Okay, so a little background:
I have a core only GM. Ever before we've switched from 3.5 to pathfinder, he was notorious for not letting ANYTHING from any book that isn't the core rulebook (or PG and DMG in 3.5). At one point, a groupie of mine asked him to play an alchemist. His response was, basically, that any base class is just a refluffed tweaked core class. Which got me thinking - what if we could make ANY base class using only core material (classes, feats, archetypes...)?
So I started brainstorming. A gunslinger is easy - just give a fighter firearm proficiency. Sure, he won't get Dex to damage with them, but the idea is still there. How about a witch? Make your wizard "unable" role play wise to be unable to cast spells without his familiar, and specialize in a school similar to your desired patron. But how about a summoner? Sure, a summoning sorcerer with an outsider-ish bloodline (efreeti, celestial...) could do the job, but there's nothing REMOTELY similar to an eidolon in core classes. Or the magus? A plain ol' eldritch knight won't do the trick until class level 10.
In short, I wonder if you guys could help me think of creative, core way of making the base classes.
PD
I see, and yet - I'm not looking for a complete copy, but a decent approximation. In it's core (pun unintendent), a kineticist is a spontaneous blaster, a feat which the sorcerer (with an appropriate bloodine, of course) can defenitly accomplish.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
heck, nothing pure core will even give you an alchemist or magus ... Your Gm is plain wrong in saying that base classes from other books are just refluffed core classes. I don't know why he's so strict about core only (beside possibly wanting to keep an AD&D1 feel, or just being lazy and unwilling to even get remotely familiar with mechanics other than those of the corebook), but he's mutilating the game by so doing (I feel that the sheer amount of options is one of its strengths).
I'll be following this thread's efforts to achieve that interesting goal without the necessary tools... but I don't expect surprises.
I see. I've come to accept his core "craze" and also think he may be judging the APG too quickly. But we are not here to complain - we are here to create.
I think you'll get a lot of resistance to the question, because the concept feels pretty backwards to most of us. Why reinvent things that have already been created? Why is your DM even still using Pathfinder, if he only wants to stick to core? With that kind of mindset, you'd be better off to just switch over to 5E.
Good for you... I guess you could approximate a swashbuckler pretty closely with a rogue, with possibly a couple ranger levels for that great rapier and dagger style
But for my well loved alchemist, I'm stumped. a cleric with the right buffs could approximate the extracts (and infusions), and even the mutagen, but I'm totally stumped about the bombs... possibly ready access to severely discounted necklaces of fireballs? and of course the alchemical manufacture ability would be restricted to standard manufacturing rules, and skill points would be... scanty.
His response was, basically, that any base class is just a refluffed tweaked core class.
There will always be some similarities you can compare upon, and in many cases concepts can be made with different classes, but each of them have distinct abilities that other classes don't have access to.
In any case, if you want to build non-core classes using only core resources, it all depends on your tolerance. Is it acceptable if your character ends up anemic and useless in combat? I would argue no, that being able to do things effectively is the what defines a class. Consider that a commoner without weapon proficiency can still wield a weapon and wear armor. He'll never hit anything thanks to all those penalties, but he can do it. What defines a warrior isn't the ability to fight, but the ability to do it well. The same can be said of casting; the Use Magic Device skill and scrolls/wands can be used to cast spells, but it will never be remotely comparable in effectiveness to a true spellcasting class.
A gunslinger is easy - just give a fighter firearm proficiency. Sure, he won't get Dex to damage with them, but the idea is still there.
I'd disagree. The damage increase of gun training is necessary for firearms to continue scaling at higher levels. Otherwise their damage falls behind and they're just vastly inferior bows. Proficiency isn't our measure here, competency is. In addition to damage you need the ability to fix misfires, and that requires non-core feats or classes to do. So no, I do not believe it is possible to create a competent gun-user in core-only.
How about a witch?
The Witch gets access to combinations of spells that no other class gets. Even without trying to emulate Hexes, patrons, and her unique familiar you aren't going to get anything that is suitably equivalent.
But how about a summoner?
Not a chance. The defining features of the Summoner are his Eidolon and summon monster ability (which has superior duration and casting time compared to the spell version). There is no way to get anything remotely comparable to that with core-only.
Or the magus? A plain ol' eldritch knight won't do the trick until class level 10.
As someone who has used both the Magus and Eldritch Knight extensively, I can tell you that they are not equivalent. They are thematically similar, but the strengths and weaknesses of these classes are so far removed that they play completely differently and are utterly incapable of filling each others' niches.
you may have misread, but I specifically said that summoners and magi CAN'T be approximated using core rules. I gave eldritch knight as an example of a core gish.
you may have misread, but I specifically said that summoners and magi CAN'T be approximated using core rules. I gave eldritch knight as an example of a core gish.
And I'm agreeing with you that they aren't equivalent.
Every class has defining characteristics and strengths that make it stand out. While there are classes that have narrow or partially overlapping niches, each class has certain unique competencies that cannot be replicated as well or as easily by other classes. For instance there are ways for a Wizard to cast some spells spontaneously, but never as many as a Sorcerer can cast and they'll invest all their feats in trying to do so.
For the Summoner the Druid would probably be the closest you could get. There are many differences between the two, but I guess a good UMD could help. Different spell lists, armor restrictions, divine vs arcane, refluffing the animal companion to appropriate eidolon, ect.
I wonder if traits are allowed, they're not in the core rule book.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If he'll allow the archetypes for core classes that turns them into other classes then you have a better shot. Like there's the trench fighter archetype for fighter that lets it use guns well.
There's the a bonded wizard archetype that gets hexes I think (the one that also gets an oracle curse?)
druid's can have a phantom companion which is more similar to an eidolon.
But then it's hardly saying that core classes can be non-core because you're using the non-core archetypes that are supposed to let them pretend to be the non-core class.
if he's core only, I strongly doubt that he allows archetypes... archetypes are worse headaches to keep track of than normal classes.
If he'll allow the archetypes for core classes that turns them into other classes then you have a better shot. Like there's the trench fighter archetype for fighter that lets it use guns well.
A game that allows Trench Fighters but not Gunslingers just sounds really weird to me, but I guess someone out there must be doing it.
There's the a bonded wizard archetype that gets hexes I think (the one that also gets an oracle curse?)
It's the Pact Wizard from Haunted Heroes Handbook. It gets Patron spells, not hexes. Also that archetype is an abomination that should have never been published, and should not be permitted at any table that values sanity.
|
Hmmm. I knce heard of a player in a Core game to made a "Cavalier" by playing a Druid,getting a horse companion, using a lance, and wearing dragonscale full plate. Seems kinda fun.
Honestly, you really can't reproduce the extra classes with Core. I have to give you some credit for your positive outlook, Potato. Playing with a GM like that would really frustrate me. Heck, I'd offer to run a "book inclusive" game and invite the GM to play. Let them have a chance at enjoying the classes they're missing out on.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heck, I'd offer to run a "book inclusive" game and invite the GM to play. Let them have a chance at enjoying the classes they're missing out on.
That's actually pretty hilarious. Maybe I will do it to him as well!
Do bear in mind, there's a subset of Pathfinder Society specifically devoted to playing only with the Core Rulebook as the player resource. It's definitely a viable option for regular play.
I sympathize with the OP's GM in that, when you're running a game, you're expected to be familiar with everything that's being brought to the table. If you've never looked at a kineticist before, as an example, I can tell you that it's gonna take you hours of research to get familiar enough with the class mechanics to reliably adjudicate what occurs at the table.
I'm personally all for supporting whatever style of play a GM decides is appropriate for their table. If that's a low point-buy, low magic, low level, core only gritty death march, it doesn't really matter so long as everyone's having fun. Heck, it might even be more fun than a high level, open free-for-all game where everyone's special snowflake takes five minutes deciding their turn in combat due to flipping through references to figure out the effect of their latest new ability.
|
It's the Pact Wizard from Haunted Heroes Handbook. It gets Patron spells, not hexes. Also that archetype is an abomination that should have never been published, and should not be permitted at any table that values sanity.
Really not seeing any issue with it other than it's 1 minute prep time, but that's not actually very useful.
heck, nothing pure core will even give you an alchemist or magus ...
The magus's Spellstrike ability is based off the melee touch-attack wizard or sorcerer from the Core Rulebook. My wife once played a melee sorcerer. Her character made some odd choices compared to a more standard sorcerer, such as wearing a chain shirt and living with arcane spell failure before she could take Arcane Armor Training. She chose sorcerer rather than wizard because the Aberrant Bloodline gave her reach with her touch spells. That was handy for cave delving later, where she used Spider Climb to travel on the walls and reached down to attack with touch spells.
I have a core only GM. Ever before we've switched from 3.5 to pathfinder, he was notorious for not letting ANYTHING from any book that isn't the core rulebook (or PG and DMG in 3.5). At one point, a groupie of mine asked him to play an alchemist. His response was, basically, that any base class is just a refluffed tweaked core class.
Does that GM also reject sorcerer as merely a refluffed wizard or paladin as just a fighter/cleric multiclass? JDLPF's notion is much more plausible: learning all the details and strengths of a new class is tough. If they were just refluffed old classes, learning about them would be easy.
When the alchemist class became popular, some GMs complained, because the alchemist's bombs got around the natural armor of many high-CR creatures, making these encounters easier. A GM needs to know these details to create encounters that are properly challenging.
With that kind of mindset, you'd be better off to just switch over to 5E.
Heh, then good luck convincing him to let you use anything outside of core. Which is, while pretty good at covering the bases, will get boring rather quickly and there is a lot of content to draw from now that isn't replicated by core only content. Mystics (psionics) and Artificers being a big one in terms of additional classes. 5E has long since filled out in content since its release.
As for OP, I'm gonna revoice the opinion that the base classes genuinely can't wholly be replicated by core-only refluffing. Not much in the way of relatable content is even in core. Witches can be easily supplemented by wizards, but alchemists are simply unlike any other class in the game. Inquisitors can be supplemented by very devout rogues, but you can't interchange a cleric and an oracle very easily at all. Summoner is straight up out of the question. Eldritch Knights were the original Magus (hence the iconic being the old eldritch knight 'iconic'), but you can't just slap a gun in a fighters hands and call them a gunslinger.
Oh wait, you can. *cough* Anyway, you can't just slap anyone in a costume and call them a vigi-no wait you can...
Anyway..Core-only sucks for variety. (and might actually be more unbalanced than anything released after it, short of the early supplements that honestly was pretty g!*+$%n wild, balance-wise)
|
|
Heck, I'd offer to run a "book inclusive" game and invite the GM to play. Let them have a chance at enjoying the classes they're missing out on.That's actually pretty hilarious. Maybe I will do it to him as well!
Semi related topic, one of the most entertaining adjustments to class balance I've ever heard was to ban core. Aside from nixing the classes that are most often cited for over and under powering, it encourages people to try different classes.
You should totally run a one shot for the group. No core classes allowed. (You may even want to avoid the APG hybrids, since some of them play too similar to their component parts.) It'd be great.