike is good, but beyond that, is there anything keeping people from staying in it?
Edit: good Fort save is obviously only the first step. Inspired Blade is a straight upgrade on vanilla Swashbuckler, and a good start for a single-weapon focused Swashbuckler fix.
|
Arcanist: More a variant wizard than sorcerer. Annoyingly confusing mechanics that generate a lot of questions. For example: Can an arcanist leave spell slots open to prepare as needed throughout the day? Nobody has ever answered that question and that's just the first one.
I thought that was pretty well answered by the book itself. It's an all-at-once deal like Wizards.
An arcanist must choose and prepare her spells ahead of time by getting 8 hours of sleep and spending 1 hour studying her spellbook. While studying, the arcanist decides what spells to prepare and refreshes her available spell slots for the day.
Anyways: I started out pretty hyped for the ACG, but now...
Arcanist: I started out pretty ambivalent, but I grew to like the spellcasting system. Thumbs up! It's still a little sparse on options, though, and it lacks a flavor of its own.
Bloodrager: I grew to kind of resent Bloodrager. This is the one that feels most like a base class with stuff tacked on. Totally boring, but in some ways it beats the Barbarian at its own game! Good numbers, but I'll pass on principle.
Brawler: A much needed patch to the old Monk. Now that Unchained is out, it's been outmoded and put out to pasture. Aside from the Exemplar archetype (which is awesome), it ekes out an existence as dip fodder for non-monk unarmed martial builds.
Hunter: Used to think this was pretty cool. Then I started playing with a Hunter with his grapple-based weasel pet, and it became Super Cool! Then I started playing with with another hunter and I realized Mr. Weasel was one in a million and it's kind of a boring class. Broken-as-heck spell list, though.
Investigator: This one started out good and it keeps getting better! I despise alchemy as a casting system, so the alternate spell lists are welcome. Everything else about the base class is awesome.
Shaman: Played a witch, hated playing a witch, never really looked past my prejudice to give the Shaman a fair go. At a glance it seems remarkable in its lack of focus. I expected Thrall and got...something.
Skald: I will repeat the chorus: "Why isn't this an archetype?" I used to play a Skald in 3.5 so I was excited at first; this one isn't nearly as interesting.
Slayer: Started out as new and interesting, but now I need convincing to consider it. I look at it, and then I immediately flick back to any other non-caster to see if I could do it better there. The answer is usually yes. Between the Ranger and now the Vigilante, I think this might soon share the same fate as the Brawler.
Swashbuckler: Was originally hyped because of how strong it starts, and ZOMG PFS-sanctioned dex-to-damage class! Extremely front-loaded and narrow in focus, not worth continuing past 5. Like Brawler, Unchained really stole this one's thunder. Fantastic dip for very specific builds, though - Inspired Blade 1 is probably the best value dip in all of Pathfinder.
TLDR: ACG really kinda sucks. In retrospect, it might be my least favorite RPG-line book. I like the Investigator and to a much lesser extent the Arcanist. Everything else is missable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Ranger has 4 levels of spellcasting. Do not put it in the same league as the slayer, fighter, or any other class without spells.
|
|
Having played both, animal focus is much, much better than wildshape for character that goes into combat. Wildshape + Natural spell is amazing for casters thou.So, which teamwork feat lets you get pounce with three primary natural attacks at level 6 or five primary natural attacks at level 8?
Well, this build which I threw together in about 5 minutes right after the class came out doesn't get pounce, but it is designed to use teamwork feats to generate multiple attacks at the character's full attack bonus using primarily standard actions, sooo... That's something. Against many opponents it'll be as good or better than pounce, particularly since it uses a real weapon instead of an inferior natural attack, and has access to lead blades and other combat spells the Druid doesn't get.
You can tell it's an old build because I used Combat Expertise instead of the much superior Dirty Fighting, which would have also helped my stat spread. I suspect if I used all the options currently available, I can get it firing at even higher bonuses to hit with even greater effectiveness, but it's already going to be better than a Ranger or Druid in a lot of situations, particularly when the Ranger can't pop Favored Enemy.
There's also other benefits of the Hunter that haven't been touched on-
1) It gains more animal tricks than either the Druid or Ranger. This means it's companion is easier to control and command than the others, which can be a huge impact in combat.
2) The Hunter can retrain one of her teamwork feats multiple times a day. This makes her an adaptable tactician who can swap in exactly the tool she needs for her and her AnC in any given fight, whether that be a defense booster, a movement booster, or an offensive aid.
3) Improved Empathic Link gives the Hunter some no cost scouting advantages above and beyond the Druid and Ranger, especially if she has a flying companion.
4) The Hunter's Woodland Stride class feature, unlike either the Druid or Ranger, applies to her AnC, so she doesn't leave behind a healthy chunk of her DPR when charging through the woods.
And those don't even touch on the other more obvious benefits the Hunter has from things like Animal Focuses, Skirmisher Tricks for her pet, etc.
Lots of great archetype in the book including my favorite: Sanctified Slayer but this thread is mainly looking at the new classes.
Arcanist: Doesn't stand out enough from the wizard conceptually but seems to be a decent option. A player in my current game is one and putting those exploits to good use.
Bloodrager: A powerhouse. Had one in my Way of the Wicked campaign and he shredded everything and was really had to hit with displacement, blur, and mirror image. I had to start considering him in my encounter design.
Brawler: I really like this class and it is a monk replacement for me. We house ruled it so that brawler's flurry works like a monk's since the wording in the book wasn't super clear. A Brawler in my current campaign is the party tank and can unleash some serious carnage.
Hunter: Animal Companions, summons and any other extra characters are frowned on at our table since they make turns last longer. No one has ever played one or shown any interest in one for that matter.
Investigator: A great skill monkey class. One of my current players is playing one and enjoying it. He pretty much passes any skill check and it is a big joke now that he regularly gets 60+ on his perception checks.
Shaman: No one in my group has found this one interesting so I haven't seen it action yet. I don't have any interest so I haven't done any rough builds.
Skald: A great Gish class but really needs the right party composition to shine. I have one ready to go for Iron Gods if this occurs.
Slayer: Yes! A great class for all those people that want to play stabby rogues but still find the unchained rogue underwhelming.
Swashbuckler: I was a bit disappointed with this class and subsequent nerfs have only made it worse. It is a dex to damage fighter that stands around full attacking. It is at beast a 5 level dip.
Warpriest: I haven't rolled up a character I was happy with but one of my current players has been playing one and quite likes it. Seems quite competent in combat.
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.
Glad to see I was not the only one. Mine had the party crying OP during the two sessions they took to kill him (I made that dungeon a running fight through multiple rooms).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wake me up when we get to the Occult classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcanist - I came into the ACG thinking that this class was going to be interesting, and quite possibly a lot of fun. Now? It's pretty much become a bread pudding class for me: Nice enough, but kind of bland and boring.
Bloodrager - Oh my sweet babby jesum, I LOVE Bloodrager. I came into Bloodrager expecting it to be a massive disappointment, but boy was I wrong on that front. Some of the bloodlines leave a lot to be desired, but the flavor is fan-freakin-tastic. I think it's my favorite "martial" class (though the changes fighter is getting are making me happy as well).
Brawler - My first read of this class had me thinking "Eh, it's alright, I guess." Now? I'd rather play a fighter or monk than a Brawler.
Hunter - A resounding "meh," both then and now. Ironically, the Inquisitor Archetype based off of the class interests me far more than the base class itself.
Investigator - It was cool then, and it's only gotten better in my mind since. Fun NPC and PC-wise.
Shaman - I loathed Shaman when it first came out, almost exclusively because of Arcane Enlightenment, which should not exist. That has still not changed a bit, come to think of it. Just seems that you could easily gets the exact same sort of flavor with its parent classes, and probably be more mechanically effective in many cases as well.
Skald - ... Or I could just play a Bard, and help everyone in a much better fashion regardless of whether they have spells or not. Like, I barely took a first look at the class, and I have no reason to look into it more now.
Slayer - At first, this class was a solid meh. Now? It's a great class for me to hand to new players, and I love it to pieces for the times I've had to do that.
Swashbuckler - I wanted to like this class. I really did. But I just can't see a reason to be a Swashbuckler when I could be a Daring Champion Cavalier instead, even with the fact that Daring Champion doesn't get to parry anymore.
Warpriest - Actually not that bad of a class. Mechanically lacking at some points, but otherwise quite likable. Just, you know. Would rather play an Inquisitor in most cases.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
You've obviously never had my bread pudding.
Arcanist: More a variant wizard than sorcerer. Annoyingly confusing mechanics that generate a lot of questions. For example: Can an arcanist leave spell slots open to prepare as needed throughout the day? Nobody has ever answered that question and that's just the first one.I thought that was pretty well answered by the book itself. It's an all-at-once deal like Wizards.
No, wizards do not have to be all at once. They can leave spell slots open and fill them as needed.
Slayer: Boring! Really, really mind-numbingly boring. Just play a rogue and you will have way more fun. Least liked class ever.Are you talking about unchained rogues?
I hope not!
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
How in the world would a Core rogue be more fun than a slayer? Do you have fun because you're bad?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I hope not!Slayer: Boring! Really, really mind-numbingly boring. Just play a rogue and you will have way more fun. Least liked class ever.Are you talking about unchained rogues?
For people who think the Swashbuckler is lacking or down right sucks. What would you do to the class to improve it/make it to your liking?
1. Give it more diversity outside of archetypes not unlike talents. Stuff like combat styles or whatever.
2. Good fort save, definitely.3. Improve something about Charmed Life, hopefully make it a passive deal (but still somehow different from Divine Grace).
4. Reduce the crippling reliance on swift actions (Swashbucklers have 7 different swift action abilities, most of them pretty bad).
5. Make the class less front-loaded to give any incentive to put more than 1-3 levels in it.
This homebrew addresses most issues, though I still dislike how Bonus Feats were handled there.
For people who think the Swashbuckler is lacking or down right sucks. What would you do to the class to improve it/make it to your liking?
Personally, I think it just has lacking upper level abilities. There's one good 7th level deed and 15th plus are just terrible. So, basically you play the class up till level 5.
That said though, Daring Champion Cavalier has absolutely nothing from the Swashbuckler I consider worth playing for. So, I don't know why people liked it before Order of the Eastern Star.
Replies in Bold
Fair enough....we will agree to disagree, we clearly have differing views of what constitutes balanced vs OP
I suppose a way to look at any hybrid class design could be to say
"Is it more powerful than either of its parent classes."
If the answer is "Yes".... then something has gone wrong.
(My definition of 'power' being, effectiveness in a wider range of scenarios)