[PF] are any of the new pathfinder base classes even worth playing?

[jhardin87]

My gm has recently switched over to using straight pathfinder since we are using an online system for gaming and its much easier for her to keep everything organized. Initially i was excited about trying out some of the new base classes but after being thouroughly unimpressed by the gunslinger I'm starting to wonder if any of them are even worth it. I'll admit the magus and inquisitor look kinda interesting but the others are all either just kinda meh or so complicated like the alchemist as to be a little daunting. Is it just me or should i just stick with the core classes?

[joca4christ]

I feel like a broken record (because I usually mention this class when PF stuff comes up) but I really like the concept of the oracle. I mean, if you are into spontaneous divine casting...

Now, to be fair, I say this based upon roleplaying implications, but not necessarily mechanics. So there's that...

[Psyren]

Alchemist, Magus and Summoner can be fairly daunting and may take a couple of rereads. Oracle, Ninja and Witch are very easy to pick up and play though. Gunslingers aren't hard but you'll have to brush up on the firearm rules, and Cavaliers are easy.

To answer your question - yes, it's worth it to learn all of them. Gunslinger and Cavalier are a bit weak though.

[subject42]

The witch is also an excellent class. Having at-will abilities along with your spells makes it easier to avoid the 10 minute adventuring day.

[Starbuck_II]

Summoner is awesome if you archetype to Master Summoner I think. Better summons.
They get reduced sapell level effect 3rd level Stoneskin, 2nd level haste, etc

So when their spells are class level appropriate (by caster 7, they have stoneskin as a 3rd level spell just like Wizards get 4th level then).

[Blisstake]

Well here are my thoughts on all of them:

Alchemist: Really fun to play, but lacking in description regarding their class abilities. Doesn't really have any good archetypes for replacing the mutagen (and no, cognatogen doesn't count)

Cavalier: They're decent. There are some good orders out there, and they can bring the pain with their challenge, but overall some of their abilities just seem all over the place.

Gunslinger: Haven't really played around with them much. Some of the grit abilities are interesting, but from what I've heard, they can end up either extremely weak, or extremely powerful (in terms of damage output, that is). Flavor-wise the class feels way to specific to be a base class.

Inquisitor: They're versatile, and have some cool abilities, but they're scaling just seems off to me. At higher levels, they can be absolute monsters with triple judgment and greater bane.

Magus: Really well thought out class. Brilliantly combines melee and magic without either side feeling lacking. I have a few nitpicks, but overall I love this class.

Oracle: Fairly awesome spontaneous divine caster. Can pick from a variety of curses and mysteries for flavor.

Summoner: Blarg. They just have way too much going for them in my opinion.

Witch: An interesting alternative to the wizard. They've got some interesting hexes, and nothing stands out as too ridiculous. That being said, nothing really pops out about them either.

[warmachine]

I've used an Alchemist (Advanced Players Guide) as a cohort from 10th-14th level for my PC. Even though it's 2 levels behind the PCs, it still contributes in many ways. An INT based class means lots of skills; bombs target touch AC and thus frequently damage high AC and SR creatures; discoveries allow bombs to change energy type and have bonus effects on the fly; formulae lag behind full spell casters but are still useful, especially if combined with the Infusion discovery. I've never tried mutagens but I suspect that rounds out the class as a fifth wheel/supporting role.

[Psyren]

Alchemist: Really fun to play, but lacking in description regarding their class abilities. Doesn't really have any good archetypes for replacing the mutagen (and no, cognatogen doesn't count)

Why do you want to replace it though? It's an alchemical bonus, so it'll stack with almost every other buff/item you've got on. And for a ranged alchemist, the two versions you will likely want (Dex for mutagen, Int for cognatogen) both have penalties to stats you don't care about.


I've used an Alchemist (Advanced Players Guide) as a cohort from 10th-14th level for my PC. Even though it's 2 levels behind the PCs, it still contributes in many ways. An INT based class means lots of skills; bombs target touch AC and thus frequently damage high AC and SR creatures; discoveries allow bombs to change energy type and have bonus effects on the fly; formulae lag behind full spell casters but are still useful, especially if combined with the Infusion discovery. I've never tried mutagens but I suspect that rounds out the class as a fifth wheel/supporting role.

Archetypes can help with the lag effect. For instance, Preservationist alchemists can get both summon monster and summon nature's ally up to 9th level, and furthermore summon everything as a standard action.

[Eldonauran]

Having recently played my first Magus, I would highly recommend one. Made it to level 5 in my first adventure. I was using the Staff Magus and Hex Magus archetypes. I had a blast and although my AC was 17 since I started play, once I hit level 4 and got access to mirror image, I was a melee monster.

Wand of Shocking Grasp (crafted by your's truly) + spell combat (via wand weilder) = 5d6 + 1d6 + 3 (+3 more from power attack, if I had hexed them with evil eye previously). Add another +1d6 fire/elec damage from imbuing the weapon with my arcane spell pool.

I don't know much about the Gunslinger, as I am not much a fan of the Grit mechanics, but that may change once I get the motivation to actually try one in play.

[MukkTB]

#1 The Oracle
Its a divine version of the Sorcerer. If you ever wanted that cool. If not then ok. What I mean is that its not a direct improvement on the cleric in any way, but you may want to use it for the same reason some people play Sorcerers.

#2 The Inquisitor
The Inquisitor is a really solid Tier 3 character. Its decent in combat. Its got good skills and abilities, and it has an interesting flavor. I like to take advantage of the fact that divine casters aren't strictly required to worship a god and just use it as a monster hunting skill monkey.

#3 The Magus
I haven't tried the Magus yet. Its a gish in a can like the Duskblade. I can't tell you if its better than a Duskblade. Obviously it doesn't reach level 9 spells like you could with the right multiclassing of Wizard/Fighter/prestige class. On the plus side it has an excellent set of abilities that help meld the two styles together.

#4 The Summoner
Its what the Dread Necromancer is to the wizard. Its got flavorful abilities. Some day I'm going to pretend to be a pokemon master, and when I do, this is the class for me.

#5 The Alchemist
Its unique but a little odd. When you think alchemist you think some caster whos really good at the craft alchemy stick. Instead you get Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. It takes an optional feature to get good at making potions because they only work on you without that feature.

#6 The Witch
Its a caster reflavored as a classic witch. IF you want to be Sabrina then here you go.

#7 The Cavalier
Its not an impressive class. However its way better than the fighter at mounted combat. Why? It gets to treat its mount like a Druid's animal companion. This means a pesky fireball that you shrug off won't roast your mount. Tally ho.

#8 The Gunslinger
In and of itself this isn't a very good class. By that I mean it clocks in somewhere around mid tier 4. I'm running a ranged Warblade in a 3.P game with some pistols, and I have no regrets I didn't choose the PF gunslinger. I do wish I'd taken Deadly Aim a bit sooner. The most interesting thing about the gunslinger is that it introduces firearms into the campaign. That can be quite fun. It just depends on the kind of setting you want.

In conclusion. My favorite is the Inquisitor, but I don't think you have a great need to play any of them. If one tickles your fancy, great. If one allows you to do something you wanted to try, great. If nothing appeals I suggest this: Pick your favorite base class. Go over all the alternate class features. Some of them can make the class play quite differently than the basic chassis and this will let you try some of the new PF content.

[subject42]

#6 The Witch
Its a caster reflavored as a classic witch. IF you want to be Sabrina then here you go.

There's a bit more to it than that, if you look at the racial archetypes. The scarred witch doctor is a constitution based full arcane caster. That's pretty spectacular.

[mcv]

From the Paizo board I get the impression that Summoner is the most overpowered class in Pathfinder, and the Alchemist is one of several classes responsible for making the Rogue completely obsolete.

But that's the impression I got from other people's opinion. I don't know these classes well enough.

[Blisstake]

Why do you want to replace it though?

Flavor reasons. Out of the many alchemist archetypes out there, it would be nice if at least one specialized in bombs at the expense of mutagens/infusions. It's also just not something I think of when someone says "alchemist." Seems weird that every single one would make concoctions that boost your physical abilities in exchange for your mental ones.

[navar100]

Oracle - Finally a divine spontaneous spellcasting class done right. Think of oracles as specialized clerics. Spells known can still offer some variety, but your Mystery Revelations guide what you do. You also get to do what clerics always wanted to but couldn't - spam buff spells. As a cleric, you're most likely only preparing Bull's Strength once. As an Oracle, just knowing it allows you to cast it on everyone in the party who could benefit before the BBEG fight.

Inquisitor - For those players who want a divine gish from level 1. For those players who want to be a divine warrior holy avenger but not have the "baggage" of being a paladin.

Witch - You're a wizard with a different set of class abilities than normal.

Summoner - Playing Pokemon.

Samurai - Niche, but not due to the Orient. It's a niche for those wanting to be a warrior, no magic, but still have that mystic feel. For the fun of playing a non=magic class with interesting stuff to do other than raging and feats you've done over and over.

Alchemist - Mad Bomber, Dr. Jeckyll and Mr. Hyde, Mad Scientist, "Potions" Master - you use extracts, not potions, but the feel of play is like using potions which can be fun for some people.

Ninja - You're a rogue with a different set of class abilities than normal, and you get to say "I'm a ninja!".

Not good classes:

Cavalier - Relies on having a Mount too much. When you can't take your Mount with you, you lose a lot of your class abilities. Samurai can choose among Cavalier Orders for abilities which are nice and not needing a Mount.

Gunslinger - As the levels progress, the damage you do is not commensurate with the level of play.

[Da'Shain]

Inquisitor is a blast to play, I can say from experience. It feels kinda like a Paladin that's less tanky but has more options.

Summoner I'm enjoying so far (playing a Master Summoner), but I'm not playing it to its full abilities because I feel like it would break the game (at level 5).

I'll be playing a Ninja soon, and to be honest it seems a bit underwhelming, but in the same way as any martial class when you come from a magic user. Personally I think talents and ki powers need to be more powerful or each one needs to add several options as opposed to just one. But that's just me.

I haven't played the others, but I've seen most of them played.

The Witch I saw was basically just a Wizard with a couple of different tricks, so it didn't seem too exotic.

The Magus was quite powerful and seemed to have a high optimization floor (similar to what people say about ToB classes), because the guy who played it is historically not very good at character creation but had a whole lot of options and was a melee powerhouse.

The Oracle, on the other hand, was made by a char-op master and it showed, but had one really annoying quirk: she couldn't communicate in combat. So roleplaying wise it screwed up a lot of plans. I understand that's only one choice out of their possible mysteries, though, so I'm sure others are less annoying.

I have yet to see the Gunslinger played. I wanted to play one but the DM did not want guns in his campaign world. It looks like it'd be fun to play for a while, but needs some cheese to actually do significant damage. That's just my impression from looking, though.

Alchemist is the one I haven't seen nor tried to build yet. But it seems interesting.

Cavalier is all about Mounted Combat, which means I haven't really seen one because the group I'm in currently pretty much never bothers with it. I was considering making a goblin one of them recently, but ended up going with Ninja. Still, it seems like the non-Paladin Knight I've always wanted, so I'd say it works pretty well.


Basically what I'm saying is, yes, they are all worth a look and have some interesting mechanics that do add to the game. From the options available, the Witch seems the most boring to me, but that's probably only because of this one character I've seen.

[Ravens_cry]

As someone who played a Ninja to 20, with the right Tricks, they are awesome fun.
You absolutely definitely, absurdly, undoubtedly, want the Invisible Blade trick. In fact, it should be the first Advanced Trick you take. Ghost Step is also very, very useful. Combine them to scout out places for your part with near-impunity.
We had a paladin who liked to Aura of Justice. Things tended to die if I could get that combo off. The capstone is also so beautiful that if you can get it, you never, ever want to go a level anywhere but Ninja once you start Ninja.
Gunslinger is a dipper. Mysterious Stranger 1/Paladin X would be pretty sweet. Maybe 1 or 2 levels of Fighter for the feats, but that's it. Things will die!

[Person_Man]

My 2 cp:

Alchemist: Tier 3 cannon, with some interesting buffs and debuffs.

Cavalier: Tier 4 mounted charger. Full BAB and a Druid Animal Companion mount (which is a bit weaker then a 3.5 Animal Companion), but not much else.

Gunslinger: Tier 4 ranged attacker. Falls into the same basic trap as 3.5 bow builds, in that you basically have to invest all of your resources to get things to work properly with guns, and you don't get much back in return.

Inquisitor: Tier 3 utility and buffs. 3/4 divine casting, Skills, and some (poorly scaled) bardish abilities. I'm not a fan.

Magus: Tier 3 melee. Basically a tweaked Duskblade.

Ninja: Tier 4 skill monkey. Basically a Monk/Rogue.

Oracle: Tier 2 caster. A fixed Favored Soul.

Summoner: Tier 2 caster. At first glance you only get 3/4 spells, but your spell list is very potent, you have access to very potent Summons, and your eidolon is more powerful then most Fighters.

Witch: Tier 1 caster, though if your DM is very fond things immune to mind affecting effects, you might have a tougher time.

[Psyren]

Flavor reasons. Out of the many alchemist archetypes out there, it would be nice if at least one specialized in bombs at the expense of mutagens/infusions. It's also just not something I think of when someone says "alchemist." Seems weird that every single one would make concoctions that boost your physical abilities in exchange for your mental ones.

Note that the standard mutagen doesn't make you dumber (less Int) unless you want it to. The one most alchemists will use - Dex - does not impair your intelligence at all. the Str one will, but this is the common fantasy archetype of sacrificing brains for sheer brawn.

Anyway, you're mistaken about all archetypes having the mutagen - Mindchemist replaces the standard one for a Cognatogen right off the bat, and any other alchemist can simply use the Cognatogen instead. (They don't stack, so you're going to be one or the other anyway, and the Cognatogen is much more useful at high levels when your BAB allows you to hit touch AC reliably without the Dex boost.)


From the Paizo board I get the impression that Summoner is the most overpowered class in Pathfinder, and the Alchemist is one of several classes responsible for making the Rogue completely obsolete.

But that's the impression I got from other people's opinion. I don't know these classes well enough.

I'd say Bard made the Rogue obsolete before the Alchemist came along, and subsequent splats only made things worse.

Summoner is extremely powerful but I honestly give Witch the edge.

[the clumsy bard]

I will chime in about the gunslinger.

I am currently DMing a group with 2 gunslingers.

1 goblin musket master (gunslinger archetype)
1 half orc pistolero (another archetype)

The thing we have noticed as a group is that it is fairly powerful at early levels Touch ac on things from a distance is no joke, but until they get level 5, which they are 1 level shy from they both want to take levels in something else as level 5 gives them dex to damage and that seems to be the capstone ability for the class. Everything else after is more flavor then overall useful.

I've noticed in another game I am running that the synthesist summoner seems a little too powerful. It soaks up damage as a meat shield way too well and gets a lot of attacks early on (natural attacks and all).

The witch... as mentioned some of their hexes and by some I mean the slumber or hex one is almost broken. I have a tiefling witch who spends her turns spamming it on most enemies. I mean she ended one our more recent boss fights rather anti climatically with it.

[Baroncognito]

Flavor reasons. Out of the many alchemist archetypes out there, it would be nice if at least one specialized in bombs at the expense of mutagens/infusions. It's also just not something I think of when someone says "alchemist." Seems weird that every single one would make concoctions that boost your physical abilities in exchange for your mental ones.

Gnome Saboteur. They get Chameleon Mutagen, in exchange for -2 str it provides stealth and climb bonuses. And the archetype gets access to two bomb discoveries.

[kestrel404]

It's unfortunate that the first thing you looked at was the Gunslinger. It was an awesome class idea that was poorly implemented. They get good stuff for about 2 levels, a 'capstone' power at level 5 which you really want, and then you want to get out of the class - it's kind of like Monk, you want the early stuff but it's not a class you stay in.

My personal favorite is Summoner. The stuff you can do with them is great. But you need to have a real head for game mechanics and combos to really make use out of them. If you're not interested in having control over 2 or more 'characters' at the same time (I've got a build that uses a Summoner, Eidolon, Animal Companion, Familiar and summoned critter all at the same time to truly spectacular results), then this isn't the class for you.

I've also enjoyed building Alchemists and Ninja. I'm sure that several of the other new base classes are fun as well, but I haven't dug deeply into them yet.

So yes, several of the PF base classes are worth it. Some aren't so much. But I've seen builds involving all of them do well, so it's just a matter of trying something new, really.

Hope that helps.

[Blisstake]

Note that the standard mutagen doesn't make you dumber (less Int) unless you want it to. The one most alchemists will use - Dex - does not impair your intelligence at all. the Str one will, but this is the common fantasy archetype of sacrificing brains for sheer brawn.

I didn't say it has to make you dumber. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are all mental stats. You have to take a penalty to one of them. Ergo, using a mutagen gives you physical prowess in exchange for mental capabilities.


Anyway, you're mistaken about all archetypes having the mutagen - Mindchemist replaces the standard one for a Cognatogen right off the bat, and any other alchemist can simply use the Cognatogen instead. (They don't stack, so you're going to be one or the other anyway, and the Cognatogen is much more useful at high levels when your BAB allows you to hit touch AC reliably without the Dex boost.)

I did specifically mention that I don't count the Cognatogen as a good alternative. It just seems kinda... lazy. Let's just swap the mental and physical stats. Anyway, that's all down to opinion... I just don't alchemists flavor-wise very much.

[Psyren]

Witch: Tier 1 caster, though if your DM is very fond things immune to mind affecting effects, you might have a tougher time.

Indeed, though there are some archetypes to help (e.g. Gravewalker to deal with undead) and if all else fails you can hang back and summon. (Fortune/Ward + Cackle go well with summons.)


I didn't say it has to make you dumber. Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma are all mental stats. You have to take a penalty to one of them. Ergo, using a mutagen gives you physical prowess in exchange for mental capabilities.

Yeah, but low Wis is a hallmark of the mad scientist archetype. Very intelligent, but little common sense or forethought - doing things because they can and not considering long-term repercussions as much.



I did specifically mention that I don't count the Cognatogen as a good alternative. It just seems kinda... lazy. Let's just swap the mental and physical stats. Anyway, that's all down to opinion... I just don't alchemists flavor-wise very much.

Well, I prefer "elegant" but that's just me.

[Chained Birds]

Flavor reasons. Out of the many alchemist archetypes out there, it would be nice if at least one specialized in bombs at the expense of mutagens/infusions. It's also just not something I think of when someone says "alchemist." Seems weird that every single one would make concoctions that boost your physical abilities in exchange for your mental ones.

The Half-Elf Racial Archetype Bramble Brewer gives you a more defensive version of a mutagen with +4 Nat Armor but only a +2 bonus on a physical ability. What makes it pretty interesting is that you gain Fast Heal 1 (Whilst in Bright Light) which amounts to 100HP (10minute of Fast Heal 1) of recovery per Alchemist Level. And when the Mutagen wears off, just spend an Hour to make a new one.
I would love to see a Vitalist and Alchemist combo going around healing the world for free.

[DonDuckie]

I love the witch. Especially the Hex class feature choices.

Water lung: breath and sleep under water
Prehensile hair: pick up stuff with you eyebrows
Child scent: I mean - how creepy is that?
Disguise...
Nails...
Cackle...
Cauldron: feat + skill bonus, possibly at 1st level

it's awesome. You can make some really cool classic folklore witches with this class.

also:
Alchemist, gunslinger, oracle, inquisitor, summoner(really cool) are all really cool classes, that fill out some fantasy archetypes that don't overlap too much with the core classes.

[Blisstake]

Well, I prefer "elegant" but that's just me.

Well I certainly can't dispute your opinion. If you enjoy alchemists then all the power to you; I don't want to take that away or anything :smallsmile:

[AttilaTheGeek]

The magus, paizo's gish in a can, is a melee powerhouse, capable of dealing out lots and lots of damage. It's also really fun to play.

The summoner is arguably the single most powerful base class, because it can do so many things in each round. The Synthesist archetype, as others have mentioned, is powerful- so much so that I'd consider banning it. And I don't usually ban things, ever. The summoner is also difficult for new players because there are so many class features, so be careful with recommending it.

Outside of a mount, the Cavalier has a very teamwork-y thing going for it. Like a bard, but in melee.

Oracle is great. Personally, I think of the Oracle like a Cleric, but not Tier 1 and more fun. (Yes, both of those are good things).

Gunslinger's really fun to play, but rather underwhelming in combat past level 5-6 or so.

Inquisitor is like a Paladin, but more gish-y and focused on single target damage. Never played one, but I've heard they're fun.

[Hiro Protagonest]

People overstate the Summoner's power, particularly the Synthesist Summoner, and particularly on the Paizo boards (the ones where charop of any kind is shunned). Sure, it's really strong. But banning Synthesist Symmoner (not even regular, just Synthesist) and nothing else shows you haven't done your research. Summoner is tier 2. Synthesist is a tier 2 character that fills the same role as fighter, therefore, people compare it to fighter and barbarian. In which case it becomes really overpowered, just in sheer numbers. But it's not comparable to those. It's comparable to sorcerer, wizard, and witch. Powerful caster classes.

Magus is tier 3, witch is tier 1, Gunslinger is tier 4-5, Cavalier is probably 5, Alchie and Inquisitor are 3.

[navar100]

Forgot about the Magus. It's a good one. Trouble is you need to make concentration checks a lot to cast defensively, and Pathfinder made that harder to do. Combat Casting is a feat tax for you. At mid levels it becomes a little easier to make those checks and gets better until at 20th level you need not make a check at all, but until then it can become frustrating failing to make the check enough times you dread having to make the roll at all.

[Squirrel_Dude]

My gm has recently switched over to using straight pathfinder since we are using an online system for gaming and its much easier for her to keep everything organized. Initially i was excited about trying out some of the new base classes but after being thouroughly unimpressed by the gunslinger I'm starting to wonder if any of them are even worth it. I'll admit the magus and inquisitor look kinda interesting but the others are all either just kinda meh or so complicated like the alchemist as to be a little daunting. Is it just me or should i just stick with the core classes?

I love the gunslinger for how it's a striker class that is very heavy on risk-reward. To get the maximum amount from their weapon, they have to get within movement distance of just about any creature, putting yourself at your most vulnerable.

I'm also a fan of the Inquisitor and Anti Paladin. The inquisitor is a nice divine The Anti Paladin is great because it can actually scare a Paladin, and I'm pretty sure that makes it one of a kind.

I'm not a huge fan of the alchemist, I just don't find it particularly interesting, but I've seen one that's pretty cool.

My complaints with the Ninja are minor. The Ninja overshadows the rogue and has some poor wording with its capstone ability.

[Squirrel_Dude]

My gm has recently switched over to using straight pathfinder since we are using an online system for gaming and its much easier for her to keep everything organized. Initially i was excited about trying out some of the new base classes but after being thouroughly unimpressed by the gunslinger I'm starting to wonder if any of them are even worth it. I'll admit the magus and inquisitor look kinda interesting but the others are all either just kinda meh or so complicated like the alchemist as to be a little daunting. Is it just me or should i just stick with the core classes?

I love the gunslinger for how it's a striker class that is very heavy on risk-reward. To get the maximum amount from their weapon, they have to get within movement distance of just about any creature, putting yourself at your most vulnerable.

I'm also a fan of the Inquisitor and Anti Paladin. The inquisitor is a nice divine The Anti Paladin is great because it can actually scare a Paladin, and I'm pretty sure that makes it one of a kind.

I'm not a huge fan of the alchemist, I just don't find it particularly interesting, but I've seen one that's pretty cool.

My complaints with the Ninja are minor. The Ninja overshadows the rogue and has some poor wording with its capstone ability.

[Psyren]

People overstate the Summoner's power, particularly the Synthesist Summoner, and particularly on the Paizo boards (the ones where charop of any kind is shunned). Sure, it's really strong. But banning Synthesist Symmoner (not even regular, just Synthesist) and nothing else shows you haven't done your research. Summoner is tier 2. Synthesist is a tier 2 character that fills the same role as fighter, therefore, people compare it to fighter and barbarian. In which case it becomes really overpowered, just in sheer numbers. But it's not comparable to those. It's comparable to sorcerer, wizard, and witch. Powerful caster classes.

The problem is that the Synthesist is the new druid - capable of easily doing its job while simultaneously doing yours too. Although casters are more powerful than mundanes (and should be), there should be a more significant tradeoff for them if they decide to do the melee's job - enough of one to make them not want to. But Summoners in general and Synthesists in particular lose very little by casting and meleeing.

Compare a Synthesist to, say, a White-Haired Witch - they can both melee but the Witch is much worse at it. The Witch CAN do it but it's more a side-job or last resort. She isn't likely to be taking over anyone's job.

[navar100]

The problem is that the Synthesist is the new druid - capable of easily doing its job while simultaneously doing yours too. Although casters are more powerful than mundanes (and should be), there should be a more significant tradeoff for them if they decide to do the melee's job - enough of one to make them not want to. But Summoners in general and Synthesists in particular lose very little by casting and meleeing.

Compare a Synthesist to, say, a White-Haired Witch - they can both melee but the Witch is much worse at it. The Witch CAN do it but it's more a side-job or last resort. She isn't likely to be taking over anyone's job.

Why? :smalleek:

[Squirrel_Dude]

Why? :smalleek:
The general thought is that because wizards and casters are supposed to be weaker at the early levels, and more vulnerable to physical damage, they should be more powerful than a mundane character. More powerful meaning more easily able to manipulate and change the world to their liking.

e.g.
- At level 1 the barbarian knocks the door down with his boot, and the wizard has to meekly tap it with his quarterstaff.
- At level 20 the barbarian is still using his boot, while the wizard removes the door by making it so that the tree it came from never existed.

The whole "linear fighter/exponential wizard" thing. The problem is that in all versions of 3.X the mundane characters fall behind too quickly. The theory isn't necessarily wrong, it's just that the execution hasn't been that great recently.

[navar100]

The general thought is that because wizards and casters are supposed to be weaker at the early levels, and more vulnerable to physical damage, they should be more powerful than a mundane character. More powerful meaning more easily able to manipulate and change the world to their liking.

e.g.
- At level 1 the barbarian knocks the door down with his boot, and the wizard has to meekly tap it with his quarterstaff.
- At level 20 the barbarian is still using his boot, while the wizard removes the door by making it so that the tree it came from never existed.

The whole "linear fighter/exponential wizard" thing. The problem is that in all versions of 3.X the mundane characters fall behind too quickly. The theory isn't necessarily wrong, it's just that the execution hasn't been that great recently.

That doesn't explain why they should be, only what is. "(And they should be)" is a personal opinion addendum to the observation of spellcasters being more powerful than mundanes. It disagrees with the concept of wanting spellcasters and mundanes being of equivalent power even given that's not the actual case. I'm not questioning the actual case of spellcasters being more powerful than mundanes but rather why hold the opinion that's something to be accepted and enjoyed as a natural order to things.

[Squirrel_Dude]

That doesn't explain why they should be, only what is. "(And they should be)" is a personal opinion addendum to the observation of spellcasters being more powerful than mundanes. It disagrees with the concept of wanting spellcasters and mundanes being of equivalent power even given that's not the actual case. I'm not questioning the actual case of spellcasters being more powerful than mundanes but rather why hold the opinion that's something to be accepted and enjoyed as a natural order to things.Although I'm sure this discussion has merit, the history of that particular fantasy (maybe even RPGs in general) philosophy is beyond my limited depth, and more than a little off topic for the thread.

[Ravens_cry]

Witch, I had a lot of fun with and can't wait to play again.
The spell list has both potential power and some delicious flavour and while the hexes are just gravy,this ain't bullion cubes.
This is a rich and hearty pan gravy made by deglazing the pan with an appropriate, flavourful liquid and making a roux to match it.
Its down sides are a lot of the options are mind-affecting, so certain campaigns can have you well and truly screwéd, and the familiar makes an awful tempting target to a vengeful DM.
Oracle, I had a lot of fun when I took one to twelfth (then they died, but that's another story) and the potential to be a better healer than the cleric.
All I can say is, pick your spells carefully. Unlike a cleric, you can't just wait a day and get that obscure and otherwise useless spell that is desperately needed to cure this one affliction. You'll have to pack quite a few scrolls most likely, which, while not the hugest expenditure, is a significant one.

[Cambrian]

Quite simply: yes, the new classes are quite good.

The gunslinger, like a fighter, is very narrow in their abilities, but can do good damage output. Generally though the GM should recognize the cost of ammunition and find a way to reduce it.

The cavalier does have a major issue; if you are playing in areas where large mounts (I.e. Medium sized character) are impractical then you will be missing many of your class benefits. I haven't ran one myself but I've heard everything from it is a terrible linear class to an excellent and fun to play class... Generally it depends on the campaign.

I like most of the others; especially the witch, the alchemist, and the oracle.

[Crustypeanut]

Gunslinger and Cavalier are a bit weak though.

Dunno how far you've gotten a Gunslinger, but as a DM with a player who loves 'em, I can tell you that they are Brutal when it comes to damage. They may not be insanely versatile, but man can they put things to the grave quickly. They hit stupidly hard once they get Gun Training at 5th level, especially if combined with a Pistolero's Up Close and Deadly and a Double Barreled Pistol.

The only issue is when water is involved, and the price of ammunition ramps up over time. Or if their target is far enough away, and even that isn't a huge obstacle for 'em.

Cavaliers.. they shine in specific environments (wide open spaces), but other than that they're not insanely strong, I agree.

[Killer Angel]

Cavaliers.. they shine in specific environments (wide open spaces), but other than that they're not insanely strong, I agree.

My take on Cavalier, is that probably you should go for a small race, using a medium sized mount... that way, at least you should have less problems, going in dungeons. Penalties on strenght and lower dices for weapon damage, will have little impact anyway, given that your primary source of damage is charge multipliers.

Sooner or later, I'll give it a try, a halfling cavalier.

[Squirrel_Dude]

My take on Cavalier, is that probably you should go for a small race, using a medium sized mount... that way, at least you should have less problems, going in dungeons. Penalties on strenght and lower dices for weapon damage, will have little impact anyway, given that your primary source of damage is charge multipliers.

Sooner or later, I'll give it a try, a halfling cavalier.Other options are the Musketeer + Luring Cavalier for a ranged character. I've seen one very effective build done using a a double-barreled shotgun.

[mcv]

A medium cavalier on a large mount is perfectly viable in a mostly outdoors campaign, like for example Kingmaker.

[Sception]

I'm not a fan of most of them, but only know them from the play test.

Were there any fixes to oracle past the play test? As it was, they suffered in exactly the ways one would expected a spontaneous divine caster to suffer - limited spell lists rendering them unable to cover situational 'fix it' spells, the divine list in general lacking the kinds of versatile spells that allow the arcane sorcerer to function respectably, etc. Annoyingly, their chosen signature spells came one level after spell level access, meaning two levels after a cleric had access to them, meaning that by the time you're casting a given signature spell, a 'real cleric' with a similar theme would have been casting that spell two levels ago, and has already moved on to bigger, better, higher level spells within the same theme. Some of their thematic supplemental abilities were cool, but not enough to deal with the awkwardness of being a spontaneous divine caster.

The witch was an interesting wizard variant, but didn't seem worth a full separate class. The at will abilities were nice, but the requirement to have a familiar, and that familiar's status as your one and only spellbook, was kind of a glaring weak spot that seemed likely to leave you totally gimped even without the DM gunning for it.

All in all, the only interesting new classes to appear in Pathfinder have been the summoner and the magus. Both interesting and new classes. Maybe the alchemist, but I didn't spend enough time with it to really form an opinion. But other than those two (maybe three?), nothing to come out of pathfinder has been quite at mechanically interesting as some of the 3.5 supplemental material to me, nothing I've been as excited to play as the warlock, beguiler, duskblade, dread necromancer, factotum, artificer, incarnate, totemist, warblade, sword sage, binder, or even, despite its overwhelming flaws, the Shadowcaster.

Pathfinder core may be better / funner than 3.5 core, but it's still basically just 3e core and it didn't take me long to get tired of the 3e core. The lack of really original or ambitious supplemental material has kept me from moving my own games over. I'm hoping the next year or two of Pathfinder material might introduce some stuff I find more interesting.

[Edenbeast]

The witch was an interesting wizard variant, but didn't seem worth a full separate class. The at will abilities were nice, but the requirement to have a familiar, and that familiar's status as your one and only spellbook, was kind of a glaring weak spot that seemed likely to leave you totally gimped even without the DM gunning for it.

Maybe the witch class could have been an archetype for the wizard class, but then again, so could the oracle be a cleric variant. I think it was a good idea to make them new classes with their own flavour. Personally I love the flavour of the witch. More so than the wizard. A familiar who is her guide and patron with whom she has to commune every morning to get spells. I think it's awesome. The wizard is just boring compared to that. And a DM gunning for your familiar, a wizard runs the same risk losing his spell book. The advantage a familair has over a book is that it's mobile. A familiar can swim, a book gets wet (that's my wizard who spend a day drying his book after falling in a river..)
Besides that, the hexes are fun too, and you get to use them all day long (just not on the same target).

The alchemist and the witch are by far my favourite. Great flavour.

[Sception]

The problem is that a GM sort of needs to be gunning for your spellbooks, and even if they are you can make copies. I've seen familiars die without the DM actually gunning for them in the past. Having your familiar get caught in an area attack and fall over dead is sad enough for a wizard or sorcerer, but automatically losing your spellbook as well, with no way to back it up and a difficult process to even try and replace it? What flavor the witch has over the wizard or sorcerer just doesn't seem to be worth that kind of hassle to me.

If it were easier to replace the familiar, if it were like a paladins mount or summoner's eidolon, something you can just re-summon with some minor effort, penalty, or delay....

regardless, while I do like the rest of the witch's mechanics and flavor, it's certainly not something that I'd give up beguilers or dread necromancers or warlocks for the chance to play.

[Edenbeast]

The problem is that a GM sort of needs to be gunning for your spellbooks, and even if they are you can make copies. I've seen familiars die without the DM actually gunning for them in the past. Having your familiar get caught in an area attack and fall over dead is sad enough for a wizard or sorcerer, but automatically losing your spellbook as well, with no way to back it up and a difficult process to even try and replace it? What flavor the witch has over the wizard or sorcerer just doesn't seem to be worth that kind of hassle to me.

If it were easier to replace the familiar, if it were like a paladins mount or summoner's eidolon, something you can just re-summon with some minor effort, penalty, or delay....

regardless, while I do like the rest of the witch's mechanics and flavor, it's certainly not something that I'd give up beguilers or dread necromancers or warlocks for the chance to play.

It's easier to replace a familiar with spells than a spellbook (with spell), unless you have a copy or the GM is really friendly and lets you buy a new book and lets you write down all the spells that you had in your old spellbook, or only the spells you had prepared in the morning if he's less lenient.
The wizard has an easy time because many GM's are lazy. Read for instance the desription of fireball and what it does to objects in the area. How many times have I seen people just roll the d6's and then the people in the area roll for their reflex save and that's it: -xx hitpoint and continue the battle. An unprotected spellbook goes easly up in flames, when your familiar can be high up in the trees looking down on the spectacle.. Also I've seen from close by what happens to hair when it catches fire. So one fireball and you have a hairless party. Anyway, it really depends on the GM's style of play.. To be honest I find it too much work to bother with all the items and clothing that can be destroyed by spell effects. The same goes for familiars. The only exception I make is when a players takes the risk to deliver a touch spell through his familiar and by that willfully exposing it to combat.
But if you want that sort of realism where everything can be destroyed, then yes, when you lose your familiar to a fireball you can always point out that the cute elf is now bold, and the dwarf fighter is now beardless.

[Sception]

Also I've seen from close by what happens to hair when it catches fire. So one fireball and you have a hairless party.

Are you telling me you roll the area damage not just to creatures in the area, but to all objects attended or not? In your game a rogue caught in a dragon's breath attack might improved evasion out of taking damage, but you still have to check if each individual weapon, armor, magic item, article of clothing, and mundane object is sundered? Is that actually how things work in your games?

wait, wait, no you don't. OK. But not rolling area damage on attended objects seems to be a lot more typical than not rolling it for pets, companions, hirelings, or whatever. And again, a spellbook can be backed up, and a wizard or sorcerer can actually use their familiar to do things without putting the vast bulk of their ability to function on the line. For them, the familiar is a class feature. For the witch, it's a glaring Achilles's heel, for which you gain some nice flavor, but not really all that different of a character than you could have achieved with a similarly themed wizard.

It's a similar problem as the one I have with the oracle. Some great fluff and thematics, sure, but in the end you're basically playing the same character as you would have if you had been a cleric or wizard, only less good or more vulnerable depending.

Not really the kind of thing that makes me excited to try a new class, myself. I prefer something that strays a bit more from a cosmetic reflavoring/mechanical downgrading of another existing class. Something like the summoner or magus or even, bless it's poor little heart, the alchemist.

[TuggyNE]

It's easier to replace a familiar with spells than a spellbook (with spell), unless you have a copy or the GM is really friendly and lets you buy a new book and lets you write down all the spells that you had in your old spellbook, or only the spells you had prepared in the morning if he's less lenient.

A paranoid wizard will generally already have multiple copies, decoys, shrunken spellbooks, spares, wards, hardening, traps, and so on and so forth for their spellbook. They will not rely on having only a single spellbook.


The wizard has an easy time because many GM's are lazy. Read for instance the desription of fireball and what it does to objects in the area. How many times have I seen people just roll the d6's and then the people in the area roll for their reflex save and that's it: -xx hitpoint and continue the battle. An unprotected spellbook goes easly up in flames, when your familiar can be high up in the trees looking down on the spectacle.. Also I've seen from close by what happens to hair when it catches fire. So one fireball and you have a hairless party. Anyway, it really depends on the GM's style of play.. To be honest I find it too much work to bother with all the items and clothing that can be destroyed by spell effects. The same goes for familiars. The only exception I make is when a players takes the risk to deliver a touch spell through his familiar and by that willfully exposing it to combat.
But if you want that sort of realism where everything can be destroyed, then yes, when you lose your familiar to a fireball you can always point out that the cute elf is now bold, and the dwarf fighter is now beardless.

Amusingly, the rules for spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#itemsSurvivingafteraSavingTh row) actually have far more provision for losing familiars in AoEs than attended items; if you roll a natural one on a save, one of your worn items has to save against the spell's damage. That's it. (And, of course, there's always hardness to reduce damage.) What's more, the only way the spellbook can even be affected is if you have no more than three other items carried or worn, e.g. weapon/wand/scroll, shield, armor/robe.... If you add an amulet to that, the spellbook won't be affected by random AoEs ever.

Edit: forgot to mention that several familiar abilities only function when the familiar is within 5' of the master.

[Wonton]

Initially i was excited about trying out some of the new base classes but after being thouroughly unimpressed by the gunslinger

Oh. :smallfrown:

Personally, my Gunslinger was the most fun character I've ever played in my tabletop career - and not because of mechanics since most of my rounds just consisted of "I take a 5-foot step back, reload, and shoot". It's mainly cause I'm a huge Dark Tower junkie and I really dig the flavor of the class, especially when Daring Acts become involved and you basically get in-game rewards for being a badass. :smallamused:

But I understand that YMMV when it comes to things like that.

[Edenbeast]

A paranoid wizard will generally already have multiple copies, decoys, shrunken spellbooks, spares, wards, hardening, traps, and so on and so forth for their spellbook. They will not rely on having only a single spellbook.



Amusingly, the rules for spells (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/magicOverview/spellDescriptions.htm#itemsSurvivingafteraSavingTh row) actually have far more provision for losing familiars in AoEs than attended items; if you roll a natural one on a save, one of your worn items has to save against the spell's damage. That's it. (And, of course, there's always hardness to reduce damage.) What's more, the only way the spellbook can even be affected is if you have no more than three other items carried or worn, e.g. weapon/wand/scroll, shield, armor/robe.... If you add an amulet to that, the spellbook won't be affected by random AoEs ever.

Edit: forgot to mention that several familiar abilities only function when the familiar is within 5' of the master.

The paranoid wizard I find very weird. First where do you keep all these backups. And if you make backups, you better roleplay this at each level-up. If the last one you made was 6 levels ago, then that's all you have. Besides shrunken spellbooks, trapped, and warded are for later levels. A low level wizard has to do with something else of a backup.

I've played several wizards, but I never made backups of spellbooks. Maybe I'm not paranoid enough, or just plain stupid, but it never crossed my mind. I always kept it in my backpack. It got wet once, then I had to spend a whole day drying it. I also lost it once when we were imprisoned and stripped from all equipment except underwear.

If you have a flying familiar, it can sit in a tree and not in the area of effect of a fireball. Also a familiar has improved evasion, with a base reflex safe of itself or its master, whichever is better. So the chance of losing it is lower than your wizard/witch getting full damage. It doesn't take alot to be prepared for it and anticipate, so in my opinion a witch is just as viable as a wizard.

[MukkTB]

Its not that hard to protect a spellbook if you are slightly worried something may happen to it. I like trading familiar and scribe scroll away for the ability to keep the spells in my head. In other words you trade scribe scroll for the ability to dump both your weak points. I call that a win. Of course you can't do that in PF only games.

Edenbeat, you keep the backups in bags of holding, extra dimensional spaces, your own stomach, your home base under layers of protection. If you want the DM notified every time the wizard does some book keeping that sounds reasonable, that doesn't prevent the wizard from doing his book keeping, that just means everyone else at the table has to sit there and listen to it. The only way a DM can prevent this is by not letting the wizard have the talking time, and thats just bad DMing. At some point it makes mutual sense to just assume the wizard does the book keeping required because then we can get on to the part where we stick pointy things into the nasty things.

Most people don't go to great lengths to protect their spellbook. Some people take basic precautions. Sometimes a DM decides to target a spellbook. The wizard gets screwed once, then takes precautions and it never happens reasonably again.

The wizard's familiar, is a small bonus to something. You stick it someplace safe, say nice things to it on occasion, and forget about it the rest of the time. It doesn't have the hitpoints to send into combat. Things like AOE can wipe it out by accident. If you have it go hide it might get attacked by a monster that finds it. The one in the tree may be the first 'party member' target by a flying monster. If you don't want to risk the XP loss then its not a big deal to just avoid summoning a familiar in the first place. I kind of like the alertness. Another spot check and a +2 to perception may be the difference between life and death.

A witch using a familiar as a spellbook seems to have combined both the Wizard's weak points into one. Probably a familiar can be protected almost as well as a spellbook though. Just look through he spellbook protection ideas and filter out the ones that would be harmful to a living thing.

Edit - I don't think the PF rules for familiars penalize the wizard so harshly for their death. The penalty for losing a familiar seems to be not having a familiar for a couple weeks. Stay far away from bonded objects though.

[Reverent-One]

Huh, the new base classes were one of the areas I thought PF shined. While the witch and cavalier don't interest me much and I don't know if the inquisitor works mechanically as well as I'd like it to, Summoner and Alchemist of two of my favorite classes ever and the Oracle and Magus are solid, interesting classes.

[CigarPete]

I'm playing an Oracle in my current campaign and it's great fun. It is very similar to a cleric, but I am focused on a single role and can't hit niche spells we might potentially need. On the other hand, if I need one of my spells, I can always cast it, regardless of whether I've used it that day or not. Same tradeoff you get with a Sorcerer.

[Gnaeus]

The problem is that the Synthesist is the new druid - capable of easily doing its job while simultaneously doing yours too. Although casters are more powerful than mundanes (and should be), there should be a more significant tradeoff for them if they decide to do the melee's job - enough of one to make them not want to. But Summoners in general and Synthesists in particular lose very little by casting and meleeing.

Compare a Synthesist to, say, a White-Haired Witch - they can both melee but the Witch is much worse at it. The Witch CAN do it but it's more a side-job or last resort. She isn't likely to be taking over anyone's job.

Yes, but the synthesist is actually worse at this than the standard summoner.
Vanilla summoner= Melee monster AND full caster
Synthesist = Melee monster OR full caster. It can do either, but not at the same time. And it probably spent feats on being a melee monster so it is probably lagging as a caster.

And for that matter, calling the summoner a full caster is a little bit optimistic. They have way less spells known than any full caster. They don't get 9th level spells (except for their spell like summons and gate).

Compared to Cavalier, yes, summoner is OP.
In something like PFS play where most of the casters most game breaking tricks are simply disallowed, summoner is OP.
In a sandbox campaign played with something close to RAW, Any of the tier 1s and most of the other tier 2s are way stronger and vastly more potentially gamebreaking.

[Larkas]

In a sandbox campaign played with something close to RAW, Any of the tier 1s and most of the other tier 2s are way stronger and vastly more potentially gamebreaking.

Which is why, IMHO, the Summoner is not tier 2 until 19th level, when you get the Gate SLA. Up to 18th level, it is just a very high tier 3.

[Gnaeus]

Which is why, IMHO, the Summoner is not tier 2 until 19th level, when you get the Gate SLA. Up to 18th level, it is just a very high tier 3.

I've given up arguing whether something is low tier x or high tier x+1. I like the tier system and find it useful, but that tight a distinction is not usually very helpful and tends to be a bit subjective and campaign based. Its somewhere near the t2/3 border.

[Larkas]

I've given up arguing whether something is low tier x or high tier x-1. I like the tier system and find it useful, but that tight a distinction is not usually very helpful and tends to be a bit subjective and campaign based. Its somewhere near the t2/3 border.

Good point.

[NightbringerGGZ]

Cavalier's work best when they have a couple of other buddies in melee range. With the free teamwork feats and the ability to share those feats in combat they can be a significant force multiplier. It takes some planning based on the exact party makeup, but with the Order bonuses and the teamwork feats you can wind up as a great buffer/debuffer that deals good amounts of damage.

My only complaint with Cavs is that I almost always wind up dipping a few levels of fighter with them, especially if a campaign doesn't let me use the mount all that often.

[Arbane]

Which is why, IMHO, the Summoner is not tier 2 until 19th level, when you get the Gate SLA. Up to 18th level, it is just a very high tier 3.

I'd argue the Summoner is tier 2, for the same reason a 3.5 Binder is - Summon Monster N spells give you a LOT of flexibility.

[Larkas]

I'd argue the Summoner is tier 2, for the same reason a 3.5 Binder is - Summon Monster N spells give you a LOT of flexibility.

True. But don't forget that you can't have a SLA summoned monster out at the same time as your eidolon, and that both the summon monster list and the summonable monsters available are more reasonable than their 3.5 counterparts. IMHO, if you're playing 3.P, they should be low T2 until level 19. If you're playing pure PF, or using the more reasonable PF summon list, they are high T3 until that level.

Regardless, I'm with Gnaeus in this: this isn't relevant enough to warrant a fruitful discussion. :smallsmile: