While I like many of the directions Pathfinder has taken to make the various 3.5 base classes more unique and interesting, I'm one of those folks who thinks that the love and effort was spread about unevenly and in some cases randomly. Thus, I decided to revamp all the base classes myself from the ground up.
Now, if you object to this concept then please move on - I realize there are plenty of people who think PF core classes are perfection or whatever, and I don't care to re-hear from you. Thanks!
Anyway, after making my way through the first three classes I realized that I didn't want to be caught in the same trap that 3.5 and PF did, which is to simply adjust the existing base class list to try to balance someone else's list of what classes are needed and wanted, so I'm working on creating a list of what concepts should exist in the base classes, and a list of what concept/roles the existing base classes actually occupy - and I thought I'd see what other people thought.
This is my current rough draft of existing class concept/roles:
Barbarian: melee combat with an emphasis on power/damage rather than finess.
Bard: party support, buffing/debuffing, some minor combat
Cleric: Healing, Divination, Buffing, some combat
Druid: Shapeshifting, wilderness expertise, pet combat and buffing
Fighter: combat with an emphasis on skill and finesse.
Monk: hell if I know. Melee combat and resilience/self-sufficiency?
Paladin: Destroyer of worlds under PF? Mix of melee combat and minor healing... though not so minor under PF anymore. PF Paladin is "boss killer".
Ranger: Again, uncertain. There's little they do that isn't done better by another class.
Rogue: Traps and lock picking! Also huge damage, but only situationally. Stabbity-stab-stab.
Sorcerer: arcane magic with an emphasis on power rather than finesse... like a spell barbarian!
Wizard: arcane magic with an emphasis on skill and finesse, like a spell fighter.
Granted, the role you play in your party depends on how you pick your skills and feats and how you roleplay them, but I'm going for the base, mechanical role for the classes. I'd love some people's own thoughts on the roles of existing classes.
Next, without requiring the use of the above class list, what concepts and roles do you feel are NEEDED and WANTED? For example, the fact that there are non-stop "gish" discussions suggests there's a desire for a full-blooded fighter/magic user class. Don't worry about how it'll be balanced against OTHER classes - keep in mind that there's room to do that when you're building things from the ground up. Many of the existing class concepts are definitely good and useful concepts, but what do you feel is missing... and what do you feel isn't needed, and so on?
My goal is to end up with a base class list from which 99% of players can say "that's exactly what I want", think their character is awesome at each level, be excited to level up, and not feel like they're lesser than any other character in their group, regardless of which classes the other players happen to choose.
While I like many of the directions Pathfinder has taken to make the various 3.5 base classes more unique and interesting, I'm one of those folks who thinks that the love and effort was spread about unevenly and in some cases randomly. Thus, I decided to revamp all the base classes myself from the ground up.
Now, if you object to this concept then please move on - I realize there are plenty of people who think PF core classes are perfection or whatever, and I don't care to re-hear from you. Thanks!
Anyway, after making my way through the first three classes I realized that I didn't want to be caught in the same trap that 3.5 and PF did, which is to simply adjust the existing base class list to try to balance someone else's list of what classes are needed and wanted, so I'm working on creating a list of what concepts should exist in the base classes, and a list of what concept/roles the existing base classes actually occupy - and I thought I'd see what other people thought.
This is my current rough draft of existing class concept/roles:
Barbarian: melee combat with an emphasis on power/damage rather than finess.
Bard: party support, buffing/debuffing, some minor combat
Cleric: Healing, Divination, Buffing, some combat
Druid: Shapeshifting, wilderness expertise, pet combat and buffing
Fighter: combat with an emphasis on skill and finesse.
Monk: hell if I know. Melee combat and resilience/self-sufficiency?
Paladin: Destroyer of worlds under PF? Mix of melee combat and minor healing... though not so minor under PF anymore. PF Paladin is "boss killer".
Ranger: Again, uncertain. There's little they do that isn't done better by another class.
Rogue: Traps and lock picking! Also huge damage, but only situationally. Stabbity-stab-stab.
Sorcerer: arcane magic with an emphasis on power rather than finesse... like a spell barbarian!
Wizard: arcane magic with an emphasis on skill and finesse, like a spell fighter....
Sorry I can't contribute, I am just not one of those verbose extended posting types. But, I will say that I think you have it pretty much right so far. I applaud your efforts.....and I can't believe no one else has come here to bash you yet...
ill disagree with your oppinion on the ranger. He is actually one of the highest damage dealers in the game under PF (if you dont use crit funble and hit cards). With a wooping 92 dpr (including pet) as a bow specialist. On top of that he has some minor spells and situational bonuses.
So what i meant by this is that his role should be the ranged fighter, or the physical ranged damage dealer. A role thats not really filled by any other class. In my oppinion the TWF ranger is butt kicked by the fighter, and kinda already covered by his concept.
Disagreeing is fine, but please put in your REVISION of the concept/role summary in the process. Simple negation doesn't help me any.
As for ranger being ranged combat - you don't think a fighter that has specialized in ranged combat will outcompete a ranger in that regard? The fighter seems to have melee and ranged combat pretty much locked down, role-wise. I can see the addition of the combat-worthy animal companion being helpful, but the animal companion of the ranger is inferior to the druid's, and the druid can enhance and aid the animal companion quite a bit more..
So the ranger seems like more of a "combat, but not as good as a fighter and pet, but not as good as a druid" sort'v class. I certainly don't disagree with "hybrid" classes of that sort, but I'm not sure that that particular concept is necessary.
As for the paladin, sure, you can find yourself plenty of neutral enemies, but it is a rare campaign where the majority of major bosses aren't somewhere on the evil axis. That said, I'm simply saying that the paladin's INTENDED ROLE seems to be that, not that he will always be the defining party member when there is a major enemy.
Well. A perfect made ranged fighter would have the same feats and attack bonusses as the ranger. Except maybe a wp specialization at some point and focus in bows. all in all pretty much the same DPR as the ranger. Then you throw in that the ranger has a pet giving 13 or so DPR (at lvl 10), have some great utility spells, more skill points, and a favored enemy that will probably compare acually to the fighters weapon mastery.
What i would propose is to simply take away the fighters ability to be equally good as a ranger, denying bows as a weapon mastery or so. That would make the ranger a Hunter/scout/bow user. And the Fighter a finesse skill melee combatant, that can pull out a bow if necessary. He just wont be as good as the ranger at it.
Actually, if I was to rebuild all the classes, I'd get rid of a few. Multiclassing is so easy nowadays, I'd rather focus on broad classes that have an even easier time multiclassing than they have now, turning certain class features into feat chains instead.
The basic types, I think should simply be the classic arcanist-priest-warrior-rogue. All other class concept could be built from these, IMO. Turn rage, evasion, smite evil and the like into feat chains, tie unarmed damage to BAB and so on.
The drawback with this is that with increased flexibility, creating characters take longer time, and it might be harder for beginners. However, if I was to run a group for beginners, I'd stick to core anyway; they usually don't last for very many levels, and it's usually at the upper levels balance problems are noticed.
The basic types, I think should simply be the classic arcanist-priest-warrior-rogue. All other class concept could be built from these, IMO. Turn rage, evasion, smite evil and the like into feat chains, tie unarmed damage to BAB and so on.
True20 went that route, with only 3 classes that can be fleshed out into most of the core classes of D&D 3.x, but while that is efficient on paper, like you say, it takes a lot of work to make the characters.
A lot of the classes are ok, conceptually - I don't mind there being variety even if the variety could be accomplished with a complex feat chain. For example, you could get rid of the barbarian and just use fighter, but I think the power-over-skill concept is not a bad one as far as an option. I'd be inclined to keep the barbarian and just focus on making him more obviously suited to that role. Monk and Ranger I think could be dropped in favour of a more versatile fighter class. Wizard and Sorcerer (by my current thinking) should be worked on to make them more different from one another on the power vs. skill scale.
Many core classes are based on major fantasy archetypes, and that helps players pick a class based on fantasy characters they envision their character being similar to. Again, I'm not sure ranger and monk fit into that well - if you look at any character that that you'd liken to either class, you typically (99% of the time maybe?) also liken them to a fighter.
I think the paladin needs to decide who and what he is - Paizo just heaped love onto the paladin, but I'm not sure it helped the paladin have a clear and unique role. That said, I don't know any PF paladins that are unhappy with their class...
I'm not trying to simplify the game - I suppose I should say that in advance. I think games need to have some level of complexity to allow players to combine aspects into interesting and unique results. That has to be balanced, however, against the game being simple enough that people can play it without dedicating hours to character creation and so on. Anyone ever made a Champions character? ouch.
The basic types, I think should simply be the classic arcanist-priest-warrior-rogue. All other class concept could be built from these, IMO. Turn rage, evasion, smite evil and the like into feat chains, tie unarmed damage to BAB and so on.True20 went that route, with only 3 classes that can be fleshed out into most of the core classes of D&D 3.x, but while that is efficient on paper, like you say, it takes a lot of work to make the characters.
A lot of the classes are ok, conceptually - I don't mind there being variety even if the variety could be accomplished with a complex feat chain. For example, you could get rid of the barbarian and just use fighter, but I think the power-over-skill concept is not a bad one as far as an option. I'd be inclined to keep the barbarian and just focus on making him more obviously suited to that role. Monk and Ranger I think could be dropped in favour of a more versatile fighter class. Wizard and Sorcerer (by my current thinking) should be worked on to make them more different from one another on the power vs. skill scale.
Many core classes are based on major fantasy archetypes, and that helps players pick a class based on fantasy characters they envision their character being similar to. Again, I'm not sure ranger and monk fit into that well - if you look at any character that that you'd liken to either class, you typically (99% of the time maybe?) also liken them to a fighter.
I think the paladin needs to decide who and what he is - Paizo just heaped love onto the paladin, but I'm not sure it helped the paladin have a clear and unique role. That said, I don't know any PF paladins that are unhappy with their class...
I'm not trying to simplify the game - I suppose I should say that in advance. I think games need to have some level of complexity to allow players to combine aspects into interesting and unique results. That has to be balanced, however, against the game being simple enough that people can play it without...
I think the True20 route is so simplified....it's overcomplicated. An alternative would be to make basic classes that fill the needed roles with a core ability or two, and then give them talents, a la the Rogue, to differentiate and specialize. You could then have "packages" ,for lack of a better term, that present quick builds for the archetypal classes (Ranger, etc.).
The Paladin could easily be a Prestige class, or eliminated in favor of multiclassing a fighter/cleric.
You might also look at Szatany's Ultimate Classes. They are hosted on a couple wikis. They are pretty impressive, and have a ton of room for customization within a role.
Actually, if I was to rebuild all the classes, I'd get rid of a few. Multiclassing is so easy nowadays, I'd rather focus on broad classes that have an even easier time multiclassing than they have now, turning certain class features into feat chains instead.
Yes! +1
At its most reduced, that would be five classes (fighter and rogue are nonmagical, and the cleric, sorcerer, and wizard are magical, but obtain magic differently, via power transfer, natural talent, or extensive study, respectively).
I could see lumping arcanists together and letting the player choose, or setting it by campaign. If one should make them different, I'd suggest making the "sorcerer with innate power" a little less magic-focused - his innate powers aren't as powerful as the wizards dedicated focus through his whole life, but he has a lot of more time to spend on other things, such as combat training and skills. Give him 2/3 casting, give him d8 HD and 3/4 BAB, light armor prof and ability to cast in it, and proficiencies similiar to those of the rogue or bard. Make the bloodlines stronger, and give a few higher-level bloodline related spells as spell-like abilities. He becomes a natural gish (though more magic than combat), so there's 2 non-caster classes, 2 full caster classes, and 1 semi-caster class.
My current thoughts involve removing spellcasting from all but cleric, sorcerer, and wizard (well, unless I do go with a gish class I suppose). Cleric will have the divine spells, and the difference between sorcerer and wizard will be power over skill - as levels progress sorcerers will have the opportunity to shift spells downward as far as what spell slots are needed to cast them, while wizards will be able to reduce the level adjustment on metamagic. Casting fireball at will versus casting 3rd level fireballs that are always empowered, still, and silent from a wizard potentially in full plate (if the wizards feels like burning a ton of feats on it) gives fairly good "power versus skill" concepts. It also lets a gish class have access to arcane casting without being anywhere near as impressive as the pure casters.
Again, classes just need to be balanced against each other, not against their predecessors.
|
I would love to turn you onto the Bard from The Complete book of eldritch might They gained these things called spellsongs that pretty much solved every problem with the bard.
Well, these are the three rewrites I had done before starting this thread - the bard was one of them:
Barbarian (pdf)
Bard (pdf)
Cleric (pdf)
I'm interested to hear how spellsongs work, though.
Bump all classes skill points per level up by 2.
Bard spell list should contain some more of the basic utility spells and boosters - Resist Elements and Bulls strength come to mind. I think their spell list should be more helpful to overcome obstacls and challenges.
Inspire Courage should start at +2 instead of +1 to make it more worthwhile. I think its a class feature that should be what a bard looks to lead with, but at the moment I think most would choose to cast a spell instead.
Intelligence based class abilities and feats for the fighter. There are a handful of feats requiring the fighter to have Int 13, but after that theres nothing.
Rapid Cure X - make versions of cure light/moderate/serious/critical wounds that are a swift action to cast one level above the normal for those classes.. Nothing more suckier than being the healer and having to watch everyone do something cool and you have to spend your turn healing to prevent death. Yes I know there are stronger options than healing, but at some point you end up having to give up your turn to do the "yawn" heal. Boring!
Wizard - ability to disarm magical traps. Yes I realise that with the new pathfinder world that it tramples on the rogues role, but no one picks a rogue because he/she can disarm traps. Plus rogues gets half their class level to their check to disarm traps anyway so they can be better if not equals.
You knew that I would return. I must prepare the people for the Endwar. The end of all things is coming. The Lost God returns...
Well, these are the three rewrites I had done before starting this thread - the bard was one of them:
Barbarian (pdf)
Bard (pdf)
Cleric (pdf)I'm interested to hear how spellsongs work, though.
I find your revisions of the cleric interesting. Your shift in focus toward their "granted powers" (for want of a better term) makes them much better as support characters, and clerics were good in that role to begin with. I do have a question: how do you create a cleric of a war god with your revised cleric? Your cleric's more fragile (in terms of armor, BAB, and hp) than a standard cleric, so how would you do this with your system? I'm curious.
|
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
I've always thought it'd be interesting to have a class specialized in defenses and/or anti-magic. I'd probably pick the paladin for the role given that it can wear heavy armor, gets bonuses to saves, and ability to heal/remove status effects. If I were to design the class from scratch, I'd give them SR at around 5th level and the ability to dispel enchantments as part of their smite ability.
how do you create a cleric of a war god with your revised cleric? Your cleric's more fragile (in terms of armor, BAB, and hp) than a standard cleric, so how would you do this with your system? I'm curious.
I don't think a cleric of a war god has to be a powerful melee combatant - he could just as well be a mighty commander, ordering about his subjects. Still, if you want a combat-oriented cleric, just give him a few fighter levels?
I am really iffy on switching to purely homebrew classes and such.
However, I really do like what you've done with those pdf examples, although I pretty much only skimmed them, but yeah.
Aside from that, if they are actually all balanced and stuff (I'm not a good judge of balance). I'd perhaps be willing to use them instead of the core. The reason being that yours seem to be more fun, and free choice. You more so seem to get additional abilities or choices, and the bard just seems SO much better. The bards wouldn't all necessarily have the same songs.. just makes me sort of go. O.O