Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

RPG Superstar 2015

Should Paizo add more base classes? If so, what?


Pathfinder RPG General Discussion

201 to 250 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>

Doubt it! lol. I am only a fan who does stuff for his own campaign. I am not a professional by any sense of the word and have ZERO connections with Pathfinder (although if Eric Mona ever tunes back into greytalk chat on Thursdays, I might be able to at least say hi).

Master Arminas


Cheapy wrote:
Guys, guys, the edition wars are that way, 5 years past.

5TH EDITION KILLED 2ND ED!!! RAGE!!!!!!

In all seriousness, if enough people are looking for a certain class, why not make it? I'm all in favor of alternate classes myself. Sure somethings might not fit in one type of campaign, but if some one's holding a gun to your head to make you use something then you have bigger problems.

Shadow Lodge

3rd Edition killed Dungeons and Dragons.


I don't hate 4th edition and I dont' want to fight a war over; I just refuse to play it or purchase it. I kept with 3.5 until I discovered Pathfinder and I will stay with Pathfinder unless they really, really screw things up. D&D Next (i.e. 5th edition, D&D5, whatever they are calling it this week) is simply the result of Hasbro telling Wizards you guys screwed up--if you want to keep your jobs fix it. I don't think they can.

Master Arminas


Bringing this back on topic, you know what base class I'd love to see?

Factotum.

Kudos to Inferon for mentioning it on the first page, I think it's worth repeating. The Factotum is one of the wierdest classes in 3.5: A true jack-of-all-trades.

The Factotum can do a little bit of almost everything, just not all at once. A very tricky class to balance, and not useful for every party, but an awesome character to play. They were in the 3.5 book Dungeonscape, and I'd love to see them again.

Shadow Lodge

Shadzar. wrote:
3rd Edition killed Dungeons and Dragons.

*narrows eyes*

Not sure if trolling, or actually Shadzar.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well, it'd be hilarious to see how long he lasts before getting banned.


I Agree theres alot of room for more classes.

Things id love to see.

Factotum

A demonologist/ warlock that is a non sucky blaster (tossing hellfire and what not)

Artificer

A dread necromancer like caster that focuses entirely on gradually becoming a lich and doing nasty stuff with undead.

psionics done by the pathfinder team.


The warlock as I mentioned before but I also vote for a shapechanger base class with a dragon archetype.


The NPC wrote:
The warlock as I mentioned before but I also vote for a shapechanger base class with a dragon archetype.

You could make several archetypes for it, dragon just being one of them. Fey, doppelganger, infernal/demonic are just a few of the options.

Sovereign Court

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber; Pathfinder Maps, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Add me to the Shapshifter tally.

Shadow Lodge

TOZ wrote:
Shadzar. wrote:
3rd Edition killed Dungeons and Dragons.

*narrows eyes*

Not sure if trolling, or actually Shadzar.

How exactly would expressing a valid opinion be trolling?


Kthulhu wrote:
How exactly would expressing a valid opinion be trolling?

The manner in which it was said?

However, if you consider 3rd to be the death of D&D I think you happen to be wrong. It was already dead due to a series of bad business decisions by TSR. 3rd edition was merely an attempt to bring the game back. But that is a matter for a separate thread.

Silver Crusade

I sure wouldn't put my mouse over Shadzar's name, terrible truths may be unleashed.


AN INT BASED DIVINE CASTER THAT USES A SPELLBOOK, GETS 2ND LEVEL SPELLS AT THIRD LEVEL AND HAS A DECENT SPELL SELECTION AND GETS PERCEPTION AS A CLASS SKILL.


AM MYSTIC THEURGE wrote:
AN INT BASED DIVINE CASTER THAT USES A SPELLBOOK, GETS 2ND LEVEL SPELLS AT THIRD LEVEL AND HAS A DECENT SPELL SELECTION.

... Mother of God!


OF COURSE, NEEDS A 9 LEVEL SPELL PROGRESSION.

Grand Lodge

Glad I missed the editition war detour.
I'm unfamiliar with the Factotum: 'Jack of all Trades' class.
But I gotta say that even without the WotC legal issues, that's a pretty le sounding name...


"Factotum"
(Wikipedia): A factotum is a general servant or a person having many diverse activities or responsibilities. The word derives from the Latin command (imperative construction) fac totum ("do/make everything").

There honestly isn't that much better a single word name that fits though (and jack-of-all-trades is too long/many words). Pantologist is the next closest (but seems more cerebral, more about human knowledge), and quite frankly.. it sounds like the "study of pants", so it's really not better.

Factotum starts to grow on you though if you hear it often enough, especially if it's associated with something awesome being done (like a class that can always be useful).

.
The WotC version was basically a skilled character (medium bab, 6+ skills, high reflex), that had an encounter based point system to burn on boosting attack, defense, skills or gain spell-like arcane "casting" or cleric channeling effects.
DR/Spell Resistance bypassing, and damage ignoring (defensive roll like stuff) was the higher level kind of abilities.
End cap was the ability to daily choose a couple class abilities from any class (below 15th I think) and burn points to use those abilities for a while.

Extremely flexible class, but your points ran in the single digits mostly, and were burned on single-use stuff most of the time (with a heavy "no reuse" clause, forcing diversification instead of spamming, no repeat spells or skills etc). Boosting attack or defense was reusable though.

It needed Int and Wis for it's abilities, and if you intended to do any combat you'd need at least Dex and Con, so it was heavy on the MAD too. You could do "fairly well" at most things at a given moment, for a little while, but it was the anti-specialization class.


I know martial artist pretty much covers the Battledancer but I wouldn't mind seeing a pathfinder update to it. On a related note: I would greatly like to see an update of the Mountebank.


Oh, and some kind of either update or archetypefication (TM) of the Osteomancer.


I don't think any more classes are needed. In fact I think some of the classes already added unnecessary. If we're going to add more though how about an intellectual class that isn't also a caster? As in being able to play a "Scholar" that isn't a spell slinging Bard or Wizard. Right now it's like you're forced to be a caster to fill this roll. The closest right now would be the Expert NPC class. You could also play a Rogue and use your skill points on Knowledge skills but that would just be an after thought. You wouldn't actually have any class skills that focus on being a scholar. Maybe base it off a spelless Bard variant focuses more on the "Loremaster" aspect and drops the performance aspect. I guess I'm pretty much thinking of the Pathfinder Chronicler prestige class. :p

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

I'm thinking in my house rules I will combine the Wizard and the Sorcerer, the Cleric and the Oracle, and have the only core classes be the Fighter, Rogue, Mage, and Cleric. Druid, Paladin, Ranger, and Bard would be prestige classes. Maybe roll the Monk into the Rogue and the Barbarian into the Fighter.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm thinking in my house rules I will combine the Wizard and the Sorcerer, the Cleric and the Oracle, and have the only core classes be the Fighter, Rogue, Mage, and Cleric. Druid, Paladin, Ranger, and Bard would be prestige classes. Maybe roll the Monk into the Rogue and the Barbarian into the Fighter.

Lemme know how that works out, if you put it into practice. BTW-- will you allow spontaneous casting, or stick to the standard 'which bullets did you load today' method (per your analogy on the other thread)? And, will you allow things like 'revelations' for the divine caster, or just 'domains' (or something else, or some cross between the two-- and what happens to bloodlines, vis-a-vis schools)?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Mages and Clerics will choose prepared casting or spontaneous at character creation. Schools/Bloodlines and Domains/Revelations will be consolidated.


I think you should roll ninja into the "mammal" class.

Silver Crusade

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Mages and Clerics will choose prepared casting or spontaneous at character creation. Schools/Bloodlines and Domains/Revelations will be consolidated.

*nodnods*

When you finish sorting out how you're going to do it-- I'd like to get a look at your house rules for that when you've got a 'finished' version. I might do something similar next time I run a game.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

Ninja? I don't think it exists.

I'll put them up somewhere. Figure I'll be basing the frame off of the Unearthed Arcana prestige classes for the most part.

Scarab Sages

Honestly why not roll cleric into the "Mage" Make 1 full caster class. Thin out the spell list, have 1 lest and go more a hex like arcana route. You could make revelation/school/bloodline something you pick that add more arcana options.


Again, a spontaneous Druid-list caster.

Artificers are awesome, but are very Eberron as well.

A class inspired by Hindu mythology somehow. I don't know much of it, but what I do know I think is awesome.

edit:

I don't know how they would do this, but a 'host' class would be pretty cool. Like, purposefully being possessed by spirits, ghost, etc and using their essence for powers.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
I'm thinking in my house rules I will combine the Wizard and the Sorcerer, the Cleric and the Oracle, and have the only core classes be the Fighter, Rogue, Mage, and Cleric. Druid, Paladin, Ranger, and Bard would be prestige classes. Maybe roll the Monk into the Rogue and the Barbarian into the Fighter.

For my game I'm thinking of doing the following...

Warriors: Fighters, Barbarians*, Cavaliers (HD: d10, High BAB)
Experts: Rogues, Rangers**, Monks (HD: d8, Medium BAB)
Adepts: Clerics, Druids, Oracles*** (HD: d8, Medium BAB)
Mages: Wizards, Witches, Sorcerers*** (HD: d6, Low BAB)

*Barbarians get a d10 for HD but gain the Toughness feat at 1st level.
**To "dehybridize" Rangers and draw out the Warrior/Adept aspects drop them to a d8/Medium BAB and lose spell casting as per the Skirmisher/Trapper archetypes. Then give them Rangers Traps every even numbered level (starting with Snare at 1st) and Hunter's Tricks every odd numbered level. Also drop Spellcraft for Disable Device.
***Oracles and Sorcerers will use a Spell Point, Mana style, system of my own devising.

I feel that base classes should focus on base concepts. If a player wants to play a hybrid that should be the roll of multi-classing and prestige classes. I think I'd need to turn the other hybrid classes into into prestige classes but I'm not sure how. :/


No inquisitor?


I think I'll break it down like this: class and race is the same thing, so you have......
fighter
cleric
thief
magic-user
dwarf
elf
halfling

and, like, three alignments: chaotic, neutral, and lawful.


@Spanky the Leprechaun

lol ^_^

Silver Crusade

Spanky the Leprechaun wrote:

I think I'll break it down like this: class and race is the same thing, so you have......

fighter
cleric
thief
magic-user
dwarf
elf
halfling

and, like, three alignments: chaotic, neutral, and lawful.

Now that's old school... of course, if you really wanted to go all the way-- drop thieves too. And spells over 5th level.

Grand Lodge

Samedi wrote:

Again, a spontaneous Druid-list caster.

Artificers are awesome, but are very Eberron as well.

A class inspired by Hindu mythology somehow. I don't know much of it, but what I do know I think is awesome.

edit:

I don't know how they would do this, but a 'host' class would be pretty cool. Like, purposefully being possessed by spirits, ghost, etc and using their essence for powers.

Agreed. The Sythethist and the possessed archetype skirt round the edges of this. And the old 'Tome of Magic' (got it right this time hehe) class called the binder played with this idea pretty well.

I like the idea of being able to become the 'avatar' of a powerful entity that works through you. Though this is similar enough to Paladin, Monk, Oracle etc that people could say 'hey look another archetype'. But if you mix in plenty of indian mythological flavour and tie the class to the vudrani empire and the untapped lore there. Could work.

A class that takes on the divine mantle of deities to use supernatural abilities of their patron so long as they act as their representitive in the material plane. Throw in various druidic/paladin-like/monkesque abilities for immunities and such and you the beginnings of a class.
I like the idea of making a 'Pact' with a servent of the divine and act as their mortal servant. Different abilities for different deities etc.

Perhaps like the vestiges of the old binder class, you choose an ability from a pool associated with the entity and are able to use more at the same time as you level. Then as levels increase you can gain more than one patron as long as their portfolios overlap.


Seriously though the 4 base works quite well. Look at most any video game from Diablo to Skyrim and it breaks down to Warrior type, Rogue type, and Caster type (often subdivided into Mage and Priest types). Everything is pretty much just different flavors or combinations of those base themes. Why do we need a completely separate class for every conceivable concept? Do we really want like 50 base classes as per 3.5 Ed?


Well, yeah. But then you've just moved what Pathfinder calls a "class" to another spot. Talents, Trees, Skills, etc.

You'd only "really" need three "classes": Warrior (high combat, low skills, no casting), Expert (mid combat, high skills, no casting), and Adept (low combat, mid skills, full casting).
Any combination of multiclassing between those can get you your hybrids.

After that, just let people choose abilities as they qualify for them to get their "class abilities".

I've started down this path. Once you start stating out the different abilities, putting them into trees, etc, you find you've basically moved the "base class" thing over to this spot.
Now you've got a Barbarian (or Rage) ability series, a Paladin series, etc.

Not that it's without it's own merit. I mean, I'd love to play in a game like that, where you can have near total freedom of character building from the get go (instead of picking a class and having to either make/find an archetype or work with the DM to tweak it into what you want).

The question about "what deserves a base class" still leaks through though.

Scarab Sages

Why does everyone seem to want to pigeon hole "warrior" into low skills? Two have 4 and one has 6. Honestly I find classes like the rogue harder and harder to justify as written. They could easily be rolled into the fighter. They aren't "skill" based classes. They are poor combat classes with more skill points. If there is such a thing as a "skilled" class it should have abilities that allow it to do things, not just combat with more skill points then other classes.

No class should be skill starved.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

Why does everyone seem to want to pigeon hole "warrior" into low skills? Two have 4 and one has 6. Honestly I find classes like the rogue harder and harder to justify as written. They could easily be rolled into the fighter. They aren't "skill" based classes. They are poor combat classes with more skill points. If there is such a thing as a "skilled" class it should have abilities that allow it to do things, not just combat with more skill points then other classes.

No class should be skill starved.

This is what I'm talking about. If anything I'd want to see something to fill out the "Expert" role more. We've got plenty of warriors, casters and hybrids already. Especially hybrids. I'd want to see something that focuses on nifty class abilities. Something to fill the "Expert" roll beyond just Rogues and Monks. Unfortunately it seems all we're likely to get if anything is more hybrids. When in doubt add partial spell lists! /sigh


Arikiel wrote:
This is what I'm talking about. If anything I'd want to see something to fill out the "Expert" role more. We've got plenty of warriors, casters and hybrids already. Especially hybrids. I'd want to see something that focuses on nifty class abilities. Something to fill the "Expert" roll beyond just Rogues and Monks. Unfortunately it seems all we're likely to get if anything is more hybrids. When in doubt add partial spell lists! /sigh

The War of the Lance source book had something along those lines. I believe it was called the Master class.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Why does everyone seem to want to pigeon hole "warrior" into low skills? Two have 4 and one has 6.

Is this directed towards my post?

For Warrior I said "high combat, low skills". "Low Skills" can mean 4 skillpoints per level, honestly. I never said 2 + Int or anything like that (I don't like having such a small amount of skills either, honestly).

Plus, keep in mind I was talking about a system similar to Unearthed Arcana's Generic Classes, so it's not like we are a balancing between class abilities here. High BAB and HD has to be offset by something

I'd probably peg Warrior at 5 + Int skillpoints, with Expert at 10+ and Adept at 7+. Just because I like to buck the trend and have an odd number of skillpoints as a starting point (make a nice between 4 and 6).
I also think that anything less than 4 skillpoints is simply silly (I feel that the Golarion campaign setting feels more renaissance and more skillpoints would better represent the average person's wider scope of learning).
I also feel that 2 skillpoints (without focusing on skills elsewhere, like Int or favored class), means that you can't fill the "trinity of skills": class relevance, character relevance, and knowledge. This is essentially a skill related to your class (like intimidate, or ride, or spellcraft, etc), a skill related to your character background (sense motive for a fighter, acrobatics for a wizard, something less class centric but part of your character's persona), and a skill towards something your character is knowledgeable about (I feel all characters should have something they know well enough).

5 skillpoints gives a good spread towards being relevant on the lowest end. 2 for something class specific, 2 for something unique or potentially incongruous, and 1 for a knowledge.

On the flipside, Experts having 10 skillpoints makes it so you don't have to be a particularly Intelligent skilled person to learn a wide variety of skills (like a troubleshooting Rogue who might not necessarily be that smart, but is still quite skilled at a wide array of skills).


While I've heard multiple times about how people really don't like them, I really enjoy the feel of the Psionics classes, most specifically Soulknife and Aegis (and by extension, Metaforge, which is a prestige class that combines the two).

I would really love to see Paizo make official versions of those classes that maybe uses magic (or something) instead of psionics to get the same effects.


I'm just going to throw my two cents in just in the off chance some staff read this thread. While I don't think we NEED new classes, there are a few things that the game is missing that could be offered.

An Engineer/Artificer type class that can build himself a suit of mechanized armor ala Iron Man, and or clockwork minions. I actually WANT to play the later idea, and my DM and I are working pretty hard on making a summoner/alchemist hybrid that does that for his next game.

Psionics, while I don't care for personally, seem to be important to alot of people at my table, by the same vein, judging from this thread, there seems to be a lot of desire for a Shapeshifter class. Not something I want to play, but I see the merit there.

The Duelist, but you know, not a prestige class. Why? Because most the games we play don't get that high level. I know that there are fighter and rogue archetypes that do kinda do these things, but... not enough. Mayhaps this could be done with different archetypes, but the current ones... just don't do it for me.

Cavalier, minus all of the mounted combat stuff. Again, doable via archetype really.

Well, thats my opinion, at least. :-)


Arikiel wrote:
I don't think any more classes are needed. In fact I think some of the classes already added unnecessary. If we're going to add more though how about an intellectual class that isn't also a caster? As in being able to play a "Scholar" that isn't a spell slinging Bard or Wizard. Right now it's like you're forced to be a caster to fill this roll. The closest right now would be the Expert NPC class. You could also play a Rogue and use your skill points on Knowledge skills but that would just be an after thought. You wouldn't actually have any class skills that focus on being a scholar. Maybe base it off a spelless Bard variant focuses more on the "Loremaster" aspect and drops the performance aspect. I guess I'm pretty much thinking of the Pathfinder Chronicler prestige class. :p

This. Some sort of truly skilled class would be awesome.

Star Voter 2014

Shaman
Witch Doctor
Shapeshifter/Transmuter
Engineer
Arcane Fighter...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Arbalester wrote:

Bringing this back on topic, you know what base class I'd love to see?

Factotum.

Kudos to Inferon for mentioning it on the first page, I think it's worth repeating. The Factotum is one of the wierdest classes in 3.5: A true jack-of-all-trades.

The Factotum can do a little bit of almost everything, just not all at once. A very tricky class to balance, and not useful for every party, but an awesome character to play. They were in the 3.5 book Dungeonscape, and I'd love to see them again.

You might find what you're looking for in Kobold Quarterly's Savant class.


Pathfinder Companion, Roleplaying Game Subscriber

How about if class where a person is bound to a devil were and shifts into a human devil hybrid. with a clerics bab.

Silver Crusade

Jem'Nai wrote:
How about if class where a person is bound to a devil were and shifts into a human devil hybrid. with a clerics bab.

You mean, like a synthesist summoner ?


artificer seems like its completely different from what we have already

as is the old warlock

201 to 250 of 254 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Publishing / Pathfinder® / Pathfinder RPG / General Discussion / Should Paizo add more base classes? If so, what? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.