Recent Posts
I would hope for more of a knight class which the fighter doesn't really represent as well.
The druid class doesn't really represent an urban druid, but that doesn't mean that there needs to be a base class called the Metrodruidicalist. Some new feats and/or variant class features would do the job much better.
Same thing for prestige classes like the Shackles Pirate (which is basically a rogue with a few storm-related abilities that could easily be made into feats or rogue special abilities).
(In my opinion, of course. There's probably a good reason I'm not a professional game designer.)
Do you guys and gals think these classes (if done in 3.5 pathfinder style) would be a good edition to the Pathfinder RPG coming in August?
Avenger - A divine assassin with limited divine spellcasting ability
Invoker - A Warlock with holy based powers instead of demonic powers
Shaman - A divine-based Favored Soul/Druid with spiritual companions
Ninja - A Rogue/Assassin with limited arcane spellcasting
Warlord - A martial-based mixture of Knight/Marshal abilities
First of all, they shouldn't be "classes", they should perhaps be prestige classes.
Second, imo, if your core classes are good enough, you can create all of these classes by multi-classing and picking feats well. I truly believe if you want to create anything, it can be done with the core classes, with very little tweaking.
Shaman are druids imo, you change some flavoring, pick spells properly, and spell components or whatever and it's passable.
Also, some of the classes you mention (like ninja) have a flavor that are specific for certain campaigns, it's too specific to belong in a core product imo.
I would hope for more of a knight class which the fighter doesn't really represent as well.The druid class doesn't really represent an urban druid, but that doesn't mean that there needs to be a base class called the Metrodruidicalist. Some new feats and/or variant class features would do the job much better.
Same thing for prestige classes like the Shackles Pirate (which is basically a rogue with a few storm-related abilities that could easily be made into feats or rogue special abilities).
(In my opinion, of course. There's probably a good reason I'm not a professional game designer.)
New feats/variants or new classes, it doesn't really matter to me, I don't mind either option.
If new Base classes are going to be added, I'd like to see them help breach possible gaps into a 4 player group.
For example in one campaign I was in we were lacking a thief and an arcane caster, so I took SpellThief to help breach the missing gaps.
Now for my groups I run I have an abundance of players which can fill all the gaps pretty easily, however it does allow some interesting new group dynamics.
Some initial thoughts:
Scout--Ranger/Thief
SpellThief--Thief/arcane caster
Cavalier-- Bard/Paladin variant?
Do you guys and gals think these classes (if done in 3.5 pathfinder style) would be a good edition to the Pathfinder RPG coming in August?
Avenger - A divine assassin with limited divine spellcasting ability
Invoker - A Warlock with holy based powers instead of demonic powers
Shaman - A divine-based Favored Soul/Druid with spiritual companions
Ninja - A Rogue/Assassin with limited arcane spellcasting
Warlord - A martial-based mixture of Knight/Marshal abilities
Avenger, maybe, needs a new name or a new schtick.
Invoker, need to know more before I can tell if it's just a demon-worshipping cleric.
Shaman, no, this is a setting-specific class. Many campaigns and game worlds have no need of or place for shamans, so making them core (or semi-core splat) is excessive. Put them in a campaign setting book somewhere and leave it at that.
Ninja, no, same reason as shaman.
Warlord, probably not. What do they bring to the table that a fighter doesn't bring? Really, dub the fighter Sir Fightsalot and now he's a knight. And all fighters have lots of martial abilities. Oh, you said Marshal, as in, from the mini handbook Marshal? Well, all you need is a few auras and Sir Fightsalot is ready to go. Prestige class at best, though I can see maybe making a full class out of it.
A number of people have mentioned the Scout as well as a non spell casting Ranger variant.
I thought it might be worth mentioning here that Wolfgang is considering a Pathfinder non spellcasting Ranger class I have written for possible publication in an upcoming issue of Kobold Quarterly. I worked really hard on this and I'm really proud of this class - it has a lot of flavor and a well balanced mix of abilities. It feels a little like a Ranger / Scout in some ways ... if it sees its way into publication, I really think those of you looking for such a class will like it.
Initially, it was being considered for the upcoming issue (out in time for GenCon) but, since it is based on the Beta rules and it looks like some things have changed in the Ranger class, as well as with animal companions etc in the final book ... it probably makes more sense to consider it for the issue after that.
Pathfinder already has a bunch of Prestige Classes, presumably these will have a conversion.
Of the top of my head:
The Desna one (name?)
Lion Blade (which, with different entry requirements would suit a ninja).
Living Monolith
Brightness Seeker
Harrower
Low Templar
Red Mantis Assassin
Shackles Pirate
Pathfinder ChroniclerIncidentally, six of these have no spellcasting requirement or element (althought the most obvious route for some may be through a casting class).
Interestingly, I wrote a third PrC for the campaign setting book that was a spellcaster type. The non-spellcasting Low Templar and Pathfinder Chronicler stayed in, but not the divine-casting Idolater (which worshiped and drew power from ancient idols and places of natural power in a manner reminiscent of the "node magic" from Underdark and Champions of Ruin). I suppose the Living Monolith does have a number of SLAs, but certainly requires no spellcasting ability for entry.
Psion - Yes please
Wilder - Rewritten but ditto
Mastermind - Something similar to the Psionics PrC Thrallherd as a base class, especially if there is a way to play them that doesn't come off as Evil. I like the idea of a class where the major abilities involve commanding followers/minions.
Witchdoctor/Curser/Suppressor - D&D does not have a good way to field a character that specializes in debuffing foes, especially not AoE debuffing. The best I can come up with is a Necromancer and they require a lot of rounds to be able to stack up much in the way of effective debuffs. I would really like to see a class that focuses on this niche, they have been some of my favorites in other games/systems. This is effectively the opposite side of the healer, you help the party survive by reducing the incoming damage, it can be a much more satisfying way to play when compared to a standard heal-bot.
So basically with a 6 BaB your ninja is 2 less than a cleric and only 1 better then a straight wizard. Now admittedly this could be fixed by using fractional BaB but droppign that much BaB does not make for a good Ninja.
The BAB of a straight 10th level fighter is 4 better.
The 10th level fighter...
...has worse Ref save
...has worse Will save
...can't mage hand
...can't use obscuring mist
...can't sneak attack
...doesn't get Evasion
...doesn't get Uncanny Dodge
...can't sense or find traps
...has WAY less skill points
...moves slower
...has a lower base AC (10 vs. 11)
...is not immune to diseases
So, yes, you are correct, that since the Rogue/Monk multiclass has a 4 worse BAB than an equivalent level fighter, he is a horrible ninja.
I guess if all you do is toe-to-toe fighting... sure. I thought ninja's were stealthy quasi-mystical assassins who killed their prey in the night and who didn't plan to go toe-to-toe with samurai though.
Maybe I have a different mental image of ninja's than you do though. In my imagination, if a ninja ever found himself in a direct, one on one fight with a samurai who was armored and prepared, the ninja would wet himself and probably die trying to get the hell away from the samurai.
I think the ninja could be done, but I don't like the mystical ninja(Complete Adventurer). It should be someone that can fight unarmed... and the unarmed strike should scale also, but not as well a monk of course.
PS: Ninjas don't make noises. If you make noises you are not a real ninja :)
Man, I gotta tell you. Ain't no ninja ever caught without weapons. They'd stuff a knife up their peehole if they had to. Ninjas were no better or worse at unarmed than samurai.
[EDIT]
Maybe I have a different mental image of ninja's than you do though. In my imagination, if a ninja ever found himself in a direct, one on one fight with a samurai who was armored and prepared, the ninja would wet himself and probably die trying to get the hell away from the samurai.
I'm usually on board with the whole, "lets separate reality from OMG these guys are the r0xx0r!!!1!" But dude, ain't no ninja afraid of a samurai. They were trained explicitly to destroy samurai if they had to, and they were very good at it. I will grant you that ninja would probably flee rather than fight, unless they had a very good reason, but they'd probably be very successful at making their exit.
Let's be clear, Dude A and Dude B are just that: dudes. They're not gods or monsters. A samurai is trained to defeat people in combat with great skill (amongst other things). A ninja is trained to accomplish any task they're given with cold-blooded determination and any tool they can use. Does one have a clear advantage? No. But ninjas do have a lot more options, and largely the same training. At least in the real world.
(I guess I should replace "do" with "did". Because there's no ninjas or samurai anymore, of course... ;D)
Cavalier - should rock on horseback, be less capable than a fighter off it.
I haven't said anything anywhere else on the boards, because I think I'm in the minority, but cavalier as a core class is boring. Horses/griffons/whatever are modes of transport, not class features. *yawn*
Samurai - just a 'how to modify the Cavalier' should do nicely. People are prone to forget that they were masters of sword and bow, and that 'dual weilders' were the exception.
Everything was the exception. Samurai also used yari, naginata, tetsubo, etc. The class really shouldn't reference weapons except maybe the bare minimum of katan abilities.
Martial Arts. something feat based, so you can build a brawler who knows some Tae Kwon Do, but if you want someine who's skilled in 'aft-kick-fu' to paraphrase Carnifex, play a monk.
Monks suck. But I've got a thread you might be interested in.
Man, I gotta tell you. Ain't no ninja ever caught without weapons. They'd stuff a knife up their peehole if they had to. Ninjas were no better or worse at unarmed than samurai.I think the ninja could be done, but I don't like the mystical ninja(Complete Adventurer). It should be someone that can fight unarmed... and the unarmed strike should scale also, but not as well a monk of course.
PS: Ninjas don't make noises. If you make noises you are not a real ninja :)
Can we please say "urethra" instead?
I think it might work, acutally, with a kugi-gata or hari-gata shuriken. Point out, of course...
But dude, ain't no ninja afraid of a samurai. They were trained explicitly to destroy samurai if they had to, and they were very good at it. I will grant you that ninja would probably flee rather than fight, unless they had a very good reason, but they'd probably be very successful at making their exit.
Let's be clear, Dude A and Dude B are just that: dudes. They're not gods or monsters. A samurai is trained to defeat people in combat with great skill (amongst other things). A ninja is trained to accomplish any task they're given with cold-blooded determination and any tool they can use. Does one have a clear advantage? No. But ninjas do have a lot more options, and largely the same training. At least in the real world.
Solo ninja vs. solo samurai in the open? Ninja loses 9 times out of 10, and they know it. Their weapons were smaller and built for stealth, and they fought unarmored. Samurai had the reach and had the better armor and weapons. Training was roughly equal (or a better way to put it, no one ninja or samurai could look at the other and assume his training would be better or worse).
But better armor, better weapons, and better reach is a huge, huge, huge advantage.
That said, ninja did not make a practice of fighting samurai in fair fights in the open. They ganged up, they used ranged attacks from cover, they used poisons, they attacked from stealth, or whatever other advantage they could find, whenever they could find it. Otherwise, they would find a way to escape and fight another time when they had the advantage, if fight they must.
The druid class doesn't really represent an urban druid, but that doesn't mean that there needs to be a base class called the Metrodruidicalist. Some new feats and/or variant class features would do the job much better.
The cleric class doesn't really represent a nature cleric, but that doesn't mean that there needs to be a base class called the Naturedruidicalist. Some new feats and/or variant class features would do the job much better.
=p
I think you have half a point, at least. My opinion is that writing a class is (in and of itself) no better or worse an approach than writing variant class features or feat chains. They're different ways of doing the same thing, and may work better or worse depending on your game.
For the "typical" tolkienesque D&D setting I think that the druid carries its weight as a character archetype, and the note of unquantifiable, unfathomable, primal mysticism which the class carries makes it "different" enough to serve as an interesting counterpoint to the cleric, rather than merely stepping on his toes.
But, in a game world with less focus on nature or wilderness?
In that case a cleric with the (nature) and/or (animal) domains would fill the roll of the "wild priest" just fine, and an entire class devoted to that archetype would feel out of place.
This is kind of how I view most of the comments in this thread. "these shouldn't be core classes", "just play a rogue/monk", etc. These are just people with different ideas of how central this archetype or that should be to the game. If ninjas are just weird foreigners existing on the fridge of your setting you want to represent them with a feat or two at most; if they are really central to your game you want to give them their own class or even several classes.
I thought it might be worth mentioning here that Wolfgang is considering a Pathfinder non spellcasting Ranger class I have written for possible publication in an upcoming issue of Kobold Quarterly. I worked really hard on this and I'm really proud of this class...
Good luck with that. And if it doesn't make the cut you can still post it here; I look forward to reading it either way. :)
What I REALLY want to see is Prestige Classes done MY WAY.Fixed!
Almost every single PrC implies some organization or superior power from which the abilities are learned... How many times have we all seen characters with two, three or even four Prestige Classes?They had organizations statted out, with lots of optional rules and such, for a lot of those prestige classes. It was the section of the book no one read. This goes back to an old argument about prestige classes. Just because you want to move in a similar direction as a given prestige class doesn't mean you're married to it, and it doesn't mean that you had to join some group to learn it. Just because you worked out how to do some tricks with arrows doesn't mean you actually joined the Order of the Bow. You might have levels in the prestige class but no interest in the group. Trying to enforce fluff requirements on people who aren't interested in the same fluff is just annoying. The fact is, "you have to kill someone to join the assassins" is ignored almost as frequently as, "you need a handful of owl poop and bedbugs to cast this spell". And for good reason. That might be fun for you, but for some of us it's irritating.
My house rule is that all casters get eschew materials at first level, and all characters get to ignore non-crunch entry requirements for prestige classes. They're not building members of an organization, they're building unique heroes.
Well, I have books of nothing but prestige classes with absolutely nothing else what-so-ever. So rather hard to read about cool organizations when they don't exist. Even WOTC had very few actual organizations statted out- (though honestly what is the point of STATTING out an organization- just tell me about it).
If you want to ignore parts of the requirements to actually use the classes that is your choice of course. Sort of like trying to discuss rules of combat with someone who has decided to not use Initiative though. Kind of pointless.
Regardless, the requirements are there and imply an organization is meant to also exist. Now notice I said IMPLY... nothing says they HAVE to exist, but you sure do get the feeling they should.
And true, trying to force a munchkin to actually roleplay is pointless. They will just take the rules they want to use and ignore the rest. Their choice, but discussing the game with them, is once again... pointless.
And I thought the power gamers had all gone to 4E!
I am NOT calling YOU a munchkin! I don't know you well enough to make that kind of claim- and I somehow doubt you would be what I call a munchkin anyway. I am talking about the munchkins in general... ok?
drunk ramblingSolo ninja vs. solo samurai in the open? Ninja loses 9 times out of 10, and they know it. Their weapons were smaller and built for stealth, and they fought unarmored. Samurai had the reach and had the better armor and weapons. Training was roughly equal (or a better way to put it, no one ninja or samurai could look at the other and assume his training would be better or worse).
But better armor, better weapons, and better reach is a huge, huge, huge advantage.
That said, ninja did not make a practice of fighting samurai in fair fights in the open. They ganged up, they used ranged attacks from cover, they used poisons, they attacked from stealth, or whatever other advantage they could find, whenever they could find it. Otherwise, they would find a way to escape and fight another time when they had the advantage, if fight they must.
Sure, sure. Sounds right to me.
If ninjas are just weird foreigners existing on the fridge of your setting
HAHAHA
Man, I wish somebody would get all those foreigners the heck off my fridge. They're worse than monkeys...
I am NOT calling YOU a munchkin! I don't know you well enough to make that kind of claim- and I somehow doubt you would be what I call a munchkin anyway. I am talking about the munchkins in general... ok?
Hahaha, it's cool. I've used up my allotment of self-righteousness for the day. I wasn't really trying to imply that you're some kind of devil making people play your way either, I've just been cranky and it shows through in my posts.
I'll be honest with you though... I've made some pretty "optimized" characters, but other people in the party did it first! I learned it from watching them!
This is kind of how I view most of the comments in this thread. "these shouldn't be core classes", "just play a rogue/monk", etc. These are just people with different ideas of how central this archetype or that should be to the game. If ninjas are just weird foreigners existing on the fridge of your setting you want to represent them with a feat or two at most; if they are really central to your game you want to give them their own class or even several classes.
I kinda belong to the first group, I think a ninja can be a rogue with different flavor text, smae goes for samurai, just use a slightly modified fighter or paladin if you like.
However, I understand there are those who REALLY like these classes on their own and figure it's pretty much inevitable that they be made. I'm fine with that, but PLEASE put them all in one Oriental Adventures type book. That way I can buy it or not as a whole, and not have the classes cluttering up traditional/occidental flavored books where they just really feel out of place.
Other than that, base classes are good. So are PRCs for that matter, but I'd like to not see things go overboard with either.
Wouldn't a "cavalier" just be a fighter with a chain of horse-related feats? I'm hard-pressed to see how it merits a base class by itself.
I feel the same way about some core classes. The Barbarian, in my mind, is just a Fighter with some Rage Feats, and the Sorcerer is just a Wizard who picked the 'spontaneous casting' option instead of the 'prepared casting' option (so, not even Feats, just a simple 'yes/no' choice at character generation, which a Cleric, Druid, Bard, Paladin or Ranger could also make, giving them a tiny dinky little spell known list, flexibility at time of casting and more castings per day).
The spontaneous / prepared divide would also allow for a spontaneous casting Bard or Paladin to take some sorcerous Heritage feats, as this particular Bards gets her talent from a Fey Heritage or that golden-eyed Paladin draws strength from his Gold Dragon patron (who may or may not be his great, great, great grandfather).
But, too far in that direction, and we're entering Unearthed Arcana / True20-style 'three base classes, Warrior/Expert/Spellcaster, with lots of feats to modify them' territory.
I think you have half a point, at least. My opinion is that writing a class is (in and of itself) no better or worse an approach than writing variant class features or feat chains. They're different ways of doing the same thing, and may work better or worse depending on your game.
I can think of two ways in which writing a class could be a worse approach.
- If you write a whole new class that's very similar to an existing class, you end up duplicating a lot of boilerplate information; what's the point?
- If you write a whole new class that's very similar to an existing class, you're basically "stealing" a role from the existing class and giving it to the new class.
Now if a base class does something genuinely new (e.g. like the Warlock class from Complete Arcane) and not just "just like the old class, but a little different" (e.g. like the Samurai class from Complete Warrior), then it makes sense to create a new class from scratch. Let's just say I have a healthy skepticism that "a fighter mounted on a horse" needs a brand new class, but I'll reserve my judgment until I see it in print. :-)
P.S. I had no problem with the 2E approach where a druid was just a type of specialty priest like any other cleric. I thought it made perfect sense.
I agree with Hogarth too. A cavalier just seems like a fighter with a bunch of horse-related feats and possibly a bigger budget. If they've already done the work on a cavalier core class, though, I guess there are some options I'm not seeing.
I would, however, really like to see a marshal-type class. The auras seemed kind of wonky fluff-wise, but I'd otherwise like to see/play a buff/debuff type character. Kind of like the noble in Star Wars Saga whose apbilities include inspiring allies and demoralizing enemies.
And help me understand this gish idea a little more. Are we talking "I don't want to multiclass 'cause I want my character to be the most powerful fighter AND the most powerful wizard" or are we talking "my arcane abilities boost my weaponskills"?
I can go for an arcane paladin type, but leave off with the tank-mage.
Honestly,
If you think about it, official alternate builds of core classes are additional core classes. They just are based off another core class.
For example, if you base a Ninja off an alternate build for a rogue, it's a core class, just one where you're using the Rogue's existing text for 90% of your class to avoid duplication. Why? Because you're going to put in a fluff section describing the Ninja, then you're going to put in the changes to the crunch for the rogue to turn him into a ninja (Advance BAB to fighters, advance hit die, remove or limit sneak attack, change class skill list, change weapon proficiencies, add a couple of class abilities).
And you know what? That's perfectly fine. I stated in the 'Beyond the Core Book' thread that I'd LOVE to see a book with nothing but 'alternate builds' to core classes and/or additional starting races.
And help me understand this gish idea a little more. Are we talking "I don't want to multiclass 'cause I want my character to be the most powerful fighter AND the most powerful wizard" or are we talking "my arcane abilities boost my weaponskills"?
I can go for an arcane paladin type, but leave off with the tank-mage.
The later for my designs, or to look at it another way "I can outfight the wizard and out magic the fighter, but not the other way around."
Rather than discussing classes from previous editions that aren't part of the OGL, why not come up with new ideas that might take PfRPG in a new direction, fill in some of the gaps and roles that D&D never got around to working up.
I have seen a couple of votes for a buff/debuff class. I heartily second the idea of a debuff based class - D&D has a lot of buff options but not a lot of ways for players to lay down debuffs.
I have also seen a couple of posts wanting a leadership/mastermind style class.
Does anyone else have other suggestions? Things that wouldn't be rewrites of previous material?
@mdt
That would be a fantastic book.
@Fletch
A gish is generally lagging in base attack, but not by that much. A good gish manages to get spells up to 8th or 9th level, and typically doesn't die the second something closes to melee range.
Here's some gish builds I found on the interwebs:
Wizard 1 / Binder 1 / Wizard +2 / Anima Mage 10 / Knight of the Sacred Seal 1 / Abjurant Champion 4 / Knight of the Sacred Seal +1
Fighter/Wizard/Spellsword/Eldritch Knight
Paladin/Sorc/Swiftblade/Eldritch Knight
Paladin/Bard/Sublime Chord/IotSV
Paladin/Bard/Dragon Disciple
Fighter/wizard/Abj. Champ/Eldritch Knight
Duskblade 3/Wizard 2/SpellSword 1/Abjurant Champion 5/Phantom Blade 9
Duskblade 1/Wizard 2/Human Paragon 3/Spell Sword 3/Abjurant Champion 5/Phantom Blade 6
Fighter 1/Wizard5/Eldritch Knight 1/Spellsword1/Abjurant Champion5/Eldritch Knight 7.
And so on...
Commonly they use spells like wraithstrike to compensate for lower attack, and whirling blade is a level 2 spell that every caster who wants to deal damage should know...
As far as I'm concerned, a few more classes won't hurt anything. Some of the core classes may in fact be redundant, but I wouldn't get rid of them, except perhaps the more generic ones. Now I'm alright with some archetypes becoming variants or prestige classes rather than a whole new base class. But I don't want to have to fake a ninja using rogue and monk, especially considering the restrictions of the monk. Nor do I think the druid is a good fit for a shaman with it's current abilities.
As I said earlier: Hell no.
The moment I notice a class creep in Pathfinder will be the moment I stop buying. I came to Pathfinder to get a better set of core rules; I don't need a reprint of every single 3.5 book I own.
That's too bad you feel that way.
Me, I feel exactly the opposite. Class creep is to be welcomed with open arms (and closed armored mouths). Embrace it! Revel in it!
You know what's really cool?
If there is class creep then *everybody* wins! I win, because I like having all those extra options. You win, because you just don't need to use it or buy it - no money spent, no extra classes. We all win!.
But if you get your way, and Paizo (and all the 3PPs out there) refuses to allow any class creep, then only you win.
Wouldn't it be nicer if everybody wins?
As I said earlier: Hell no.
The moment I notice a class creep in Pathfinder will be the moment I stop buying. I came to Pathfinder to get a better set of core rules; I don't need a reprint of every single 3.5 book I own.
That's too bad you feel that way.
Me, I feel exactly the opposite. Class creep is to be welcomed with open arms (and closed armored mouths). Embrace it! Revel in it!
You know what's really cool?
If there is class creep then *everybody* wins! I win, because I like having all those extra options. You win, because you just don't need to use it or buy it - no money spent, no extra classes. We all win!.
But if you get your way, and Paizo (and all the 3PPs out there) refuses to allow any class creep, then only you win.
Wouldn't it be nicer if everybody wins?
I couldn't agree more...rules bloat, class creep and prestige classes can be easily controlled by the GM...or the group as a whole...the idea is to have fun...the GM, the players, innocent bystanders...drawing lines in the sand for everyone...just to make oneself happy is selfish...immature...and counter-productive...if you don't like a Rule/Class/Spell/Item...change it or don't use it...we have ALL been doing that for years...don't see why PFRPG should change that... I still use the 1st ed varaint of magic missile., we have our own house rule for Identify... unless something changes between the BETA and the NEW PFRPG...we will still use them... I'm just glad to see Dodge fixed, Sorcerors made useful, Grabbling to make sense, and a support community that values OUR opinions...
I couldn't agree more...rules bloat, class creep and prestige classes can be easily controlled by the GM...or the group as a whole...the idea is to have fun...the GM, the players, innocent bystanders...drawing lines in the sand for everyone...just to make oneself happy is selfish...immature...and counter-productive...if you don't like a Rule/Class/Spell/Item...change it or don't use it...we have ALL been doing that for years...don't see why PFRPG should change that... I still use the 1st ed varaint of magic missile., we have our own house rule for Identify... unless something changes between the BETA and the NEW PFRPG...we will still use them... I'm just glad to see Dodge fixed, Sorcerors made useful, Grabbling to make sense, and a support community that values OUR opinions...
I think you should have been a tarrasque. You seem to like chomping...
I couldn't agree more...rules bloat, class creep and prestige classes can be easily controlled by the GM...or the group as a whole...the idea is to have fun...the GM, the players, innocent bystanders...drawing lines in the sand for everyone...just to make oneself happy is selfish...immature...and counter-productive...if you don't like a Rule/Class/Spell/Item...change it or don't use it...we have ALL been doing that for years...don't see why PFRPG should change that... I still use the 1st ed varaint of magic missile., we have our own house rule for Identify... unless something changes between the BETA and the NEW PFRPG...we will still use them... I'm just glad to see Dodge fixed, Sorcerors made useful, Grabbling to make sense, and a support community that values OUR opinions...I think you should have been a tarrasque. You seem to like chomping...
lol...well sometimes in a target rich enviroment I will take a nibble...but some taste so bad as to be spit back out quickly... and I've had to deal with the I'll take my toys home if we don't play my way type of player and GM before... and that describes my father in law...minus the gaming... lol
btw Grabbling...is an inside joke about the 3.x rules for grappling...after the MANY years of Martuial Arts...the concept of having to grab the first round before doing the damage the second round inspired its own new word in our Lexicon
btw Grabbling...is an inside joke about the 3.x rules for grappling...after the MANY years of Martuial Arts...the concept of having to grab the first round before doing the damage the second round inspired its own new word in our Lexicon
LOL, I thought that was just a typo.
What, your years of martial arts never taught you that it's polite to wait 6 seconds after applying a hold before you begin injuring your foe or putting him to sleep?
I guess sometimes gamism must give way to simultionism. It's a schism.
Looks like somebody is threatening to take their toys and go home...
Not a threat Sir: a stated fact! (hooooooooooooo!)
:)
But yeah, call me crazy. I love the current Paizo product lines and don't think I'm going to care for more rules, even though I know they plan to pump out 3 to 4 hardcovers per year... :(
I can think of two ways in which writing a class could be a worse approach.
If you write a whole new class that's very similar to an existing class, you end up duplicating a lot of boilerplate information; what's the point?
If you write a whole new class that's very similar to an existing class, you're basically "stealing" a role from the existing class and giving it to the new class.
I agree with your first point, unless the "what's the point?" question was strictly rhetorical. Because there are a lot of good answers to that question.
For example, in Oriental Adventures, the point of having a samurai class is to create a strong sense of distinction between common-born warriors and noble warriors. You don't need separate classes for that, and the recent trend is to treat fluff and mechanics separately (so that player can build their characters with whatever tools they want), but it's a valid tool to that end.
The African campaign setting "Nyambe" does something similar (but to better effect I think) with the "gamba fighter". It's basically a fighter, but the differences are important to the setting: gamba fighters are tougher, more poorly trained (less feats), gain a level-dependant dodge bonus to AC and don't know how to use armor. This makes him look and feel very different from a core fighter (a pale-skinned stranger dressed in metal), even though the class is built on similar mechanics.
(I also think that "samurai" and "gamba fighters" would be best represented by class kits, if we still had them around. But even then they would be used often enough in their respective games to warrent their own class tabled anyway, so hey).
On the other end of the spectrum you've got "same concept, very different mechanics" (ranger/scout). "The point" of this is to create a varied play experience for players who are sick of getting 1st level spells at 4th level and babysitting an animal companion. Which is valid too, even though many DMs wouldn't use both classes in the same game (I'd prefer to use the scout and ditch the ranger, personally. But that's the great thing about variaty. ^_^).
And for your second point, I do agree that a book shouldn't print two classes that aren't distinct enough (conceptually, mechanically, whatever) to warrant separate inclusion. But I don't think it's hard to make too classes distinct even if they could be represented as one.
The unfettered and the warmian from Arcana Evolved are both excellent classes, and all they do is rip appart the fighter and divy up the pieces. We know very well that they could both be represented by one class (that class being the fighter). But the swashbuckler and the knight-in-shining-armor are very different archetypes and I think the game is greatly enriched by treating them as different classes. My point being that just because you can represent almost anything with a minimum of classes doesn't mean that that's the best way to do it. We have a class based system for a reason: so that you can start with a framework that resembles what you want to play, without having to build basic archetypes from the ground up.
On the other hand, if the original fighter class appeared in the same book as the unfettered and the warmian, I might be a little disappointed. =)
So you have a point.
