| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
So what classes do you wish got the unchained treatment in Pathfinder Unchained?
Keep in mind the book came out in 2015, so no classes that come out after this book like the Shifter. So basically core classes, ones from Advanced Class Guide, Advanced Players Guide, Ultimate Combat, and Ultimate Magic.
For me the Fighter, Ninja, Cleric, Samurai, Shaman, Sorcerer, and Swashbuckler though I would have been fine with unchained versions of all the core classes as well as the non-core ones I mentioned.
There are classes I find lacking but their needs are minor, not really worth a whole new class.
Brawler flurry is a mess, that really doesn’t even work without making guesses based on the core monk. It could really use the unchained monk version of flurry.
Fighter just needed the advanced weapon and armor training printed in a core book.
Swashbuckler should have had a good fort save.
Warpriest sacred weapon should have worked more like the arsenal chaplain.
Standard action summon monster should be limited to summoning only a single creature at a time.
Magus should start with medium armor so going dex based isn’t so tempting.
I've heard it opined that introducing the "Stamina and Combat Tricks" rules and then encouraging GM's to give Fighters free access to those feats was Paizo's version of an Unchained Fighter.
I guess in this way, GMs could give this Unchained perk to any melee class they felt was lacking.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Wizard… out of every class in the game wizard is the most feature starved… sure they may be the quintessential arcane spellcaster many consider to be “god tier”… but outside of theory crafting and high level play wizards are quite frankly hot garbage… if your game starts any lower than level 5, you are unlikey to survive to level 7 as a wizard… a wizard at level 1 is really no better than a level 1 commoner. And they really dont get any better at level 2. They should have given wizards a few universal class features that give them some viability in early game while enhancing serving to enhance their late game… for example, an ability that enhances the effects of their cantrips would have done wonders for wizards. Features that play on their familiar/bonded object and scroll use would have also been great additions… also… something akin to bardic knowledge, I mean seriously a class that is all about scholarly knowledge and studious study and yet, somehow the traveling minstrel knows more about every single subject than they do?
Witch… not quite as bad as wizard… hexes can help with their low level game… but they don't really ever improve… patrons dont grant any abilities, they have no class features beyond their hexes and familiar, and they have arguably the worst spell list in the game… to make matters worse their divine counter part the Shaman, has higher BAB, higher HP, more skill points, better saves, more class features, AND a better spell list… the arcane spellcaster tax is way too high, and Witch gets hit the hardest with it… They need some abilities granted by their patron, their familiar should also benefit from their choice of patron given how big of a liability a witches familiar is in actual play…
Sorcerer… just like witch and wizard, the simple fact that sorcerer is a 9th level arcane spellcaster has caused its class design to be short changed… bloodlines do give a nice array of features… but sorcerers could use with some more universal class abilities, and a few bloodlines are in desperate need of a rework… compared to the others though, Unchained Sorcerer would need the least amount of work…
Druid… unlike the others I’ve listed… I feel druid needs an unchained variant for much the same reason that Summoner got one… Druid has too much power core… some of its abilities need to be toned down a bit… others should be granted at different levels than they are now… and a few even should probably be removed… I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again… Druid is the single most overpowered class in the game. They can do it everything, and all of it they can do very well too… in some cases they actually fill roles and perform tasks better than classes that are designed for those roles and tasks.
Cleric… out of every divine spellcaster… clerics have it the worst… just like the 9th level arcane spellcasters, cleric has next to no class features… progression is dry, and you hardly gain any real power… sure you can say “their spells ate their class features” but at the end of the day, spell slots are more limited than X/day class features, and at early levels they feel helpless… Druid proves that a 9th level caster can have class features and can feel playable at level 1… now the other 9th level casters need this treatment.
Ranger, no doubt. Most of the core 9th level casters are bereft of class features except their spell list and can be pretty boring. But the Ranger is overshadowed by the Slayer and Hunter, to the point that when people ask about advice for a Ranger the common sentiment is "what about this other class instead?"
But the Ranger is overshadowed by the Slayer and Hunter, to the point that when people ask about advice for a Ranger the common sentiment is "what about this other class instead?"
My experience has been the reverse. Unless it's an explicitly urban campaign, I see way more rangers than slayers. And Hunters are so rare, I've never actually played with one.
The ranger's instant enemy spell is just way too good.
The arcanist is actually a good replacement for a wizard if you want class features. It does reduce their spell casting ability by delaying gaining their higher-level spells, but wizards are powerful enough that if you want to gain something you need to give something up. The need for CHA makes it harder to dump all other stats to pump up your spells. Overall, the class is actually fairly decent. The exploiter wizard is another alternative to give them more class features.
The arcanist is actually a good replacement for a wizard if you want class features. It does reduce their spell casting ability by delaying gaining their higher-level spells, but wizards are powerful enough that if you want to gain something you need to give something up. The need for CHA makes it harder to dump all other stats to pump up your spells. Overall, the class is actually fairly decent. The exploiter wizard is another alternative to give them more class features.
I strongly disagree… I will say that Arcanist is in a good spot, exploits at every other level and their hybrid casting make them very functional at early game and they feel like they are actually progressing all the time… wizard though… is horrible at low levels, CAN be a god at high levels IF YOU KNOW THE RIGHT SPELLS… which BTW, many of the god tier wizard spells often find themselves on ban lists… and even with them, your only really that powerful for one or two encounters per day… exploiter wizard may seem like a good choice to get class features on a wizard, but the every 4 levels pacing ensures that you never feel any improvements from them, and by the time you get your second one you may very well already be dead. The arcane spellcaster tax is overdone and downright excessive… I can get behind them being feature starved at later levels when their spellbook starts getting some of the most broken spells in the game, but at early levels when they can barely participate in combat encounters because they have only 1 or 2 spell slots… and their complete lack of versatility once they have prepared all their spell slots… theory crafted wizards are uber powerful, wizards in actual play are not.
In my experience Arcanist is in all ways but 1 a better wizard… the ONLY thing wizard has going for them over the Arcanist is Arcane Discoveries… Arcanist can get them as a wizard of half their level, which effectively prevents them from ever getting any of the useful ones. Some claim the delayed spellcasting to be a major downside, but in all honesty a 1 level delay is rarely ever noticeable…
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Chell Raighn what are you disagreeing with? You post is confusing in that you strongly disagree that an Arcanist makes a good wizard replacement, but state that the arcanist is better than a wizard in all but one way?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don’t think the wizard needs more class abilities. Its spells are already a pretty good class ability. The wizard has two complimentary issues. First, the wizard is a bit too weak at very low levels, basically 1-4. Second, many of the school powers are underwhelming and also scale badly. Seems like just buffing the school powers a bit, especially at level 1-4, is all that’s needed.
@Chell Raighn what are you disagreeing with? You post is confusing in that you strongly disagree that an Arcanist makes a good wizard replacement, but state that the arcanist is better than a wizard in all but one way?
I’m strongly disagreeing with your claim that wizard is fine as is. I agree that arcanist is better, and even actually well designed… wizard though is horribly designed.
Please read what I write before you disagree with me. Nowhere in my post did I state the wizard is fine as is. I did not express any opinion on regarding the design of the wizard at all. What I said was that a wizard is powerful enough that if you want to gain something you need to give up something. This was a follow up on my observation that the arcanist delays spell access. Giving the arcanist all the advantages of the wizard as well as those it already has would make the class too strong.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
The arcanist is actually a good replacement for a wizard if you want class features. It does reduce their spell casting ability by delaying gaining their higher-level spells, but wizards are powerful enough that if you want to gain something you need to give something up. The need for CHA makes it harder to dump all other stats to pump up your spells. Overall, the class is actually fairly decent. The exploiter wizard is another alternative to give them more class features.
I'm a big fan of the exploiter wizard.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
What I said was that a wizard is powerful enough that if you want to gain something you need to give up something.
I think the wizard really could use an early level buff. By level 5 it catches up and by level 7 it’s above par. But in those early levels, it really is too short on resources to be relevant. I wouldn’t go so far as saying it’s hard to survive these levels, but it’s not very exciting to let the group carry you. I’d probably take the damaging school powers and let their damage dice scale to a cap at level 5.
Also the universal school could use a small buff. Maybe an extra bonus spell like you get from having a bonded item.
Getting scribe scroll for free means the wizard can create scrolls for the out of combat spells and use his spell slots strictly for combat. A 1st level wizard with an 18 INT will be able to memorize 3 cantrips and 3 1st level spells (including their bonus spell from their school) but can also start with 4 spells on scrolls. If they take object for arcane bond that gives them 1 extra spell they can cast per day, and it can be any spell they have in their books. That means the 1st level wizard can cast an unlimited number of cantrip and 7 1st level spells. Even without using scrolls the 1st level wizard can cast 4 magic missiles. This is without factoring in their school power. If the wizard is an evoker, he will get the equivalent of 7 more magic missiles at 1st level. I think a 1st level character who can throw 11 magic missiles per day is not going to have trouble surviving.
Getting scribe scroll for free means the wizard can create scrolls for the out of combat spells and use his spell slots strictly for combat. A 1st level wizard with an 18 INT will be able to memorize 3 cantrips and 3 1st level spells (including their bonus spell from their school) but can also start with 4 spells on scrolls. If they take object for arcane bond that gives them 1 extra spell they can cast per day, and it can be any spell they have in their books. That means the 1st level wizard can cast an unlimited number of cantrip and 7 1st level spells. Even without using scrolls the 1st level wizard can cast 4 magic missiles. This is without factoring in their school power. If the wizard is an evoker, he will get the equivalent of 7 more magic missiles at 1st level. I think a 1st level character who can throw 11 magic missiles per day is not going to have trouble surviving.
Back in the 3.5 days I played an elf wizard with a longbow. It worked pretty well. One combat; only the paladin and my character were hitting anything, but we won anyway. A lot was good tactics. The paladin kept the ogre squeezed, while my character kept the goblins off his back. I won’t say good luck because the other players were not rolling well.
For the OP question. I don’t think any really. I like to see the power built into the class more, instead. For instance, giving the fighter a +3 BAB at 1st level. Free up some ability points for other things. I’d think people would get tired of playing a hulking brute with zero social graces after awhile.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Any class that doesn't let you make meaningful decisions or have impactful class features. So...
Bard: Just to make Masterpieces cooler and built into the class without having to sacrifice feats or spells.
Brawler: Needs talents/powers like a Rogue/Barbarian.
Cavalier: Throw out Orders, add in talents, make their horse better. Its the only pet class that doesn't have spell slots to keep their Pet up to snuff.
Fighter: Give them actual class features: feats don't count. Also talents.
Gunslinger: So like, Wizard Schools/Cleric Domains are kinda the least adaptable thing that I accept as something similar to a Talent. Deeds are somehow even worse than Domains or Schools because you always get the same deeds. Also, guns in Pathfinder in general are badly written and should be reworked.
Ninja: Should have been its own class, like Monk meets Rogue. Lots of fun you could do here.
Ranger: Favored Enemy/Favored Terrain is a holdover from 3.5 and is bad because its too narrow for most campaigns.
Rogue (Unchained): Honestly still needs full BAB progression and maybe something else cool, like Sneak Attack working on Vital Strike or something. No idea how this is still the only .75 BAB class without spell slots.
Samurai: Should be merged into the cavalier rework, there isn't as much potential here as there is for Ninja.
Shifter: Everything about this class is bad. It doesn't just need an unchained version it needs to be unmade and reborn as something entirely different.
Swashbuckler: Deeds again, they're bad. If you've played one swashbuckler you've played every swashbuckler.
Vigilante: Just make him full BAB you cowards (exception is for the archetypes that grant spellcasting, those should remain .75 BAB).
Since we got four Unchained classes from the original Unchained book, there is room here for at least 3 whole books of Unchained content! Or just one if you don't release additional rules (aside from an update on Firearms because the rules for them are terrible). Anyway, for all of these I suggest buffing the class or making the class smoother and easier to play like the Monk, Rogue, or Barbarian Unchained. None of the classes need the nerf-bat like Summoner Unchained.
Unchained mostly fixed two classes where a core mechanic was a bit tedious one that was too unpredictable and one that sucked. I'll try to stick to that.
Bard/Skald, may as well make their inspire always on, 2+charisma+2*level is more than enough combat rounds a day. I don't think I've ever run out of bard song before, and I've never decided not to use it. I think they deserve a mount companion as well, just for being such good guys, but probably not as a class update.
Magus: Rewrite spell combat and spell strike so that it doesn't reference other mechanics like two weapon fighting, spell casts, normal attacks, occupied hands, and so on.
Sorcerer: break up the bloodlines into abilities with different thematic flags on them. So "Draconic bloodline" would allow breath weapon, flight, claw, elemental, tags. It would kill the repetitive elemental bolt abilities, let people ignore the claw abilities, allow for more variety in the bloodlines, get rid of wild bloodlines, and crossblooded.
Wizard: Rewrite the old schools to be more in line with the elemental schools.
I'd give the non-int based full casters more skill points. Seriously, clerics get only 2+int per level! Who's boosting int on a cleric? Wis for spells and cha for channels are more important. You put it at 13 if you need Combat Expertise and then leave it. That's a measly 3 points a level. You need more than that. One of my warpriests (another non-int class that only gets 2 a level) is a crafter. She needs a point for Craft Weapons, a point for Craft Armor, a point for Craft Jewelry for magic rings, and a point for Spellcraft. That's 4 points right there, not even considering Perception, Knowledge Religion, and anything else you might need.
Give those poor casters more skill points.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like the idea that some classes are so focused on their non-skill skills that they don’t have time for regular skills. But if you want more skills, then maybe just use the unchained background skills rules.
The lack of skill diversification is a weird translation change from 3.5, where at level 1 you got 4 times the number of skills your class usually has and could have ranks up to 3+level. It’s why you get that +3 to a trained skill for class skills in pathfinder.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
I'd give the non-int based full casters more skill points. Seriously, clerics get only 2+int per level! Who's boosting int on a cleric? Wis for spells and cha for channels are more important. You put it at 13 if you need Combat Expertise and then leave it. That's a measly 3 points a level. You need more than that. One of my warpriests (another non-int class that only gets 2 a level) is a crafter. She needs a point for Craft Weapons, a point for Craft Armor, a point for Craft Jewelry for magic rings, and a point for Spellcraft. That's 4 points right there, not even considering Perception, Knowledge Religion, and anything else you might need.
Give those poor casters more skill points.
The secondary skills rules help with that
Even the int-based classes I homebrew up to 4+Int per level, and I give them 2 free skillpoints on top of that based on their backstory. Its a lot easier to get my players into the role part of the role playing when they feel they can do things in social situations and can spend points on the things they need for adventuring without feeling like they have to spend points on specific skills because of their backstory.
Even the int-based classes I homebrew up to 4+Int per level, and I give them 2 free skillpoints on top of that based on their backstory. Its a lot easier to get my players into the role part of the role playing when they feel they can do things in social situations and can spend points on the things they need for adventuring without feeling like they have to spend points on specific skills because of their backstory.
This. Yeah, the background skills help a lot. But sometimes you need just a few more.
I still think all martial classes should have 6+Int skill points. Non Int casters should get 4+Int skill points as well.
Cleric- more class features especially ones based on their choice of deity.
Fighter- love bonus feats but still should have had more/better class features.
Ninja- abilities based on their clan, so a shadow clan gives them shadow magic/powers, another one gives monk unarmed strike/AC(Cha), oni clan turns them into a oni, dragon clan grants draconic powers, another clan gives them sneak attack, etc.
Samurai- complete over haul with ki powers and maybe some law based powers similar to the Paladins holy powers.
Shaman- I just want a Cha based spontaneous Druid caster.
Sorcerer- Wish it got a choice of bloodline powers like the Oracle did. keep the 20th level bloodline power as is and give more bloodline powers.
Swashbuckler- should have gotten a good fort save, Dex to damage built in the class, and maybe a few other tweaks.
Wizard- I am just curious of what an unchained version would have been like.
Sorcerer -- not so much an Unchained version of the class itself, but a reworking of Bloodlines, starting with organization (and the current lack thereof), and proceeding to rebalance them. Some Bloodline Powers and some Bloodline Feats are just traps, and some are awesome, and they are definitely not evenly distributed between the Bloodlines; also some Bloodline Feats are impossible for a single-class Sorcerer to qualify for due to needing a high Base Attack Bonus or high Base Save Bonus on what would be a good Save for characters that would normally take these feats, but a bad Save for a Sorcerer. I would also like for Bloodlines, Domains, Arcane Schools, etc. to be more like mini-Mysteries, but that goes beyond the Sorcerer; but you have to start somewhere.
Bloodrager -- again this is more a fix to the Bloodlines than the class itself(*). Many Sorcerer Bloodlines (especially but not limited to Wildblooded) have no corresponding Bloodrager Bloodline, and in a few cases (Psychic comes to mind) what is a Bloodline in one is an archetype in the other. (Somebody must have been taking organizational lessons from the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide.) And then they need rebalancing as well, as for Sorcerer Bloodline Powers and Bloodline Feats.
(*)Admittedly, the Bloodrager class itself has one big annoyance: At 3rd level you get Blood Sanctuary, which usually isn't very useful (especially when you get it) and which delays the acquisition of Bloodline Feats all the way until 6th level. So replace Blood Sanctuary with a Bloodline Feat at 3rd level, and make Blood Sanctuary a Bloodline Feat that is universal to all Bloodrager Bloodlines, in case anybody really wants it. Any archetype that replaces Bloodline Sanctuary instead replaces the Bloodline Feat at 3rd level.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Shaman really is a mess. It has many options that are so lackluster, but then has specific options that are probably overpowered. It feels like the whole thing could be redesigned from the ground up. How often do you see a shaman who isn't using life or lore spirits? All those other options and they are largely wasted space.
And the human favored class bonus is so good, I wonder if it was originally just a typo.
Bloodrager -- again this is more a fix to the Bloodlines than the class itself(*). Many Sorcerer Bloodlines (especially but not limited to Wildblooded) have no corresponding Bloodrager Bloodline, and in a few cases (Psychic comes to mind) what is a Bloodline in one is an archetype in the other. (Somebody must have been taking organizational lessons from the 1st Edition AD&D Dungeon Master's Guide.) And then they need rebalancing as well, as for Sorcerer Bloodline Powers and Bloodline Feats.
(*)Admittedly, the Bloodrager class itself has one big annoyance: At 3rd level you get Blood Sanctuary, which usually isn't very useful (especially when you get it) and which delays the acquisition of Bloodline Feats all the way until 6th level. So replace Blood Sanctuary with a Bloodline Feat at 3rd level, and make Blood Sanctuary a Bloodline Feat that is universal to all Bloodrager Bloodlines, in case anybody really wants it. Any archetype that replaces Bloodline Sanctuary instead replaces the Bloodline Feat at 3rd level.
Unchained Bloodrager would also get the unchained barbarian’s rage rework applied to bloodrage no doubt.
^That's a reasonable addition as well (to avoid Sudden Barbarian Death Syndrome).
^That's a reasonable addition as well (to avoid Sudden Barbarian Death Syndrome).
SBDS nearly claimed my last Bloodrager’s life in her very first combat not even 5 minutes after she was introduced to the party… luckily she had just enough HP when bloodrage ended that she survived with 3 negative HP remaining and stabilized…
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if it's just me, but my experience with the Bloodrager was that at low levels I was a strangely fragile PC. I effectively had light armour on a non-DEX character, but didn't have enough HP to survive the hits - especially on the front-pine. So despite being a big tough Barbarian-type I actually went down more than anyone else in the party. I ended up picking up a shield and just not using Rage much untol level 6 or so.
Then fairly quickly around level 6-7 I went from being super fragile to being super tough. By level 10 or so I was basically unkillable. It was probably partly my build , but I don't really remember much middle-ground. First I was super fragile and basically couldn't use my Rage, then at some point someone flicked a switch and my rage was always-on because I was invincible.
I assume Barbarians have the same problem.
I don't know if it would be too complicated or something, but maybe an unchained Barbarian/Bloodrager would have a lower AC penalty at low levels, and it could increase as you level? That penalty is meaningless at later levels but it's game-changingly bad at low levels. It just seems like you're encouraged not to use your class features until you've leveled up enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Bring back specialty priests! I know Domains were supposed to handle that but I do miss SPs.
Cleric- more class features especially ones based on their choice of deity.
If I was unchaining clerics I would give them more skill points, deity/alignment specific abilities, things that made having charisma as your second stat worthwhile, BUT then restrict the spells they can memorise to specific spheres. Make it so the priest of Desna and the priest of Asmodeus have different lists to choose from and picking your god has some meaning.
I’d also brring in anathemas, which was one of the few PF2 rules I thought was an improvement .
^I'll just note that while 2nd Edition made attack Cantrips worthwhile, they reduced the number of spells of each level. (Also made the number of spells you get of each level even more angular -- usually 1 when you first get access to it and then 3 at the next level.) This is most definitely not my preference, but it seems to be the way things are headed at least for the foreseeable future.
I hate 2nd especially for reducing the number of spells each level especially early level spells. If anything I think we should have more 1st level spell slots to start with, maybe +3. Now as for cantrips I would be fine if they just increased the dice damage by two steps and let you add your casting stat mod to damage.
I hate 2nd especially for reducing the number of spells each level especially early level spells. If anything I think we should have more 1st level spell slots to start with, maybe +3. Now as for cantrips I would be fine if they just increased the dice damage by two steps and let you add your casting stat mod to damage.
I'm not an expert on 2nd, but I think that was supposed to be addressed with scaling cantrips and focus spells.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I hate 2nd especially for reducing the number of spells each level especially early level spells. If anything I think we should have more 1st level spell slots to start with, maybe +3. Now as for cantrips I would be fine if they just increased the dice damage by two steps and let you add your casting stat mod to damage.
Cantrips in PF2 scale automatically with your level, so your Ray of Frost or Telekinetic Projectile remains a relevant spell for all 20 levels of your career. Next time try to get yourself familiar with the stuff you're "hating", because I've lost the count of times when your desires for fixes to PF1 are things that are actually addressed in PF2.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our DM doesn't really use homebrew, for the most part by the rules and only uses an optional rule if it is "official". It took a lot of convincing to use one non-official optional rule to get rid of stat boosting items and give everyone an ability point every level after 1st, the drawback is 25% less treasure.
Yeah, there is scaling cantrips in 2e but spells no longer scale by caster level wich is really lame.
{. . .} Next time try to get yourself familiar with the stuff you're "hating", because I've lost the count of times when your desires for fixes to PF1 are things that are actually addressed in PF2.
I know this wasn't (at least mostly) for me, but I wouldn't mind backporting little bits and pieces of stuff from 2nd Edition to 1st Edition, although not necessarily keeping them the same in so doing. Like for instance, I think scaling Cantrips are not a bad idea, but I think 2nd Edition was too generous with them -- instead of just auto-scaling, have them scale with spell slot level (likely with some limited auto-scaling with caster level stacked on the way 1st Edition does for a lot of non-cantrip spells) -- in other words, you have to invest more in them to make them more powerful (at least after a certain point).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
While there are classes I'd like to have seen get Unchained (clerics come to mind, maybe wizards, fighters; bards for fun), I think some love could also have gone to early archetypes too. Some of them getting modified to work more like later classes and archetypes might've been interesting to see.
Fighter... ugh...
Replace Weapon Training and Armor Training with whatever abilities archetypes and Advanced options offer...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But the Ranger is overshadowed by the Slayer and Hunter, to the point that when people ask about advice for a Ranger the common sentiment is "what about this other class instead?"My experience has been the reverse. Unless it's an explicitly urban campaign, I see way more rangers than slayers. And Hunters are so rare, I've never actually played with one.
The ranger's instant enemy spell is just way too good.
Super late with my response but I'll elaborate.
The ranger is suffering from splitting up its Favored Enemy/Terrain into separate incremental bonuses of different size which just leads to extra bookkeeping for both you and the GM. And the existence of options made to cheat the inherent specificity of them (Ilsurian Archer, Terrain Bond, Instant Enemy, etc) just incentives people to stack all their bonuses on one option instead of the equal spread, which devalues the concept of having multiple bonuses in the first place.
The most recommended options for Ranger are actually just ways to not engage with the class gimmick.
Then we take a look at the Combat Styles. With some exceptions, like Mounted and Archery, these are usually just straight up worse than getting bonus combat feats. Improved Precise Shot five entire levels before it's available to other classes is great. But! Other Combat Styles aren't so lucky. Not only were some styles made when the feat list was one percent of what it is now, they neither provide you with the ability to meaningfully cheat level or feat requirements.
Additionally, the ranger gets a companion which includes the feat tax of Boon Companion, but not a way to actually focus on their companion if they so wish. If they try to do so they're cutting straight into their own competence by spending feats and gold.
And the 4th level prepared casters haven't really been given a fair shot at it, but the ranger is especially bad. Unlike a paladin they don't have a reason to invest excessively in their casting attribute so they always have very few spell slots. The -3 CL isn't doing you any favors either. As is every 3rd level spell slot being prepared as Instant Enemy, and 4th level spell slot Terrain Bond.
===
The Ranger could use a lot of polishing. A complete overhaul of the Combat Styles at the very least. And I think you'd see more hunters if Sacred Huntsmaster was banned.
I have a fighter rework nearly done and ready for testing. The chassis is complete, but I need to find the time or energy to come up with 30 odd deeds/powers/talents for them to get every few levels. This is always the hard part of writing up new classes. Especially when Fighter is just so...generic. It took a lot of time to make them feel in any way shape or form unique, and I'm not sure how to give them talents without carving into other classes identities. At the same time, the fighter needs a series of talents because only have access to feats is a terrible way of creating an identity and requires an entire additional level of system mastery to properly enjoy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Instant Enemy does not come online until 10th level. A lot of games don’t get too much higher of a level, so focusing on a single enemy is rarely going to be that good of an idea. So, unless the game is focused on a specific type of enemy a ranger would be better off spreading his bonus. I think outside of a focused campaign, or a theory crafted build, most rangers do spread out their bonuses. The most common I have seen are usually evil outsider, undead and human. Since a ranger cannot be tracked while traveling through a favored terrain (unless they want to be) having multiple favored terrains is actually highly advantages. At 12th level they can also use stealth in a favored terrain even without cover of concealment. There is a lot of overlap on the skills for favored enemy and favored terrain. Have a lot of medium bonuses instead of a two maxed out will usually give better results.
I wrote up a NPC sheriff as a ranger with favored enemy human and favored terrain urban that was incredibly effective at his job. The favored enemy was not hatred, but rather he was a kind of a student of humanity. A human trying to hide from him in a city was incredibly difficult.
There are several combat styles that are actually fairly decent. A ranger is one of the few characters that can make a decent STR based two weapon fighting build. Some of the faith-based styles are actually fairly good. A follower of Cayden Caliean can get improved disarm, and disarming strike without needing combat expertise or a 13 INT. If a ranger who takes the underhanded style choses combat expertise he counts as having a 13 INT for choosing other feats that have combat expertise as a prerequisite. Being able to ignore the INT prerequisite for your normal feats is nothing to sneeze at.
@Wonderstell I think you are underestimating the ranger. The extra material from all the supplements has actually made the class a lot stronger than it seems.