i was thinking, what is the point of all the classes, i mean what does each class truly represent and specialize in.
every class should be the best at something so i wander what is each classes specialty and hat are the gaps, i mean to say what specialties are left opened for new classes to take up.
so again i ask what is the thing each class is best at and what specialty is opened for new classes.
Well ... a solid enough question I'd guess, so I'll try and hit each with as direct an impression as I can to contribute to your exploration (interesting, honestly).
Bard = sings and helps allies with inspiration/support
Barbarian = tough as nails, and raw physical power-house bar none
Cleric = servant of a god/holy warrior hybrid. Knight Templar basically (I prefer cloistered cleric myself)
Druid = servant/protector of nature and the environment
Fighter = best at combat (arguable, though - class is extremely bland, IMO)
Monk = unarmed specialist and spiritual mystic
Paladin = holy warrior, scourge of the most foul evils that walk the earth (PF kind of nails that last part really).
Ranger = wilderness warrior
Rogue = sneaky fighter and master of many skills
Sorcerer = low knowledge spell barrage master!
Wizard = master of mystic arts
Gaps as I see them:
1) Cloistered Cleric - you know, a cleric with a terrible bab because they are more service oriented vs. combat questing type. Essentially, your friendly neighborhood preacher-man. I've always had trouble (especially w/3rd ed) reconciling "holy man of the cloth" with the default that they are "knights templar" especially with arcane magics side by side with them. There needs to be a "weak" divine caster class - not the uber-monstrosity that 3.x made out of the cleric. 2e wasn't so bad on clerics - they were "mid" in most things - mid spells at best (that required better stats to access), pretty good bab progression, but not anything LIKE a true melee type, and no extra attacking at all.
2) Honestly, the "finesse fighter" is a gap I've seen for a long time in 3.x. NO real good options for it. Given the bland flavor of the fighter, and the lack of feats for making a dodge-based fighter really viable, it's no wonder there are constant things like "swashbuckler" making an appearance in some shape or form. Personally, if "Fighter" is supposed to be the best at fighting, then it should be more of a kit that you can customize to make ANY kind of fighter work (and that's what I've done in my class rebuild of the fighter - added on options to emphasize certain combat "types" that come from history and fiction).
3) Arcane Warrior - we've got all kinds of "divine power" plus combat making appearances, but oddly, not a single go that really goes for an arcane/warrior type. Bards do NOT count, IMO, as they're actually just playing with small bits of everything all the time - they can get some divine things on their list, some arcane, but mostly their features are NOT about being a warrior and mage - it's all about being a skill-monkey and a support character (secondary caster at best, morale booster, etc, etc).
4) Psionics I suppose (to add one more power source) - but 3.x had plenty of that going on, actually.
That's all I've really got, though.
The witch will be in the second pathfinder core rulebook, by the way. You can download the new classes in pdf for free from the pathfinder store.
Bounty Hunter seems more like a prestige class to me. And on a lot of levels, it seems like its basically an urban ranger.
I have yet to see a good psionic character for PF, and that would make me very happy. Problem is you'd really be dealing with a whole extra subdivision of magic, and thus you'd need to come up with a whole lot of new spells, as well as a unique spells per day/caster level dynamic, one that fits the roleplaying elements associated with psychic abilities. On that tip, a psionic monk would be f-in' ill.
As far as a finesse fighter, I think rogue and monk kinda have that squared away. But that's just me.
One thing I'd really like to see is a sort of technology driven class. The gnome who invents helpful little gadgets to aid his party, the blacksmith that makes powerful constructs to fight for him. Something like that would be fun. A little bit like an alchemist I suppose(once again, in the second core rulebook).
So that's my two cents.
one thing i think i would like to ask is when is it appropriate to make a new class, i mean to say if you cant quite get the fell you want from one class or even multy-classing then is it OK to make a class for what you want.
one reason i bring this up is i am personally having a problem with the inquisitor and the ranger, both have a hunter feel and both gain some nice abilities that work for me but neither class really works for what i want and i would say that dipping into both classes just wont work.
is this an appropriate time to make a new class?
p.s. im not trying to turn this into a thread about building this one class just curios if this is a good example for why to build a new class.
I think a new class is needed if there is a new, neat mechanic that can be used, like the Scout's skirmish, the Warlock's eldritch blast and invocations, the Spirit Shaman's spell use, and the Hexblade's hexes (swift actions that confound opponents, but don't cause direct damage).
Also, if there is a genre archetype that can't really be filled by another class without ignoring a lot of its basic abilities (swashbuckler, samurai, ninja, binder, etc.).
|
Keep in mind alot of the 3.5/3.0 classes are Intellectual property of Wizards, and therefor not under the OGL. Hence why you will not see beholders or mind flayers. Some of the classes also fall under these as well.
But as far as classes go look at the final test product for the Advanced Pathfinder Players guide. Some neat classes added in.
IMO they need an Artificer class but again not under the OGL. I am sure WoTC keeps a very watchful eye on Pathfinder products.
Also, if there is a genre archetype that can't really be filled by another class without ignoring a lot of its basic abilities (swashbuckler, samurai, ninja, binder, etc.).
New mechanics *can* be nice, but they can also be obtuse and feel more like a variation for the sake of variance vs. something really needed.
However, genre and archetype emulation I TOTALLY agree with as the absolute measure of whether or not something is needed. To heck with the other stuff - it's just fluff surrounding the source of these stories and adventures. If something can be found in-genre (ie: warrior-mages, and swashbucklers), then it darn well *should* make an appearance as a class somewhere - the sources tell us so.
If the game can't mimic the source, then you're in the PERFECT place to start making a new class outright.
|
Personally, I <respectfully> disagree on the idea of the Cleric. I think the Cloistered Cleric should remain an option, but that the Cleric class itself need to go back to it's 3E or even 2E concept of the templar/holy warrior. It has fallen into the niche of the Bard basically, a lot of minor acces to everything, but not terribly great at much besides healing and curing.
Cloistered Cleric is actually easier to break than the normal Cleric, but at the same time doesn't actually fill out that concept because it doesn't get access to the abilities that a "man of the cloth" should. Things like immunity to non-religious law, a heck of a lot of money, asically nobility above even local kings in some ways, or the inborn authority or respect that being a "noble" or "priest" would have.
At the same time, there isn't anything actally stopping them from taking Heavy Armor, Shields, or Martial weapons and filing the same role that a "Godzilla" does.
|
|
As for the new classes, I don't think that some were needed. Why can't a Cleric, Oracle, Druid, Wizard, or Sorcerer play a "witch"? In my opinion, it was a undesirable class for that reason. I would much rather have seen a feat chain or alternate class features for existing classed to fill that role than a new class that makes it easier to exclude those classes from that concept.
I am torn on the Oracle. I also feel that a Cleric or Druid should be able to fill that role, as the class is based around a broad concept rather than a role in a group. That isn't to say that I do not want a Spont. Cleric option, just that it would have been better <in my opinion> to have not tied to this concept that othr classes can already do, because it makes those classes seem more undesirable in that role. Mostly the same thing, in my opinion, with the Alchiemist. Why can't a Cleric, Druid, or Wizard take feat chains or alternate class options to fill this role? Granted, I think the Alchy is pretty cool as a class, <even if I don't like it personally, I can admit it works well for those that do>.
I don't think there is really a good cavalier ot there right now, so I like that concept, even if I don't exactly care for the class myself. Same (sort off) with the Inquisitor. It does fill a concept that is really a failure in 3E so far <in my opinion> of the sneaky Cleric. Multiclassing Paladin or Cleric with Rogue just isn't a great option (if your wanting mostly Divine Warrior) because you give up too much divine for to little sneak.
I think a new class is needed if there is a new, neat mechanic that can be used, like the Scout's skirmish, the Warlock's eldritch blast and invocations, the Spirit Shaman's spell use, and the Hexblade's hexes (swift actions that confound opponents, but don't cause direct damage).
I agree. I like new mechanics as the basis for new classes, like the skirmish
forgive me if i am reading you wrong on this but are you saying that if i wanted to make a new class i should make a new mechanic for the class to make it feel like a full rounded class.
if i am reading you wrong please forgive me i don't want to put words in your mouth.
forgive me if i am reading you wrong on this but are you saying that if i wanted to make a new class i should make a new mechanic for the class to make it feel like a full rounded class.
if i am reading you wrong please forgive me i don't want to put words in your mouth.
I think it's preferable, but not required, for new classes to have new mechanics. Otherwise, you'll probably hear a lot of "it's too much like a wizard with a weak special ability instead of bonus feats" or "it's just a fighter with pre-picked feats" or "it's just a bard with a different spell list" or "it's just a multi-classed rogue/fighter." etc. etc.
For example, I was really disappointed in the witch because it DID seem just like a wizard with a weak special ability instead of bonus feats, a slightly different take on specialty schools/spellbooks (familiar), and a barely changed spell-list. I was hoping the witch would have a whole new magic system, like Tome of Magic had (the supernatural abilities of the binders, the skill-based magic of the truenamers, even the focused style of the shadowcasters), or even Complete Arcane (warlock invocations).
You know ... on the "mechanics can make a class" front, I think the Noble *could* make for a neat/interesting role that easily fits into the game. Now, clearly, you can just say any other class is "noble" and take traits or feats, etc to just make it work for just about any class, BUT I think there's probably enough going on in both source material, and likely unique mechanics that it *could* make for a pretty neat class overall. I'm not sure to what degree it would be useful outside of society/cities, BUT it's got some potential mechanically for creating something "different" and for filling a spot in a party roster somehow.
For the record, I'm disappointed in ALL of the new classes coming out EXCEPT for the cavalier. I'll second just about everyone's comments about the new classes so far - basically just repackaging old stuff = not overly impressive. In fact, it's sort of restrictive as now it seems like THE ANSWER to these ideas (oracle, witch, etc) has become the class outright vs. a PrC that can hyper-specialize in some manner (what they really *should* do, IMO), or feat chains, or alternate class features. I used to think you want a witch? Fine - sorcerer, or wizard, or whatever you'd like. Think about your spells, though, how will the abilities fly for you (arcane bond = familiar or broomstick), etc? Now, it's more like "Well this says it's a witch right here, so THAT is a witch. Anything else is a fake witch at best."
Yeah ... really not a fan of that at all.
Yeah, I made a homebrew Noble class a while back. I think it was basically a skill monkey that has class-specific skill abilities or powers combined with some talents like the rogue. I'll have to look around and post it. I remember it being a little complex, with 5 tiers of power levels.
I'm additionally of the mind that classes should have a significantly different mechanic to be worthy of being a different class. Even the core classes don't conform to that, however, which is one of the reasons I'm not a huge fan of many of them and have worked on redoing the core classes (each with a different mechanic and style of play).
The barbarian class under 3.x or pathfinder may INTEND to be tough as nails, but it really isn't. The DR is slow to appear and always insignificantly low for the barbarian's level. Additionally, it maxes out at 5/-, a value the FIGHTER gets as part of wearing armor in the long run. I like the concept, but the implementation is sadly lacking.
The witch class in the new book is nice in theory, but it is a book-keeping nightmare for the DM. Keeping track of who is or is not hexed and adjusting the rounds remaining while the witch cackles around combat, is a pain. I don't mind the low-powered invokation concept but if a class is going to involve heavy tracking of numbers, it should be something the player is meant to track.
i have always felt that when making your own class you should follow the rules that the class should be well rounded, it should do something that no other class does and it should give a player an option he cant get without multy-classing.
that last rule is just an opinion but i think if you need to multy-class then you don't have the right options.
i am sure everyone will disagree with this but its just the way i feel.
I like new classes that have a tight but flexible theme, some kind of new mechanic the game doesn't have yet, several good options or builds, versatility, and relatively easy book keeping.
If there are already rules for the types of abilities they have, I like it when they follow those rules so we don't have to re-learn everything, or keep track of special exceptions, etc. etc.
I also like it when the new class can be awesome as a plain vanilla 20 level build, but also lends itself to neat multiclass options and/or new prestige classes focusing on one or more of the themes the new class explores.