While it's playtest material. I cannot say enough how REFRESHING it is to have a new class that is strong, versatile, and whose RNG mechanic's are up to player choice. Not forced upon them.
This, right now, is my favorite class since the crb.
No swashbuckler forced RNG. No terribly balanced pros and cons of the Oracle. No oppressive arbitrary limitations to play style.
I am quite pleased.
This will be my only gushing post I promise. I'll dig deeper and try to provide more neutral feedback on the future.
I would say though I do wish dedication rules were in these playtests. But I can probably ad-hoc something for experimentation.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I mean for a "gushing post" you dunked at least the 7 other new classes more or less directly? :D Comes across as more backhanded compliment really
Shows you what I think of as gushing then lol.
And yes. I've been open about my issues with the other classes outside of crb. So it's nothing new. I just went into this with very low expectations. Inventor makes me happy.
How is inventor similar to ranger?
Also while ranger can be very combat effective. I find the hunt prey mechanic in itself both limiting and kinda dry action tax.
I find the hunt prey mechanic in itself both limiting and kinda dry action tax.
(Hunting prey in exploration mode is the s&*#.)
I find the hunt prey mechanic in itself both limiting and kinda dry action tax.(Hunting prey in exploration mode is the s&**.)
So is getting a free devise with investigator.
It isn't reliable however. And investigator's is more interesting. At least to me.
I find the hunt prey mechanic in itself both limiting and kinda dry action tax.(Hunting prey in exploration mode is the s&**.)So is getting a free devise with investigator.
It isn't reliable however. And investigator's is more interesting. At least to me.
I get that. Hunt prey is also more fun with the warden feats, giving you free recall knowledge checks and all that good stuff. But either way, that still can be an action where you're just standing there looking at an enemy instead of moving, attacking, or whatever.
I get that. Hunt prey is also more fun with the warden feats, giving you free recall knowledge checks and all that good stuff. But either way, that still can be an action where you're just standing there looking at an enemy instead of moving, attacking, or whatever.I find the hunt prey mechanic in itself both limiting and kinda dry action tax.(Hunting prey in exploration mode is the s&**.)So is getting a free devise with investigator.
It isn't reliable however. And investigator's is more interesting. At least to me.
Either way. I prefer that of the inventor where their base damage boost is once per combat rather than once per target.
And despite the damage loss. I do prefer outwit and warden stuff for ranger.
Not a fan of once per enemy action sinks that don't do anything on their own. But am ok with once per fight ones!
I am very confused how anyone can say Witch/Oracle/Swashbuckler/Investigator/Magus/Summoner are bad classes. They all are super thematic and interesting mechanics in playstyle.
I am not saying inventor is bad or anything but not sure how anyone can say they aren't fun.
Oracle is actually super cool and the whole idea is have your character use the pros from the curse to your advantage.
Witch is super cool too, people say it is a little weak but the actually features Hexes/Familiars are cool.
If Swashbuckler is RNG based I would say every class is.
Investigator is very weird admittingly but the device a strategem mechanic is unique and kind of cool.
I won't go over Magus/Summoner because they will be changed I am sure.
I just not sure how all those classes could be bad unless you are basing it off power level only, playtest classes can easily go in different direction in the final product.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am very confused how anyone can say Witch/Oracle/Swashbuckler/Investigator/Magus/Summoner are bad classes. They all are super thematic and interesting mechanics in playstyle.
I am not saying inventor is bad or anything but not sure how anyone can say they aren't fun.
Oracle is actually super cool and the whole idea is have your character use the pros from the curse to your advantage.
Witch is super cool too, people say it is a little weak but the actually features Hexes/Familiars are cool.
If Swashbuckler is RNG based I would say every class is.
Investigator is very weird admittingly but the device a strategem mechanic is unique and kind of cool.
I won't go over Magus/Summoner because they will be changed I am sure.
I just not sure how all those classes could be bad unless you are basing it off power level only, playtest classes can easily go in different direction in the final product.
Because they are worse than the core classes.
But either way I didn't say they were bad. Just worse.
Regardless I'm here to talk about inventor. It was one mention of my feelings no need to dog pile. If people want to discuss that further they can take it to DM or I'll let you talk amongst each other.
I know inventor will likely change. Hopefully that change doesn't involve forced RNG before you can do your things beyond what it is currently.
They might be mechanically fine, but they are basically a theme that can be duplicated with a base class. Do we need a new class for every concept? I thought that's what archetypes were for. Witch, Gunslinger, Investigator, Swashbuckler, etc. are just archetypes that they made into a class. Thematically, you could make most of the new classes using the base classes. Tinkerer, not so much. Oracle, not so much. Summoner, not so much. But the rest? Yup. Like seriously, did no one play a Swashbuckler character before the APG? Fighter even has a whole line of feats dedicated to the 1h playstyle.
Question being how you define "concept." Lots of smaller or semi-covered concepts can be archetypes, like herbalists or Bellflower tillers. But some concepts that are both bigger and more focused on being the core of a character from minute one do function better as classes.
Thematically, you can cover swashbuckler or investigator with a rogue, sure. Mechanically, not so much--and if you tried, it would eat a lot of feats and make basically every swashbuckler or investigator look and play the same (which is not the case with them as a fully-functioning class). But this is Pathfinder. Offering just thematic coverage is not enough for players, who also want to find a way to play a concept in a mechanically accurate and fulfilling way.
Anyways. This is apparently gonna be my soapbox these days. Adding new classes underneath the vast and excellent list of archetypes is just as healthy and enabling as adding more ancestries alongside all the universal heritages.
Animal companions also get better stats (if you pick the right ones, anyway).
Consider a pretty standard wolf companion. At level 20, a mature, nimble, daredevil wolf has 44 ac (8 dex (3 base + 1 mature + 2 nimble + 2 specialize daredevil) and expert at nimble, master with daredevil) while a construct has 42 ac (6 dex (3 base + 1 at advanced, incredible, and paragon) and expert prof at incredible, master at paragon).
Damage is a little different, with that same wolf doing 3d8+8 at a +32, while the construct is doing 3d8+10 at a +30.
Of course those are just the flat stats, there's a lot of other factors to consider. Animal companions are easier to heal, have multiple animal options for movement types, support abilities, maneuvers, archetype feat support, more stat customization through specializations, and options to take specialized companion multiple times (increasing stat disparity even more). Constructs get their own forms of customization through breakthroughs, a huge list of immunities, offensive boost and overdrive, and a few other neat tools.
Another thing to keep in consideration is that for a lot of classes, an animal companion is a feat investment - for an inventor it is both a feat investment AND the core features of your class.