Ok so when it comes to player classes are there to many or not enough
Your thoughts please
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Too many? Naw.
Not enough? Ehhh....
I mean, I wouldn't mind more, as long as they're interesting, and whether I like them or not the Advanced Class Guide is being written, so whatevah.
More classes either have the potential to be really cool, really boring/pointless, or really broken.
As long as it's not the last one, it can only increase my fun (since I can just ignore the boring/pointless ones and never touch 'em...though that's unlikely to be the case in reality).
I can personally never get enough base classes. I dont find issue with overlap as long as there is something distinct about the new class, and it doesnt overshadow existing similar classes.
Anything that makes it easier to fit your precise concept is fine by me.
No such thing as too many classes, or races for that matter. It's easy enough to just go 'okay, not using this in this game' if the GM has some opposition to it, whether it's in core or otherwise.
I pretty much agree with Rynjin completely. I don't mind the creation of new classes. Sometimes they will overlap and not be completely necessary as it's own class, though Paizo has tried to avoid this by having archetypes instead.
The only thing that worries me about new classes is power creep and how the class fits into the world. I absolutely hate the Summoner for the train wrecking factor that it can have when utilized by a munchkin player. They can suck all the fun out of the game, of course any munchkin can do that it's not limited to a specific class. I also hate the existence of the Gunslinger. It doesn't fit well for what I like to see in Golarion, and I don't care for the rules for guns and touch AC.
So, as long as a class isn't broken I don't really care about the more class or archetypes being added, they can only possibly increase the fun.
The only thing that worries me about new classes is power creep and how the class fits into the world. I absolutely hate the Summoner for the train wrecking factor that it can have when utilized by a munchkin player. They can suck all the fun out of the game, of course any munchkin can do that it's not limited to a specific class. I also hate the existence of the Gunslinger. It doesn't fit well for what I like to see in Golarion, and I don't care for the rules for guns and touch AC.
This plays to my point. Just say 'no Summoners, no Gunslingers' and no to any class you think is overpowered (maybe clerics, druids and wizards).
The only thing that worries me about new classes is power creep and how the class fits into the world. I absolutely hate the Summoner for the train wrecking factor that it can have when utilized by a munchkin player. They can suck all the fun out of the game, of course any munchkin can do that it's not limited to a specific class. I also hate the existence of the Gunslinger. It doesn't fit well for what I like to see in Golarion, and I don't care for the rules for guns and touch AC.This plays to my point. Just say 'no Summoners, no Gunslingers' and no to any class you think is overpowered (maybe clerics, druids and wizards).
That is sort of the approach I take. I'm trying to develop a Gentleman's Agreement between all my players to develop characters who can be strong, but not overpowering to the point where it reduces other people's fun, overly hogs the spotlight and gametime, or otherwise makes the experience less enjoyable. I don't outright forbid classes, but if I have a problematic player I will ask them to tone it down or ask them to leave them game if they cannot.
I can understand from a players perspective to be told that you can't play a Summoner which is from the Advanced Player's Guide (which I consider very much a core book as well as everything else on the PRD) sucks, and I don't want to do that if I don't have to. There are ways you can play a Summoner that can be fun for the group without being overpowered (avoiding the obscene number of natural attacks route) and I do like the concept of a Summoner and think it fits well in general with Golarion.
Too Many! (with conditions)...I'm not against new or original class ideas, but it completely annoys me with this "growing" trend of these hybrid classes or the entirely broken ones (Gunslinger and Summoner, I'm specifically thinking of you...great ideas...broken to the max in implementation). The boards are filled with too much emphasis on optimization and combat mechanics (which tends not to be the case in standard games outside of online activities or PFS in my many years of experience). Optimization is fine to a point, but seems to be taken too far and to too much of an extreme by many people posting on the boards...(I mean really - 20-25 point buys and ability scores in the mid to high 20s seem to be the expected standard if you go by the general expectation reading through these boards, which I personally find ridiculous, but to each their own).
Personally, I feel hybrid-classes, which seems to be the growing trend, or any class for that matter that is a mish-mash of two existing classes is a mistake (given most could be effectively accomplished by "multi-classing" and have the same flavor and similar capability. If it is an original idea, that's great, but usually that is not the case and it seems silly to me and seems to be nothing more than power-creep to sell more books or placate and entitle the power-gamers and optimizers (and here comes the flames from others I am sure since people seem entirely against multi-classing, which falls back to this whole optimization craziness. Personally I just don't agree with it - some of the most interesting characters I've personally played or GM'd for were multiclass and more imaginative in my opinion that straight single class characters). Of course, YMMV, and that is okay for you if so, but frankly these trends are slowly turning me off of Pathfinder. Not that I'd find anything to replace it any time soon, or am really interested to do so. My $0.02
Not too many.
In fact I would go so far as to say I disagree with everything in your post, Orcus.
It seems you might be happier playing red box DnD.
I've never understood that perspective. I don't see 'Core' as some unassailable stronghold of 'you can automatically use this stuff'. All 'core' means is 'it came out first'. Altering and/or forbidding core materials is perfectly acceptable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
i think more base classes will introduce bloat and eventually kill the game...... archetypes will too but not as fast.
Too Many! (with conditions)...I'm not against new or original class ideas, but it completely annoys me with this "growing" trend of these hybrid classes or the entirely broken ones (Gunslinger and Summoner, I'm specifically thinking of you...great ideas...broken to the max in implementation). The boards are filled with too much emphasis on optimization and combat mechanics (which tends not to be the case in standard games outside of online activities or PFS in my many years of experience). Optimization is fine to a point, but seems to be taken too far and to too much of an extreme by many people posting on the boards...(I mean really - 20-25 point buys and ability scores in the mid to high 20s seem to be the expected standard if you go by the general expectation reading through these boards, which I personally find ridiculous, but to each their own).
Personally, I feel hybrid-classes, which seems to be the growing trend, or any class for that matter that is a mish-mash of two existing classes is a mistake (given most could be effectively accomplished by "multi-classing" and have the same flavor and similar capability. If it is an original idea, that's great, but usually that is not the case and it seems silly to me and seems to be nothing more than power-creep to sell more books or placate and entitle the power-gamers and optimizers (and here comes the flames from others I am sure since people seem entirely against multi-classing, which falls back to this whole optimization craziness. Personally I just don't agree with it - some of the most interesting characters I've personally played or GM'd for were multiclass and more imaginative in my opinion that straight single class characters). Of course, YMMV, and that is okay for you if so, but frankly these trends are slowly turning me off of Pathfinder. Not that I'd find anything to replace it any time soon, or am really interested to do so. My $0.02
This makes no sense. It doesn't matter what 'trends' the boards show, it has no bearing on how you run your game. Neither do any classes, new or old. You just go 'nope, not using them'.
Kryzbyn - Not at all, I am happy (for the most part) where Pathfinder is currently. I think it is the most interesting and fun iteration of the game to date. However, with 21 or so core classes in the game now, (excluding the possibility of future additions of new and exciting classes that have interesting mechanics, flavor, or something creatively new and different), I think my opinion stands. People are against multi-classing in general on these boards (which I personally find odd) and I reiterate that any new classes that are a mish-mash of existing classes (and can be accomplished thematically and similarly through multi-classing or with archetypes, or both even) seem to be power-creep and placating optimizers or the nay-sayers of multi-classing. But that's my opinion, and if you don't agree...that is okay.
Zhayne - Very true...just making a point that seems lost by many. People like new toys, I get it. But when the new toys are better than all the old ones, it eventually causes a problem since no one plays with the old ones and it cheapens things in the long run. That's all I am saying. But that's my opinion, and you are entitled to yours, so, all is good and to each their own. As for board trends...we do know that Paizo listens to feedback on these boards (which is the number one reason they are a far more successful company than their competitors and why WotC is now looking at emulating that model), so it does have an impact. That isn't a bad thing, but it does have an influence (usually for the better but not always in my opinion). But I generally have faith they know what they are doing! :)
Thank you...I do not agree, but I wanted to make sure your opinion isn't based on a false assumption.
It is my impression from things that James and jason and even SKR have said in the past, that their decision making and new class ideas are worked from a position of "How can we make the game more fun/what's the best for pathfinder" position. They do not pander, as much as you seem to think. They also do not listen to the very vocal minority on these boards. If either of those things were true, we would not have a gunslinger class, or samurai, ninja, summoner, etc.
New Classes/Races are cool. I dont play 3/4 of whats out their now but hey to each his own.
Same here. I only like about half the classes and maybe 5 races (definitely 3, haven't looked really hard at the others).
Kryzbyn - Not at all, I am happy (for the most part) where Pathfinder is currently. I think it is the most interesting and fun iteration of the game to date. However, with 21 or so core classes in the game now, (excluding the possibility of future additions of new and exciting classes that have interesting mechanics, flavor, or something creatively new and different), I think my opinion stands. People are against multi-classing in general on these boards (which I personally find odd) and I reiterate that any new classes that are a mish-mash of existing classes (and can be accomplished thematically and similarly through multi-classing or with archetypes, or both even) seem to be power-creep and placating optimizers or the nay-sayers of multi-classing. But that's my opinion, and if you don't agree...that is okay.
Its not placating. Its part of pathfinder. Pathfinder has made deliberate moves toward making the game more singleclass focused and to discourage multiclassing. To go along with that multi-classing is a less useful solution to cocepts that are a mashup of 2 existing classes.
Its not power creep unless the combined class is more powerful then the existing classes. If you want to call it class bloat, thats possible, but its not power creep simply because it has existing abilities.
Zhayne - Very true...just making a point that seems lost by many. People like new toys, I get it. But when the new toys are better than all the old ones, it eventually causes a problem since no one plays with the old ones and it cheapens things in the long run. That's all I am saying. But that's my opinion, and you are entitled to yours, so, all is good and to each their own. As for board trends...we do know that Paizo listens to feedback on these boards (which is the number one reason they are a far more successful company than their competitors and why WotC is now looking at emulating that model), so it does have an impact. That isn't a bad thing, but it does have an influence (usually for the better but not always in my opinion). But I generally have faith they know what they are doing! :)
I think paizo has made significant effort not to invalidate previous classes. If you are saying its invalidating multiclassing thats kind of true, but thats because paizo is deliberately trying to move away from the multiclassing and prestige classes of 3.5. Because its much easier to write rules for a single classed system.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wouldn't mind at all if Paizo rendered classes like the monk, rogue, and fighter obsolete with better versions, because they're underpowered. I also wouldn't mind if they made weaker versions of the cleric, druid, and wizard so I could easily say 'Not using those. Using these.' because they're overpowered.
I wouldn't mind at all if Paizo rendered classes like the monk, rogue, and fighter obsolete with better versions, because they're underpowered. I also wouldn't mind if they made weaker versions of the cleric, druid, and wizard so I could easily say 'Not using those. Using these.' because they're overpowered.
Maybe in Pathfinder: The Next Generation
Edit: Really the best way to control the power of cleric, druid, and wizard is to eviscerate their spells lists. Maybe this needs to happens.
This plays to my point. Just say 'no Summoners, no Gunslingers' and no to any class you think is overpowered (maybe clerics, druids and wizards).
Not a proper solution. Because if you're a player, and the GM doesn't share the same perspective or just doesn't care as much about balance or just has never seen the classes in action, they'll still be allowed.
Balanced class: Add to the game, making it better.
Boring/Pointless classes: Don't add to the game, but don't make it worse.
Imbalanced classes: Detract from the game (unless you're lucky enough to find a GM with the same perspective on balance as you).
I don't like the last one, in any game. It's why I dive so much into discussing balance for a game I really get into (that and it gives me good pre-written fodder for class assignments on some occasions).
I like to homebrew anyway, so the more the better. I love the race builder for that, since it allows to create reasonably balanced new races. If only they had a class builder...
Not a proper solution. Because if you're a player, and the GM doesn't share the same perspective or just doesn't care as much about balance or just has never seen the classes in action, they'll still be allowed.
This plays to my point. Just say 'no Summoners, no Gunslingers' and no to any class you think is overpowered (maybe clerics, druids and wizards).
Then you can opt not to play.
Then you can opt not to play.
Why would I do that?
GM interference is not a substitute for actual balance because of this, that your only options are "Deal with it" and "GTFO".
Most people (including me) would just deal with it, but that doesn't mean the problem is solved.
This plays to my point. Just say 'no Summoners, no Gunslingers' and no to any class you think is overpowered (maybe clerics, druids and wizards).Not a proper solution. Because if you're a player, and the GM doesn't share the same perspective or just doesn't care as much about balance or just has never seen the classes in action, they'll still be allowed.
Balanced class: Add to the game, making it better.
Boring/Pointless classes: Don't add to the game, but don't make it worse.
Imbalanced classes: Detract from the game (unless you're lucky enough to find a GM with the same perspective on balance as you).
I don't like the last one, in any game. It's why I dive so much into discussing balance for a game I really get into (that and it gives me good pre-written fodder for class assignments on some occasions).
Your last one has a rather significant inconsistency. If something is objectively imbalanced, then the GM perspective doesnt matter. The class is imbalanced, everyone will see it that way, and exclude it. If perspective dictates whether or not it's imbalanced, then the class isnt imbalanced, it just doesn't suit certain playstyles.
The concept of 'balance' is kind of nonsensical in a game as complex as pathfinder. Some people thing the monk is overpowered, some people thing gunslingers over powered, some people think their underpowered, and rogues are broken overpowered. Just because a class doesnt fit your view of 'balance' doesnt mean it detracts from the game so long as it provides an avenue to create a character you couldn't create before. It is PLAYERS(and GMs) that detract from the game if they use those classes in a way that reduces the fun of other people at the table.
The usual whipping boy, the summoner, is a great example. It isnt 'balanced' because it is the most flexible class in the game (thus the easiest to optimize). But a player has to willfully choose to make the character that powerful. He could choose to create a far more balanced character with the options presented. At that point who is really at fault? The summoner cant do anything that a druid cant with a little effort, but its just so glaringly obvious with the summoner that it ends up being a problem with certain players when they dont or wont realize the character they create is imbalanced.
Its not 'deal with it or GTFO', its 'Why should we limit some interesting and fun concepts because some people are jerks'.
Your last one has a rather significant inconsistency. If something is objectively imbalanced, then the GM perspective doesnt matter.
Unfortunately not true, though it should be.
Something can be objectively untrue and people still disagree with it.
Doesn't make them right, but it does happen.
(snip)
I put the blame square on the creator(s) who created the game elements that permit the imbalance, no matter which direction.
(snip)I put the blame square on the creator(s) who created the game elements that permit the imbalance, no matter which direction.
I think some of the blame has to go on the fanbase that want the impossible. There are fans that want fighters and rogues to not have anything resembling supernatural abilities but still want wizards and clerics to have worldshaping powers. There is something of a corner designers are put into.
I am not saying that the designers are blameless, but its not like the problem is a simple one.
In my opinion, the game can have as many classes as it needs just as long as they don't copy other classes (Samurai and Ninja)
I think the Gunslinger is just fine as long as it is used in moderation (some of my friends don't think so).
I think there should be other races, to a point. If there were other races, there should be rules like in the core book (dwarf, elf, human) instead of the templates and such in the races guide book (don't have). We played 3.5 Freeport and one player wanted to play a Gnoll. The character's one weapon was dead monsters. I think if there was an actual race, not a race book, but a Gnoll race with stat info just like if you were going to play a human it would have been much easier to play.
In short, more classes/more races.