The first alternate class was obviously the Anti-Paladin. It, of course, being a Paladin that ... was not a Paladin. That's cool; I understood that. But with the advent of Ultimate Combat and an obvious expansion upon the alternate class concept (ie, "a base class, but not a base class"), I just don't get it. The only one of them that I remotely understand as an "alternate class" is the Samurai - an Asian Knight. You obviously can't be both an Eastern and Western Knight. But the Gunslinger is a Fighter that isn't a Fighter? And the Ninja is a Rogue that isn't a Rogue? Why? How? Why isn't the Gunslinger a Ranger that isn't a Ranger? Or the Ninja a Monk that isn't a Monk?
Both classes could and should stand on their own as base classes, not as faux base classes. I'm not sure if Paizo is steeping themselves in nostalgia from 1E and 2E they seriously need to divorce themselves from (regardless if it is applicable here) or if they are trying to implement some sort stopgap against multi-classing after declaring "class alignment restrictions are stupid." And from the looks of things, trying to make things an "alternate" class is going to hamstring what they can and can't do with full classes that don't fit the logical and thematic mold of that declaration. Not to mention introduce balance issues.
Am I alone in feeling that the "alternate base class" design philosophy needs to be more concrete as well as much rarer as it appears they are leaning towards? Perhaps a better explanation of what is trying to actually be achieved is in order.
I like alternate classes, "wanna play a fighter? here's the gunslinger, that is a fighter"
also you don't need to recreate feats and stuff with prerequisites.
I'm with Cartigan and TOZ. This alternate class thing has to go.
|
I think your analysis is pretty spot on. Metagame prevention of multiclassing is the only reason I can really see for saying they are the same class.
Wouldn't it be better to instead just make sure their design isn't broken if they multiclass?
The ninja as an alternate rogue with ki is confusing to me. I'm ok with classes other than monk having ki, but to introduce an alternate rogue with it doesn't make sense. It steps pretty far from the rogue when you start introducing ki. This to me breaks so far away from the rogue, that it seems more of a new class than an alternate class.
If they don't want you to gain sneak attack from a ninja and a rogue when you multi-class, then why don't they just make you expend ki in order to sneak attack?
I think you guys are worried to much they want to give us options but dont want the 3.5 class bloat and I think the Sub or alternate class is a solid way to do it. I was worried the mechanic and the feel would not fit but I think they have some solid things going here so lets see how the play test goes and stop complaining and do some number crunching and playtesting
If you think the Ninja is so much better then a rogue build two and compare them out and play it and post the results
I think you guys are worried to much they want to give us options but dont want the 3.5 class bloat and I think the Sub or alternate class is a solid way to do it. I was worried the mechanic and the feel would not fit but I think they have some solid things going here so lets see how the play test goes and stop complaining and do some number crunching and playtesting
If you think the Ninja is so much better then a rogue build two and compare them out and play it and post the results
The balance issue is only part of it. The other part is "Why are these two 'the same class'?" How is a Gunslinger more the mirror to a Fighter than a Ranger? A Ninja to a Rogue rather than a Monk? It just looks ham-handed. And if that is going to be there response to "We don't want to make a bunch of classes and PrCs to add to the game because we don't like what they did in 3.5," then making classes and saying "These totally arent't base classes; see we said so!" isn't the way to do it.
I agree. Though the new classes look amazing, I don't much like how they are going about it.
It would have been much easier for them to have one little line saying "this class counts as a fighter/rogue/whatever for the purposes of meeting prerequisites" then to have all this it's a class but not a class confusing mumbojumbo.
If it's a metagame balance thing, then they just need to make them balanced to multiclass TO BEGIN WITH.
*shakes head in disappointment*
|
Well, I'm don't really care about the balance problem. One of the cool things about Pathfinder product is that all his releases has been overtested by them AND the community, using his beta PDFs. I love Paizo for that.
I'm really sure they won't broke his own game when they have this powerful tool to keep the balance: the community of playtesters.
The balance issue is only part of it. The other part is "Why are these two 'the same class'?" How is a Gunslinger more the mirror to a Fighter than a Ranger? A Ninja to a Rogue rather than a Monk? It just looks ham-handed. And if that is going to be there response to "We don't want to make a bunch of classes and PrCs to add to the game because we don't like what they did in 3.5," then making classes and saying "These totally arent't base classes; see we said so!" isn't the way to do it.
See, theoretically I'd agree with you. On the other hand, I fear this line of reasoning could lead to restraint to desing.
Pick up the Ninja: I think is more solid (both from a flavour and a mechanical standpoint) in the current playtest version way than a simpler retooling of the "standard" Rogue.
You could say that it would work the same way and be more "sincere" state that Ninja or Gunslinger are brand new base class.... legitimate. OTOH, there is a mechanical advantage we have declaring they are variants: you don't need to adjust options for them. If something needs Fighter level X, it's good for the Gunslinger too (as an example).
I doubt I would be consumed by my own nerdrage if they change it, but it's a thing to consider IMHO :)
EDIT: Ravingdork post counters what I say, but I find better this approach.
I think of these sub-classes, or alternate classes, or whatever they decide to call it, as big archetypes. So anytime you need to add a major aspect to the alternate class (ninja skills, grit, Samurai Orders).
I don't think of rangers getting their name cause they do ranged. Its that they hunt people down and are more woodsman type. I wouldn't mind a variant for rangers that allowed guns but as far as the gunslinger, it should stay fighter since there is nothing huntsman-y about the gunslinger class. They just fight. The only reason why they don't get the variant treatment is that they have an entirely new mechanic to them and also some changes in placement of abilities in the advancement chart.
Why would ninja even go off monk, because of the ki? I think that ninja are just as much as spiritual masters as monks are, but where monks are rather more defensive, the ninja is the offense of the team.
I'm not sure I would be happy about an overbloat of alt classes but in all 3 classes we get something that I don't think a variant could show off. If they could come up with enough new things though to change the alt into a brand new class then we can talk about something different though. Its a playtest though, things can change to break it down or build it up.
Plus the gamers that play in a asian setting I bet are cheering for joy.
I think I understand what they are doing with the alternate classes. There should just be a disclaimer stating whether or not the alternate class qualifies for feats and abilities of the core class. Perhaps I missed reading that somewhere.
They are alternate classes because Paizo didn't want us to make rogue/ninja, fighter/gunslinger and cavalier/samurai. I think it's a fine choice and I see nothing wrong with that.
I think they may be more of a demonstration of the new alternative rules incorporated in known classes. Aside from that I view alternative classes as archetypes that change too many things to be practically fitted in archetype format, so they get a full class table.
They are alternate classes because Paizo didn't want us to make rogue/ninja, fighter/gunslinger and cavalier/samurai. I think it's a fine choice and I see nothing wrong with that.
Other than that making literally no sense, sure.
They are alternate classes because Paizo didn't want us to make rogue/ninja, fighter/gunslinger and cavalier/samurai. I think it's a fine choice and I see nothing wrong with that.Other than that making literally no sense, sure.
I believe that he is referring to having to prestige into each one to get the desired fluff powers. I could be wrong though.
I don't think of rangers getting their name cause they do ranged.
No im pretty sure they got the name because of Tolken and Aregorn being a ranger and the other rangers in the books
|
|
They are alternate classes because Paizo didn't want us to make rogue/ninja, fighter/gunslinger and cavalier/samurai. I think it's a fine choice and I see nothing wrong with that.Other than that making literally no sense, sure.
Makes sense to me; a Gunslinger is a highly-trained killer. Fighter fills that role already. A ninja is a stealthy infiltrator, rogue fills that role already. A samurai is a knight with an honor system, the cavalier fills that role already. Why should you be able to go Highly-trained-killer 3/highly-trained-killer 2?
No im pretty sure they got the name because of Tolken and Aregorn being a ranger and the other rangers in the books
Fair enough, but the point was missed. Aragorn was more of a woodsman (imo) till near the end where he seemed more a fighterly. He also didn't run around toting a gun.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Now I know why we've gotten all this snow in an era of global warming. Cartigan and I agree on something. Hell has indeed frozen over.
Wall of text
IF I understand archtypes correctly (I may not, so bear with me) you can take multiple archtypes and smash them together if they don't overlap (say one archtype replaces sneak attack, and another replaces rogue talents) but you can't be a cat burgler 5/rogue 5. I've only had a chance to peek at the classes, but from what I saw, and read, it seems to me you could make the ninja a rogue archtype pretty easily, same for the samurai/cavalier. By just biting the bullet, making them archtypes (well the ninja would be a long archtype) I believe that's a superior method. Give us options, without a huge number of 'base classes'.
It was my understanding that the magus was created to fill a nook from the start that the eldrich knight is supposed to fill as a prestige (injoke, can we get a new image for the EK if Seytel is the Iconic retcon, er, magus? And if we can, can it look like Chrstian Bale or Hugh Jackman?) The Cavalier was designed to be a devoted mounted niche filler, Summoner to fill the niche of Pokemon train- er big guy with pet, etc.
What niche does the ninja fill that the rogue doesn't? Even some of the ninja's magic tricks can be done by adding another level of spells to the rogue talents.
What niche does the Samurai fill that the cavalier doesn't?
Ok, this went a little long. I *am* happy to see that the line between 'rule books' and 'fluff books' looks to be more strongly defined than in some other game systems (I expect the Tian Xia book to have some prestige classes/monsters, but more along the lines of 'Pathfinder' instead of 'Dwarven defender with the serial numbers filed off and given some kind of funly Asian sounding name.') I am happy to see more options, with consideration given to balance. I just don't think two of the three classes need to be classes or 'alternate classes' when calling them archtypes and using the structure established in the APG is more streamlined and consistent.
Makes sense to me; a Gunslinger is a highly-trained killer. Fighter fills that role already. A ninja is a stealthy infiltrator, rogue fills that role already. A samurai is a knight with an honor system, the cavalier fills that role already. Why should you be able to go Highly-trained-killer 3/highly-trained-killer 2?
A Ranger is a highly trained killer. A Ranger is a stealthy infiltrator. Hell, EVERYONE is a highly trained killer here - that's why they have PC classes. The only one that remotely makes sense is the Samurai<->Cavalier
Other than that making literally no sense, sure.
THAT'S LITERALLY RIDICULOUS.
Well said, Matthew Morris. These new "alternate classes" seem to be blurring lines between the role of archetypes and the role of "alternate classes" (even the antipaladin is just a lengthy paladin archetype where you essentially replace "good" with evil in all the descriptions...).
By just biting the bullet, making them archtypes (well the ninja would be a long archtype) I believe that's a superior method. Give us options, without a huge number of 'base classes'
All these Alternate classes are are more indepth Archtypes acording to Jason
I think perhaps several of you are missing something here...
An "Alternate Class" is not something you can simply multi-class into, or use in conjunction with, a "Normal Class."
If a Gunslinger is an alternate Class to the Fighter, it is intended to be used in place of that Class where the setting is appropriate for it to be.
For example, in my longest running campaign world, the "base fighter" is simply not something that exists. It has several Alternate Classes taking its place - the classic D&D Fighter Trope of a warrior trained in all types of weapons and armor with all manner of combat prowess, facing down hordes of enemies all Paladin In Hell style simply doesn't exist.
Riflemen, Soldiers, and Swordsmen, however, do. These are each base classes for the game that have their own flavor, their own abilities, and their own Fighter-based abilities, but are not, per se, Fighters.
Riflemen are trained in powder weapons (up to and including Cannon), are not trained in Medium or Heavy armors, and are capable of working together in teams for volley fire and have the ability to turn portions of the battlefield into Difficult (or Impassible) Terrain with enough time and ammunition.
Soldiers are trained in unit tactics, have Commander-related abilities, and gain bonuses to their AC and Damage as they progress through their levels. They are the rank and file Infantry, the Archers, and the Naval Marines of the game world. The average PC "Fighter" is a Soldier, returned home from the War. (Don't you know there's a WAR ON?!)
Swordsmen are generally the Gentry, training in dueling and the "Persuasive Arts" of the blade - these are people who spend most of their lives in Salle's learning new and interesting tricks with their blades, cloaks, chairs, pistols, canes, and bucklers and would rapidly find themselves suffering from Dysentery on a battlefield. But, if you give them a mug and a ham-shank, they can defend themselves adequately in a bar fight until they can get to the blade-hitch and retrieve their sword. And they do it with witty banter and flair!
Each of these Classes has a role within the game world, and they fits their roles much more easily than taking a Stock Fighter and trimming abilities here and there through the use of an Archetype or something similar to "shoehorn" it in.
A Ninja is not just an "Asian Rogue," it is what can be played instead of a Rogue within that setting. The GM says "For this setting, we are using Ninjas instead of Rogues, and Samurai instead of Cavaliers," and thus the game world suddenly no longer has Rogues and Cavaliers - it has Ninjas and Samurai, each with their own benefits and drawbacks.
Looking at this from the perspective of "Well, why wouldn't you just play X with Y Feats?" is the wrong perspective, I think.
Instead, look at it from "What kind of adventures could I run/play if the game had Class A instead of Class B?"
Might help you see things in a different light. :)
-Edit to Add-
Of course while I'm typing this out, trying to make sure I get my wording just right, other people come along and say what I want to say, only shorter. Well, I stand by my post and that's that! NYAH!
I think perhaps several of you are missing something here...
An "Alternate Class" is not something you can simply multi-class into, or use in conjunction with, a "Normal Class."
If a Gunslinger is an alternate Class to the Fighter, it is intended to be used in place of that Class where the setting is appropriate for it to be.
No. That is the part we DID get. It's the reason it even exists or how it is applied that is confusing.
A Ninja is not just an "Asian Rogue," it is what can be played instead of a Rogue within that setting.
AKA, an Asian Rogue. Saying it isn't an Asian Rogue then describing it as one isn't going to get you anywhere.
Looking at this from the perspective of "Well, why wouldn't you just play X with Y Feats?" is the wrong perspective, I think.
That is NOT the question. The question is "Why the hell does it work like this?" If the class created is too different for a generic archetype, why not just make a new class and instead of making a new class and then pretending it isn't a new class by using pointless and arbitrary constraints on both design and player use?
They are alternate classes because Paizo didn't want us to make rogue/ninja, fighter/gunslinger and cavalier/samurai. I think it's a fine choice and I see nothing wrong with that.Other than that making literally no sense, sure.
What's the point of a fighter/gunslinger if the gunslinger can take the fighter's exclusive feats? As for the rogue/ninja, I can see someone making a rogue/ninja/assassin only to get +3d6 sneak attack damage in a 3-level row while throwing his reflex saves into the sky. Maybe they made this choice for the sake of balance. I guess I don't need to talk about the cavalier/samurai.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
By just biting the bullet, making them archtypes (well the ninja would be a long archtype) I believe that's a superior method. Give us options, without a huge number of 'base classes'All these Alternate classes are are more indepth Archtypes acording to Jason
I understand that... But by presenting them as 'Classes' and not 'Archtypes' we end up with the 'why can't I be a thief/ninja' silliness. Saying they're 'alternate classes' is kludgy. It works for the anti-paladin because you can't be an antipaladin/paladin*, well not without a healthy dose of MPD. I'd even be happy with the phrase 'advanced archtypes' "These archtypes are advanced because of the greater complexity of modifications to the core class they're based on. For advanced archtypes we use this format..."
If Paizo chooses to define 'alternate class' as a more indepth archtype, then something like the ninja/samurai/anti-paladin should be a valid entry in the round two results revealed today. Anyone want to place money on if they could be?
We have 'Core classes' meaning one thing, 'Base classes' meaning something else, though they are mechanically the same (20 level classes). If these are indepth archtypes, then they should be called 'advanced archtypes' 'indepth archtypes' or something with the word archtype in them.
Maybe I'm spitting into the wind on this one, but I'd like some 'standard termanology' By calling them 'classes' even alternate classes, it doesn't do that.
And don't give me the 'level has multiple meanings' argument, just because there's one confusing term, doesn't mean we(er Paizo) should introduce another.
*
What's the point of a fighter/gunslinger if the gunslinger can take the fighter's exclusive feats?
...What?
As for the rogue/ninja, I can see someone making a rogue/ninja/assassin only to get +3d6 sneak attack damage in a 3-level row while throwing his reflex saves into the sky.
Then that is a problem with (a) multiclassing and (b) not including a simple line like "Levels of this class stack with other classes for determining the amount of Sneak Attack dice."
Maybe they made this choice in the sake of balance.
That's an entirely half-assed solution.
, why not just make a new class and instead of making a new class and then pretending it isn't a new class by using pointless and arbitrary constraints on both design and player use?
Reason it isn't a brand new class: Don't expect ninja archetypes and more ninja support in later books. For rogues you can.
At least that's what I believe.
, why not just make a new class and instead of making a new class and then pretending it isn't a new class by using pointless and arbitrary constraints on both design and player use?Reason it isn't a brand new class: Don't expect ninja archetypes and more ninja support in later books. For rogues you can.
At least that's what I believe.
Then you still have a whole class that isn't going to get any progression.
The Ninja isn't a Rogue; it is wholly a Ninja, but not really because Paizo said so.
a lot of smart stuff
Yes, yes, yes. Couldn't agree more.
|
|
A Ninja is not just an "Asian Rogue," it is what can be played instead of a Rogue within that setting.AKA, an Asian Rogue. Saying it isn't an Asian Rogue then describing it as one isn't going to get you anywhere.
jemstone said it's "Not an Asian Rogue". It is also the only rogue for the Asian Setting. It is not an "Asian Rogue", but the "Asian Rogue", for use in a game where the PCs will never, NOT ONCE, go to Spain or Cheliax or what the hell ever, and thus don't need the Western Thief concept, but instead are using the Romanticized Eastern Ninja concept when they're using a Rogue.
If you have a little checklist for starting a game, one section would be "Rogue OR Ninja", "Samurai OR Cavalier", and so forth. An entirely new class would be meant to be used alongside other classes - "Rogue AND Ninja" - but this is not the case here. It's a toggle switch for a single class; THIS version or THAT version.
...What?
What's the point of a fighter/gunslinger if the gunslinger can take the fighter's exclusive feats?
If the gunslinger is an alternate fighter, he should be able to take fighter's exclusive feat, no? Maybe I got this wrong.
The only one that remotely makes sense is the Samurai<->Cavalier
It's a matter of taste, to a certain degree. I think the ninja is basically a rogue with a different list of rogue talents to choose from in the same way that a samurai is basically a cavalier with a different list of orders to choose from. But I agree that the gunslinger has little in common with the fighter, other than the fact that they both have bonus feats (along with a zillion other classes).
A Ninja is not just an "Asian Rogue," it is what can be played instead of a Rogue within that setting.AKA, an Asian Rogue. Saying it isn't an Asian Rogue then describing it as one isn't going to get you anywhere.jemstone said it's "Not an Asian Rogue". It is also the only rogue for the Asian Setting. It is not an "Asian Rogue", but the "Asian Rogue", for use in a game where the PCs will never, NOT ONCE, go to Spain or Cheliax or what the hell ever, and thus don't need the Western Thief concept, but instead are using the Romanticized Eastern Ninja concept when they're using a Rogue.
Asian Golarion doesn't have pick pockets and cutthroats that aren't also magic? Asian Golarion is weird.
|
jemstone said it's "Not an Asian Rogue". It is also the only rogue for the Asian Setting. It is not an "Asian Rogue", but the "Asian Rogue", for use in a game where the PCs will never, NOT ONCE, go to Spain or Cheliax or what the hell ever, and thus don't need the Western Thief concept, but instead are using the Romanticized Eastern Ninja concept when they're using a Rogue.
What do you use for a pickpocket that doesn't assassinate people?
What do you use for a pickpocket that doesn't assassinate people?
jemstone said it's "Not an Asian Rogue". It is also the only rogue for the Asian Setting. It is not an "Asian Rogue", but the "Asian Rogue", for use in a game where the PCs will never, NOT ONCE, go to Spain or Cheliax or what the hell ever, and thus don't need the Western Thief concept, but instead are using the Romanticized Eastern Ninja concept when they're using a Rogue.
Didn't you hear him? All Asian Golarion thieves are wall-climbing, super-jumping, invisibling, assassins.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
A Ninja is not just an "Asian Rogue," it is what can be played instead of a Rogue within that setting. The GM says "For this setting, we are using Ninjas instead of Rogues, and Samurai instead of Cavaliers," and thus the game world suddenly no longer has Rogues and Cavaliers - it has Ninjas and Samurai, each with their own benefits and drawbacks.
jemstone, I wanted to hit this point of your post.
Ok, so if I'm playing in Tian Xia, I'm playing a ninja. Now let's say the GM later decides to indulge the players by letting their PCs go across the roof of the world, and end up in Riddleport.
Do they encounter a bunch of rogues in the thieves' guild, or a bunch of Ninja? Does their Samurai encounter Samurai in Taldor, or cavaliers?
If they encounter rogues and cavaliers, why can't the Samurai pick up a level or two of cavalier? Or the ninja pick up two levels of rogue and get evasion? To say 'well they're alternate classes' doesn't answer it. A sorcerer is an 'alternate' to a wizard, but you can multiclass there. A bard can't multiclass with an arcane duelist, because they're the same class. This method gives us classes that for some reason have different rules for a specific class. By calling them 'advanced archtypes' it would be clearer.
Agreed that they should just be new classes.
Why can't someone playing a Ninja alongside a rogue or a Ninja/rogue?
It isn't broken.
|
|
Given that I've never seen a regular rogue that doesn't backstab the hell out of everyone, I'd guess you use a different game.
What do you use for a pickpocket that doesn't assassinate people?
Alright, answer Cartigan's question. How do you play a thief that doesn't use ki if all you have is the Ninja Rogue? Are you really saying there are no pickpockets on the streets of this setting?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
A Ninja is not just an "Asian Rogue," it is what can be played instead of a Rogue within that setting.AKA, an Asian Rogue. Saying it isn't an Asian Rogue then describing it as one isn't going to get you anywhere.jemstone said it's "Not an Asian Rogue". It is also the only rogue for the Asian Setting. It is not an "Asian Rogue", but the "Asian Rogue", for use in a game where the PCs will never, NOT ONCE, go to Spain or Cheliax or what the hell ever, and thus don't need the Western Thief concept, but instead are using the Romanticized Eastern Ninja concept when they're using a Rogue.
If you have a little checklist for starting a game, one section would be "Rogue OR Ninja", "Samurai OR Cavalier", and so forth. An entirely new class would be meant to be used alongside other classes - "Rogue AND Ninja" - but this is not the case here. It's a toggle switch for a single class; THIS version or THAT version.
So if I say "The core monk sucks, you have to use an archtype out of the APG instead", have I suddenly 'created' a number of alternate classes? No, I've limited the archtypes allowed in my game.
And the Yakuza would be irritated if they all have to wear black pajamas and strike from the shadows*
*
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They are alternate classes because Paizo didn't want us to make rogue/ninja, fighter/gunslinger and cavalier/samurai. I think it's a fine choice and I see nothing wrong with that.Other than that making literally no sense, sure.
It actually makes a LOT of sense.
Rogues get sneak attack at 1st level. It's a core ability of the rogue.
We happen to also think that sneak attack is a core ability of the ninja, so the ninja should get it at 1st level.
What no class combo should be able to do, though, is get 2d6 sneak attack at, effectively, 2nd level. If ninjas were a true base class, you could do that. That's not currently something we want to allow. When two classes are SO CLOSE in theme and niche and power... multiclassing between them is effectively like allowing someone to multiclass into their own class, like rogue/rogue, or wizard/wizard. That's weird.
Now, of course, we could redesign the ninja so that it's its own base class and thus works better when you multiclass into rogues, but that's even less attractive to us.
Another option would be to present the ninja as a rogue archetype. But know what? That's basically what an alternate class is—an archetype. They just get a lot more swap-outs than most archetypes, and they're just formatted with all of those swap-outs done for you.
(all the ninja/rogue stuff applies to samurai/cavaliers as well; we're not 100% sure that the gunslinger is actually going to STAY a fighter alternate though...)
ANYWAY...
Just so I'm understanding the point clearly:
Folks who are disappointed in the alternate class concept are disappointed because they'd rather see more archetypes? Or more base classes?