In 3.5, they had some really fun Channeling Feats and Reserve Feats for the cleric (and other magic-users). Those are some design spaces I'd like to see PF step into.
(Discussions with other posters)
#3 of "I forgot to post this days ago":
ChaiGuy wrote:For a simple revision to the EK (hybrid) I suppose it's time for the name change, perhaps to Rune Knight.
I wouldn't call that a "simple revision", that's an entire different class. It's rather similar to my concepts for defensive hexes on the "spell-less warrior with hexes" I proposed earlier in this thread.
To put it bluntly, I don't really like your concept. I think you're trying to push one specific and narrow playstyle and try to make a class out of it. A proper class needs multiple possible flavors, multiple possible (mechanical) directions, and multiple imaginable archetypes.
It's a medium BAB 6/9 caster with zero offensive class features apart from spells.
I would agree that the Rune Knight is very different from the Eldrich Knight (Hybrid) and calling it a simple revision is incorrect, sorry. I'll take a look at your proposed class asap.
I don't see the concept as more narrow than many of the existing classes, such as swashbuckler, gunslinger, or Urogue among others. I don't think that a class needs to have the same breadth of options that you seem to.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by flavors. There are at least as many mechanical directions available to the Rune Knight as there is to a Warpriest. The bonus feats the Rune Knight gets lets it be good at just about any weapon fighting style, even the more feat intensive ones like archery, reach and trip, and 2 weapon fighting.
I don't think I'd have any trouble making a few archetypes for the Rune Knight.
I would imagine that a full BAB 6/9 caster would be too powerful, so I went 3/4. The bonus feats could be considered an offensive class feature, if they are used to increase the attack power of the character. I would agree though that the RK has limited offensive class features, but that is not entirely by accident. I wanted the Rune Knight to be almost an inverse of the magus, which seems to be mostly focused on offense.
It may be that I have over emphasized the defensive aspects of the class and additional offensive power should be added. Then again offense isn't really hard to get without class specific features. Having a good strength, a 2 handed weapon, power attack and a few bonus combat feats, and you should have no problem bringing the pain. In addition you'd have quite a few spells at your disposal to increase your flexibility, and to bridge the BAB gap, (though the swift action buff of the EK hybrid did so better).
I've been working on a druid-paladin class for awhile. Its been tough getting that to not feel unnatural. A couple years back I worked on a druid-oracle type thingy and a cleric-alchemist. I thinking about switching gears and trying a druid-magus thing. I'd like to see a well made version of any of those.
Oh! Here's another. We already have the magus to replace the wizard-fighter eldritch knight. What about something to replace the arcane trickster?
A druid-rogue? :P
Ranger already kinda feels like a druid-paladin.
I feel like there should be a skill based kineticist. An alchemist/kineticist may be the best combination for this.
I feel like there should be a skill based kineticist. An alchemist/kineticist may be the best combination for this.
The Kineticist seems like a tough one to hybridize, since if you make them less good at "the thing they do" (the kinetic blast and wild talents) you're going to make them pretty weak. If you want to lift the burn mechanic to let a hybrid class power new things, then you're going to need a lot of column inches for the new wild talent.
It's kind of easier to take a kineticist and build an archetype with a full strength kinetic blast and trade away stuff for features of other classes. The Kinetic Knight is kind of a Kineticist Samurai, you could easily do a Kineticist that trades wild talents for hexes, etc.
The alchemist one seems really hard to do. Would you invest burn into your bombs?
A druid-rogue? :P
Ranger already kinda feels like a druid-paladin.
Not as I imagine it. I'm thinking a green knight sword to protect nature, as opposed to a hunter-type. There would be a neutral alignment requirement, a smite ability for undead, aberrations, etc, some fey/plant/animal stuff, and some nature-spirit themed supernatural abilities.
|
I feel like there should be a skill based kineticist. An alchemist/kineticist may be the best combination for this.The Kineticist seems like a tough one to hybridize, since if you make them less good at "the thing they do" (the kinetic blast and wild talents) you're going to make them pretty weak. If you want to lift the burn mechanic to let a hybrid class power new things, then you're going to need a lot of column inches for the new wild talent.
It's kind of easier to take a kineticist and build an archetype with a full strength kinetic blast and trade away stuff for features of other classes. The Kinetic Knight is kind of a Kineticist Samurai, you could easily do a Kineticist that trades wild talents for hexes, etc.
The alchemist one seems really hard to do. Would you invest burn into your bombs?
Hmm... awakening the elemental energies within alchemical compounds? Maybe you can literally burn up an Alchemist's Fire in order to infuse your Alchemical Blast with fire, or a Tanglefoot Bag to give your Alchemical Blast the ability to make an enemy entangled? Of course, you'd have to be able to be an effective combatant without spending alchemical ammo, but it would be a cool extra option.
The Alchemical Blast itself would probably do some form of ranged-touch area damage like a Bomb, but would be able to be customised like a Blast, at the expense of it only doing a base 1d4 per 2 Levels unaugmented. You'd of course get to add your Constitution modifier to this, adding your Int as well when you augment it.
Perhaps you also need to be in your Mutated Elemental form to produce these blasts, which is like a Mutagen combined with Elemental Overflow, which you can activate at will with different effects if you have an "Active Element" (based on the alchemical substance you "burned"), which is not necessary but helpful.
You're still a crafting class, so your WBL wouldn't be too damaged by this option, I hope.
Just a couple of ideas.
I've been working on a druid-paladin class for awhile.
Oooohh no offence but IMO that fails on the 2 tests..
1) Where is its conceptual relevance?
2) How do you get 8+ distinct archetypes out of it?
Whose test is that? The concept is from my imagination. I hope that is still relevant in a fantasy role-playing game. Not all published classes have 8 distinct archetypes. Some have enough archetypes that 8 are kind of lame, wouldn't you say? Besides, a class with broad enough design doesn't need many archetypes.
Both the "Divine Magus" and "Divine Trickster" are concepts that have been asked for for a long time, but never really presented. I can honestly pretty easily see 8+ Archetypes for each, and while on one hand,...
I can definitely see a "Divine Trickster" as a PrC for Rogues and Warpriests/Clerics as I think it makes conceptual sense:
Rogues who worship a Deity get chosen to take on dangerous missions for the church.
Benefits = access to a special list of spells including mostly divine but a few others like Greater Invis.. etc Also a change in save focus from Reflex to Wis.
Cleric who shows a talent for the 'sneaky stuff' get chosen to take on dangerous missions for the church.
Benefits = access to some non-divine but sneaky spells (see above) and a boost to skills (PrC would have 6+ INT skills per level plus stuff like Perception, Acrobatics and UMD as class skills).
Both classes would get stuff that they could already get anyway but also conversely stuff that they would rarely get their hands on.
Whose test is that? The concept is from my imagination. I hope that is still sufficient enough in a fantasy role-playing game. Not all published classes have 8 distinct archetypes. Some have enough archetypes that 8 are kind of lame, wouldn't you say? Besides, a class with broad enough design doesn't need many archetypes.
Mine!
The reality is that we can all sit around dreaming up 10000's of potential class ideas but you have to be realistic as to what actually stands a chance of being made.
Paizo will not produce any class that they cant get decent useage out of in terms of associated revenue from books... etc
Any published class will have to be able to generate archetypes otherwise whats the point? If it cant do that then it proves that the class in itself would be better served as an archetype.
The 8+ archetypes isnt a number that has to be present immediately but one that is achievable over a short-medium period of time.
And TBH I just dont see how the concept of a Druid/Paladin hybrid is viable....it just seems like 2 classes drawn out of a hat!
eg) Monk..... and..... Witch
And TBH I just dont see how the concept of a Druid/Paladin hybrid is viable....it just seems like 2 classes drawn out of a hat!
I take your point, but these were not chosen at random. Think of it as a nature oriented version of the paladin. If the paladin is a crusader or questing knight version of the cleric, then I want the crusader or questing knight person of the druid. I have vivid images in my mind, but translating it into game mechanics has been difficult. I don't know that it exists in cinema or elsewhere so I understand that it is hard to visualize.
So a druidic analog to the paladin?
I guess the followup question here has to be in what way the ranger, hunter and nature's fang druid currently fail to emulate the concept you want.
Might give a clearer picture in one's head of what you're looking for. Though I think it sounds fun either way.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
And TBH I just dont see how the concept of a Druid/Paladin hybrid is viable....it just seems like 2 classes drawn out of a hat!I take your point, but these were not chosen at random. Think of it as a nature oriented version of the paladin. If the paladin is a crusader or questing knight version of the cleric, then I want the crusader or questing knight person of the druid. I have vivid images in my mind, but translating it into game mechanics has been difficult. I don't know that it exists in cinema or elsewhere so I understand that it is hard to visualize.
Knight of the Forest sorta thing? Defender of Trees, Vanquisher of Pollution, kinda deal?
I think this is Captain Planet. I think you are making Captain Planet as a class and I think I love it.
Apparently the shapeshifter will be a nature-themed paladin.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whose test is that? The concept is from my imagination. I hope that is still sufficient enough in a fantasy role-playing game. Not all published classes have 8 distinct archetypes. Some have enough archetypes that 8 are kind of lame, wouldn't you say? Besides, a class with broad enough design doesn't need many archetypes.Mine!
The reality is that we can all sit around dreaming up 10000's of potential class ideas but you have to be realistic as to what actually stands a chance of being made.
Paizo will not produce any class that they cant get decent useage out of in terms of associated revenue from books... etc
Any published class will have to be able to generate archetypes otherwise whats the point? If it cant do that then it proves that the class in itself would be better served as an archetype.
The 8+ archetypes isnt a number that has to be present immediately but one that is achievable over a short-medium period of time.
So, when I heard they where making a blend of the Sorcerer and the Barbarian I was like, WTF?!?!? who would play that? Maybe a odd, and probably very weak lead in the a Dragon Discipline, but um. . .
Turns out, the Bloodrager is actually one of the better classes, in my opinion, to come out of the ACG. Granted, I said in my opinion, but I'm not actually all that partial to wither of the parent classes, so it's rather surprising. However, I think it's probably the best example of a how Hybrid classes can be done right. Skald is another one, again something I thought would be dumb, (but at least I didn't roll my eyes at the Class's name), and it turns out it's actually one of my favorites, both mechanically and flavor wise, despite not carring much for either of the parent classes themselves, and it stands out as a really good example of, of the ten classes presented, Hybrid Classes done right.
So with all that in mind, I don't mean this as a personal insult to you, but just because you can not think of at least 8 different potential concepts, or has a niche, etc. . . doesn't mean something shouldn't be looked at or considered. Again, not intended as a personal insult as much to simply just suggest that I doubt anyone else would really follow your standard.
It might be better to ask people to show examples of these things rather than assume they are not good enough. One of the cool things about the Hybrid classes is that they do not simply take class features of Class A and mush them together with Class B, but instead they create entirely new mechanics that actually make the concept work when it normally could not, (such as casting spells while Raging).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Whose test is that? The concept is from my imagination. I hope that is still sufficient enough in a fantasy role-playing game. Not all published classes have 8 distinct archetypes. Some have enough archetypes that 8 are kind of lame, wouldn't you say? Besides, a class with broad enough design doesn't need many archetypes.Mine!
The reality is that we can all sit around dreaming up 10000's of potential class ideas but you have to be realistic as to what actually stands a chance of being made.
Paizo will not produce any class that they cant get decent useage out of in terms of associated revenue from books... etc
Any published class will have to be able to generate archetypes otherwise whats the point? If it cant do that then it proves that the class in itself would be better served as an archetype.
The 8+ archetypes isnt a number that has to be present immediately but one that is achievable over a short-medium period of time.
And TBH I just dont see how the concept of a Druid/Paladin hybrid is viable....it just seems like 2 classes drawn out of a hat!
eg) Monk..... and..... Witch
**EDIT** Totally shameless self-promotion, don't mind it if you don't want to...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
{. . .}
So, all that aside, just as one could argue that Magus is an expanded and more interesting version of the Eldritch Knight PrC, I think Mystic Theurge could be expanded into a more interesting 20 level base class. 2/3rds spell progression on both arcane and divine, with some different mechanic that rewards them for essentially alternating between arcane and divine spells.
{. . .}
I'd like to see something like this. As a class feature, give them Heighten Spell as a bonus feat at 3rd level with a maximum total spell level of 2 + 1 for every 2 levels beyond 3rd, and they can sacrifice divine spell slots to pay for the Heighten Spell increase when casting arcane spells, or vice versa. If they know other Metamagic Feats (not learned automatically), they can exchange 1 level of Heighten Spell for each level of increase used by the other Metamagic Feat. At 6th level, they get Intensified Spell as a bonus feat, but when used with Heighten Spell, instead of adding its own level of increase, it piggybacks off Heighten Spell (requiring that you cast with at least 1 level of Heighten Spell not sacrificed to use a different Metamagic Feat), and it is not limited to 1 level, and applies to all spell effects that are caster-level-dependent that have a cap, not just damage dice.
Instead of archetypes (although archetypes could be added later), this class would have Arcane Specializations and Divine Specializations (select 1 of each at 1st level), each corresponding to a 6/9 or 9/9 spellcasting base class and selecting the spell list of each type, as well as a limited subset of other class features from the base class. Either way, the spellcasting is 6/9 (truncated if needed); if the spell list is already a 6/9 spell list that is tweaked to compensate for being 6/9 (early entry on some spells, such as with Bard, Summoner, Hunter, and Inquisitor), then the subset of corresponding other class features is less to compensate. Optionally, Arcane Specialization or Divine Specialization (but not both) can be replaced with Occult Specialization.
Other stuff: d6, 1/2 BAB, good Will Save only. Also adds Mystic Theurge class features at certain levels. Spells per day for each type of spellcasting is sams as for a Bard or Inquisitor; spells known or spells prepared is also same as these if a spontaneous or hybrid casting base class is chosen by Arcane Specialization, Divine Specialization, or Occult Specialization. Spellcasting modifiers and highest level of castable spells (including levels added by Heighten Spell) depend on the same ability scores as for the base class corresponding to the chosen Arcane and Divine Specializations (or Occult Specialization) (this is intentionally MAD, but when sacrificing spell slots to power Heighten Spell, you do not need to have the ability score corresponding to the sacrificed spell slot be high enough to cast spells of the level of sacrificed spell slots).
* * * * * * * *
With respect to the often-mentioned requirement that a new class must have 8 or more archetypes, some existing classes still do not meet this rule. Also, if the class itself has selectable options that reduce the need for archetypes (such as Arcane and Divine Specializations above, or the Psychic's Phrenic Amplifications -- Psychic being one of the existing classes that doesn't come close to having 8 archetypes), that should not cause it to get dinged for not having enough archetype potential -- incorporating the options within the class should be seen as a good thing if it reduces the need for archetypes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont know what the big deal is?!
My test for new classes is about as simple and logical as you can get....
People forget the old adage.."Just because you could do something it doesnt mean you should."
Could I design a Witch-Gunslinger or a Barbarian-Ninja or a Magus-Druid?
Yes!..... Should I?... Noooooooo!
1) Does it have conceptual relevance?
No they dont, there is no cultural or fantasy reference point and so they dont have any meaning attached
2) Can you get 8+ relevant archetypes out of it?
Lots of class ideas are better served as archetypes and not separate classes. The evidence for this is that the class design has very little meat on its bones. And before anyone says it there are several classes that I really dont think should even exist!
Lets be honest when the hybrid classes first came out (and still now!) there were a lot people questioning their relevance.
IMO a big reason why Paizo has lost customers to 5e is because they have gone overboard on classes and/or archetypes. I actually think Paizo is diluting its image with this quite badly. It cheapens the brand when you go 'class crazy' IMO.
Ps.... @Ciaran, I actually think a 'Champion of the Forest' (or Captain Planet! :))) does have a place but as a druid archetype or even a hunter archetype. It would trade some casting and/or companion stuff and gain better natural armour, weapon prof, poss some limited standard action summoning... etc
Could you make it a class?... Yes
Should you make it a class?...........
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Barbarian-Ninja
This is hardly an unexplored idea. Raphael from TMNT, Bruce and Damian Wayne from Batman, Asajj Ventress from Star Wars, Conina from Discworld, X-23 from X-Men etc.
In fact, I rather think it SHOULD be a Hybrid Class... let's call it the Night Fury.
I'm thinking rage-based precision. You're angry, but you channel it into your Ki and it guides your blade, Sith-style. You gain Ninja Talents that only apply during a rage, with one such talent (or maybe a first-level class feature) being the Vigilante's Lethal Grace, so it's making you more Dex-friendly while eventually buffing your damage more than a simple Dex-to-Damage ability would. Sneak Attack would also be Rage-Only, or at least the full d6 would be. The skill would be in rendering your foe flat-footed mid-combat, but there would be Talents for that.
Basically I'm imagining the ultimate dex-rager. +4 to Str, +4 to Dex for the duration of the Rage, and Rage Rounds determined by your Ki stat rather than Con. Most likely Wisdom, as directed fury doesn't really come from Charisma. Let's rename Rage to Focused Fury, also.
As for archetypes...
~Hidden Fury for the stealthier, slightly more arcane sorts
~Furious Nightshade for the poisoners (poison DCs upped during Focused Fury, would make for a great Calistria follower)
~Shrine Shadow for giving the standard Totem Warriors a little more style with some more night-themed creatures and an Imperial Dragon totem
~Jiangshi Bloodseekers to replace Sneak Attack with Bleed damage which powers up your Rage (Dhampir-Only)
~Balanced Fury for a more Monk-like unarmed feel
~Vigilant Wrath if you simply MUST be Batman in everything you do
~Duskwilt Dervish because I heard that you like Shadowdancers, Dimensional Agility and Scimitars
~Explosive Fury if you like your heroes to be suuuper smooth and infiltrator-y one second, and killing the whole secret cabal in the next; this one's Cha-based for sure
~Deadly Eye for when anger just isn't fun unless you can take it out on the enemy's left nostril from a kilometre away
~Dirty Trickster if you find that Ninja become more fun without any of that "Honour" dragon-dung
How's that for a couple of archetypes?
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I dont know what the big deal is?!
My test for new classes is about as simple and logical as you can get....
People forget the old adage.."Just because you could do something it doesnt mean you should."
The big deal, so to speak, is it really comes off as you telling others that their ideas, likes, and suggestions are not good enough or that your "test" is or should be the standard for everyone else.
Lets be honest when the hybrid classes first came out (and still now!) there were a lot people questioning their relevance.
IMO a big reason why Paizo has lost customers to 5e is because they have gone overboard on classes and/or archetypes. I actually think Paizo is diluting its image with this quite badly. It cheapens the brand when you go 'class crazy' IMO.
Now, I do agree with you that I do think there are too many classes in Pathfinder, but it's mostly because I don't like Paizo's SOP on trying to cut out certain concepts or builds and assigning it to a single class rather than trying to offer those things as options for others.
Just as an example, I'd much rather not have the Alchemist Class, but rather have it be something along the lines of a Feat Chain and/or Archetypes that any Cleric, Druid, Oracle, Sorcerer, or Wizard could take if they wanted to go that route. This would also help keep much more of their products relevant to different players, as the options involved would be potentially for more types of characters and not just one class.
I can't say for 5E vs Pathfinder, as 5E just didn't do it or me. There where a lot of little things I liked in their design, such as the choice to leave visuals for spells vague so that individual players can define what their version of Cure Light Wounds looks like, but as a whole I didn't care for the system and don't follow it as a product, or even really know anyone that plays it.
As for some of the ACG classes, I very much see your point. About half of them, most of which sounded like a really good combination, had an obvious niche, and clearly would allow for many solid archetypes just turned out as very weak flavor options. In my opinion. They are mostly there because someone just really wanted to do the class, but they kind of fall flat, or in all reality kind of only exist as a Class as a way to test out some new mechanic.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think that the Alchemist is a fantastic class that fills a cool scientist-adventurer niche. Same for the Magus with the combat-caster. However, the Warpriest (for example) in my opinion feels a lot more like a Cleric archetype than its own class, no matter how many Halflings praised its creation.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I think that the Alchemist is a fantastic class that fills a cool scientist-adventurer niche. Same for the Magus with the combat-caster. However, the Warpriest (for example) in my opinion feels a lot more like a Cleric archetype than its own class, no matter how many Halflings praised its creation.
And thats fine. Im not saying its (they are) a bad class, only that I wish instead that it was an option path that could be taken by multiple classes to build an alchemist or bomber or mutagen user however you like, divine, arcane, occult.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Cleric (...) wasn't at all (...) a badly designed class.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't everyone prestigeclass out of Cleric in 3.5 because spells were the only relevant class feature? Having over 90% of the strength stem form a single class feature wasn't good design for 3.5's class system, and it isn't good design for Pathfinder's archetype system.
As with the last time it was proposed, I still don't see any arguments why Cleric/Rogue wouldn't work as a Warpriest archetype (or a prestige class).
@Nitro~Nina: Sounds like Urban Barbarian to me. At best I could see it as an alternate class to Barbarian.
There are at least as many mechanical directions available to the Rune Knight as there is to a Warpriest. (...) The bonus feats the Rune Knight gets lets it be good at just about any weapon fighting style, even the more feat intensive ones like archery, reach and trip, and 2 weapon fighting.
My standards may be too high, but I don't think that's true. I can't see TWF working on medium BAB with no accuracy or damage boosts (there's only so much Heroism can only). All that defense seems rather wasted on an archer and sword&board would do almost no damage.
I guess my beef with your concept is that I don't see a spot for it. It's already not a problem to make a character with good defense, but no one really does (like how almost no one uses a shield purely for defense on a martial) - because you're useless if you can't actually endanger the enemy (i.e. no tanking without aggro), because it's often boring to play when your main impact comes from merely standing in the right spot, and because no one likes 30 round combats.
I'll take a look at your proposed class asap.
It was just a rough outline I made for my own take of an idea someone else in this thread had. Your runes are similar two one of the two concepts for the defensive part (in that concept "armor hexes") I toyed with, while the class would also have an offensive part ("weapon hexes"). Pure martial, though.
I don't see the concept as more narrow than many of the existing classes, such as swashbuckler, gunslinger, or Urogue among others.
True - again, my standards may be too high. I don't think Gunslinger, Swashbuckler or Rogue should exist as PC classes at all. Shoehorned into one specific flavor, with very poorly thought of mechanics that often work against that flavor.
My test for new classes is about as simple and logical as you can get....
It's also very arbitrary, removed from reality, and missing several important aspects. It's missing that the vanilla class should support more than one playstyle (or you end up with another Swashbuckler or Gunslinger). It's missing that the more playstyles (i.e. specializations) the vanilla class supports, the fewer archetypes the class actually needs. It's also missing that a base class need to be defined by at least one unique major class feature.
So I think everyone should, before proposing a class, ask himself/herself the following question:
1) Can my idea really not somehow be done with an existing class, e.g. with a new archetype?
2) Is my idea seperate enough from every single existing class?
3) Does my idea contain a brand new class feature?
3b) (for hybrid classes) Is this new class feature either a blend of different parent class features or a new spin to a common parent class feature?
4) Is my idea strong enough to support multiple playstyles?
5) Is my idea suitable for actual play in an average game?
Please note that every single one of these questions is a paraphrased version of a guideline in the "Designing Classes" section of the Advanced Class Guide.
Not every idea is suited for a class, and not every idea needs a class. There is no shame in having ideas that "only" work as archetypes or prestige classes (or maybe even non-hybrid base classes).
|
|
I'm honestly not sure how many folks took Prestige Classes out of Cleric, but this was fairly common of most classes, not just the Cleric. Fighters, Wizards, Sorcerers, Rogue, and to a degree even Bards had less incentive to remain single class characters once Prestige Classes became options, because they acted a lot more like how Archetypes do now.
Even things like Druid, Barbarian, Monk, Ranger, and Paladin, which did continue to recieve more class features had plenty of options for expanding fields of focus or themes. A lot, (again not sure about most), went with a Prestige Class, because it allowed for more personal customization, a way to trade out class features you might not want for something else, or because it was cool. A lot of them also helped bridge the gap for multiclassing.
Really, all that PF did for the Cleric was add in 1 or 2 extra abilities for remaining Cleric by cutting up Domains, and removed most of the Prestige Class options.
From a purely mechanical viewpoint, Paizo has defined, by my count, 42 base classes and 18 prestige classes (I may well be missing a couple of either) for a total of 60 classes. Of these, 38 are spellcasters and 23 are non-spellcasters. The extra there is the Qinqgong Monk, which is a spellcaster archetype of a non-spellcaster class. Or so I've been told. :-)
That count of base classes includes the ten hybrid classes from the ACG, so subtract those, leaving 32 base classes. There are then 32x32=1024 possible hybrid combinations (including the existing 10). Some of these will not be viable (any of the unchained variants with their specific core variant, for example). Still, that's a lot of possibilities.
That said, I agree with Derklord. If you're going to propose a new hybrid class, answer those five questions.
I'll answer those questions with my Vexer class as a test run to see if what I did was a good idea. (Yes, more shameless advertising, but only to see if the fruits of my labor wasn't simply a waste of time.)
1) Can my idea really not somehow be done with an existing class, e.g. with a new archetype?
2) Is my idea seperate enough from every single existing class?
3) Does my idea contain a brand new class feature?
3b) (for hybrid classes) Is this new class feature either a blend of different parent class features or a new spin to a common parent class feature?
4) Is my idea strong enough to support multiple playstyles?
5) Is my idea suitable for actual play in an average game?
1. For the Vexer, not really. Outside of the Arcane Trickster PrC, which is a Prestige class, and the Eldritch Scoundrel archetype (which is very limited in its scope), the primary elements between multiclassing a Witch and a Rogue and the main features between the two classes (Hexes and Sneak Attacks) are mutually exclusive; you can't really Sneak Attack with a Hex, and you can't really use a Hex when you're utilizing Sneak Attack.
In order to make the two features work better together, you need completely different mechanics that need to be made up in order for the effects to make sense. You also need to factor in the power level of certain hexes and their relation to how such effects interact with each other, which means creating a new class feature that does just that (remember Spell Combat and Spellstrike with the Magus? Similar thing here).
2. Considering there are no single classes that utilize Hexes and Sneak Attack simultaneously or in conjunction, I'd say it is.
3. Hexstrike, as well as specific talents (similar to how Slayer has some of its own sorts of talents) and advancements to said class features are more than enough to constitute being their own class features. It also has a unique capstone.
3b. It has both. Ominous Sense is a spin between being a Rogue's Danger Sense with the magical aide of a Witch's superstitious symbolism, and there are several class features (such as Spellcasting, Patrons, Familiar, and Hexes) that are either built into the class, or are optional choices (in the case of several Rogue talents/features which are converted into talents). On top of that, several talents are exclusive to the Vexer, and add unique options that most Hex-inducers are going to find difficult to emulate/imitate.
4. Absolutely. Between the option to maximize Hex choices, Vexer talents of multiple types of benefits, as well as your spell selection, a Vexer can be played in all sorts of styles, whether it's Hex Support, Spell Interference, or even simply being a Versatile Flanker. Depending on optimization, you may cover some or all of these roles, or even a role that I haven't construed yet!
5. While I haven't playtested it outside of using it for a boss encounter (which, based on how I built it, was basically a Versatile Flanker), I believe that it's servicable enough to warrant a tryout and, if necessary, tweaks to accommodate any issues or concerns that arise from any playtesting.
minor math quibble, 32*31=992.
32*32 would include classes with themselves (fighter/fighter hybrid, etc).
Which would be among the "not viables" that I mentioned.
Actually, now I think on it, I was off by a factor of two, because it doesn't matter in which order you name the base classes - a hybrid sorcerer-wizard is the same thing as a hybrid wizard-sorcerer. Now we're down to something less than 500. Still an awful lot.
From a purely mechanical viewpoint, Paizo has defined, by my count, 42 base classes and 18 prestige classes (I may well be missing a couple of either) {. . .}
I count a lot more than 18 prestige classes -- specifically, 102. Actually it isn't quite that many, because some of the ones on that page are 3.5, not PFRPG.
Simple, yes. Logical? I hesitate to agree there. Question one is essentially boiled down to "I don't like it so it shouldn't exist", which is pretty much the opposite of logical. Even beyond that, the idea that you shouldn't make something because it doesn't already have precedent is a thought with fairly frightening implications.
Question two is marginally more interesting, but so far I've only seen it as a way to try to be dismissive rather than actually considering the implications.
That's the 'big deal'. Your self-titled test comes across less as any meaningful standard and more as a way to add filler and a false sense of value to you saying "I don't like this go away".
Heres the thing.... when I say 'My test' what I really mean is 'Common sense'......
In basic talk...Is it a class that is relatable? Does it have enough meat on the bones to enable change (ie the archetypes)?
Its a test that I always use when I'm flicking through other peoples ideas or when I'm having thoughts of my own (see how fair I am!).... I like it and think it works very well.
So without wishing to burst your bubble, whether you like it or dislike it is of no concern to me, since fundamentally its something that I use. If you dont like the common sense then I'm not insisting you use it!!
I will continue to use it.... but obviously feel free to ignore my commentary regarding it... its a free country after all!
The Shaman was a classic example of a hybrid that should have been dealt with via archetypes... I always found it bizarre that the Druid already had several 'Shaman' archetypes but the Shaman as a hybrid class was based on a Witch/Oracle?!!?
The Brawler was another one..... really could have been handled with either a Monk or Fighter archetype and definitely doesn't have enough meat on the bones IMO
Personally I think that the Alchemist is a fantastic class that fills a cool scientist-adventurer niche. Same for the Magus with the combat-caster. However, the Warpriest (for example) in my opinion feels a lot more like a Cleric archetype than its own class, no matter how many Halflings praised its creation.
Love the idea of the Alchemist as a 'Science' class
Sadly some of the probs of the Warpriest are due to Paizo's poor design of the Cleric IMO...
The 'Cleric' should be the Warpriest if you see what I mean?!
|
|
I agree with you on the Shaman, Brawler, and Warpriest, though a lot of the change in focus early into the design of the Shaman and Warpriest is what I think I do not care for as much.
As for the Alchemist, I still think it would have been better overall to present it as options, even and especially science feeling options to multiple classes rather than making a whole new class. Id say the same thing with the Summoner. How much cooler would it be to have a Druid with a semi-permanent, altered pet, or a Cleric, or even Paladin rather than an Animal Companion, or a Bloodrager, Sorcerer, Witch, or Wizards that awakens and expiriments on their Familiar, making it into something else.
That opens up a lot more "archetypes" and concepts in my opinion for a lot less work.
I count a lot more than 18 prestige classes -- specifically, 102. Actually it isn't quite that many, because some of the ones on that page are 3.5, not PFRPG.
Well I wouldn't count 3.5 classes. And note that the first 18 on that list come from the CRB and APG. The others, well, they're from a lot of different places. I confess I didn't comb through all of Paizo's products looking for prestige classes - though it seems that somebody did. :-)
@ Derklord
After thinking more about the Rune Knight, It probably would be best to trade out Sacred Armor for an offensive ability, perhaps adding weapon training in its place would work. Armor training could be removed to add an arcane pool (magus), it could be renamed to weapon runes, but I can't really see how to make it that different from the arcane pool.
I'm guessing the rune knight would be a fighter / magus hybrid, although perhaps a defense oriented archetype of the magus class would work too.
Concerning shields, I think more players would make use of them if the tradeoff of offense to defense was less. The shield seems to offer slightly better ac (at mid to high levels) for vastly reduced offense.
L2: Bonus Feat, extra Rune / day
L3: Armor Runes, arcane pool
L4: 2nd level spells, extra Rune / day, weapon training
L5: Bonus Feat, Armor Rune known
L6: Extra Rune / day, Persistent Armor Runes
L7: 3rd level spells, Advanced Armor Rune, arcane pool adds weapon properties (+2 arcane pool)
L8: Bonus feat, extra Rune / day, weapon training or advanced weapon training
L9: armor rune known
L10: level 4 spells, extra Rune / day
L11: bonus feat, armor rune, (+3 from arcane pool)
L12: extra Rune / day, weapon training /adv weapon
L13: Master Runes, 5th level spells
L14: Bonus feat, Extra Rune / day
L15: Extra Rune known, (+4 from arcane pool)
L16: extra Rune / day, 6th level spells, weapon training / adv weapon training
L17: Bonus feat, Extra Rune Known
L18: Extra Rune/day, (+5 from arcane pool)
L19: Armor Mastery, Extra Rune known
L20: Capstone, extra Rune / day, weapon training / adv weapon training
The Shaman was a classic example of a hybrid that should have been dealt with via archetypes... I always found it bizarre that the Druid already had several 'Shaman' archetypes but the Shaman as a hybrid class was based on a Witch/Oracle?!!?
The Brawler was another one..... really could have been handled with either a Monk or Fighter archetype and definitely doesn't have enough meat on the bones IMO
It gets worse. The Occultist Arcanist archetype came out not all that long before Occult Adventures introduced the Occultist class.
I'd like to see a remix of the classes that condenses them into a much smaller number of classes and archetypes, with as many as possible of the existing options being split out into selectable class talents. Of course, now we're talking Pathfinder 2.0 territory . . . .
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If we're walking into Pathfinder 2.0 territory, I hope the archetypes are designed like 5th Edition's, where archetypes are baked into the base classes.
I'll answer those questions with my Vexer class as a test run to see if what I did was a good idea. (Yes, more shameless advertising, but only to see if the fruits of my labor wasn't simply a waste of time.)
1) Can my idea really not somehow be done with an existing class, e.g. with a new archetype?
2) Is my idea seperate enough from every single existing class?
3) Does my idea contain a brand new class feature?
3b) (for hybrid classes) Is this new class feature either a blend of different parent class features or a new spin to a common parent class feature?
4) Is my idea strong enough to support multiple playstyles?
5) Is my idea suitable for actual play in an average game?1. For the Vexer, not really. Outside of the Arcane Trickster PrC, which is a Prestige class, and the Eldritch Scoundrel archetype (which is very limited in its scope), the primary elements between multiclassing a Witch and a Rogue and the main features between the two classes (Hexes and Sneak Attacks) are mutually exclusive; you can't really Sneak Attack with a Hex, and you can't really use a Hex when you're utilizing Sneak Attack.
In order to make the two features work better together, you need completely different mechanics that need to be made up in order for the effects to make sense. You also need to factor in the power level of certain hexes and their relation to how such effects interact with each other, which means creating a new class feature that does just that (remember Spell Combat and Spellstrike with the Magus? Similar thing here).
2. Considering there are no single classes that utilize Hexes and Sneak Attack simultaneously or in conjunction, I'd say it is.
3. Hexstrike, as well as specific talents (similar to how Slayer has some of its own sorts of talents) and advancements to said class features are more than enough to constitute being their own class features. It also has a unique...
I personally really like the class. The formatting is very impressive IMO. I did have a question though, for the meta-hex what meta magic feat do you foresee will apply for this? I would imagine that persistent spell would be a top pick.