Pathfinder pathfinder hybrid classes, what do you think? (ignore previous thread of same name) [Archive]

(Un)Inspired

2014-08-21, 07:37 PM

Quite the opposite of both opinions mentioned for me, really. I feel like the Hunter is a great amalgamation of the ranger and druid - it's a druid without the broken nature of wildshape and 9th level spellcasting, or a ranger with better spellcasting and a really awesome animal companion

Brawler sticks out as a class I can't wait to play - even more with Path of War (Martial Training for Broken Blade maneuvers, anyone?).

I'm least interested in Slayer - that one does seem boring and redundant to me.

I would hardly call pathfinder druids wildshaping "broken"... Unless you were saying that Paizo took a really cool and strong class feature and "broke" all the cool stuff about it. Yeah Then I guess I agree. And 9th level pathfinder druid spells are basically not worth talking about. No wish, no gate, no miracle, to timestop, no fuss, no muss, and shapechange sucks butt now.

This new book has done nothing to change the fact that I would never play a non-caster in a pathfinder game unless 3.5 material was aloud.

Anlashok

2014-08-21, 07:44 PM

Arcanist combines the two most similar classes in the entire game to create something derivative and bland. Exploits are nice, but ultimately the game didn't need another wizard variant

Being able to cast your unique spells and rage at the same time is nifty, but the Bloodrager suffers from having an uninspiring spell list, a terrible spell progression and a strangely high number of save-based spells for a 4th level caster and along with a lack of truly new mechanics (and an archetype that lets them poach the only real feature they're missing from their parent) make the class feel too much like the barbarian.

Martial Flexibility is a great mechanic, but it ultimately being the entirety of the class' arsenal makes the Brawler suffer, but not as much as others

Hunter is, depending on how you look at it, either a strictly worse summoner or a strictly worse druid. Or for that matter, a strictly worse Inquisitor given that the latter class has a hunter archetype.

The investigator is.. nifty. Archetype issues and overly conservative design choices makes it hard to stand out and makes replacing it with a vanilla alchemist highly effective

The Shaman ultimately just suffers from being uninspiring more than anything else. Its idea of a new mechanic is renaming Oracle Mysteries to 'spirits' and giving the class a weird spell list. Eh

Skalds actually end up being fairly effective at their intended goal, but rather boring given the bulk of passive effects in the class. Good passive effects though.

Slayer is probably the most lazily designed class in the bunch. It's reasonably effective, so I can't fault it there... but it's clear no one really put much effort into the class: Its core mechanic is just the investigator's studied combat two more times. Its list of unique talents is bizarrely short... and of those unique talents we have things like a worse version of his capstone, so again that emphasis on just copy-pasting mechanics to build a class.

Swashbuckler. Despite the Slayer being the laziest class, the Swashbuckler is clearly the worst by design and by power: A mess of action economy and a failure to accomplish its own goals combined with the already underwhelming base archetype leaves Swashbucklers a pitiful mess of bare minimum functionality

Warpriests work. That's about the highest praise I can offer them. They're very bland.

magwaaf

2014-08-21, 08:35 PM

i like the honest opinions, hope to keep hearing more

Azurefenrir

2014-08-21, 09:04 PM

I haven't read through everything yet, so here's the ones that I know about so far:

Arcanist is actually the class I like the most out of the book (though I like casters, what can I say?). It is a mish-mash of wizard and sorcerer, sure, but the Exploits are actually quite well-designed and very useful in an actual game. Even the damage exploits are scalable enough so that they can be used later on if conserving spell slots is an issue, even if they are not as good as a 5th level spell. Plus, I enjoy it because it take a significant amount of work off actually playing a prepared arcane caster without losing too much of the flexibility. Being able to get bloodlines/school specializations may be too much though.

Investigator is a bit poorly designed. When I first saw Studied Strike I thought "OMG a rogue that works!", until I saw the fine print on the parent ability. As is, the class is pretty poor for any type of combat, though does work as a skill-monkey if needed. I have been shown the error of my ways on this one.

Shaman: I disagree with people saying it's "uninspiring". Sure, a lot of the spirits are based on mysteries, but the wandering spirits feature is actually really fun and versatile...if the implementation isn't so crappy. I definitely understand the need to keep spirits toned down compared to mysteries, since mysteries are really good and shamans get effectively a floating one, but most spirits are pretty meh while lore is...um, overpowered. Like, pre-nerf paragon surge overpowered. This really takes away from the wandering spirits feature because, heck, what shaman in her right mind isn't going to pick Lore for it?

Ironically enough, oracles actually make better shamans than shamans do. The spirit guide archetype for oracles allow them to access a shaman's most unique class feature - the wandering spirit - and effectively gives it to the oracle in exchange for three revelations. Thus, oracles get their own superior revelations, plus the best two abilities that shamans have access to (get +CHA wizard spells to their lists, can change this every day; alternatively, CHA to all int skills for crafting) for practically nothing.

In my opinion, shamans need more/better spirits much more than they need class feature changes or anything. Wandering Spirit is excellent - it's intended to give them more choices for class features and bonus spells, but with so many of the spirits being lackluster or flavorless the choice isn't really helping them on this. If they are afraid that it will give shaman-based archetypes of other classes too many options, just don't give them wandering spirit (why make the oracle even more powerful, after all?). Give them fixed spirits instead, or no shaman archetype at all and make non-lore spirits at least a bit better than they are now.

Of course, the other problem is that shamans are so MAD that they can't really go melee without very high point buys, which makes the battle spirit a little suspect. When a class quite literally needs all six stats just for a battle build, you have a bit of a problem.

Warpriests do work. I will honestly say that I like inquisitors better, though, just because the warblade doesn't really get anything interesting over them.

Novawurmson

2014-08-21, 09:23 PM

I think the book's biggest damnation is that all of these classes really could have been archetypes. My only real disappointment in Paizo is their unwillingness to release new systems: There's lots of new abilities, but all of them can be explained in a few sentences. Like, I like the Sacred Weapon feature of the Warpriest, but it's just a mish-mash of Monk and Magus abilities.

Anlashok

2014-08-21, 09:24 PM

When I first saw Studied Strike I thought "OMG a rogue that works!", until I saw the fine print on the parent ability. As is, the class is pretty poor for any type of combat, though does work as a skill-monkey if needed.

This leaves me scratching my head a bit. What fine print are you worried about? Because Studied Combat beats Sneak Attack clean as a damage steroid unless you're accuracy capped or denied iteratives, and Investigators get mutagen and inspiration on top of that. You don't need to use Studied Strike at all to be outdamaging a rogue cleanly outside low levels. You also get to be much more reliable.

Psyren

2014-08-21, 09:27 PM

Love Investigator and Hunter, like Bloodrager/Arcanist/Warpriest, meh to the rest.

This leaves me scratching my head a bit. What fine print are you worried about? Because Studied Combat beats Sneak Attack clean as a damage steroid unless you're accuracy capped or denied iteratives, and Investigators get mutagen and inspiration on top of that. You don't need to use Studied Strike at all to be outdamaging a rogue cleanly.

Don't you know you evaluate a class by looking at only one of their abilities in complete isolation from all the others it gets? And you evaluate damage mechanics by ignoring to-hit entirely? :smallwink:

Snowbluff

2014-08-21, 09:45 PM

Azurefenrir

2014-08-21, 09:46 PM

This leaves me scratching my head a bit. What fine print are you worried about? Because Studied Combat beats Sneak Attack clean as a damage steroid unless you're accuracy capped or denied iteratives, and Investigators get mutagen and inspiration on top of that. You don't need to use Studied Strike at all to be outdamaging a rogue cleanly outside low levels. You also get to be much more reliable.

Studied Combat (Ex): With a keen eye and
calculating mind, an investigator can assess
the mettle of his opponent to take advantage of gaps in
talent and training. At 4th level, an investigator can use
a move action to study a single enemy that he can see.
Upon doing so, he adds 1/2 his investigator level as an
insight bonus on melee attack rolls and as a bonus on
damage rolls against the creature. This effect lasts for
a number of rounds equal to his Intelligence modifier
(minimum 1) or until he deals damage with a studied
strike, whichever comes first. The bonus on damage rolls
is precision damage, and is not multiplied on a critical hit.

Basically, Studied Strike deals its extra damage once and then studied combat disappears, so it doesn't apply to iteratives, TWF, or even your next attack.

@Psyren: I assume that bit of snark was directed at me? If so, the investigator is at best half an alchemist, and I can't see mutagens making up for Studied Strike being once/enemy unless if you go out of your way to get studied strike on the enemy again. I don't see exactly how mutagens and a permanent potion will make up for combat potential, in this case (they don't get bombs). I already acknowledged them as good skill monkeys.

Anlashok

2014-08-21, 09:52 PM

Basically, Studied Strike deals its extra damage once and then studied combat disappears, so it doesn't apply to iteratives, TWF, or even your next attack.

You don't care about studied strike though. You care about Studied Combat giving you half level to hit and damage, which ends up being a huge increase in consistency and DPR at mid and high levels. Studied Strike is just icing. You also get to be more reliable on top of that, since you aren't shut down by enemies that can stop flanking and you still have some bonuses against enemies immune to precision damage.

Snowbluff

2014-08-21, 09:57 PM

Which are rare (Studied Strike IS precision damage anyway), and meeting the conditions is easy when greater invisibility on your list. +35 damage per hit with the vivisectionist. Huge overkill. Not to mention switch targets is easy.

Azurefenrir

2014-08-21, 09:57 PM

You don't care about studied strike though. You care about Studied Combat giving you half level to hit and damage, which ends up being a huge increase in consistency and DPR at mid and high levels. Studied Strike is just icing. You also get to be more reliable on top of that, since you aren't shut down by enemies that can stop flanking and you still have some bonuses against enemies immune to precision damage.

My apologies then. You are right - I was excited enough at the "rogue" part when I first saw the class that I didn't read the entire Studied Combat as carefully.

I should correct my statement to "I thought it's a rogue that works, but it turns out to be a mini-fighter with skills". Granted, though, you don't really need sneak attack to be a rogue, so I guess the class works.

Psyren

2014-08-21, 10:00 PM

Basically, Studied Strike deals its extra damage once and then studied combat disappears, so it doesn't apply to iteratives, TWF, or even your next attack.

Studied Strike is optional. If you simply don't use it, or use it only on your last iterative, all your attacks will get the Studied Combat bonus damage, which effectively translates to an extra 20 Str/Dex, not counting that final burst from SS.

Ninja'd by Anlashok

@Psyren: I assume that bit of snark was directed at me? If so, the investigator is at best half an alchemist, and I can't see mutagens making up for Studied Strike being once/enemy unless if you go out of your way to get studied strike on the enemy again. I don't see exactly how mutagens and a permanent potion will make up for combat potential, in this case (they don't get bombs). I already acknowledged them as good skill monkeys.

Bombs are the weakest part of an alchemist's arsenal unless he is facing legions of closely-packed mooks. Hyde will outdamage a bomber build any day of the week, and the Investigator cam Hyde nearly as well as they can.

Squirrel_Dude

2014-08-21, 10:06 PM

I've been bored by the book since it's announcement, and nothing has really piqued my interest since then. It's just so freaking conservative in it's design decisions, and i can hardly think of any concepts that would be better realized with the classes in this book than what I could already do. Maybe they can do it more elegantly than what is currently available, I don't know. The investigator isn't a class I'd really play (I'm not a huge fan of rogues or alchemists), but it's probably the highlight of the book.

If I was in a situation where I had to pay for the book/.pdf to play one of the classes, I don't think there's enough there for me to justify spending money on it. I was predisposed to hate it, though, so it's probably best to take my opinion with a grain of salt.

Starscream

2014-08-21, 10:07 PM

So far the only one I've tried is Brawler, since I have a soft spot for monks. Overall I'm quite satisfied; it's definitely more viable than a monk when it comes to actually contributing to combat, though that isn't saying much by itself. But it's also quite fun, since I actually hit with attacks now, and my class features aren't a bunch of weird mystical stuff that never comes in handy.

Couple of minor nitpicks; the floating feats are great, but at early levels you won't have enough uses per day. There's a feat you can take to add extras, but then you are paying for temporary feats with REAL feats. Also, while you can use Stunning Fist as many times per day as a monk, you don't get it as a freebie like a monk does, which means you need to meet the prereqs for it, which means you can't have it until level 8. Sucks, because my build is basically Ty Lee from Avatar the Last Airbender, and she doesn't feel right without stunning people. You actually get Knockout four levels earlier, which seems weird to me; you can knock someone unconscious if they fail a fort save, but not stun them for one round? And your save DC will probably be better for Knockout as well, since it isn't based off wisdom, and Brawler has no real need for wisdom other than boosting Will saves. Shame there isn't an "Extra Knockout" feat.

Azurefenrir

2014-08-21, 10:13 PM

Bombs are the weakest part of an alchemist's arsenal unless he is facing legions of closely-packed mooks. Hyde will outdamage a bomber build any day of the week, and the Investigator cam Hyde nearly as well as they can.

Sorry for arguing in this thread. I just wanted clarification on this and then I'll be gone :).

From what I can tell, it's not that easy to make a hyde build out of an investigator because they only get a subset of the potions that alchemists get:

Alchemist Discovery (Ex): The investigator can select one of the following alchemist discoveries as an investigator talent: combine extracts, concentrate poison, dilution, elixir of life, enhance potion, eternal potion, extend potion, infusion, mutagen, and poison conversion. When selecting an alchemist discovery, he must be high enough level to qualify for that discovery, using his investigator level as his alchemist level to determine if he qualifies. This talent can be selected multiple times; each time grants a new alchemist discovery.

I'm not entirely sure how you can get feral claws, vestigal limbs, or any of the other potions that are used for the hyde build from this restricted list. I mean, you can't even get greater mutagen from the class features. Is there something I'm missing?

magwaaf

2014-08-21, 10:38 PM

i dunno our alchemist puts em into his crossbow and slams em straight into people. he is mainly a cognotigen skill monkey guy but punching into people at better range with bombs is nice

Psyren

2014-08-21, 10:38 PM

Sorry for arguing in this thread. I just wanted clarification on this and then I'll be gone :).

From what I can tell, it's not that easy to make a hyde build out of an investigator because they only get a subset of the potions that alchemists get:

I'm not entirely sure how you can get feral claws, vestigal limbs, or any of the other potions that are used for the hyde build from this restricted list. I mean, you can't even get greater mutagen from the class features. Is there something I'm missing?

They get the entire alchemist list for their extracts. This includes powerhouse melee forms like Beast Shape IV, Monstrous Physique IV and Elemental Body III, and studied combat + mutagen applies to all of them.

squiggit

2014-08-21, 10:43 PM

They don't however get any of the advanced mutagen discoveries or archetypes like beastmorph or vivisectionist.

Snowbluff

2014-08-21, 10:47 PM

They don't however get any of the advanced mutagen discoveries or archetypes like beastmorph or vivisectionist.

Mhm. The durations are much longer than Beastmorph, and the effect is much better.

While I am at it, I learned that there are Summoning spells that summons effects that are not creatures or objects that happened to be worms inside a creatures skin.

Azurefenrir

2014-08-21, 11:03 PM

They get the entire alchemist list for their extracts. This includes powerhouse melee forms like Beast Shape IV, Monstrous Physique IV and Elemental Body III, and studied combat + mutagen applies to all of them.

I see, and I guess a weapon and studied strike would make up for the lack of stuff like Feral Mutagen, so it would be like a Mr. Hyde with a sword build (though it would still be less powerful due to missing some key mutagen bonuses that Alchemists get).

That's actually interesting. I learned something new today. Maybe it's time to actually try out the class now.

Thank you :).

Psyren

2014-08-21, 11:43 PM

They don't however get any of the advanced mutagen discoveries or archetypes like beastmorph or vivisectionist.

I would say they do actually, because they get to treat their level as their alchemist level for the purpose of discoveries - thus letting them take Extra Discovery and grab the higher-order mutagens.

But even if they don't - base mutagen + shapeshifting + studied combat is still decent enough, with inspiration to reroll primary attacks for good measure.

grarrrg

2014-08-21, 11:52 PM

I would say they do actually, because they get to treat their level as their alchemist level for the purpose of discoveries - thus letting them take Extra Discovery and grab the higher-order mutagens.

But even if they don't - base mutagen + shapeshifting + studied combat is still decent enough, with inspiration to reroll primary attacks for good measure.

The Investigator Talent that gives Discovery access is a pretty short list:
"combine extracts, concentrate poison, dilution, elixir of life, enhance potion, eternal potion, extend potion, infusion, mutagen, and poison conversion"

So he's pretty much stuck with Basic Mutagen.

Hmmm...almost had a thought "Investigator could make a better entry into Master Chymist for a Hyde", but that fell apart because you still need Feral/Infuse Mutagen, which you can't get without Alchemist anyway. Catch-22, Master Chymist can get you Feral Mutagen, but you need Feral Mutagen to get into Master Chymist...

magwaaf

2014-08-22, 02:00 AM

investigator is alot of good ideas, implicated really badly

Ssalarn

2014-08-22, 09:48 AM

Hunter gets wildshape with an archetype, last time I heard.
It's an absolutely terrible archetype that trades away everything interesting and unique about the Hunter so he can be a ****ty Druid wannabe.

The base Hunter is fantastic though, and I'm glad it exists. It does things I've always wanted to do that aren't easily accomplished by the Druid and Ranger, and in some ways it's almost like the nature-powered Summoner. You've got a powerful pet with great combat synergy with its master and a unique playstyle. The Hunter with his pet may be the most powerful Tier 3 combatant during the bulk of play.

Arcanist is cool and really not as powerful as some are making it out to be. In another thread I made the point that in a single encounter a well-built Arcanist can probably be better than a Wizard or Sorcerer, but over the course if a day he just can't keep up. He has fewer spell slots to work with, and many of his best abilities, like his counterspelling facility, have harsh limitations (must counter with higher level spell), and steep costs (reservoir point and spell slot from a class where both are already in short supply). The only way to make up for those weaknesses is to cut deep into your WBL and treat all your items with charges like lollipops.

The Slayer is boring. If it weren't for the Vanguard archetype I'd probably never play one.

Investigator is great and an excellent addition to the game, I'm glad he came to be.

Shaman is solid but could have been better if they hadn't shackled it to the framework of its parent classes. I feel like there was really more room to grow here, but it's still a solid class and a good addition to the game.

Swashbuckler is the new monk, with a lack of synergy between its class abilities and painfully mediocre mechanics for a class with so much thematic material to draw from.

NightbringerGGZ

2014-08-22, 11:54 AM

I'm disappointed in all the errors in the book, there are way too many and some of them create major rules problems.

Arcanist - I didn't really see a need for this class but it works out ok. I may play one at some point, but my group tends to stick around Tier 3 or 4 for most of our characters.

Bloodrager - I like the concept, but the Bloodlines weren't properly balanced against each other and we just need more of them. It's a decent foundation, hopefully it gets expanded upon.

Brawler - I actually like the class as a Monk alternative. Martial Flexibility can be rather nice. I'm actually more interested in seeing what the upcoming Monk revamp will look like though. Finally, I really like the Shield Champion archetype.

Hunter - I'm skeptical of the need for this concept still, but mechanically it works out well. I can see the class being popular in PFS society play and the Primal Companion archetype could be fun to play with. It just doesn't provide anything else that is new though.

Investigator - This is the class I like the best. It isn't a combat powerhouse, but it does a decent enough job. The non-combat utility is great and I've had a blast playing my Investigator.

Shaman - I like the concept of this class, but not the mechanics. The Spirit abilities didn't get updated like most people were requesting and the floating Hexes are mostly just boring rehashes of Witch Hexes. The MADNESS can be an issue too.

Skald - I just can't get excited about this class. It feels like a Bard Alternate Class more than a true base class that could be fully fleshed out. I think this is one of the concepts they really stretched to try to make work, but it just doesn't.

Slayer - Another boring concept with good mechanics. If you're playing low tier, it is a much better option than the Rogue. It's also perfect for assassin characters.

Swashbuckler - This class is an excellent (almost mandatory) one level dip for all of your dex builds. Other than that, I hate it. The Fighter/Gunslinger combo is a horrible idea from the get-go, remember that the Gunslinger started off as just a fancy Fighter archetype. The class mechanics don't work well together, with far too many of them keyed to Swift or Immediate actions. Additionally, it just doesn't do a good job of letting you play the core concept of an Errol Flynn style character. On the plus side, it does a decent job of making the Grit mechanics work properly.

Warpriest - I actually like the class concept, but I agree it could have just been a Paladin or Cleric variant instead of a full class. The mechanics work pretty well overall though, so I can forgive a week concept in this case.

On the whole I don't like the idea of every class having to be a combo of two other classes. It's a good idea for some classes, but I feel like the Paizo developers shackled themselves too much to the concept in some cases. The results were very mixed. I also think they would have been better served releasing a book with a smaller number of classes. Had they picked just the six strongest concepts they could have fleshed them out better and spent more time on each individual class. I agree that this book feels very rushed, shoot the play test period felt rushed.

Talya

2014-08-22, 01:57 PM

Skald - I just can't get excited about this class. It feels like a Bard Alternate Class more than a true base class that could be fully fleshed out. I think this is one of the concepts they really stretched to try to make work, but it just doesn't.

I, on the other hand, have Skald as about the only one of these base classes I care about at all. (Bloodrager had a chance, but its spellcasting is just too limited.)

Skald is Pathfinder's answer to the "Savage Bard" Alternate Class in 3.5. It feels like an archetype, yes. In fact, there already was an archetype that was similar... but it sucked. Even adding that high fort save is essential to the concept, and pathfinder didn't do so on the archetype.

I pretty much only play classes that have some use for charisma. My biggest disappointment was the Shaman - I figured a class based on Oracle and Witch had a 50% chance of being charisma based. The other 50% would have been Intelligence. Instead, it's wisdom. Gah.

Stormageddon

2014-08-22, 03:08 PM

Arcanist - This class makes me want to play a full caster.

Bloodrager - 4th level spells REALLY that's it! No real synergy between the classes. I'll take my Magus for a gish in a can, thank you!

Brawler - Nice Monk replacement. I actually want to try it out. Where as monk, no thanks. I like the floating feats, and not needing 13 INT is a nice touch. If I want to role play a dumb guy that gets in bar fights this is my go to.

Hunter - Actually looks like a well built nature Summoner....

Investigator - Eh, not into it.

Shaman - No opinion.

Skald - Seems ok. Also seems awkwardly throw together. I'm interested in how the Rage talents play with the performance abilities. Also Spell Kenning = Amazing!

Slayer - Nice Rogue replacement.

Swashbuckler - Seems like a good time for all my dex fighter needs.

Warpriest - I like this class as a whole. However what's the deal with Sacred Weapon? I mean it starts 1d6!? and ramps it's way all the way up to 2d8? I don't get it. Why would you use this? Most weapson you want to use already start higher then 1d6. Hell get yourself a two-handed sword and that's equal to a level 17th Sacred weapon.

I guess it's awesome if you have to run around the battle field with a dagger.

Psychoalpha

2014-08-22, 03:33 PM

I guess it's awesome if you have to run around the battle field with a dagger.

It's a way to play into your deity's favorite weapon without being crippled by how ****ty a lot of their damage is. Daggers, staves, and other just... poor weapons. The Sacred Weapon upgrade is to make bad weapons decent, not to make decent weapons better.

Chaosvii7

2014-08-22, 04:13 PM

I like the Warpriest, Hunter, Investigator, and Skald. Everything else is either too bland(brawler, swashbuckler) or just not entertaining to me(arcanist, shaman).

I think Warpriest is the best class Paizo's ever designed. It's like a divine Gish, and it's perfect. Somebody in one of my groups is playing a Warpriest, and he's been one of our greatest assets.

Investigator and Skald are in the same boat for me; They're things I'll need to try out(and by 'try out' I mean 'make a character that's a clear parody of something from pop culture with'.) Investigator moreso, because they make being skillmonkies fun. Seen an Investigator running around, and he was pretty versatile; He could make the checks, he grew to the size of a small house in combat, etc.

Hunter looks like it's better with the animal companion than Druids and Rangers could ever hope to be, and I think that the 3 levels of spells they're missing is a fair trade for what they gained.

To be fair, I will probably try out every class at some point, but the clear winners are basically all of the 2/3 casters they made.

I guess it's awesome if you have to run around the battle field with a dagger.

This might not have occurred to you, but with a 4-limbed race and Multiweapon Fighting, 4 sacred daggers is actually pretty potent damage source. That's not even before we start making the daggers or the attacker larger.

Stormageddon

2014-08-22, 04:17 PM

It's a way to play into your deity's favorite weapon without being crippled by how ****ty a lot of their damage is. Daggers, staves, and other just... poor weapons. The Sacred Weapon upgrade is to make bad weapons decent, not to make decent weapons better.

absolutely, it's just strange that they give you all weapon prof (except Exotic, of course), and the ability to apply it to any weapon, not just the deity's favorite weapon. Just a strange choice from a Meta-gammey point of view.

From a role-playing point. I guess if you got this god, your warrior of your god. He tells you "Listen kid, you see this dagger here? I love this dagger." You'd probably end up using the dagger, and wishing your god had more made a more rational combat choice.

That would make for great a good time roleplaying. I might actually incorporate that into a character I make one day. Thanks Pathfinder! I take it back.

Kudaku

2014-08-22, 04:30 PM

absolutely, it's just strange that they give you all weapon prof (except Exotic, of course), and the ability to apply it to any weapon, not just the deity's favorite weapon. Just a strange choice from a Meta-gammey point of view.

From a role-playing point. I guess if you got this god, your warrior of your god. He tells you "Listen kid, you see this dagger here? I love this dagger." You'd probably end up using the dagger, and wishing your god had more made a more rational combat choice.

That would make for great a good time roleplaying. I might actually incorporate that into a character I make one day. Thanks Pathfinder! I take it back.

There was a fairly long debate on whether or not sacred weapons should be limited to only work with favored weapons in the warpriest playtest thread - they decided to go with "any weapon the warpriest has weapon focus in" since otherwise you'd be really limited in what deity and weapon combos you could use - Erastil warpriests would all have to be archers, Gorum warpriests would all use greatswords and so on. Ironically that debate was happening back when warpriests could make full BAB attacks with their sacred weapon, which made Sacred Weapon the key class feature for the WP... Something they later cut.

deuxhero

2014-08-22, 05:18 PM

Shaman: When the most interesting use of your class is to take a feat to grab what is supposed to be a minor class feature (Spirit's Blessing, alongside Evolved Companion, is very nice for any animal companion focused character), you did something wrong.

Bloodrager is one of the ones most like its parents, yet it manages to feel different from Barbarian thanks to having a spells class feature. Only spellcaster incapable of casting read magic or dispel magic for some bizzare reason.

Brawler would be better if there were enough combat feats worth bothering with and didn't have inane and contradictory requirements. As Novawurmson noted, it looks most interesting as a pseudo-initiator in something that allows Path of War (can pull out any manuver he wants to, but has a limited number of uses).

Psyren

2014-08-22, 06:03 PM

From a role-playing point. I guess if you got this god, your warrior of your god. He tells you "Listen kid, you see this dagger here? I love this dagger." You'd probably end up using the dagger, and wishing your god had more made a more rational combat choice.

This is a bit narrow from a god's point of view. "Favored weapon" doesn't have to mine "I want you using this and nothing else." Take Norgorber for instance - thief god, subtle guy, loves trickery. He would be more likely to say "Yeah, I love daggers - but listen kid, only an idiot lets his enemy see his real weapon" and actually be pleased with you for choosing something else because of the blatant misdirection that results. Similarly, Irori might prefer that you go unarmed, but he himself mastered every monk weapon in the book, so he's not about to tell you to limit yourself to a single way of fighting if that doesn't suit you - his dogma is about finding your own path to perfection. Or Erastil - he advocates the bow, but for hunting, not necessarily for all combat situations. Abadar's favored weapon is the crossbow, because that's a suitable tool for the guards that are necessary to preserve order in a city, but his paladin code references swords. I could go on and on, but the idea is that a god's weapon of choice is not a straitjacket - and in many cases it doesn't even reference what the god themselves would use in a true fight.

Psychoalpha

2014-08-22, 06:15 PM

I'm kind of two minds about the Arcanist. I acknowledge some of what's said about their potential power issues, though not all, but unlike others I quite like their fluff and approach to magic. It's the wizard I always wanted, really, even though I'm reasonably sure the wizards I could build would be considerably stronger. But given that people have been playing Sorcerers alongside Wizards, and non spell casters alongside spellcasters for ages now, I don't really have an issue with the Arcanist even if it were able to edge out the Wizard in power (which I don't believe it really does). Obviously I don't find it the least bit bland or uninspired.

The same is true for the Warpriest. I enjoy spellcasting, but playing a cleric brings with it particular expectations, and those aren't always ones I want to play up to. I like the holy warrior aspect of the Paladin, but not the Lawful alignment restriction. Warpriests hit a nice spot for me right in between the two, and while some of their Blessings leave something to be desired, the quasi-Paladin archetype they get is pretty much perfect for me.

I've thought the rogue needed things like infusions and discoveries for ages, though I wish they'd just used the systems for alchemy and refluffed it to something else. Like little gadgets or quasi-magic-items the character has MacGyver'd together using bits of lore cribbed from real spellcasters. I can always refluff it in my game, obviously.

I do wish the Shaman had gotten its own Spirit features instead of just barely redone Oracle Mysteries, but I quite like the outline and feel of it otherwise. It's spell list is more what I wanted than the Witch one, and the adaptability of its wandering spirit is neat to me. Good times.

Haven't put much thought into any of the others yet.

NightbringerGGZ

2014-08-22, 06:23 PM

I, on the other hand, have Skald as about the only one of these base classes I care about at all. (Bloodrager had a chance, but its spellcasting is just too limited.)

Skald is Pathfinder's answer to the "Savage Bard" Alternate Class in 3.5. It feels like an archetype, yes. In fact, there already was an archetype that was similar... but it sucked. Even adding that high fort save is essential to the concept, and pathfinder didn't do so on the archetype.

I pretty much only play classes that have some use for charisma. My biggest disappointment was the Shaman - I figured a class based on Oracle and Witch had a 50% chance of being charisma based. The other 50% would have been Intelligence. Instead, it's wisdom. Gah.

Well, it's a good thing that the classes have varying appeal among the community. It'd be boring if we all enjoyed the same things afterall. :smallsmile:

Craft (Cheese)

2014-08-22, 06:36 PM

This is a bit narrow from a god's point of view. "Favored weapon" doesn't have to mine "I want you using this and nothing else." Take Norgorber for instance - thief god, subtle guy, loves trickery. He would be more likely to say "Yeah, I love daggers - but listen kid, only an idiot lets his enemy see his real weapon" and actually be pleased with you for choosing something else because of the blatant misdirection that results. Similarly, Irori might prefer that you go unarmed, but he himself mastered every monk weapon in the book, so he's not about to tell you to limit yourself to a single way of fighting if that doesn't suit you - his dogma is about finding your own path to perfection. Or Erastil - he advocates the bow, but for hunting, not necessarily for all combat situations. Abadar's favored weapon is the crossbow, because that's a suitable tool for the guards that are necessary to preserve order in a city, but his paladin code references swords. I could go on and on, but the idea is that a god's weapon of choice is not a straitjacket - and in many cases it doesn't even reference what the god themselves would use in a true fight.

Which is why the playtest sacred weapon mechanic of "You must use this one weapon only or you will be very heavily penalized" was so stupid. Thankfully, it's one of the few places in the playtest where the developers actually listened.

Psyren

2014-08-22, 06:38 PM

Which is why the playtest sacred weapon mechanic of "You must use this one weapon only or you will be very heavily penalized" was so stupid. Thankfully, it's one of the few places in the playtest where the developers actually listened.

Yeah, I was one of the voices against it too. I didn't mind an extra benefit for the favored weapon, but not effectively penalizing you for not using it.

Snowbluff

2014-08-22, 06:49 PM

I like the effort they put into making weapons less unique.

...

Wait...

Anlashok

2014-08-22, 06:54 PM

I like the effort they put into making weapons less unique.

...

Wait...

Eh. I'd rather have less unique weapons that were actually usable than a bunch of "Unique" ones that are all trash.

I mean ultimately talking about how unique a weapon may or may not be feels moot when nine times out of ten you're going to be picking up a greatsword.

Psychoalpha

2014-08-22, 07:34 PM

I like the effort they put into making weapons less unique.

...

Wait...

I'll take this over penalizing people for working with story fluff, which is all a god's favored weapon really is.

Psyren

2014-08-22, 07:43 PM

If your deity's favored weapon is exotic, you do benefit, because you can apply the free WF to it immediately instead of needing to pick up that weapon via feat or dip. Similarly, if your deity's favored weapon is unarmed strike, you get IUS for free as well.

PsyBomb

2014-08-22, 07:50 PM

Yeah, the Warpriest and Brawler are both ways to take the Monk concept further than it could before (as I mentioned in the other thread, I'm building a Brawler/MoMF for a game, intending to on-the-spot learn a Style chain as appropriate for the encounter if needed).

TheIronGolem

2014-08-22, 10:43 PM

Arcanist: During the playtest, I dismissed this class as boring. I now realize I was being unfair; it's really the Wizard and Sorcerer that are boring; the Arcanist is all right by me. Still an overpowered Tier 1 monster, but that's another fight for another time.

Brawler: Fairly solid in my opinion, though the good abilities still take too long to come online. Lousy capstone too; flinging mooks around with every punch is something this guy should be doing by 10th level, not 20th. Still, it's great to have an alternative to Monk where unarmed fighting is concerned, and I suspect Brawler will be replacing both it and Fighter as many player's choice of dipping sauce.

Investigator: Extracts feel a bit bolted on, but I do like the other abilities. This is my new choice for pure skillmonkey characters.

Slayer: I understand the charges of lazy design being leveled at this class, but I like it nonetheless. I've felt for years that PF needed a "martial rogue" class, and this fills that void nicely even if it doesn't bring a lot of new shinies to the table. It does need more unique talents, though.

Swashbuckler: I am now convinced that some obscure Federal law prohibits mechanically-viable implementations of Dex-based fighters from being published on a first-party basis. So I'll keep using Adamant's Swashbuckler (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/adamant-entertainment/swashbuckler) instead.

(Un)Inspired

2014-08-22, 10:57 PM

I pretty much only play classes that have some use for charisma. My biggest disappointment was the Shaman - I figured a class based on Oracle and Witch had a 50% chance of being charisma based. The other 50% would have been Intelligence. Instead, it's wisdom. Gah.

I may be mistake cause I'm away from the book at the moment but doesn't the shaman have some use for charisma? Don't some of they're spirit things run off of it?

grarrrg

2014-08-22, 11:06 PM

I may be mistake cause I'm away from the book at the moment but doesn't the shaman have some use for charisma? Don't some of they're spirit things run off of it?

Some run off CHA and a couple care about INT. But it's still 9 level of WIS based casting, so even if you 'want' CHA, you still _need_ WIS more.

And the fact that they took a 9-level CHA caster, smashed it together with a 9-level INT caster and somehow:smallfurious: got a 9-level WIS caster.

(Un)Inspired

2014-08-22, 11:14 PM

Anlashok

2014-08-22, 11:16 PM

Some run off CHA and a couple care about INT. But it's still 9 level of WIS based casting, so even if you 'want' CHA, you still _need_ WIS more.

And the fact that they took a 9-level CHA caster, smashed it together with a 9-level INT caster and somehow:smallfurious: got a 9-level WIS caster.

Well Pathfinder lists the stats Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha... so it's pretty obvious that Wisdom is halfway in between Intelligence and Charisma.

Craft (Cheese)

2014-08-22, 11:22 PM

Some run off CHA and a couple care about INT. But it's still 9 level of WIS based casting, so even if you 'want' CHA, you still _need_ WIS more.

And the fact that they took a 9-level CHA caster, smashed it together with a 9-level INT caster and somehow:smallfurious: got a 9-level WIS caster.

The real reason is because they're a divine prepared caster, and Paizo's basically said no INT-based divine casters or CHA-based prepared casters. During the initial playtest it actually cast off the cleric list, minus domains. That's right, at one point the Shaman was even lazier.

Raven777

2014-08-22, 11:26 PM

The real reason is because they're a divine prepared caster, and Paizo's basically said no INT-based divine casters or CHA-based prepared casters. During the initial playtest it actually cast off the cleric list, minus domains. That's right, at one point the Shaman was even lazier.

Paizo is weirdly obsessive like that.

squiggit

2014-08-22, 11:34 PM

No Wis based arcane casters either. And 9th level arcane casters can only have half BAB (which leads to silliness like the summoner's "six level" list).

Craft (Cheese)

2014-08-22, 11:50 PM

No Wis based arcane casters either.

Empyreal Sorcerer? Aside from that, come to think of it I don't think WotC ever made any WIS-based Arcane casters either.

Also, could you imagine the moaning on the Paizo forums if the Summoner were a 9th-level caster? *shivers*

Raven777

2014-08-23, 12:04 AM

Myself, I never really got why they made the summoner a 3/4th BAB, six levels caster instead of a full (spontaneous) caster.

Arbane

2014-08-23, 04:38 AM

I like the effort they put into making weapons less unique.

Eh. I'd rather have less unique weapons that were actually usable than a bunch of "Unique" ones that are all trash.

I mean ultimately talking about how unique a weapon may or may not be feels moot when nine times out of ten you're going to be picking up a greatsword.

What Anlashok said - it annoys me that some weapons are just flat-out statistically The Best And You Should Use Them Or YOU FAIL and others are You need Six Feats To Use This And Not Suck.

(Note: Some hyperbole may have been used in the construction of this post.)

Feint's End

2014-08-23, 11:23 AM

Myself, I never really got why they made the summoner a 3/4th BAB, six levels caster instead of a full (spontaneous) caster.

Aahm.... mainly because they are among the best melee classes in the game while simultaneously breaking the action economy?

Realised I should add something about the new classes so as to not derail the thread. I only looked at a few of them in detail so probably only mention a few.

Investigator looks good to me. It has enough unique feeling to justify being a class. It also has enough in-built mechanics to be viable in combat without the necessity to invest heavily into that area which is always nice for a skillmonkey.

Hunter is great. It fits the nature's warrior you much better than the ranger and I love the synergy with the animal companion. Maybe not the most unique class (due to the stupid spell list mainly) but quite smooth in its own right.

Can't comment on warpriest.

Arcanist seems boring and isn't necessary for the game. my problem here isn't the power (which is somewhere between wizards and sorcerers) but rather the concept.

Shaman was such a great concept but is just too lazily designed. It could have been so much more.

Stalker is pretty boring but fills it's role nicely which is a more martial rogue. Very nice for some character concepts after all.

Bloodrager isn't very different from his parent classes but I like the combination and the general concept of the class. I just would have wished it had more synergy for fighting and casting and 2/3 casting jnstead. Missed opportunity here.

Skald. Yuk ... I just looked at it once and felt pretty bad. Maybe it's because the class doesn't offer anything really new or because it is just a concept I don't like but it seems like an archetype to me. Might use it for some npcs though.

The brawler is OK I guess but if I want a similar concept I'll pick a psychic warrior over it 9/10. Nice class for many people though and I can see it being a nice addition to the game.

Swashbuckler. Horrible power wise and too weak development. What a failed opportunity again. I'll take the warlord instead ... Thank you

In general there are some nice additions here of which some are unique and others just make it easier realising your concept.

Snowbluff

2014-08-23, 12:08 PM

What Anlashok said - it annoys me that some weapons are just flat-out statistically The Best And You Should Use Them Or YOU FAIL and others are You need Six Feats To Use This And Not Suck.

(Note: Some hyperbole may have been used in the construction of this post.)

So I have this dagger that works with Weapon Finesse, it's easy to hide, and I can throw it. You know what it needs? 2d8 damage.

If optimization is a concern, FIND A NEW GOD. :smalltongue:

Oazard

2014-08-23, 12:30 PM

Aahm.... mainly because they are among the best melee classes in the game while simultaneously breaking the action economy?

That's why they gave him a 9th level spells list disguised as a 6th level progression. :smalltongue:

Psyren

2014-08-23, 12:49 PM

What Anlashok said - it annoys me that some weapons are just flat-out statistically The Best And You Should Use Them Or YOU FAIL

The second half of this does not follow from the first. You can kill a dragon with a short sword if you're skilled enough; sure, kukris are better, but using a short sword instead is not the end of the world.

I do agree though that some weapons take too many feats to become cool (like staffs and whips.)

Prime32

2014-08-23, 12:58 PM

Snowbluff

2014-08-23, 01:40 PM

Weapon Focus (lemon)? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8ufRnf2Exc) :smalltongue:

Yes, (http://youtu.be/t-3qncy5Qfk?t=1m17s) and now I want a guy who fights with lemons. D:

AMFV

2014-08-23, 02:25 PM

Yes, and now I want a guy who fights with lemons. D:

Take care when you fight with lemons, lest ye yourself become one.

Snowbluff

2014-08-23, 02:42 PM

Take care when you fight with lemons, lest ye yourself become one.

I don't know what anything means anymore. Does that mean Every 'Vluff Is Lemons? D:

AMFV

2014-08-23, 02:51 PM

I don't know what anything means anymore. Does that mean Every 'Vluff Is Lemons? D:

When you gaze into the juicer, the juicer gazes also into you.

Anlashok

2014-08-23, 02:53 PM

So I have this dagger that works with Weapon Finesse, it's easy to hide, and I can throw it. You know what it needs? 2d8 damage.

If optimization is a concern, FIND A NEW GOD. :smalltongue:

The fact that you don't have to do that though is purely a good thing as far as I can tell. Having to sacrifice fluff for power or vice versa has always been an obnoxious issue (sans with DMs who allow very liberal refluffing, which some DMs don't like for whatever reason). Any mechanic that mitigates that seems like a good one to me.

And on the weapon front I'm bored of seeing Greatswords and Scimitars every week anyways.

Snowbluff

2014-08-23, 02:56 PM

And on the weapon front I'm bored of seeing Greatswords and Scimitars every week anyways.

You can fix that by playing 3.5. :smalltongue:

And you just disproved your own point. The problem isn't damage die, but other properties. You'll just be seeing more 2d8 scimitars, because the weapon DPR is the highest there. If you wanted to see other weapons, buff the alternate properties, remove all unarmed style in favor of actual weapons, and give spiked chain back its reach.

grarrrg

2014-08-23, 03:57 PM

Weapon Focus (lemon)? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8ufRnf2Exc) :smalltongue:

Lemons are thrown weapons
http://www.neatorama.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/5759465821_2a3b6bc545.jpg

Feint's End

2014-08-23, 07:23 PM

That's why they gave him a 9th level spells list disguised as a 6th level progression. :smalltongue:

Point taken and understood =D

still I can see paizos reasoning since they are much more limited by spells known and spells/day than a full spontaneous caster would be. I think it's actually an interesting combination in that certain case.

grarrrg

2014-08-23, 09:15 PM

That's why they gave him a 9th level spells list disguised as a 6th level progression. :smalltongue:

This in and of itself is not a problem.
The Summoner's spells, viewed ONLY from the point of view of the Summoner class itself are not a problem.

The main problem is the many ways to gain spells from other class's casting lists, thus giving everyone else access to the Summoner's 'discount spells'.
A secondary problem is reduced Scroll/Wand costs and such (and interactions with Metamagic rods, and...).

Novawurmson

2014-08-24, 12:20 AM

The REAL problem is that the Eidolon by itself is, in many ways, better than a Fighter.

They either need to drastically reduce the power of the summoner itself (because it gets such a strong buddy) or drastically reduce the power of the eidolon (because it's got such a strong caster backup). A summoner without an Eidolon would still be a tier 3 class; an eidolon without a summoner would still be a tier 3 class. Put 'em both together with an optimized player, and you've got a frustrating experience for a GM.

Note that I GMed for a summoner in a 1-20 campaign. At levels 1-3, before he had any idea what he was doing, it was OK. Once he glanced over an optimization guide and brought out a multi-armed angel with an absurdly high AC and started spending his actions buffing it (and the rest of the party) to stupid levels, it was almost impossible to threaten the party without building encounters specifically to counter him. Thankfully, he's a friend, so we were able to sit down and decide on some nerfs together, but as written...