|
Now that we have 20-odd classes from Paizo plus dozens from 3rd party publishers, it seems to me that not every class is needed for every campaign. What classes don't fit in your campaign?
For example, I'm building a campaign world with a wild west theme. Firearms are common and advanced (revolvers, rifles, and shotguns). This has a number of implications for many of the classes.
Take the fighter. In our real world, armor was obsolete long before the late 19th century. While my campaign is not based on actual history, the prevalence of guns does make armor less advantageous. Armor training is therefore, not as useful class ability for what is already widely regarded as a weak class. Thus, in my campaign, the fighter will probably be dropped with the gunslinger taking over its role.
The next one is the cleric. Everyone has an opinion on this class. Put me among those that dislike like it. The druid, inquisitor, and oracle are, in my opinion, far more interesting for the role of priest-type characters.
So those are probably out. On the fence are the paladin and cavalier. Obviously, cavalry has a role in a western-themed campaign, but I'll probably have to emphasize archetypes that are less dependent on heavy armor.
Also on the fence are the Asian-themed classes (monk, ninja, and samurai). Most people probably don't think about ninjas in the west, but perhaps they could be "exotic" classes brought from people who migrated from a land that is more Eastern in flavor, much like many Chinese immigrants came to the US to work on the railroad.
So, what about your campaigns? Have you looked at any classes and thought, "This just doesn't fit"?
Don't be so quick to discard Fighters out of hand - a Lore Warden who disarms with a whip could fit right in to an old west theme. And Free-Hand Fighter (perhaps prestiging to Duelist) would make a perfect Zorro.
It's easy enough to reskin most classes to make them fit, like the eastern-themed ones, but the big exception is gunslingers. Usually I play in settings with a lower technology level, and their firearms just don't fit at all, and can't easily be reflavored to something more palatable.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sure the fighter has a viable archetype in the style of game you describe. Let your players choose any class if they can make it fit in your setting.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In any fantasy campaign I ran under Pathfinder, the only core class I'd even think of excluding would be Monk.
As far as the base and alternate classes go, it would depend on the specifics of the campaign but there's a good chance I'd decide I could do without almost all of them, and might end up including only Oracle, Witch and Antipaladin.
Gunslingers would definitely be the first to go, closely followed by Alchemists and then Summoners. All the other base and alternate classes would probably be negotiable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I once ran a fighter/barbarian only campaign with Nordic themes. Was absolutely fantastic.
For my Eberron/World of Warcraft/Song of Ice and Fire/Warlords of the Accordlands mashup of a campaign setting, I'd be able to drop the following without really losing all that much.
-Monk (I have added some back story to explain them, but it's not important - they were essentially the leaders of a peasant rebellion against a magocracy and have some more caster-killing powers and are rabidly anti-arcane magic, but the influence of the founding group has faded significantly)
-Ninja (I don't see any need to have a magical rogue, this should just be rogue talents)
-Cavalier (Doesn't do anything well enough to suit my tastes, I wrote up a more dedicated leadership based class, and don't like mount-based classes)
-Samurai (even less interest than the cavalier)
-Gunslinger (might be appropriate in very rare cases, but not important enough to have a dedicated class)
-Witch (close enough to the sorcerer conceptually that I don't feel the need to have them both around - just explain sorcerer bloodlines as the type of entity you made a pact with, and the mechanics work just fine)
I wouldn't set out to write the above classes out, but they certainly aren't important to my conception of the setting.
For the record, I'd also add an artificer conversion I wrote up and a leadership-based martial class called the commander.
Let's think a moment... I'm in the middle of a bit of class based changes to accomodate some new stuff.
Well Eastern themed classes are out (Monk, Samurai, Ninja, etc.). No Eastern themed area in the game world. No Summoners or Alchemists. No Gunslingers (and no guns). No Druids (there are Clerics of nature related gods and Rangers).
What do I have? Fighters, Paladins, Cavaliers, Barbarians (renamed Berserkers and changed a bit). Clerics, Inquisitors, Oracles, Rangers (used as priests of the God of the Hunt). Rogues ("archtyped out" as Assassins, Thieves, Spys and Con Artists). Wizards, Sorcerors, Bards, Magus and Witches. I have a list of usable archtypes for a number of classes, including some homebrew. A number of Prestige Classes, official and homebrew. The usual NPC classes of course.
3PP classes: Maybe the Spell-less Rangers from Open Design (Hunters -- Bounty, Monster, or Game), and Shamans from Open Design. I'm on the prowl still to see what else I want in -- suggestions?
Having trimmed the huge variety of player choices available to fit the campaign world, I expect soemone to start piling the wood around me any moment now...
I've been sketching out a "semi-gritty" campaign world in my notebook (where, sadly, it will probably stay as most of my group are dedicated powergamers). I think that a lot of the flavor I'm looking for can be achieved by creative class selection - and exclusion. My ideas (based in large part on a prior discussion thread about using only APG classes) are below...
DIVINE CLASSES
No Clerics, Druids, Paladins, or Rangers. The "core" divine classes are Oracles and Inquisitors (with a "Paladin"-esque archetype TBD), with the Oracle Mysteries representing available deities/powers. I haven't made a firm decision yet on Witches.
ARCANE CLASSES
No Alchemists, Magus, Summoners or Wizards. The "core" arcane classes are Sorcerers and Bards. Sorcerers are essentially the same mechanically, but with a few tweaks (critical spell success and failures, increasing physical changes due to magic use (DC 10+character level Disguise check to hide), require spellbooks to learn new spells) and different crunch ("Bloodlines" becoming arcane school specializations).
NON-MAGIC CLASSES
No Barbarians, Gunslingers, Monks, Ninjas, or Samurai. Only Fighters, Rogues, and Scouts/Spell-less Rangers. Given the vast numbers of archetypes available, these classes should be able to fit any character design a player would want. I have toyed with keeping Cavaliers as "nobles" but haven't made a firm decision yet.
Now that we have 20-odd classes from Paizo plus dozens from 3rd party publishers, it seems to me that not every class is needed for every campaign. What classes don't fit in your campaign?
Have you looked at any classes and thought, "This just doesn't fit"?
We've never used (and never will use) Alchemists or Gunslingers. They just don't fit with the fantasy style of play we use.
We rarely if ever play Clerics though they will certainly be common in our campaign world - we treat divine magic a little differently than most, with a touch more reverence, perhaps. Nobody's bottling divine power into wands and potions and selling it off to the highest bidder... no, we've made the following changes to Clerics:
Clerics select 1 Domain which best represents the aspect of their faith that they embody and get the Domain powers that come with it.
Clerics do not automatically gain the Channel Energy class feature. They may choose the harmful or the healing version of it (not both) instead of their Domain power, and even then only if appropriate to their Deity.
Clerics cast spontaneously from all of the Domain spells available to a Cleric of that particular Faith and ONLY from those spells. (In other words a Cleric of Calistria can spontaneously cast from the spell lists of Chaos, Charm, Knowledge, Luck and Trickery). Her normal spells and her 'bonus' Domain spell are added together to determine her spells per day.
Cure spells (but not other healing type spells) are considered 'universal' for all Clerics and may be cast spontaneously as well.
Divine potions, wands and scrolls only function for those whom share the faith of the creator of those items and are generally only dispensed to other Clerics or Paladins for use.
We do have a very powerful generic healing potion that is as much alchemical as divine and can be purchased by anyone able to afford it as its very expensive. They function as if a Heal spell had been cast - these droughts are recognized across the realm due to their stylized bottles and are considered valuable treasure.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've no need of divine casters. It's a thematic issue, not a mechanical issue. I just don't like strong religion.
I've no need of divine casters. It's a thematic issue, not a mechanical issue. I just don't like strong religion.
I can't remember the last time we had anyone play one.
Nothing. I allow everything.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
A class is just a bag of mechanics you choose from to build a concept so every class is useful. You can always change the flavor for how a class works.
A class is just a bag of mechanics you choose from to build a concept so every class is useful. You can always change the flavor for how a class works.
This I can agree with 100%. Have done so many times.
Druids, barbarians and clerics. Those I could absolutely do without. Punching below their weight is the first issue and they have trouble being effective against the baseline CR of creatures appropriate for their level.
Druids, barbarians and clerics. Those I could absolutely do without. Punching below their weight is the first issue and they have trouble being effective against the baseline CR of creatures appropriate for their level.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Druids, barbarians and clerics. Those I could absolutely do without. Punching below their weight is the first issue and they have trouble being effective against the baseline CR of creatures appropriate for their level.** spoiler omitted **
I would definitely keep the cavalier. Maybe restrict them to light armor only, or only allow Musketeer, Luring Cavalier, or Emissary as archetypes. Or all 3 at once.
I would probably agree that a different ruleset may be appropriate, or at least taking a look into Super Genius Games' Anachronistic Adventures line.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually surprise at how restrictive some of these games seem to me. Someone actually mentioned banning more than half the classes, including classics such as rangers, wizards and clerics.
I'm usually against baning/forbiding stuff. There are classes I personally don't like, but I don't think I would ban them just for that.
I wonder why so many people seem to ban/nerf/change clerics.
There are only 3 archetypes I ban, the rest is fair game.
- Synthesist Summoner - Not because I think it's broken, but because its confusing mechanics are not worth the trouble of trying to figure them out.
- Master Summoner - Yeah, this one is because they are too powerful and because it slosw the game down too much, IMO.
- Spellbinder Wizard - If you want spontaneous casting, make a sorcerer.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm actually surprise at how restrictive some of these games seem to me. Someone actually mentioned banning more than half the classes, including classics such as rangers, wizards and clerics.
I'm usually against baning/forbiding stuff. There are classes I personally don't like, but I don't think I would ban them just for that.
Same. I've never really understood the idea of reducing options. I generally go the opposite route, and dig out 3pp/3.5 stuff to expand the available choices of my players.
** spoiler omitted **Druids, barbarians and clerics. Those I could absolutely do without. Punching below their weight is the first issue and they have trouble being effective against the baseline CR of creatures appropriate for their level.** spoiler omitted **
Gunslinger (except one small branch of dwarves) and summoners.
Super primitive firearms and summoners just due to slowing of game
I usually limit for thematic reasons and just don't allow most 3rd party publications at all. For example, the classes with an Eastern influence are limited to characters of an Eastern-style background; others may select the class if they're of a different race and/or region, but it requires a reasonable background submitted prior to play.
Gunslingers are outright barred from my campaigns, as firearms do not exist.
Yes, many traditional D&D/Pathfinder norms have no place in my campaigns. Different changes are necessary for different settings, but a few changes remain constant:
- Paladins have the Warrior of the Holy Light archetype and the Oath of Loyalty applied automatically. We have melee-oriented miracle workers in lieu of spellcasting priests (something I always try to avoid).
- Monks have the martial artist archetype applied automatically.
- Inquisitors never get used; no one in the group really cares about them and I intend to avoid any (once again) spellcasting priests.
The only thing I limit is the Summoner because I am rather tired of trying to teach it to other players and DMs, and have actually changed their eidolon to act as a druid's animal companion feature of Nature's Bond (except applied to outsiders).
Other than that I usually try to find every way to expand race class selection as much as possible, and am generally surprised at the amount of restrictiveness I see in others games. Certainly a lot of games that would be a turn off for me to play in...
...spellcasting priests (something I always try to avoid).
...I intend to avoid any (once again) spellcasting priests.
So do you just outright remove Clerics or what?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I allow core classes only, plus the cavalier, inquisitor, oracle, and witch classes from the APG.
This means that the base classes of alchemist, gunslinger, magus, ninja, samurai, and summoner aren't allowed in my game.
Why?
1) As a general rule of thumb, I don't allow any rules from any sources that I don't own. (I don't own either Ultimate Combat or Ultimate Magic.) Yes, I know that the rules are on the PRD. Doesn't matter.
2) I don't like the flavor of the alchemist class. I think an alchemist should be primarily an NPC class that spends most of his-or-her time in a lab. I don't see the alchemist as somebody throwing bombs or always playing "Dr Jekyll / Mr. Hyde".
3) I really don't like the summoner class at all. It's far too complicated, and bogs down the game. Plus, the flavor is wrong for my world.
Also: While I've never been a fan of the monk class (a feeling that goes back to my 1st-ed AD&D days), I don't prevent a player from running one if he or she wants. But I do let the player know that there are extremely few monk NPCs in this part of the world, and finding monk weapons or magic items will be extremely unusual events, if such a thing ever happens at all.
|
|
Assuming you're talking American style Wild West, and not Pathfinder or Eberron style Wild West, I wouldn't be using the standard ruleset, I'd be using the Modern Path variant. Also since you're talking about a guns, guns, everywhere sort of world the nature of firearm access takes a radically different nature from Golarion-norm if you check up the relevant section in Ultimate Combat.
As I said, it's literally the American Wild West, it just has some flavors and technology from that era. But I wasn't really looking for advice on how to set up my campaign. I was just using it to springboard discussion about which classes other people are excluding.
It seems the two most excluded are the gunslinger and the summoner. Not really surprising there
I generally allow all classes in my games, but discourage ones that don't thematically fit. Though, if anyone plays a gunslinger in my game, I may have to try and find some 3rd party rules that change how guns work *not a fan of touch attack guns*.
I don't exclude anything. Our groups' setting is Golarion, as modified by the various campaigns taking place, so every class paizo has made fits. Only issue for me is the story behind the character.
That being said, I'm a little suspicious of the alchemist, though that probably has more to do with the group's first power-gamer playing one than anything else. 21 intelligence + Cognatogen + fox's cunning + rapid shot = suspicion. I really like the flavor of the class itself, especially with the different archtypes available.
I discourage new players from trying the summoner or druid as these are more rule intensive that most but, if they really like the idea, I'm happy to help explain the rules to them.
So do you just outright remove Clerics or what?...spellcasting priests (something I always try to avoid).
...I intend to avoid any (once again) spellcasting priests.
If they're in an Adventure Path or module and I'm running it as-is, I leave NPC clerics alone. None of my current players have no interest in playing clerics; the only player that likes the healing and support role likes the chirurgeon alchemist over anything else.
I have been working on an alternate class for the cleric for a while, but it's far from the ready-to-test phase.
The irony? We've played low-magic medieval scenarios and the party was fine picking out religious roles, but that was a rare, rare campaign style for me.
I'm working on a new world right now, and the first rule is everyone is capable of using magic in the form of spells. So first off, everyone without spell progression is gone, such as fighters, barbarians, rogues, monks, etc.
Second rule is that magic is too eldritch to fully understand or master, so all classes with full 9 level spell progressions are out, such as wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, etc.
To fill in some of the gaps, certain prestige classes are being advanced to full base classes. This includes Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Shadow Dancer, etc.
Some new base classes will be introduced to round out the roster, filling the flavor of classes such as Barbarians and Monks.
All classes who have survived my wrath so far will find their spell lists lightly improved. Except alchemists. I don't trust them...
Summoner's and Eidolon's are being boosted slightly and now being treated as separate character classes. There is still a bond between summoners and their eidolon, but the eidolon relies less on this bond to exist.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It does sound interesting and fun. I am assuming that the world is already created with demographics, religions, kingdoms, societies and such.
A friend of mine ran one campaign in which he had the world mostly fleshed out, but it was kept secret from us - other than the local area. The higher knowledge skills in Local, History, or Nobility - those players would have access to a little more information of that nature.
He allowed only core classes at first (and Cavalier), but as the party started exploring, questing, leveling, he would expose more of the world he created and open up other classes. So when characters died, they could roll up in one of the newer classes discovered in that region or area.
It was a lot of fun as it forced us, the players to communicate more with eachother (especially with players who ran more knowledgeable character) to learn of this world and societies the GM created.
I'm working on a new world right now, and the first rule is everyone is capable of using magic in the form of spells. So first off, everyone without spell progression is gone, such as fighters, barbarians, rogues, monks, etc.
Second rule is that magic is too eldritch to fully understand or master, so all classes with full 9 level spell progressions are out, such as wizard, sorcerer, cleric, druid, etc.
To fill in some of the gaps, certain prestige classes are being advanced to full base classes. This includes Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, Shadow Dancer, etc.
Some new base classes will be introduced to round out the roster, filling the flavor of classes such as Barbarians and Monks.
All classes who have survived my wrath so far will find their spell lists lightly improved. Except alchemists. I don't trust them...
Summoner's and Eidolon's are being boosted slightly and now being treated as separate character classes. There is still a bond between summoners and their eidolon, but the eidolon relies less on this bond to exist.
That reminds me of the No Nonmagical Classes thread going on.
Honestly, there isnt a class right now that doesnt fit potentially into my current campaign, some are better then others, but nothing I would say I wanted to do without. Personally I am far more likely to restrict spells, feats, or equipement then I am to restrict base classes. I actually like base classes as my favorite way to expand the game rules. I prefer them to archetypes, feats or new options for existing classes, as they are self contained for the most part and are less of a concern with regards to unintentional interactions between abilities.
I also find thematically out of place characters interesting. A ninja in a western fantasy story? Sure, the cultural interaction would be alot of fun to roleplay. Heck I am currently playing a ninja in skull and shackles, and have had alot of fun doing it.
|
|
I also find thematically out of place characters interesting. A ninja in a western fantasy story? Sure, the cultural interaction would be alot of fun to roleplay. Heck I am currently playing a ninja in skull and shackles, and have had alot of fun doing it.
Watch Red Sun with Charles Bronson, it is an old western in which he is an outlaw that teams up with a Samurai. For it's age I still think it is a good movie.
Take the fighter...already widely regarded as a weak class...
Are we reading the same forums? >.>
I would definitely keep the cavalier. Maybe restrict them to light armor only, or only allow Musketeer, Luring Cavalier, or Emissary as archetypes. Or all 3 at once.
I liked your experiment of disallowing the rogue class, to emphasize that any class can be played in a roguish way.
(That was you, wasn't it?)
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Take the fighter...already widely regarded as a weak class...Are we reading the same forums? >.>
Depending on which threads you're looking at, Fighters suck because all campaigns are played exclusively at 20th level and every encounter takes place in a featureless infinite plain against a foe who can fly indefinitely and attack from range indefinitely while the Fighter has no means whatsoever of gaining flight and no ranged weapons.
Meanwhile, every Wizard always has every spell in existence in a prepared slot.
|
I don't like alchemists (mechanics or flavor) and would remove them without a second thought if I didn't have a player who really wanted to play one.
Generally I don't remove classes so much as I change them. For a homebrew I'll be running, instead of cutting the paladin class I opened it up to LN, LG, NG, and CG, and made the lawful/chaotic aspect more important. Paladins aren't universally "paragons of goodness and law" in that setting, but more generally just paragons of their alignment.
That said, I'm usually ok with anything someone wants to play if it's core, APG, UM, or UC, and everything else is open to approval. I prefer to change my world to fit whatever character someone wants to play than force players to make characters to fit the world. The people I game with don't generally do anything obviously silly and broken, so that helps.
|
|
Take the fighter...already widely regarded as a weak class...Are we reading the same forums? >.>Depending on which threads you're looking at, Fighters suck because all campaigns are played exclusively at 20th level and every encounter takes place in a featureless infinite plain against a foe who can fly indefinitely and attack from range indefinitely while the Fighter has no means whatsoever of gaining flight and no ranged weapons.
Meanwhile, every Wizard always has every spell in existence in a prepared slot.
It's in the core book on page 7 that all campaigns must be this way. There's a small clause in a 3.5 source book that doesn't say wizards don't get every spell prepared at all times. Fighters aren't allowed make ranged attacks, as even the thought of doing so causes the god of fighters to wipe them from existence. Also if a fighter gains a fly speed for any reason he turns into a GM controlled annihilation tarrasque. It's all in there in the 12 page extended rules for fighters.
Depending on which threads you're looking at, Fighters suck because all campaigns are played exclusively at 20th level and every encounter takes place in a featureless infinite plain against a foe who can fly indefinitely and attack from range indefinitely while the Fighter has no means whatsoever of gaining flight and no ranged weapons.Meanwhile, every Wizard always has every spell in existence in a prepared slot.
Well, we're certainly reading the same forums. Amazing how that works isn't it?
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully I'm mistaken, but some of these posts seem much like "I don't like it, so you can't play it".
I feel like banning classes for this reason is somewhat akin to the owner of a PS3 saying "I don't like Blanka, Vega, Guile or Sagat, you can't pick them." when he and his friends decide to play Street Fighter.
Shouldn't the class be fun for whoever is playing it? Would it be so bad to have a Ninja/Cleric/Whatever on the party you GM to? Unless there is a mechanical reason (e.g.: "druids are too powerful, and the rest of the group is not optimized" or "we want to play evil characters, a Paladin wouldn't fit") or a very strong thematic reason ("we all agreed to play a gritty campaign, full casters do not go well with that"), I don't think it'd ruin anyone's fun.
Well, maybe I'm mistaken, maybe I'm just being pessimistic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hopefully I'm mistaken, but some of these posts seem much like "I don't like it, so you can't play it".I feel like banning classes for this reason is somewhat akin to the owner of a PS3 saying "I don't like Blanka, Vega, Guile or Sagat, you can't pick them." when he and his friends decide to play Street Fighter.
Shouldn't the class be fun for whoever is playing it? Would it be so bad to have a Ninja/Cleric/Whatever on the party you GM to? Unless there is a mechanical reason (e.g.: "druids are too powerful, and the rest of the group is not optimized" or "we want to play evil characters, a Paladin wouldn't fit") or a very strong thematic reason ("we all agreed to play a gritty campaign, full casters do not go well with that"), I don't think it'd ruin anyone's fun.
Well, maybe I'm mistaken, maybe I'm just being pessimistic.
I don't think it's about "like / dislike", I think it's about what fits the given game setting. Not everything will. Simple as that. I, for example, don't have Asian themed classes, because my game world doesn't. I played enough Bushido, Oriental Adventures (1E) and Legend of the Five Rings back in the day to know I like them. Just not in my western fantasy setting. Some people say you can "reskin" them to fit. Maybe, but with a ton of other options that fit, why bother? For example, why "reskin" the Paizo Samurai when you have the Cavalier? Why shoe horn in classes etc. that just don't seem to fit? Even if you don't have every class available there are plenty of classes, archtypes etc. to choose from. My 2 cp.
I think Lemmy does have a point, though. Lots of people don't like the summoner. Is not liking the mechanics of a class enough reason to exclude it?
Not in my opinion, but I think "don't like" for some people is more "doesn't fit". Others don't like the class of course, for whatever reason period. I don't like playing some of the classes I allow, but that doesn't stop me from having them in my game.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
While I love playing them. I think the monk could go bye-bye.
"If we only had a monk we wouldn't be in this situation" Said no gamer ever.