|
I was playing around with race building (as per the Advanced Race Guide) and got to thinking that with the many dozens (hundreds?) of archetypes out there, "does it make sense to start looking at class building more like race building?"
When you build a race you have a set number of points to spend on things like size, stat bonuses, affinity, speed, movement type, etc. What if building classes were like that? You get a set number of points to spend on things like BAB progression, spellcasting, weapon proficiency, class skills, sneak attack, shapechanging, etc.
... or does that make it too much like GURPS (TM)?
You could consider taking a look at the 3PP Genius Guide - Talented Class versions of several of the classes, which do basically just what you suggest.
My armchair opinion is that Pathfinder won't go for that because it's too big of a deviation from its D&D roots. Classes are a staple, and breaking down characters to a list of modular abilities is too far removed from what their customer base wants to see.
It's a great idea, though, and lots of fun when implemented well by other systems.
... or does that make it too much like GURPS (TM)?
You say that like it was a bad thing.
I think it would be easier to balance if they took more of a modular attitude. If they just balanced assuming that anything can be mixed with anything rather than trying to put a rat's next of rules in to prevent abusive combinations, it would certainly be clearer.
I would be much happier with such a system, assuming I could find a group to play with.
It is a little early to be able to tell, but it looks to me like that is the way that SKR is going with his Five Moons RPG.
I saw someone try this. They made class features cost XP and certain combos would then scale the XP cost of other features.
So a bunch of proficiencies at level 1 would cause every other class feature to cost a bit more.
I think a Rogue Legacy (Video game) tech tree would work well here.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think it works in PF because each individual class feature is not priced alone. The class as a whole is priced, and how they interact with other class features is also part of it. Class feature X can raise the value of class feature Y, and this just keeps going as you add more things. Races can't even be balanced with the race points, and they are a lot easier than classes.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Considering how bad the race builder was if you actually used it as written, I'm not terribly inclined to see what Paizo would have in store for a class builder. I'm happy to brew my own should the need arise.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
D&D has been toying with this since at least as far back as 2nd Ed. I think it was a wise decision not to tackle a class builder in ACG (and agree that the race builder is clunky and far from balanced). But I do rather like a number of the new "modular" archetypes that trade out a standard class ability for one of co parable power from another class.
The race build was totally ripped off of Skills and Powers versions of 2 Ed d&d
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I see the archetypes as Paizo's way of demonstrating how to use the system to build classes. "You want a Rogue who has more this type of flavor?" Boom! Your whole slew of Rogue archetypes. And then the hybrid "classes" that combine features for you. I take them all as examples, not as: "These - and only these - can be played in Pathfinder!"
It's being able to have an agreed upon consensus that makes the various Guides helpful. I get that. But, I want to play things that they haven't defined yet, so I do it on my own (home brew). I used to do my best to balance it based on CRB classes, but as they have come out with more and more mechanics, some of which are not "balanced" compared to the CRB, it has become harder to do. What's balanced anymore? Usually, it seems to be campaign specific.
So - yes - I am in favor of a "class builder" system option, even though it is an entirely different (and HUGE) undertaking versus the current "wait for us to define a new archetype, and/or design new mechanics for it" approach.
I was playing around with race building (as per the Advanced Race Guide) and got to thinking that with the many dozens (hundreds?) of archetypes out there, "does it make sense to start looking at class building more like race building?"
When you build a race you have a set number of points to spend on things like size, stat bonuses, affinity, speed, movement type, etc. What if building classes were like that? You get a set number of points to spend on things like BAB progression, spellcasting, weapon proficiency, class skills, sneak attack, shapechanging, etc.
... or does that make it too much like GURPS (TM)?
Sure, if by that you mean we should treat it the same way the race builder is...which means you don't use it at all.
The race builder is broken. Players should not get to use it at all. It should be a GM only tool. Even then, if a GM isn't careful he can create a race that is mechnically more powerful than it should and this will not be reflected properly in its CR. This isn't so much a problem when its NPC, but unbalanced PC characters usually lead to envy and hurt feelings between characters. Especially in cases of favoritism between a plyaer and GM.
So, in the same fashion classes are even more difficult to balance and keep reasonable. Its definitely not something a player should have access to, and I would suggest GMs avoid it unless there is no conceivable way to create a character because no other classes or archetypes fit it. And I don't mean that they're not powerful enough, but that they simply lack abilities to represent it. Remember, lots of archetypes are weaker than the original class, but do provide a option to do something that didn't exist before. New homebrew classes shouldn't be obviously better than the original Paizo classes.
So....yes. Treat them the same, which is you're better off not using either.