ACG Preview - Hunter Changes since Playtest

[Psyren]

Blog post here: http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lgd8?Advanced-Class-Guide-Preview-Hunter

Major changes from 2nd playtest:

- Hunters now get the whole Ranger list in addition to the Druid list, up to 6th. If a spell is on both the Ranger and Druid lists, Hunters take the lower of the two. (As the blog post notes, this makes them the first class in PF with ECL 1 Resist Energy.)
- Instead of the more limited "precise companion" they just get plain Precise Shot for free at 2nd level. Melee hunters can instead take Outflank.
- 6+Int skills
- Spontaneous casting now (expected to follow Inquisitor progression.) Still Wis-based.
- If your companion dies, the permanent-duration Animal Focus abilities you chose for it automatically shift to you. (This oddly provides some incentive to murder your companion, so I think they should look at this one a bit more.)

We also got previews of archetypes:
- Verminous Hunter: gains a vermin companion and apparently has special bonuses/defenses vs. swarms.
- Packmaster Hunter: Like the Beastmaster Ranger, this one gains multiple companions.
- Feral Hunter: My personal favorite, trades the animal companion for wildshape and some natural weapon bonuses.
- Divine Hunter: Adds Celestial or Fiendish to animal companion, gains a domain.

Discuss and all that.

[Snowbluff]

The spell list change makes them much better. Will warpriest be getting a similiar change?

[Psyren]

The spell list change makes them much better. Will warpriest be getting a similiar change?

You mean the Paladin/Antipaladin list? I wouldn't hold my breath on that one though it would be nice.

[deuxhero]

Hmm... It's looks a lot more playable, but it is like Slayer in that it still doesn't call out as enabling wildly new character concepts. Maybe the archetypes will fix it.

[Snowbluff]

In general it has the same problem I have with Warpriest. There isn't much I wouldn't rather do with the full caster equivalent.

[Psyren]

It does add more options to a T3-only party which is nice. (Getting Ranger up that particular hump is challenging, and there weren't many other nature-based classes to replace it.)

But as I said in the OP, I'm excited about Feral Hunter, which is basically going to be Wildshape Ranger+. (With 3/4 BAB admittedly, but the spells should fix that.)

[Snowbluff]

Well, to actually be Wildshape Ranger+, you would have to have the old wildshape back. :smalltongue:

It should make for an interesting option, though. On the other hand, I still think I would go for the Druid instead.

[Psyren]

Well, to actually be Wildshape Ranger+, you would have to have the old wildshape back. :smalltongue:

Quite true; on the other hand, I'm not exactly shedding tears over its loss.


It should make for an interesting option, though. On the other hand, I still think I would go for the Druid instead.

To be clear, I'm not for a moment saying that this thing is anywhere near on par with a druid. But, for a T3-only game it could be a lot of fun.

[Snowbluff]

Quite true; on the other hand, I'm not exactly shedding tears over its loss.
Of course you wouldn't. :smalltongue:



To be clear, I'm not for a moment saying that this thing is anywhere near on par with a druid. But, for a T3-only game it could be a lot of fun.

True, but my biggest issue would be spell access. It does a few things for us. First, you get access to several abilities earlier. Second, this means you lose relatively less when you multiclass. For example, if someone were possessed into taking several levels of monk for dragon style. I'm a big fan of classes that can give me some flexibility with my losses.

[NightbringerGGZ]

The spell casting changes are interesting, you get some powerful spells as a first level Hunter. The switch to Spontaneous Casting is going to be a limiting factor though. Hopefully the Human favored class bonus will be bonus spells.

I could see this class being fun in groups that stick to lower-tier classes primarily (such as my own). It's also a very versatile class with an animal companion plus spell casting right at first level. That's going to be a help if you have a smaller party size or even want to try a solo game.

I'm glad the author of the post mentioned that the class was a hard sell, I guess I'm just not entirely sold on it either mechanically or in concept. The Warpriest at least fills the role of "Paladin without being LG" that plenty of people have asked for, but both classes probably could have been Alternate Classes.

The Feral Hunter could wind up being somewhat interesting though. If you can start stacking Ability Score bonuses onto your character you'll wind up with a pretty powerful Gish that doesn't have to worry about being MAD.

[Kurald Galain]

Mechanically this may be an interesting class, but in terms of fluff I'm having trouble seeing any distinction between a hunter and a druid (or, for that matter, a shaman and a druid).

[squiggit]

Looks much better, but still feels like it should be a Ranger archetype instead of takin' up a full class slot in the ACG.


Mechanically this may be an interesting class, but in terms of fluff I'm having trouble seeing any distinction between a hunter and a druid (or, for that matter, a shaman and a druid).
That seems to be a common problem here. Warpriests fill the exact same niche mechanically and fluffwise as a Paladin or melee cleric. Arcanists are really just wizards with different class features... Hunters are totally not rangers or druids at all.

Combining a fighter-druid and a druid together just seems weird to me to begin with too.

Mechanically the class looks reasonably interesting but conceptually it's just rehashing stuff other classes already do completely.

[Psyren]

Mechanically this may be an interesting class, but in terms of fluff I'm having trouble seeing any distinction between a hunter and a druid (or, for that matter, a shaman and a druid).

Shaman vs. Druid would be just like Oracle vs. Cleric or Witch vs. Wizard - namely, one chooses, the other is chosen.


Looks much better, but still feels like it should be a Ranger archetype instead of takin' up a full class slot in the ACG.

I think one of the key considerations is - they make it a class when the concept itself can have several archetypes (as they've done here.) Magus and Witch could have been a Wizard archetype too, but then they realized they could spin those concepts off even further into many other directions.

[squiggit]

I think one of the key considerations is - they make it a class when the concept itself can have several archetypes (as they've done here.) Magus and Witch could have been a Wizard archetype too, but then they realized they could spin those concepts off even further into many other directions.
I get that principle, but I just feel the hunter doesn't explore enough new territory to make it worthwhile... It's is a mystical woodland fighter with an animal companion... and we already have that. Twice.

At least the Magus and Witch do things differently than the Wizard.

[Larkas]

For what it's worth, I've been meaning to brew a 2/3rds caster with wildshaping for some time now, and Paizo went ahead and did it for me. I, for one, am not complaining. They could've been more creative with the spell list, though, what they did basically invalidates the ranger.

[deuxhero]

Yeah, a dedicated shapeshifter class who could shapeshift starting at level 1 (and possibly not limited to animals) would have been much more interesting than what we got.

[Amphetryon]

This seems mechanically interesting and suited to my general playstyle. I would like to see an avian-focused Hunter archetype, I think.

[Kurald Galain]

Shaman vs. Druid would be just like Oracle vs. Cleric or Witch vs. Wizard - namely, one chooses, the other is chosen.

In other words, no meaningful difference. Check.

[Psyren]

In other words, no meaningful difference. Check.

To you, sure - but this isn't "Advanced Class Guide for Kurald Galain" :smalltongue:

[Kudaku]

I'm glad they improved the hunter, but I'm still not quite sold on the class. It might just be because it's (if possible) working in an even tighter design space than the warpriest is. Out of the 10 classes, this is the only one I genuinely wish they'd have replaced with something a little more daring.

[Snowbluff]

For what it's worth, I've been meaning to brew a 2/3rds caster with wildshaping for some time now, and Paizo went ahead and did it for me. I, for one, am not complaining. They could've been more creative with the spell list, though, what they did basically invalidates the ranger.


Yeah, a dedicated shapeshifter class who could shapeshift starting at level 1 (and possibly not limited to animals) would have been much more interesting than what we got.

Beastmorph Alchemist and Synthesist Summoner are not enough! They have to keep trying until they get it right! :smalltongue:

[squiggit]

Beastmorph Alchemist and Synthesist Summoner are not enough! They have to keep trying until they get it right! :smalltongue:

I notice damn near every time someone wants to try something weird the suggestion is Alchemist or Summoner.

Paizo's best classes?

[Psyren]

I notice damn near every time someone wants to try something weird the suggestion is Alchemist or Summoner.

Paizo's best classes?

At melee, just about. (What one lacks in physical prowess it makes up for in sneak attack.)

[Snowbluff]

Paizo's best classes?

I actually dislike the alchemist. It's a bit wonky and eclectic (ranged bombs, physical stat bonuses, spells? WTH?!). Vivisectionist pulls it together, IMO.

I find synthesists fun to play around with, but I'm not particularly attached to the class itself.

[Raven777]

- Spontaneous casting now (expected to follow Inquisitor progression.) Still Wis-based.

This is heresy. :smallbiggrin:

[deuxhero]

Beastmorph Alchemist and Synthesist Summoner are not enough! They have to keep trying until they get it right! :smalltongue:

Neither disguises very well (beastmorph is himself but with some new physical features, and you can see the summoner under his "transformation") Beastmorph is very limited in duration and the Summoner (and Aegis Aberrant archetype for that matter) doesn't have the flexibility most shape shifters in fiction have, just a single alternate form.

Beastmorph's just saying "you get X abilities from the Y spell" instead of making you crawl through books for a perfect form is a great start though.

[Snowbluff]

Neither disguises very well (beastmorph is himself but with some new physical features, and you can see the summoner under his "transformation") Beastmorph is very limited in duration and the Summoner (and Aegis Aberrant archetype for that matter) doesn't have the flexibility most shape shifters in fiction have, just a single alternate form.

Beastmorph's just saying "you get X abilities from the Y spell" instead of making you crawl through books for a perfect form is a great start though.

Disguise Self is an option for alchemist, and the duration isn't that short. There are at least two ways to get it as a summoner, too. An Eidolon can be altered with EP granting spells, changing its shape and granting new abilities. Both can get around to using regular polymorphy, too.

Not that I don't agree with you.

[Psyren]

Yeah, I think he's saying that Beastmorph and Synthesist "shapeshifting" are more akin to stapling various appendages to yourself than actually... shapeshifting.

Nothing wrong with the former approach of course but a T3 Wildshaper is a welcome addition to the roster imo.

[Shinken]

Yeah, a dedicated shapeshifter class who could shapeshift starting at level 1 (and possibly not limited to animals) would have been much more interesting than what we got.

This. So much this.

With this Feral archetype, I kinda sorta maybe see the Hunter as having a small niche it can fill thematically.

[Snowbluff]

Yeah, I think he's saying that Beastmorph and Synthesist "shapeshifting" are more akin to stapling various appendages to yourself than actually... shapeshifting.

Nothing wrong with the former approach of course but a T3 Wildshaper is a welcome addition to the roster imo.

Well, except you can just play a lousy druid with some multiclassing to customize your abilities. Wildshape stops leveling at 12, anyway. Out of the box T3 are great, but it's not like you have to work hard to accomplish the same thing in 3.X. :smalltongue:

[Psyren]

Indeed, it's not a lot of work, but there's a niche for this sort of thing. You could multiclass a druid down to T3 in 3.5 too, yet for some reason Wildshape Ranger stayed popular.

[caimbuel]

Still seems kind of a weak druid, although I did not see this as a need. I really think it will be a very fine line to not be plain weaker then either parent class.

[Snowbluff]

Indeed, it's not a lot of work, but there's a niche for this sort of thing. You could multiclass a druid down to T3 in 3.5 too, yet for some reason Wildshape Ranger stayed popular.

Well, the thing about Wildshape Ranger is the system it was in. Look at it this way. "I want to be a bear who hits people. I don't care much for spells."

Now, when it comes to solo combat, a Wildshape Ranger has Full BaB, Weapon Profs, lack of restrictions, Favored Enemy (Arcanist :smalltongue:), the option to trade a familiar for easy flanking, better wands (Ranger spells are FANTASTIC in 3.5) and good skills in a system with HARSH CC penalties. Compare to Hunter, it's a very different class from Druid. Which is saying something, considering how much of the original 3.5 ranger is just a crummy druid.

After that, wildshapers tend to go Master of Many Forms. Now, this class does very little for a castery druid, but is a huge buff for a wildshape ranger. On the druid's side, you might have some Druid fatigue and want some of those Druid-specific options, like that PrC. You also have Wild Feats, Wildshaping feats, and floating feat options like Supernatural Transformation.

Of course, this is mostly opinion. From an optimization perspective, 3.5 Druid is just better than Master of Many Forms. Yes, even if you want Ex abilities. The point is that if there are a lot of options that Wildshape was dependent on beyond the class, I would be more excited.

[deuxhero]

Yeah, I think he's saying that Beastmorph and Synthesist "shapeshifting" are more akin to stapling various appendages to yourself than actually... shapeshifting.

Nothing wrong with the former approach of course but a T3 Wildshaper is a welcome addition to the roster imo.

Pretty much

[Squirrel_Dude]

The spell list change makes them much better. Will warpriest be getting a similiar change?Unless the Warpriest was changed again since the class's preview was posted, no.


Also, just to be snarky: It does make them the first ECL 1 caster to have access to resist energy, except for every Samsaran divine caster with mystic past life.

I kid. I kid. The class does look more interesting now. It has the same flavor/role overlap issues that the Warpriest does, but it's better.

[Psyren]

I did say class, not caster, for that very reason. Samsaran is a race :smalltongue:

[Snowbluff]

I did say class, not caster, for that very reason. Samsaran is a race :smalltongue:

Mhm. I'll be slightly less inclined to play a caster who is Samsaran. :smalltongue:

[deuxhero]

Wonder how the Bloodrager's spell list works now. In the first version they got the Magus list, which was passable, but meant they were the ONLY casters in the system who couldn't read magic or detect it and had a good number of spells that were useless to them. In the second they got their own tiny spell list that was worse than the Magus list all around.

[Kurald Galain]

I'm curious if anyone can name a character from any fiction that's clearly a warpriest and not a cleric (or vice versa), or that's clearly a hunter and not a druid (or vice versa), or that's clearly an arcanist and not a sorcerer (or vice versa)?

[Snowbluff]

Wonder how the Bloodrager's spell list works now. In the first version they got the Magus list, which was passable, but meant they were the ONLY casters in the system who couldn't read magic or detect it and had a good number of spells that were useless to them. In the second they got their own tiny spell list that was worse than the Magus list all around.
Ugh. Don't get me started on that. It smells of wasted potential and hexblades. :smalltongue:

I'm curious if anyone can name a character from any fiction that's clearly a warpriest and not a cleric (or vice versa), or that's clearly a hunter and not a druid (or vice versa), or that's clearly an arcanist and not a sorcerer (or vice versa)?

Can't, bro.

Great, now I want a dedicated customizable shapeshifter with multiple forms. Like a synthesist who can make multiple Eidolons to choose from.

[Squirrel_Dude]

I'm curious if anyone can name a character from any fiction that's clearly a warpriest and not a cleric (or vice versa), or that's clearly a hunter and not a druid (or vice versa), or that's clearly an arcanist and not a sorcerer (or vice versa)? Or a character that would be a swashbuckler and not a dex-based fighter. Or a character that would be a slayer or investigator and not a rogue. Etc. Etc.

I'm sure that there are cases where there are fictional characters better realized by the new classes. I've seen some people throw out Conan as an ideal character for the slayer. No one should claim that the Advanced Class Guide is going to open up a new world of possibilities in terms of realizing characters, other than maybe making those characters a little more effective or less powerful.

The writers purposefully shied away from major innovation while writing it, after all.

[Psyren]

I'm curious if anyone can name a character from any fiction that's clearly a warpriest and not a cleric (or vice versa), or that's clearly a hunter and not a druid (or vice versa), or that's clearly an arcanist and not a sorcerer (or vice versa)?

Who cares? Is Harry Potter clearly a sorcerer, wizard or magician bard? Is Gandalf clearly a wizard or magus? Is Rand al'thor clearly a Psion or Wilder? Is Julio Scoundrél clearly a fighter or swashbuckler?

If you don't like the hybrid classes, don't buy the book, it's that simple; you've made it clear they're not for you.

[Amphetryon]

Who cares? Is Harry Potter clearly a sorcerer, wizard or magician bard? Is Gandalf clearly a wizard or magus? Is Rand al'thor clearly a Psion or Wilder? Is Julio Scoundrél clearly a fighter or swashbuckler?

If you don't like the hybrid classes, don't buy the book, it's that simple; you've made it clear they're not for you.

Gandalf fights with a sword, has a clear code of conduct, and summons a mount. Clearly, Gandalf's a paladin.

[Snowbluff]

Can you Multiclass these class with the parent classes? Last I heard you can't.

Swashbuckler is kind of crummy, but it should have a place in gestalt. Power Attack/Piranha Strike + Precise Strike is a pretty easy source of damage.

Gandalf fights with a sword, has a clear code of conduct, and summons a mount. Clearly, Gandalf's a paladin.

Casts spells, is an outsider, and does stuff? "Paladin" my butt. He's an outsider.

[Kudaku]

You can multiclass the ACG classes freely.

[Amphetryon]

Can you Multiclass these class with the parent classes? Last I heard you can't.

Swashbuckler is kind of crummy, but it should have a place in gestalt. Power Attack/Piranha Strike + Precise Strike is a pretty easy source of damage.


Casts spells, is an outsider, and does stuff? "Paladin" my butt. He's an outsider.

Paladins cast spells. . . low-level spells. . . like Gandalf. Aasimar isn't even that different, thematically, from Maiar.

[Psyren]

Can you Multiclass these class with the parent classes? Last I heard you can't.

They removed that restriction after the playtest as Kudaku noted.


Gandalf fights with a sword, has a clear code of conduct, and summons a mount. Clearly, Gandalf's a paladin.


Casts spells, is an outsider, and does stuff? "Paladin" my butt. He's an outsider.

:roy:: "Not the point!" :smalltongue:

[Beowulf DW]

Gandalf fights with a sword, has a clear code of conduct, and summons a mount. Clearly, Gandalf's a paladin.

You. I like you.

At any rate, I'm happy to see some of the issues the Hunter had are being addressed. Though as Psyren mentioned, they need to address that thing about getting permabuffed when your pet dies in order to avoided seeing animal companions get ritually sacrificed.

I've discussed the ACG with a few of my friends, and we've come to the conclusion that the Magus, Warpriest and Hunter may in fact be an attempt to give players more balanced options in games.

"I want to play as somebody that calls on the power of the gods without being straight-jacketed into LG or being a paranoid psycho."
"Have a Warpriest!"

"I want to play a master of the arcane arts but without wearing sissy robes or the potential to break the universe."
"Have a Magus!"

"I want to play some one like Beorn and draws power from nature itself, but won't invalidate half the party."
"Have a Hunter!"

[squiggit]

If you don't like the hybrid classes, don't buy the book, it's that simple; you've made it clear they're not for you.
That's a bit of a jump. There's a difference between not liking hybrid classes and not liking a couple particular classes that don't do anything particularly new. Just as there's a difference between Paizo not trying to be particularly innovative or risky and Paizo just reinventing classes that already exist.

[Larkas]

"I want to play some one like Beorn and draws power from nature itself, but won't invalidate half the party."
"Have a Hunter!"

It's just a pity that the wildshaping is from an archetype instead of the base class, but hey, at least the former is coming in the same book as the latter. And I still think they could've been more creative with the spell list as to not invalidate the ranger that completely, but...

[Psyren]

That's a bit of a jump. There's a difference between not liking hybrid classes and not liking a couple particular classes that don't do anything particularly new. Just as there's a difference between Paizo not trying to be particularly innovative or risky and Paizo just reinventing classes that already exist.

The whole book is hybrid classes and their derivatives, and he has stated he doesn't see the point in them - not Hunter, not Warpriest, not Arcanist, and presumably not any of the rest either. So, by that admission, the book is simply not for him, or indeed anyone else who does not see the point in this concept.


It's just a pity that the wildshaping is from an archetype instead of the base class, but hey, at least the former is coming in the same book as the latter. And I still think they could've been more creative with the spell list as to not invalidate the ranger that completely, but...

Ranger still has plenty going for it, and there are suppsedly ranger archetypes in there too so they may get even more. (Who knows, we may even get a Wildshape Ranger after all.)

[Snowbluff]

Well, the multiclassing thing is good news. Yay for customization!

That's a bit of a jump. There's a difference between not liking hybrid classes and not liking a couple particular classes that don't do anything particularly new. Just as there's a difference between Paizo not trying to be particularly innovative or risky and Paizo just reinventing classes that already exist.
Can we not make this complaint? You can claim is this Paizo's modus operandi. It's how they make there $$$ and that's all anyone cares about.

It's just a pity that the wildshaping is from an archetype instead of the base class, but hey, at least the former is coming in the same book as the latter. And I still think they could've been more creative with the spell list as to not invalidate the ranger that completely, but...

What? Nonono, it's just as likely they started with wildshape, but someone said "Isn't this just a druid?" "You're right, man. We'll claim the Wildshape is the archetype. We'll release it in the same book and everything!"

[Larkas]

What? Nonono, it's just as likely they started with wildshape, but someone said "Isn't this just a druid?" "You're right, man. We'll claim the Wildshape is the archetype. We'll release it in the same book and everything!"

Hahahaha, yeah, that would explain things. Still, by doing so they just made the third base class with a literal animal companion.

[Psyren]

That's my point - "Druid with 6th-level spells" was Mystic Wildshape Ranger, wasn't it? So there's clearly a niche for that concept.

Sorry, I hit post early and then my wifi acted up so I couldn't edit.

[Snowbluff]

That's my point - "Druid with 6th-level spells" was Mystic Wildshape Ranger?

You know, without the options for using Arcane spells or multiclassing out after level 10 when your spell levels were done and wildshape wasn't granting any more benefits.

Not that I ever played ranger past level 4 or 5 in 3.5. Even with the bonuses it wasn't one of my favorites.

[Psyren]

You know, without the options for using Arcane spells or multiclassing out after level 10 when your spell levels were done and wildshape wasn't granting any more benefits.

Not that I ever played ranger past level 4 or 5 in 3.5. Even with the bonuses it wasn't one of my favorites.

You may not have, but others (including myself) did - this class is for them.

[Squirrel_Dude]

The Advanced Class Guide is here, and now available for download as a .pdf

[link] (http://paizo.com/products/btpy95d1?Pathfinder-Roleplaying-Game-Advanced-Class-Guide-Hardcover)

[Psyren]

Yay, Thursday!
Boo, the website is crashing.

[Squirrel_Dude]

Yay, Thursday!
Boo, the website is crashing.Probably traffic from downloading the book, posting reviews about the book, and people trying to yell at each other on the forums on the book.

Some of few early comments have been:
- There is a feat chain all about divine characters using their favored weapon and getting benefits for it. Some people who participated in the Warpreist playtest are not very happy about this.
- The arcanist wasn't obviously nerfed. At least not in a way that will be obvious upon first reading.
- There is some issue with one of the slayer archetypes, maybe.
- There wasn't a more generic dexterity to damage feat, published. There were more that require certain groups of weapons, but not one that simply allows dex to damage.


As usual, the first few days (weeks? months?) will have mostly negative feedback?

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I remember there was talk of a magus arcana that allowed you to take Swashbuckler deeds, swapping arcane pool for panache. Talk on that was very interesting.

[Psyren]

- There wasn't a more generic dexterity to damage feat, published. There were more that require certain groups of weapons, but not one that simply allows dex to damage.

This one I knew about and honestly agree with. The rest I'll wait until I have the book itself to comment on.

[Snowbluff]

Some of few early comments have been:
- There is a feat chain all about divine characters using their favored weapon and getting benefits for it. Some people who participated in the Warpreist playtest are not very happy about this.

This was already a thing. Guided Hand would let characters use their wis to hit. Kind of nice for archers (the strongest damage output of any caster), since Channel Smite is USELESS for them.

[Larkas]

I've been playing a Oracle-leaning Oradin as of late, and it seems that there's a single feat which makes my two-level dip into Paladin somewhat redundant: Divine Protection, which gives +CHA to all saving throws. It's basically Divine Grace for the rest of us.

Wait... Is this for real? :smallannoyed:

[Psyren]

Wait... Is this for real? :smallannoyed:

Here it is (OGL ftw):


Divine Protection
Your deity protects you against deadly attacks.

Prerequisites: Cha 13, Knowledge (religion) 5 ranks,
ability to cast 2nd-level divine spells; blessings†, domains,
or mystery class feature.

Benefit: You gain a bonus equal to your Charisma
modifier on all saving throws. If your Charisma modifier
is already applied as a bonus on all saving throw (such as
from the divine grace class feature), you instead gain a +1
bonus on all saving throws.

You have to wait until level 5, but yeah - this is going to be mandatory for every Oracle and Cleric out there, and possibly Warpriests. I'd have wanted this to be harder to get. (Or at least, required burning spell slots to keep up or something.)

[Squirrel_Dude]

Here it is (OGL ftw):



You have to wait until level 5, but yeah - this is going to be mandatory for every Oracle and Cleric out there, and possibly Warpriests. I'd have wanted this to be harder to get. (Or at least, required burning spell slots to keep up or something.)Ah, so that's the feat people have been talking about.

There have been some comments on the paizo boards about how there are ways for Oracles (specifically) to basically apply Charisma to everything, and how the ACG will make that easier.

[NightbringerGGZ]

This one I knew about and honestly agree with. The rest I'll wait until I have the book itself to comment on.

So the feat is called Slashing Grace and seems to be intended to be used primarily by Swashbuckler or Duelists.

Rereqs: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus

Benefits: Pick a single type of one-handed slashing weapon. When wielding this weapon you can treat it as a one-handed piercing weapon. You can add your Dex modifier instead of your Strength modifier to damage rolls. The weapon has to match your size category.

Note that the feat does not let you use Dex for your attack rolls, so you are limited to Light or Finesse weapons only. You can get around this with a 1-level dip of Swashbuckler though for Swashbuckler Finesse. That's a bit of an odd design decision (oversight?) there as it actually encourages using the class as a dip class. Note, the ability in question grants the benefits of Weapon Finesse with all light or 1-handed piercing weapons, counts as having Weapon Finesse for feat requirements and lets you use Charisma instead of Intelligence for meeting the requirements of Combat Feats.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

So the feat is called Slashing Grace and seems to be intended to be used primarily by Swashbuckler or Duelists.

Rereqs: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus

Benefits: Pick a single type of one-handed slashing weapon. When wielding this weapon you can treat it as a one-handed piercing weapon. You can add your Dex modifier instead of your Strength modifier to damage rolls. The weapon has to match your size category.

Note that the feat does not let you use Dex for your attack rolls, so you are limited to Light or Finesse weapons only. You can get around this with a 1-level dip of Swashbuckler though for Swashbuckler Finesse. That's a bit of an odd design decision (oversight?) there as it actually encourages using the class as a dip class. Note, the ability in question grants the benefits of Weapon Finesse with all light or 1-handed piercing weapons, counts as having Weapon Finesse for feat requirements and lets you use Charisma instead of Intelligence for meeting the requirements of Combat Feats.

Didn't hear about that part. Good, it hasn't made Dervish Dance completely obsolete.

[Snowbluff]

You have to wait until level 5, but yeah - this is going to be mandatory for every Oracle and Cleric out there, and possibly Warpriests. I'd have wanted this to be harder to get. (Or at least, required burning spell slots to keep up or something.)

What? Cha is a dump stat in PF for clerics.

[NightbringerGGZ]

Didn't hear about that part. Good, it hasn't made Dervish Dance completely obsolete.

I kinda want Dervish Dance to be obsolete though. I'm rather tired of the number of builds I see in PFS that all default to using a Scimitar, and I'm as guilty as any other player.

[Psyren]

It works with whips so that will be fun. My Hobgoblin Pit Boss Magus with Eldritch Scion who doesn't know he is a magic user is now complete :smallbiggrin:

[NightbringerGGZ]

It works with whips so that will be fun. My Hobgoblin Pit Boss Magus with Eldritch Scion who doesn't know he is a magic user is now complete :smallbiggrin:

I was thinking the same thing for my Katana wielding / Bleach rip off Blade Bound Kensai Magus. Right now I'm using a Strength build that's rather effective but with a Swashbuckler dip I could go Dex/Int only.

[Turion]

Rereqs: Dex 13, Weapon Finesse, Weapon Focus

Benefits: Pick a single type of one-handed slashing weapon. When wielding this weapon you can treat it as a one-handed piercing weapon. You can add your Dex modifier instead of your Strength modifier to damage rolls. The weapon has to match your size category.


Waitwaitwait, is that the exact wording? Because, the way I'm reading it, that gives Dex to damage with everything, and the only weapon-specific benefit is changing damage-type.

[NightbringerGGZ]

Waitwaitwait, is that the exact wording? Because, the way I'm reading it, that gives Dex to damage with everything, and the only weapon-specific benefit is changing damage-type.

No, I paraphrased. Here's the exact wording:

Benefit: Choose one kind of one-handed slashing weapon (such as the longsword). When wielding your chosen weapon one-handed, you can treat it as a one-handed piercing melee weapon for all feats and class abilities that require such a weapon (such as a swashbuckler’s or a duelist’s precise strike) and you can add your Dexterity modifier instead of your Strength modifier to that weapon’s damage. The weapon must be one appropriate for your size.

It only works for the specified weapon, and only when wielding it one handed. This is a combat feat, so you may be able to use those Human only feats to make it apply to an entire weapon group. For reference, Swashbuckler Finesse reads as follows:

Swashbuckler Finesse (Ex): At 1st level, a swashbuckler gains the benefits of the Weapon Finesse feat with light or one-handed piercing melee weapons, and she can use her Charisma score in place of Intelligence as a prerequisite for combat feats. This ability counts as having the Weapon Finesse feat for purposes of meeting feat prerequisites.

Hmm... I wonder if this would let us apply Piranha Strike to some new weapons.

Something that is interesting is that the damage isn't restricted to melee attacks. Dex to damage on throwing builds anybody? Or how about Dex to Damage with a Dagger Pistol?

[Turion]

Grr, so it's mostly just a Swashbuckler feat tax. That's aggravating. Still, better than Dervish Dance.

Also, kinda weird that Swashbucklers have to go outside of their archetypal weapon to get Dex to damage.

*goes off to find a way to make short-spears slashing weapons.*

[NightbringerGGZ]

Grr, so it's mostly just a Swashbuckler feat tax. That's aggravating. Still, better than Dervish Dance.

Also, kinda weird that Swashbucklers have to go outside of their archetypal weapon to get Dex to damage.

*goes off to find a way to make short-spears slashing weapons.*

That is weird. I thought they'd be getting Dex to Damage at level 5 but I don't see that anywhere in the document. I'm seeing quite a few wording errors in this doc though so maybe it's an error? What I do find amusing is that the wording of the new Dare feats functionality means you never actually get the benefit of those feats. These are feats that activate when you've spent all of your Grit/Panache/Luck/Similar Resource btw.

[Shinken]

I'm a bit surprised this pdf is so cheap. I'm pretty sure I paid more for my Path of War subscription.
EDIT: yeah, it's cheaper than the Technology Guide as well. Uh.
EDIT 2: oh, they removed the multiclass restriction. good.