Which is hilarious, when you look around and see the number of PF tables that don't allow 3.5e material, many of which are "PF-only."
When PF first came out, I encouraged my longtime 3.5 group to move to it and use it to expand our current game. The group jumped in PF eventually, and now disallow any non-PF products. Might as well have just gone with 4e, if I know I was going to wind up with the same result(not being able to use my 3.5 library). I don't blame PF for this, necessarily, it's all anecdotal. But still, I feel like I've created a monster.
Because of the changeover period, when there wasn't much in Pathfinder you could use all your 3.5 stuff with it and it got along just dandy. WHen more stuff for Pathfinder came out it supplanted the need for the 3.5 material and was better on the whole anyway.
The same thing happened in 3.0 to 3.5: you could pick it up and run with it, and there was no problem. When there was enough 3.5 material, people dropped the 3.0 stuff.
That DIDN'T happen with 4.0, which is one reason I didn't go with 4.0. When 4.0 came out it was a new system, and that meant that all the old stuff no longer worked with it. So my spirit shaman from 3.5 could not run AT ALL in 4.0 - you had to wait for them to make the supplement with it in a few year's time - but could work just great in Pathfinder. Guess which game system I am upgrading too, then?
Any word yet on an explanation for why Brawlers can just bypass DR? Are we still settling on "just because," or did I read that wrong?
Because reasons, basically. The brawler wouldn't work if he didn't have a DR bypass (or he'd be totally dependent on the AoMF for it), hence they gave him one. As they gave him a better DR bypass than the monk, I assume this means they know the monk's DR bypass is inadequate.
I already haul around Ultimate Magic, Combat, Equipment, Advanced Players Guide, CRB, Bestiary 1 - 3, and I'm fixing to pick up Bestiary 4, Mythic Adventures, Mythic Origins, Advanced Race Guide and Advanced Class Guide. In addition, I have several books from the Golarion line and flip-maps. I'm also the source of several of the PC minis for the group and I supply the dice for 3 players, including myself. Then lets toss the snacks I've brought to every session, without fail, for the last 10 years...
I really don't want to haul all of my 3.5 books around too :'(
And I bring my tablet. :-)
Which also means I'm able to set up spur of the moment games, such as when I'm having a quiet shift at work.
By the way, the Advanced Race Guide is a great book - well worth picking up. I looked over Mythic Adventures but found it a little overwhelming, so no hands-on experience there. Bestiary 4 was fun, but I haven't had a chance to put anything from it into play yet.
Where did you find legal 3.5 PDFs?
Which is hilarious, when you look around and see the number of PF tables that don't allow 3.5e material, many of which are "PF-only."
When PF first came out, I encouraged my longtime 3.5 group to move to it and use it to expand our current game. The group jumped in PF eventually, and now disallow any non-PF products. Might as well have just gone with 4e, if I know I was going to wind up with the same result(not being able to use my 3.5 library). I don't blame PF for this, necessarily, it's all anecdotal. But still, I feel like I've created a monster.
Because of the changeover period, when there wasn't much in Pathfinder you could use all your 3.5 stuff with it and it got along just dandy. WHen more stuff for Pathfinder came out it supplanted the need for the 3.5 material and was better on the whole anyway.
The same thing happened in 3.0 to 3.5: you could pick it up and run with it, and there was no problem. When there was enough 3.5 material, people dropped the 3.0 stuff.
That DIDN'T happen with 4.0, which is one reason I didn't go with 4.0. When 4.0 came out it was a new system, and that meant that all the old stuff no longer worked with it. So my spirit shaman from 3.5 could not run AT ALL in 4.0 - you had to wait for them to make the supplement with it in a few year's time - but could work just great in Pathfinder. Guess which game system I am upgrading too, then?
I understand that. I had to catch myself towards the end of the post you quoted of mine, I was really venting issues from my personal group, which aren't necessarily indicative of PF as a whole.
Don't get me wrong; I don't battle for 3.5 with my group, I understand that they play PF now and that's what we play. In every instance where PF has an updated equivalent of something from 3.5(classes, spells, etc), I defer to the PF version without question. But, I'm just contending that there was a lot of material left over, that we don't have a PF equivalent for yet(OGL issues, etc), that I still just want to mess with, even just in theory(Incarnum, Legacy items, etc). I'm just whiny because my group is too scared to just give some things a try and fix as needed.
Eh, I'm probably in the minority then. One of the big selling points to me about PF was all that they changed from 3.5. Sure, It was based off the d20 system, but it changed a lot of what could be changed about 3.5. Backwards compatability is what kept it, in my mind, from being even better than it ended up being.
Minority perhaps but far from the only one who feels that way.
Where did you find legal 3.5 PDFs?
I didn't, which is another reason why I only use limited 3.5 material. I know Wizards did sell legal PDFs for a period before pulling them from the market again, but I didn't get a chance to make a purchase back then.
If I do use 3.5 material, I either bring a photocopy of the relevant pages, bookmark the D20SRD page if it (by some miracle) is covered there, or (more likely) I literally take a scan or a photo of the relevant pages and store them on my tablet for later perusal.
This is post is about the play test process itself.
not comments on class, abilities, etc.... Right?
but i have a question/comment about a class and wanted to know where to post or discuss this
can any one point me in the right direction?
This is post is about the play test process itself.
not comments on class, abilities, etc.... Right?
but i have a question/comment about a class and wanted to know where to post or discuss this
can any one point me in the right direction?
For questions about the class mechanics the rules forum would be appropriate. For comments the general discussion thread.
yep thanks. found it.
so .... general discussion is open to advanced class discussion?
good stuff. thanks
yep thanks. found it.
so .... general discussion is open to advanced class discussion?
good stuff. thanks
As long as it's Pathfinder related, its generally ok to discuss.
not very funny...
In post testing usage of the classes, I have found myself house-ruling the Swashbuckler to be automatically proficient with the Dueling Sword as if he had EWP and could use the weapon with his Finesse ability. He still gets feat taxed into taking Slashing Grace, but I couldn't find a reason why a built in DEX based fighter could not have proficiency with such a weapon.
Regarding 3.5: Pathfinder has largely replaced 3.5 for me... but I still allow some older content simply because PF is still missing so many different classes and concepts that were in 3.5. 3.5 material is almost required for good melee martials it seems.
Regarding the playtest: I actually think it went better than what I've gathered of the developers' reputations and past actions.
Though I'm honestly still a bit underwhelmed by the ACG's concept in general. Kinda-sorta mashing two classes together doesn't seem like particularly inspiring design, even though I'm glad to see more classes and some of them look fun. Even some of the unique mechanics don't look like they had a lot of design effort put into them (awesome blow?)... and some other design decisions like specifically making Investigators unable to use firearms with their class features seem a bit weird to me.
Overall I think it went well though.
It was more to stop dual wielding pistol shenanigans on the Gunslinger I imagine.I'm glad that crack team of devs is here to put the... what... fourth worst class in the game? back in its place!
The Gunslinger is actually a quite-capable class. While no skill monkey, the Gunslinger can afford to put more into Int than most martial classes as he is very SAD and he benefits from having 4 skill ranks per level, compared to the Fighter or Paladin's 2 ranks. Dex, AC and Damage all come from one stat, by design, and he doesn't need as much Con as a melee martial due to the nature of his ranged attacks. With targeting touch AC, he's going to hit on nearly every attack, and with Clustered Shots, he's going to practically ignore DR.
If he isn't using a double-barreled weapon, or dual-wielding, he fires nearly as many shots as an archer, but hits with more attacks.
I'm not sure if Gunslinger is the highest DPR class in the game, fairly certain that's either a Barbarian or Smiting Paladin (I don't pay much attention to the DPR Olympics), but I do know that the Gunslinger often makes most other martials cry because he slaughters everything before the others even get a turn (for the most part). Either that or he drops BBEGs in the first round, second round if he rolls badly.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Regarding 3.5: Pathfinder has largely replaced 3.5 for me... but I still allow some older content simply because PF is still missing so many different classes and concepts that were in 3.5. 3.5 material is almost required for good melee martials it seems.
Regarding the playtest: I actually think it went better than what I've gathered of the developers' reputations and past actions.
Though I'm honestly still a bit underwhelmed by the ACG's concept in general. Kinda-sorta mashing two classes together doesn't seem like particularly inspiring design, even though I'm glad to see more classes and some of them look fun. Even some of the unique mechanics don't look like they had a lot of design effort put into them (awesome blow?)... and some other design decisions like specifically making Investigators unable to use firearms with their class features seem a bit weird to me.
Overall I think it went well though.
It was more to stop dual wielding pistol shenanigans on the Gunslinger I imagine.I'm glad that crack team of devs is here to put the... what... fourth worst class in the game? back in its place!The Gunslinger is actually a quite-capable class. While no skill monkey, the Gunslinger can afford to put more into Int than most martial classes as he is very SAD and he benefits from having 4 skill ranks per level, compared to the Fighter or Paladin's 2 ranks. Dex, AC and Damage all come from one stat, by design, and he doesn't need as much Con as a melee martial due to the nature of his ranged attacks. With targeting touch AC, he's going to hit on nearly every attack, and with Clustered Shots, he's going to practically ignore DR.
If he isn't using a double-barreled weapon, or dual-wielding, he fires nearly as many shots as an archer, but hits with more attacks.
I'm not sure if Gunslinger is the highest DPR class in the game, fairly certain that's either a Barbarian or Smiting Paladin (I don't pay much attention to the DPR...
As long as she drops all her feats into reloading and is 20 feet away and doesn't roll any 1s or 2s, the gunslinger is pretty good.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You're right, I mean, Rapid Reload (pistol) and alchemical cartridges. Such a heavy feat investment, how can I possibly afford anything else?
|
About the following slayer talent:
Trapfinding: The hunter gains Disable Device as a class
skill, and adds half his level to Perception skill checks
made to locate traps and to Disable Device skill checks
(minimum 1). Just like a rogue, the hunter can use Disable
Device to disarm magic traps. The slayer gains trap sense
as a rogue of the same level.
So slayer take a talent and gets both trapfinding AND trap sense? is this book going to present rogue-only feats that help us provide shameless boosts so rogues can keep up a bit? I have a few "ready to print" solutions for the rogue if it's not too late... mainly on this thread :)
SPIDER SENSE:
Prerequisites: Trapfinding, Trapsense +1, Trap Spotter Rogue Talent, 3rd-level rogue.
Benefits: You gain a bonus to all initiative checks, attack rolls made as part of an attack of opportunity, a dodge bonus to AC, and all saving throws equal to your Trapsense bonus.
You gain +3 on all Perception and Disable Device checks. This bonus can stack with the bonus from Skill Focus, if applicable.
Finally, you come within 60 feet of a trap, hazard or secret door, you receive an immediate Perception skill check to notice it. The use of Disable Device is always a standard action for you, regardless of the task or difficulty, and if you beat the DC by 5, it becomes a move action, and you figure out how it works, how to bypass it without disarming it, and can rig a trap so your allies can bypass it as well. Finally you can disable a trap at a range of 60 feet if you can manipulate the trap in any way, whether via spell such as mage hand or telekinesis or via ranged attack against an AC equal to the DC of the trap (such as shooting an arrow, throwing a dagger or firing a ray spell); if you lack the way to precisely manipulate or disable the trap via ranged attack, you can set it off (which means traps that reset automatically are not disabled and will reset as per their individual description) via spells or effects that affect an area, such as splash weapons and many evocation spells by successfully making a ranged attack to target a specific grid intersection. Treat this as a ranged attack against AC 5.
rogue talents:
Enforcer (Ex): Drawing on her past experience with pressure points, pain receptors and dark alleys, a rogue with this ability can inflict a nonlethal damage sneak attack while striking a creature with concealment or total concealment. If the rogue misses because of concealment or total concealment, she can reroll her miss chance percentile roll one time to see if she actually hits. This nonlethal damage can be inflicted as usual with a weapon that deals nonlethal damage (like a sap, whip, or an unarmed strike), or she can also use a weapon that deals lethal damage to deal this nonlethal damage with the usual –4 penalty.
Luck Pool (Ex): A rogue gains a pool of luck points she can use to accomplish seemingly incredible feats. The number of points in the rogue's luck pool is equal to 1/2 her rogue level + her Intelligence modifier. As long as she has at least 1 point in her luck pool, she treats any stealth skill check as if she was one size smaller. At 10th level, she treats any stealth skill check as if she was two sizes smaller.
By spending 1 point from her luck pool, a rogue can make one additional attack at her highest attack bonus, but she can do so only when making a full attack. In addition, she can spend 1 point to increase her speed by 20 feet for 1 round. Finally, a rogue can spend 1 point from her luck pool to give herself a +4 insight bonus on Disable Device and Perception checks for 1 round. Each of these powers is activated as a swift action. A rogue can also use a luck point to add a 1d6 bonus to any die or dice roll, and this choice can be made after the result of the roll is known, including the decision on how many luck points should be used. If the luck point is used to add 1d6 point to a damage roll, this damage is multiplied on a critical hit.
The luck pool is replenished each morning after 8 hours of rest or revelry, as determined by the rogue on the night before; these hours do not need to be consecutive. If the rogue possesses levels in another class that grants points to a ki pool, rogue levels stack with the levels of that class to determine the total number of luck points in the combined pool, but only one ability score modifier is added to the total. The choice of which score to use is made when the second class ability is gained, and once made, the choice is set. The rogue can now use luck points from this pool to power the abilities of every class she possesses that grants a ki pool or luck pool.
Practice Makes Perfect: A rogue that selects this talent gains nothing immediately. The next time he gains a rogue talent, he gains three rogue talents instead. If taken before 10th level, this cannot yield future advanced rogue talents.
advanced rogue talent:
Selective Proprioception (Ex): By tricking her own sense of hand-eye coordination, a rogue with this ability can attack directly while invisible and not become visible.
Q2: I'm also thinking of adding rogue talents for the rogue class only that will yield two feats instead of one; i.e. finesse rogue gives you weapon finesse, so we could have alert dodger which gives you dodge and mobility, for instance...
I have a feeling that a lot of the classes were intended to be *fixes* to classes like the rogue. I feel them being alternate classes and not being able to multiclass between them is a sign of that.
It's good enough for me, in a sense. I feel if you really wanna do a full rogue fix, give the Slayer full sneak and 8+ skills/level. Make it obvious that this is the rogue fix everyone has been asking for.
Well, it's the combat rogue everyone has been asking for. The skill monkey Rogue is the Investigator; 6 skills per level, yes, but since the Investigator has Int as a primary stat you can expect her to have more skills than an equivalent Rogue. Your sneak thief is still probably a Bard.
Not a question about the playtesting experience, but I'm not sure where else to ask it. In the current release, is the warpriest's divine focus just their god's holy symbol?
A divine focus can be anything that has spiritual significance to your faith. For most Warpriests, it'll probably end up being your favored weapon.
Has it been answered yet if the book, when it comes out, will it have archtypes and racial based favored class bonuses?
Archetypes yes, FCB probably.
I certainly hope it has archetypes, otherwise I'm not sure I'd get paid!
I certainly hope it has archetypes, otherwise I'm not sure I'd get paid!
And they better be good!
I'm keeping my eye on you.
*Prepares the Goblin Kill-Team*
That's the plan!
And they better be good!
I'm keeping my eye on you.
*Prepares the Goblin Kill-Team*
Where do I enlist? >:)
That's the plan!
"...Alright, Cheapy, your story checks out."
I certainly hope it has archetypes, otherwise I'm not sure I'd get paid!And they better be good!
I'm keeping my eye on you.
*Prepares the Goblin Kill-Team*
We make fire now? Chuffy make flame real bright and shiny! Got big rockets too, never fails to amuse at goblin parties!
Goblin Kill-Team? My Slayer would love to be in a team that kills goblins. :)
Though a Goblin Slayer racial archetype will obviously need to be created too...
The number of people signing up to join the goblin squad that might kill me is a bit high for my liking...
The number of people signing up to join the goblin squad that might kill me is a bit high for my liking...
Oh believe me. Might is far too kind for your position.
With a stealth bonus of +14 at 1st level, they most assuredly will succeed.
Now would you like your flesh char broiled or raw? I do take requests.
Applications to join the Goblin Kill-Team must be on longshank baby skin and in triplicate. We evaluate your applications based on your ability to make frightening war ditties, pyrotechnics, and how shanky your blades are.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Applications to join the Goblin Kill-Team must be on longshank baby skin and in triplicate. We evaluate your applications based on your ability to make frightening war ditties, pyrotechnics, and how shanky your blades are.So... any Goblin that turns in a written application dies on the spot, right?
Applications to join the Goblin Kill-Team must be on longshank baby skin and in triplicate. We evaluate your applications based on your ability to make frightening war ditties, pyrotechnics, and how shanky your blades are.So... any Goblin that turns in a written application dies on the spot, right?
Indeed. The words have stolen his soul and thus his life is forfeit as foretold by our great Goblin gods.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm sorry, I've never heard anyone but you complain about the Gunslinger being a bad class other than it's OP. By all accounts I've come across, people acknowledged that Gunslinger does it's job and does it well; it's job being ranged support and damage dealer.
Role: Gunslingers are thunderous artillery, often found where the fighting is fiercest. Brave, clever, and frequently foolhardy, many gunslingers push to position themselves at close range, barrels blazing, to take down their foes and demoralize their enemies. Other gunslingers are masters of distant death, picking off enemies from afar with their strange and wondrous weapons.
That's the stated role of Gunslingers, artillery, killing foes, demoralization, and masters of distant death. You're complaining about the Gunslinger being locked into wielding guns, a ranged option, when that's the very intent of the class!
Tell me, do you complain about fighters being locked into fighting instead of being masters of Profession (baker)? Or why your Wizard isn't the unparalleled master of unarmed combat instead of the master of arcane magic?
You want to use sword and pistol, that's fine, but you're using the class in a way other than it was intended. That means you have to accept some limitations, like being unable to reload your pistol after the first shot, because you don't have a hand free.
As for melee, the only feat that's actually necessary to be good as a martial, is Power Attack. If you have that feat, you're golden. It's not like archery or other ranged weapons where you need Manyshot, Rapid Shot, Deadly Aim, PBS, Precise Shot etc. Except, as a Gunslinger, you really only need PBS, Rapid Shot and Deadly Aim, anything else beyond that is simply gravy.
Every Gunslinger gets 15 feats over their 20 level career; for PFS, they get 2 bonus feats, one at 4th one at 8th. That means they still have the 10 feats they get normally, 6 feat if PFS, to do other things or flesh out other areas.
So in PFS, you could easily have PBS, Rapid Reload, Deadly Aim, Power Attack and TWF by 7th level. This lets you play a Sword and Pistol character pretty easily. For example, you could have two Double-Barreled pistols as an opening attack, with one of them attached to a weapon cord. You fire both barrels on both pistols in the first round (4 attacks total), then drop one pistol (the one with the weapon cord), and reload the second pistol (a free action). Next round you can fire both barrels of your pistol as a standard action, reload, then move forward and draw your sword (free action). Once in combat, you can opt to attack with just your sword, or sword and pistol, but you provoke an AoO if you do so, but that's one of the limitations you have to accept.
Gunslingers are, mechanically, a great class, even though the mechanics of the class are, in my opinion, over-powered.
I have a feeling that a lot of the classes were intended to be *fixes* to classes like the rogue. I feel them being alternate classes and not being able to multiclass between them is a sign of that.
It's good enough for me, in a sense. I feel if you really wanna do a full rogue fix, give the Slayer full sneak and 8+ skills/level. Make it obvious that this is the rogue fix everyone has been asking for.
At first glance I though the slayer was replacement for the rogue. I'm playing one now. If anything this class compliments the rogue and take the rogues roll though not quite as good at it.
I personally think the Rogue should be full BAB.
How is it not quite as good at it? At 2nd level it gets the singular unique-ish thing a Rogue brings to the table (Trapfinding), along with Full BaB, d10 HD, some Sneak Attack, and pseudo-Favored Enemy.
It's pretty awesome.
You're right, I mean, Rapid Reload (pistol) and alchemical cartridges. Such a heavy feat investment, how can I possibly afford anything else?
ikr? then your gun will only break once in every 10 shots.
You know what I say? I say that Pathfinder does not need 30 base classes. That is more than any RPG I have seen, tabletop or otherwise. Eventually, classes just start being duplicates with just slight tweaks. And I haven't even played the playtest.
Sorry for bashing, but I personally think that 30 base classes in a game is beyond unreasonable.
It's obscene. (Feel free to bash on me, I just really think that there isn't a need for 30 base classes.)
On the subject of gunslingers (and actually on topic about the ACG) am I the only one who finds it a bit silly that the ACG class that lists gunslinger as one of its alternate classes not only can't use firearms but has class features that explicitly don't work with guns?
I personally think the Rogue should be full BAB.It definitely should
One of the Designers stated that the Swashbuckler's base class did this intentionally, because not all GMs allow Guns, nor did all Swashbucklers use them either.
There will be archetypes for the Swashbuckler that use guns, however, as that is still a fairly iconic part of swashbuckling.
As for Gunslinger, you claimed they were the fourth worst class in the game. Personally, I rank them higher than that, because they are still better than Cavaliers, Samurai and Ninja. But that's going to be the last I say on this subject as I don't want to take the thread any more Off-Topic than we have already.
You know what I say? I say that Pathfinder does not need 30 base classes. That is more than any RPG I have seen, tabletop or otherwise.
Then you have less experience than I do (which is saying something, since I've only played Pathfinder TTRPG-wise...), since even from a short skimming of 3.5's content it has a lot more classes.
Eventually, classes just start being duplicates with just slight tweaks. And I haven't even played the playtest.
Which is very clear, because with the possible exception of the Hunter (uhhh...isn't this just a Druid with less casting ability?) they all manage to fond a nice niche.
And none of the other classes in the game are duplicates of another class either.
Sorry for bashing, but I personally think that 30 base classes in a game is beyond unreasonable.
It's obscene. (Feel free to bash on me, I just really think that there isn't a need for 30 base classes.)
Why do you think that, though? Your only reason is disproved by just a cursory look-over of the classes.
You know what I say? I say that Pathfinder does not need 30 base classes. That is more than any RPG I have seen, tabletop or otherwise. Eventually, classes just start being duplicates with just slight tweaks. And I haven't even played the playtest.
Sorry for bashing, but I personally think that 30 base classes in a game is beyond unreasonable.
It's obscene. (Feel free to bash on me, I just really think that there isn't a need for 30 base classes.)
Don't try Warhammer 1e or 2e then (I'm not sure how many FFG's version has, but I think it's up there as well).
AD&D had
Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Magic-User, Illusionist, Thief, Assassin, Cavalier, Barbarian, Paladin, Bushi, Samurai, Ninja, Sohei, Shukenja, Wu-jen, Bard, Thief-Acrobat, Monk, Yakuza, Knight of Solamnia, Wizard of High Sorcery, Holy Order of the Stars, Tinker Gnome...which equals around 26 classes...pretty darn close to 30...and I'm pretty certain I've missed a few (that probably appeared in Dragon or some such stuff).
Looking at 2e, off the top of my head I think there was
The Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Priest, Druid, Rogue, Bard, Magic-User (generalist), Illusionist, Enchanter, Conjurer, Invoker, Diviner, Necromancer, Abjurer, Transmuter, Revised Ranger (basically 1e ranger in handbook), Barbarian, Ninja, Monk (revised)(in one of the handbooks), Psionicist, Chronomancer, Temporal Champion, Temporal Raider, Defiler, Elemental Cleric, Gladiator, Templar, Trader, Anchorite, Arcanist, Avenger, Gypsy, Crusader, Mystic, Shaman, Ascetic, Pious Knight, Alchemist, Geometer, Dimentionlist, Force Mage, Mentalist, Elemental Mage, Sorcerer, Berserker, Runecaster, Wild Mage and Assassin for a total of 46?
And of course, I'm absolutely positive I missed a few there (and some on purpose, for example didn't list any of the NPC classes from Sages and Specialists though sometimes we'd use the Guide and Engineer or Blacksmith as an alternate class).
You know what I say? I say that Pathfinder does not need 30 base classes. That is more than any RPG I have seen, tabletop or otherwise. Eventually, classes just start being duplicates with just slight tweaks. And I haven't even played the playtest.
Sorry for bashing, but I personally think that 30 base classes in a game is beyond unreasonable.
It's obscene. (Feel free to bash on me, I just really think that there isn't a need for 30 base classes.)
Don't try Warhammer 1e or 2e then (I'm not sure how many FFG's version has, but I think it's up there as well).
AD&D had
Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Magic-User, Illusionist, Thief, Assassin, Cavalier, Barbarian, Paladin, Bushi, Samurai, Ninja, Sohei, Shukenja, Wu-jen, Bard, Thief-Acrobat, Monk, Yakuza, Knight of Solamnia, Wizard of High Sorcery, Holy Order of the Stars, Tinker Gnome...which equals around 26 classes...pretty darn close to 30...and I'm pretty certain I've missed a few (that probably appeared in Dragon or some such stuff).
Weren't there also campaign specific classes for Forgotten Realms/Drgonlance etc?
Weren't there also campaign specific classes for Forgotten Realms/Drgonlance etc?You know what I say? I say that Pathfinder does not need 30 base classes. That is more than any RPG I have seen, tabletop or otherwise. Eventually, classes just start being duplicates with just slight tweaks. And I haven't even played the playtest.
Sorry for bashing, but I personally think that 30 base classes in a game is beyond unreasonable.
It's obscene. (Feel free to bash on me, I just really think that there isn't a need for 30 base classes.)
Don't try Warhammer 1e or 2e then (I'm not sure how many FFG's version has, but I think it's up there as well).
AD&D had
Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Magic-User, Illusionist, Thief, Assassin, Cavalier, Barbarian, Paladin, Bushi, Samurai, Ninja, Sohei, Shukenja, Wu-jen, Bard, Thief-Acrobat, Monk, Yakuza, Knight of Solamnia, Wizard of High Sorcery, Holy Order of the Stars, Tinker Gnome...which equals around 26 classes...pretty darn close to 30...and I'm pretty certain I've missed a few (that probably appeared in Dragon or some such stuff).
There were for Dragonlance, they were included in the list. I wasn't aware of any specific for the 1e box of Forgetton Realms (though for 2e there were). I also didn't include the Dragon Magazine classes, as I was going off the top of my head and didn't want to go through all the magazines to categorically list them.
There were for Dragonlance, they were included in the list. I wasn't aware of any specific for the 1e box of Forgetton Realms (though for 2e there were). I also didn't include the Dragon Magazine classes, as I was going off the top of my head and didn't want to go through all the magazines to categorically list them.Weren't there also campaign specific classes for Forgotten Realms/Drgonlance etc?You know what I say? I say that Pathfinder does not need 30 base classes. That is more than any RPG I have seen, tabletop or otherwise. Eventually, classes just start being duplicates with just slight tweaks. And I haven't even played the playtest.
Sorry for bashing, but I personally think that 30 base classes in a game is beyond unreasonable.
It's obscene. (Feel free to bash on me, I just really think that there isn't a need for 30 base classes.)
Don't try Warhammer 1e or 2e then (I'm not sure how many FFG's version has, but I think it's up there as well).
AD&D had
Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Magic-User, Illusionist, Thief, Assassin, Cavalier, Barbarian, Paladin, Bushi, Samurai, Ninja, Sohei, Shukenja, Wu-jen, Bard, Thief-Acrobat, Monk, Yakuza, Knight of Solamnia, Wizard of High Sorcery, Holy Order of the Stars, Tinker Gnome...which equals around 26 classes...pretty darn close to 30...and I'm pretty certain I've missed a few (that probably appeared in Dragon or some such stuff).
Which is kind of the point. You can list all of the Official Pathfinder classes off the top of your head, it's very difficult to do the same for the various editions of D&D.
Alright, you have me. I have no experience of the content at all, didn't do the math for any others I have played (which is shameful, because I mainly play 2e), and I have just started playing PF. I guess I just needed to blow off steam for some reason.