Ismellmonkey's page

I feel that I have to address the argument that people are just voicing their opinion. The problem is, regardless of your opinion, your really starting to ruin my fun.

I'm all for you having your own opinion and voicing it. You have a right and it is constructive, but we see these type of arguments against new races/classes/alternative classes on a weekly basis. After awhile it feels like your arguing against a brick wall. There is only so many time you can raise the same argument over and over again until it starts annoying others. I like these options some people don't, but coming here and reading these post constantly, well for me it's just getting old. Let me put this in explicit terms.

Your never going to convince me that your play style is superior to mine. I've been playing this game long enough to know what I like and don't like, and I'm fine with new classes/races/everything as long as its well thought out and balanced. Which it has been so far, and I don't believe that class bloat exists, to me it's a myth.

Now I'm purposely not addressing this anyone in particular so it applies to anyone who is offended by what I'm about write.

Stop ruining my fun, I'm tired of having your opinion shoved down my throat. I will play the game that I want to play. Don't ever assume you know what I want to play better then me. If the game stops producing the material I like I will move on to another game. This is really starting to become insipid, much like a small child whining after it realized it's not getting what it wants. Just let it end, your all ruining the fun.

Dancey obviously is not without agendas and his share of unfulfilled prophecies but it does appear that for Paizo at least the future seems pretty darned bright.

ICv2 obviously doesn't cover all sources of sales and it's readily apparent to me that more and more 4e gamers have come to rely on DDI for virtually all their product needs.

It's unclear what that actually means for the long-term viability of 4e. Is Hasbro/WotC content to exist almost exclusively on monthly subscriptions while abandoning the sunken costs of hardback publishing and distribution? Is 4e winding down or does essentials mark a new phase in development?

It does seem clear that the bulk of revenue for any game line comes from core documents and that the marketable shelf life of editions is getting shorter and shorter for each successive iteration. I think the big brains at WotC probably realize this and feel that a steady although possibly smaller revenue stream via subscription services is a better long term plan than relying on a big uptick in revenue every 4-5 years when a new core is released. Considering the bulk of WotC revenues seem to come from other products that enjoy a steady, stable revenue stream it stands to reason that they might be trying to beat the Tabletop market into the same model.

Essentially though we all seem to be trying to predict the future based off numbers that nobody here really seems to have. Without concrete sales data and net profit statements from both companies (something which is unlikely to be forthcoming) being able to predict one way or another how the future is going to turn out seems exceedingly dubious.

Ryan will either be right, which he'll gleefully claim proves his wisdom and intelligence, or he'll be wrong at which point he'll either ignore his previous statements or possibly claim that external factors changed ;)

Not that reading tea leaves isn't fun but other than idle speculation it really doesn't seem to go anywhere :D

I can't completely disagree with you, but it still seems weird that WOTC isn't pushing harder for their online intuitive. If it's really so successful why haven't they hired more people in that area? Why are they still being slow in releasing new tools? Why are some tools that have where promised three years ago either canceled or still in production? And really, why isn't WOTC not bragging up the success their new business model.

I'll admit that I'm more often wrong then right, but it's just not adding up to me. If DDI is so successful, why isn't it being pushed harder?

When I was at Borders the other day I saw plenty of D&D, Pathfiner & Warhammer. The largest section was actually dedicated to Warhammer.

Honestly it hard to say what is going on over at WOTC right now, but I get the feeling that the company is in transition. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we heard an announcement of a 5th edition at years end, but admittedly that just raw speculation.

As for DDI, I just have a hard time seeing it as a secret run away hit, that for some reason WOTC isn't touting as such. I mean what company has a massive success with a new business model and doesn't brag about it, maybe I just missed all the bragging.

I wanted to ask Ismellmonkey are you responding to me or Apethae or both of us? Not sure if your responding to myself or the other poster.

Apethea

Sorry I shouldn't had quoted the whole thing.

I was just trying to say that only Paizo's knows what's going to sale or not. I can't make that assumption, nobody on these boards who's not part of the industry can. A race book may or may not sale, but making an assumption it will or wont doesn't equal much. So it's purely up to Paizo's to decide to do a race book. I just think within eight or more years of Pathfinder products, we may see one.

What else are they going to do nothing but adventure paths?

memorax wrote:

More books does not automatically = bad.

More books in the same time period significantly reduces the chance of good, though.

memorax wrote:

Paizo for all thei talk of being freindly with 3pp really does not want you to buy from them. Why would they your buying the competition product. Friendly competitor but a competitor nonetheless. And really they should offer as much if not more than 3pp in house. Wotc created Paizo with the OGL. Paizo should encourage 3pp not create a potential cmpetitor. Of course this does not have to be all done right now this instant. They should make plans to develop psionics, epic play. Alternatiove race books and anything else that 3.5 offered that for the moment they do not have. Paizo has to push their products first. 3pp last.

This is heading out a bit on a tangent, but I think you are missing the point here. Paizo has to weigh cost vs benefit on every product they release. Psionics, epic play, a tome of assorted exotic races, these are things that not every gamer who bought the core rules is going to want. They are niche. They are risky. They may sell some, they may sell not at all. They are the *perfect* thing for Paizo to let 3PP take on, because if they fail, it's no skin of their back, and if they succeed, the 'Pathfinder Compatible' logo on the cover provides some incidental benefit to Paizo. And if 3PP Expansion Product X is a runaway success, they can always pull a Microsoft and fold an 'official' version of the expanded rules into the core product - the 3PP has already done all the playtesting for them, and nothing outsells Brand Y like an 'official' edition (I don't really think Paizo would do this, just mentioning for the sake of argument).

Put another way: What sells more, a PHB2-type product, or a Expanded Psionics handbook?

memorax wrote:

So far they have done an excellant job and really it kind of mystifies me that fans would automatically assume that more books by Paizo would make Paizo somehow incompetant in that

...

Unfortunately, this is kinda a false assumption, your assuming to be the majority with the majority opinion. At least thats what I think your trying to say, to paraphrase; you don't think there is enough of an interest in such a product to warrant it's creation.

However there has been people, myself included, who play in non-Golarion specific setting, and don't use the adventure paths. Does this make developing these products risky then, or is the mass majority using Golarion. I'm not going to assume I know the answer to that, and I think you shouldn't assume either.

When the APG was announced there was more then a few detractors on these boards who though such a book was a waste of time, especially pointing to class bloat as a potential problem. They where wrong, because they assumed to know what people wanted based on their own wants and desires, a false assumption.

Now I personally think in eight more possible years of pathfinder products fitting in a single book with 3-5 more races stated out isn't going to destroy pathfinder. It's actually kind of silly to assume it would. 3.5 didn't die or go under, WOTC just chose to make a 4th edition while 3.5 was still popular, and whatever their philosophy was it was working their still using it to sale 4th edition books. Which still sale well.

The only reason I'm fine without having a true race book, is simply because the bestiaries are race books, which is actually smart as these books are traditionally just for GM's. This allows for play groups with non-traditional races.

This is going to sound weird, but I consider myself to be evil. No, not in a raving lunatic sort of way, or even in a torture is fun sort of way (I don't personally like or approve of torture), but in the way a person can still be evil because he doesn't actively promote good.

Here's the thing if you really want to be good you have to give up everything you have for others. Everyone else's needs come before yours. You can never harm anything (not just sentient life), not that I'm a member of PETA or would ever consider becoming one, and some of their tactics wouldn't be considered good anyway. You could never commit any act that could have any consequence that would harm another, even to save your own life. Most people would disagree with me, but its my personal feelings on the subject.

Now, I wont say that actually being good is impossible, it's just impracticable. Most people however don't want to think of themselves as evil, so I tend to use the term "just" instead. Your action are just or unjust, In other words are they actively destructive or beneficial. A just person could justify killing because it saved more lives, or even his own life if it was threatened. He could justify eating meat, the animals that where killed where done so to enable me and others to live longer, and because they cannot comprehend or society or it's laws, they cannot be held responsible for their own destructive action. Yes one animal killing another in self defense or for food is evil as well, even if it's part of nature.

Unjust could be thought as being closer to evil, but here is where it gets tricky sometimes a unjust act still has a beneficial outcome. Like torturing someone to get info that might save others. It gets really tricky.

For me I tend to think of good in pathfinder more along the lines of just instead of true good. It may not be accurate but its certainly more practicable. Evil is evil but includes unjust acts, and neutral balances somewhere between the two.

Man that was a long post.

Personally I wouldn't mind seeing a book of optional/additional race, and there is good reason for it. Not every game master whats to run a Golarion campaign. Race books are more then player options they're also options for the game master who wants to express their own individuality/creativity. No elves or dwarves, but you can play teiflings and githyanki was a call I made as a game master when playing a second edition planscape game. I don't regret that call, it created a unique flavor that I was looking for at the time.

However, Jason had said in the past that Paizo's releases material based on the kind of stories that they, as a company, want to tell (paraphrase). So far that means the core seven race, but the bestiaries do contain some info. on possible PC races for more creative players and game masters. To me thats good enough.

If you've roleplayed long enough, surely your friends have approached you asking you to play a certain role in the party because it (1) hadn't been filled yet and (2) they felt it was absolutely necessary to the party's survival.

I for one do not believe that any one class is necessary for a party's survival (or even a certain class combos) if the PCs are played intelligently and to their strengths.

Got a party of rogues? Don's sit around and let the earth elementals bash you to bits like idiots. Run away and set up traps. Be sneaky and inventive like rogues are want to do. You're faster and smarter than they are. Pull an ewok.

A party of spellcasters fighting a golem? Keep your damned distance for starters! You can generally outmaneuver a golem by a factor of ten. Use no SR spells on them or target the terrain around it (trapping a golem is often as good as destroying it as far as XP and survival is concerned).

A bunch of physical types against a spellcaster? Rush him. He can have a bunch of buffs up that make hitting him in melee or at range incredibly hard, but he can't cover all of his bases at once. Something will get through. If there are four of you attacking him at once with full attacks, he's likely to take enough damage to go down in round 1 despite his defenses.

If the party asks me to make a rogue because they have no way of dealing with traps, I may just make a rogue with the scout/thug archetype and let them think their way out of the traps (mage hand and knock goes a long ways towards opening trapped doors).

The only thing forcing roles does is kill imagination and verisimilitude. Try thinking your way our of a situation for a change.

/rant

Discuss.

** spoiler omitted **

Yes, it also a pet peeve of mine. Personally I think archetypes could be good for solving this problem, by allowing separate class builds to fit surprisingly different roles. The most troublesome is the healer role, but archetypes for the paladin, bard, druid, oracle, and witch that allow them to heal on par with the cleric, well at least you have some choices.

Multiclassing was the only thing I disliked about 3.5, conversely it's the only thing I like in 4th edition. I'm surprised to hear others feel the same way, most people just argue up and down with me that it's the best part of 3.5. When it come to 4th edition I really can't stand roles, powers, power sources and all of the fluff changes, but that's just me others seem fine with it.

Calling Pathfinder 3.75 might not be accurate but it isn't an insult either. As for the changes I would have gone a little further, for example I would have up'd the fighters (and possible the paladin and rangers) hit die to d12's, the monk up to d10's. I would have had a stepped AC so when you rolled 10 higher then the base AC you just hit twice, 20 three times. A middle of the line save progression, and a few more resistances on high level fighters then just bravery. I would had also stripped the animal companion out of ranger and druid, simply making it a set of feats. Nerfed spellcasters a little more, and some more odds and ins.

Paizo's couldn't really afford to make all of those changes, backwards compatible was a selling point, just as it's nothing like 3.5 was a selling point for 4th edition. Honestly I'm not sure if Pathfinder 2e, which is at least 8 years off, is going to change even further from 3.5, or if 5th edition, which is conceivably a lot closer, will bring back a lot of 3.5 elements.

1. King determined by arm-wrestling tournament

2. the bermuda triangle

Only if the current king is based after Sylvester Stallon.

I know full well that I can be a Jack@ss, but thats what makes me so lovable :D

But overall the boards are a little less volatile then when the alpha/beta playtest was going on. Back then name calling, insulting ones level of education, or questioning ones parentage where common place. Personally I've learned to just let things slide, although I slip-up every now and again. I guess I just feel passionate about the game.

It looks like an improvement over the round 1 build, but I can't summon the energy to look into it more in depth for a simple reason - it's not a class I am at all interested in.

I can only hope Paizo will relent on their "no more base classes" statement and create an actual arcane fighter ( analogous to the paladin and ranger ) in a future publication.

I completely agree, but it is what it is.

The Magus still feels like he's trying to do two things poorly, but at the same time. It also feels a little over-complex as well, the arcane pool ability seems like it would be a chore to keep track of. Oh well, I'll just never like the class so there is no use in making any (un)insightful statements about it. It's better overall, it's just not interesting.

We are hoping to get the Words of Power playtest up very very soon.

Other things, (re: emergencies) delayed the release of these rules.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

I hope it wasn't very bad emergencies, I hope everything is ok and still on track.

Honestly I think the fighter and wizard are closer in power then they where in 3.5. After all the fighter really is the king of damage in pathfinder and he can keep it up all day long. To me all the fighter really needed was some more defensive abilities at higher levels, better saves, and the ability to shake off some of the most common magic effects (slows, stuns and charms). With those changes he may not be as Versatile as a wizard but he would certainly contribute to the party.

Ultimately if there is a pathfinder 2nd edition I think one way to balance the classes is to give the non-spellcaster (and hybrids) offensive and defensive abilities that automatically overcome common enemy tactics while spellcaster would have to prepare and cast spells to overcome those same tactics. It wouldn't be perfectly balance but classes like the fighter/barbarian/monk would be still be useful at higher levels.

I wonder if anyone here ever played final fantasy 10. It had a unique system where all enemies where strong to certain characters attacks, like Lulu's offensive element magic, but where weak against others like Auron's heavy weapons attacks. It was a nice little rock paper scissors system for keeping every character interesting without having a true roles system.

James Jacobs wrote:

... And that's a great example of WHY Golarion is the same size and has the same features as Earth. No one at Paizo is an astrophysicist, and thus when we need to be able to answer things like "where is the equator?" or "what's gravity like?" or "how do tides work?" we can just answer "just like on Earth."

Size can be arm-waved a bit... gravity is less of a problem than you'd think, and a larger planet can always be made of a less dense material than our nickle-iron core as long as it still has enough iron to produce a protective magnetosphere.

The main thing you have to make identical to Earth (besides the obvious conditions required by Earth-like life) or risk nerds with slide-rules battering down your door, is the axial tilt relative to the planet's orbit around its sun. If it's different from Earth's, you have to explain your seasons and weather, and even in the real world, the impact on seasons of changing the axial tilt of the Earth has been the subject of some debate (climatology is about a billion times harder than anyone outside the field typically suspects... don't go in there without a supercomputer and a couple of the small number of crazy good mathematicians that didn't want to accept a job with the NSA).

I'm certainly no astronomer, but I believe Uranus has around 14 times the mass of the earth but has less gravity, since it's mass is spaced less densely. I also remember reading a pop science article where it was theorized that a planet could be up to four times the surface area then the earth and could still support earth-like life.

I want psionic base classes. Also, I was a big fan of the binder from ToM and the Incarnum stuff. Something like that would be fun. I really enjoy variant magic systems.

Me too, I'm looking forward to the words of power rules.

If there is ever a pathfinder second edition I think prestige classes should just be eliminated and replaced by archetypes.

ZangRavnos said
"I almost think Summoner was an un-needed addition to the list"

Hey, I like the summoner, what's with all the hate. People please stop the hating on the poor disenfranchised summoner.

Designers are never happy with their work, and they always strive to produce new and better things. There are a lot of things I love about 4e, but I also have a list of things that I would have done differently if I won arguments. That list has diminished some with the release of Essentials.

I felt the same way about 3.5. That list diminished with the release of Pathfinder.

Iteration often improves games. But there is no Platonic form of game. It’s more like spaghetti sauce (see: Designers are never happy with their work, and they always strive to produce new and better things. There are a lot of things I love about 4e, but I also have a list of things that I would have done differently if I won arguments. That list has diminished some with the release of Essentials.

I felt the same way about 3.5. That list diminished with the release of Pathfinder.

Iteration often improves games. But there is no Platonic form of game. It’s more like spaghetti sauce, in that Malcolm Gladwell sense.

My earlier post was just my own personal musings, I hope you didn't misunderstand it. Anyway I agree with everything your saying, I'm a graphic designer, so I know what it's like to work hard on something and then look at it afterwords and feeling you could have done it differently or done more with an idea you touched on. And I think we all understand that the game must grow/evolve in order to find new audiences and improve clunky/unworkable mechanics.

I'm glad your so forthcoming, sometimes WOTC almost seemed to keep thing behind a veiled curtain then suddenly announcing big changes. That's the best thing when in comes to pathfinder, no veiled curtains.

Ismellmonkey wrote:

No offense but this thread is going open up a big can of worms. There is a lot of less is more people on these boards, and any suggestion of new classes is going to end in them pounding us with whining about class bloat (or another fabricated concept). Personally I think the game can handle about another four to six more base classes and be about right.

Actually, posts like this are more likely to open said can of worms.

Archetype vs. Base class folks will probably never see eye to eye, but it doesn't need to devolve into name calling.

Fair enough, if it's any consolidation I really like archetype too, I just think there is room for both. To each his own.

No offense but this thread is going open up a big can of worms. There is a lot of less is more people on these boards, and any suggestion of new classes is going to end in them pounding us with whining about class bloat (or another fabricated concept). Personally I think the game can handle about another four to six more base classes and be about right.

Since I was a big fan of the hexblade a warrior class with a paladin/ranger spell progression and major debuffing abilities would suite me fine.

I find all of this sorta interesting, just recently I read an interview by Mike Mearls that came out in September, I don't know how I missed it when it first came out, anyway he said something along the lines that he liked 4e but had a lot of nostalgia for previous versions of D&D. He then went on to say that the essentials product line was influenced by the old red boxed set.

Now Paizo's is getting Stephen, I'm starting to wonder if 4e was really a cherished system tenderly and lovingly reared by it's creators or more of an "It seemed like a good idea at the time" kind of thing.

In any case, in glade to see another great designer working for Paizo's, and as a more personal message to Stephen "welcome to the dark side".

I think I will be the first to say Displacer Beast. Maybe not as iconic as I thought?

Nope I listed as my number one choice back on page 2, he he.

The term might have been adopted from fighting games. In a fighter if a character was easy to use and had high priority on his moves he was a high tier character. Of course their tier ranking system was slightly different, S tier was the best fallowed by A, B, C, D & F.

It's been a long time since I've played street fighter or any other fighting game. I was involved in some competitions, never won one, but it dose have a similar logic to it.

I have two suggestion the first is the ranger, highly modified with a newly created arctype. Work with your GM on creating the arctype you desire. The second is a new class altogether, I personal disagree with the opinion that creating new individual classes for specialized characters is inherently wrong, but you should talk to your GM before you start creating a new class, he (she) will have their own opinion on that subject.

Heavy multi-classing tend to give too many unneeded extra abilities so I wouldn't suggest it. Bottom line work with you GM for an amicable solution.

Personal I would like to see an option that allows the magus to use 2handers effectively, as well. I guess adding his Int bonus to all of his attacks would be warranted, but the reason I thought of adding it to spellstrike only was to make spellstrike more worthwhile.

Ok, here is something more constructive out of me, for once.

Allow the magus to add his intelligence bonus to hit and damage when he uses his spellstrike ability. That would partially make up for his sub-par BAB and in his MAD problem as well. Right now spellstrike is kinda weak anyway.

Yep, I knew I would eventually offend someone, but here is my point if you already have more then one class doing, well at least somewhat similar things, to the what the magus does; the eldritch knight is, the arcane duelist is, the arcane archer is, and it's not to far a stretch to include the summoner, inquisitor, and other bards are too, what's the point. But, I'll fully admit this is play-test feedback not an opinion on whether the class is necessary or not. So, if you want me to just shut up I will, but I still stand by my opinion that the class is boring.

I knew full well that that post would offend, but that's never stopped anyone from posting before. Sorry if you where offended.

While its true that I do not need to provide my reasoning behind every decision, unless your name happens to be Erik Mona or Lisa Stevens, as Lead Designer, I do have a fair amount of leeway in making the game.

That said, this issue keeps coming up.

This book is called Ultimate Magic, and while I am building a class that has a martial bent to it, it still must serve as a magic focused class first and foremost. To this end, the decision was made to make the class with a 3/4 progression. This gives us much more room in adding other cool powers and abilities to the class. Now you might argue, and in some cases rightly so, that we have not taken full advantage of that room, but that is why we playtest.

The next iteration will explore some more of that room and I think you will find the 3/4 a bit more justified.

Just some random musings at midnight.. back to working on Words of Power for me.

Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing

No offense, but I have to question if the class your describing is needed or wanted, I can't help but think we have already seen enough classes (bard, summoner, alchemist, eldritch knight, arcane archer, inquisitor) that do exactly what your trying to do again with another class. While a class I would like to see a hexblade like martial class with secondary arcane abilities like a arcane paladin isn't necessary.

Edit: Sorry re-reading my post it comes of as whiny. Your the designer not me, I just don't like this particular design.

In all honesty, I think the best advice I can give on the class, is to cancel it. Just dump it, wait until you can get a better idea of what the community is asking for and release it in a future product.

I can't speak for everyone, and some people will adamantly disagree with me, but it just doesn’t have the same quality and interesting design elements of other classes designed by Jason. It's boring, and very similar to many existing classes.

Jason just drop it as a class until you get more inspiration and more insight into what the community actually wants.

Sorry for being a pain, but I just can't stand the class as written.

Like I said on the offical class feadback thread, if anyone else feels disapointed, you should speak up, otherwise the class will go through as written.

The class as it's written now is just a big "Sigh, no this isn't what I want".

To Erik or Jason, sorry for being so critical, but it's just so bland and uninspiring.

I'm going to have to be a little bit of a pain here, but as it's written I really hate this class.

Ok, I’ll admit I'm not a big fan of the dusskblade class, and as the class is written it feels a lot like a power down, but expanded duskblade. What I was really hoping for is a full BAB, d10 hp, ranger spell progression class that concentrated on de-buffs, utility spells, and touch bases spells to ad some extra oomph to his attacks. What I see is just really disappointing. After all we already have a bard, summoner, alchemist (I know it's not really spellcasting, but it's so similar), and Inquisitor (I know she's a divine caster but she's very similar).

My suggestion, destroy the current class and have a complete class rewrite.

Note: I'm being a little presumptuous here, I don't really think that my disappointment will lead to a complete class rewrite, but I wouldn't mind if it did.

Anyway, for anyone else who would like to see more warrior and less wizard from this class, you might as well speak up or otherwise the class will be going forward as written. And, for those who feel the class is great as written feel free to flame me........now.

I’m sure people are going to rip me a new one for saying this, but I really hate this class.

This exactly what I did'nt want to see in a fighter/wizard combo, and that is the duskblade. I really think there is already enough medium BAB; d8 hp; bard spell progression classes out there (bard, summoner, alchemist (I know he doesn’t really spellcast), and the inquisitor (I know she’s actually a divine caster)).

I was hoping for something a little closer to the hexblade, primarily a warrior with spellcasting that enhances his combat abilities, as opposed to a 50/50 split. As it stands now the class doesn’t seem overpowered or underpowered as much as it’s just really annoying me. Sorry for the semi-rant, but I would have had preferred a full BAB, d10 hp, ranger spell progression class with extra supernatural abilities that imitated some of the lost spell power. I really hate what I’m seeing here.

The only time I have seen epic levels work is where the entire campaign, and large parts of the campaign setting where based around it. That said, I've sen epic done right and epic done wrong; when it's done right it's a blast, when it's done wrong it's terrible.

I think we can all admit in every edition of the game fighters started lagging behind the other classes usually around level 7 or 8 (except 4e). But, I think the pathfinder fighter is just a far better fighter then previous versions being viable up to level 20 due to his tremendous damage output, but he is still vulnerable to saves or sucks, making him feel like a glass cannon at times.

I'm all for spicing up the fighter a bit, and I personally love the arms master approach the fighter gets in pathfinder, but he does need some way to simply shake off effects that other classes would be disabled by. To me this is what fighters should do, when the stakes are high they he pulls through. But, I'm not much of a fan of the TOB, and I like that pathfinder essentially gives you combat maneuvers in the form of feats.

The fighter has come a long way, but he still needs that extra something to really make him shine.

Thinking it over, warfordge would be the most logical choice, even though the would still have some concept or understanding of gender. I don't think changelings gender straddling is what I'm looking for.

Anyway, the concept is most people in the real world have some sort of gender identity, even if that doesn't jive with their birth sex. It's really rare to have someone who wouldn't have a gender identity, or even understand the concept of male or female, or at least not fully. I'm not sure why I want to explore such a concept, but it interest me to a small point, likely because it would be so hard to pull it off effectively. In real life I'm happy being me, and I'm happy being male.

Anyway, thanks to everyone for the suggestion.

combine that with fling ally/enemy and you can have +4 dwarfs of throwing and returning :P

Lol, nobody tosses a dwarf.

Ismellmonkey wrote:

This is where I have to be a bit weird, but I always wanted to play a gender neutral character. Basically someone who was genderless and androgynous. Since most races, except dromites, have a obvious gender it makes it a hard concept. I don't know what this says about me as a person.

You might consider a reptilian race, most would be indistinguishable to mammalian races. Or a gnoll, if their females are like hyena females, the gender might be a bit hard to determine (false penises and all). Or maybe a race like changlings from eberron (doppelganger relative). Or warforge.

Nice suggestions, I guess I had more options then I originally thought.

Thanks

This is where I have to be a bit weird, but I always wanted to play a gender neutral character. Basically someone who was genderless and androgynous. Since most races, except dromites, have a obvious gender it makes it a hard concept. I don't know what this says about me as a person.

Otherwise I happily play mostly male characters, since I am male, but there was this one time back in the 2e era that I played a female elf mage/thief. The concept was that she was a bit of a jinx, bad things just seemed to happen when she was around, the GM really got into it and had almost everything she'd say or do have a bad side effect. Lots of fun, and surprisingly everyone went along with it.

Personally I think the class is a little on the weak side, not much more powerful then the bard really (although, bards aren't horrible). The only differences is the summoner looks better on paper because evaluations look so good, but the class as a whole has a heck of a lot of weaknesses to go with it's strengths.

Anyway the topic is overdone at this point. Time to move on.

As I'm seeing it, Archetypes serve the purpose of addressing variations on classes that are not very adequately addressed by a Prestige Class (Drunken Master) or involve creation of a base class which still borrows many components from others (Swashbuckler) with very little new material in the grand scheme of things. Essentially, it's to avoid a ton of PrCs where most of the class is just a resuming of progression for all other features the base class it clearly comes out of have that are still applicable. Or base classes that just feel like a highly specialized base class that supports a slightly different take (Archer fighter archetype for example) than what you'd normally see.

Personally some of my favorite material towards the end of 3.5 were 'substitution levels' for classes. Especially things like Paladins of Sune which were different than your normal Paladin by their nature in the setting or racial substitution levels that acknowledged a warforged Artificer may look different than a human one without having to go out of your way in character progression to achieve this.

Personally, I feel Samurai is better encompassed as an archetype of Cavalier if no an alternate class which borrows heavily from it (a la Antipaladin). A whole new mechanic I'm not too sure of. The same could be said of Ninja and Rogue. I never particularly felt the Ninja base class in 3.5 D&D had a whole lot to offer outside Ki abilities. And with Rogue Talents those are easily matched.

I totally agree with this, although archetypes can be used to eliminate the need for a lot of base classes, I don't think it was directly designed to do that. It's more like they (Paizo's) wanted to eliminate a lot of prestige classes and I mean a lot at one time in 3.5 there was over 900 prestige classes counted. (I only heard this I have never counted them myself)

I know there is a big divide on the message boards on just how many classes are necessary, but I think Paizo's is doing it right by keeping the number at around 20. That's just enough to create interest without being to many.

I understand that everyone has a different opinion on what a summoner should concentrate on his eidolon vs. summoning monsters. I actually think its fine that he could do both.

And, the summoner never had the versatility of the full caster classes. Even in his first incarnation he was right behind the primary spell-castes in raw power and potential, powerful yes but not even close to the cheesiness that a well played wizard could do.

His current incarnation seems just about right, he actually seems well balanced. The class can still be powergamed, but that is the problem with individual builds not the summoner himself. The nerf that was suggested kills a lot of potential the class had, I personally feel it makes the class as a whole about as powerful as a monk, which is to say weak.

My suggestion is if Jason and others feel the class needed this to balance it, the class needs something else to help make up for it.

Looking back at my post above it seems a little rude to the guy’s at Paizo’s. The point I was trying to make is the class is actually a little on the weak size, in a nutshell the class is essentially a weaker version of a fighter with his own (limited) buff bot. There was nothing wrong with that, the only overpowered part of the class was when the eidolon could wear armor.

I just suggesting that if the change Jason is update goes into effect then either the eidolon needs a buff or the summoner needs something more to do then buff.

As a side note; does anyone else think it’s strange that the summoner has no social skills whatsoever, but has a high charisma. I mean cant we at least get intimidate added to our skill list?

It's kind of funny that the only thing broken on the eidolon is when people ultimize it for doing multi-attacks and make it large. Even then it dosen't seem that overpowered.

In response Paiso's nerf everthing else about the class to make up for one build. I guess I'm not getting the point why weaken the class as a whole for one broken build, why not just nerf that build.

The summoner was originally an exciting class now it's becomming lame, I hope the fokes at Pazio's no what their doing, it seems like thier out to make the entire class unplayable.

If I'm remebering correctly when 3rd edition first came out this very subject; tough commoners, was listed as one of the strengths of the system.

Back in the days of 1st and 2nd edition, there was the small issue of high level PC's deciding to turn rogue and kill the local towns people, or more commonly rich nobles, and take all their stuff. The designers thought, wisely at the time, we should toughen up locals so they could handle such a event, or if the PC's didn't arive in time to save a town from bugbears the town wasn't automaticaly distroyed.

I guess it's a YMMV situtation.

Ismellmonkey wrote:

Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:

Ismellmonkey wrote:

So I am playing the system I want to play, just get rid of the multi-classing as an unnecessary addition and it would be perfect. I'm struck that I'm being accused of being a jerk while Abraham's statement, and unnecessary attack is not being a jerk.

Folks did you ever consider you, in-fact may not be playing the system you think your playing, in other words a multi-class based system. After all there is no additional support for multi-class character, but there are new feats, new classes, and new class abilities, the very thing I said should just be used instead of multi-classing.

Multi Classing has become vastly less desirable, and some, like myself, feel that you lose too much, and become useless than a pure one way or another.

Now, take this to it's next conclusion, why do you think multi-classing has become less desirable, is it because, maybe multi-classing was a problematic system? Why do you think both Paizo's and WOTC have limited multi-classing, remember they are game designers, it's what they do for a living. Now, do you think the game is as a whole what you though it was, or is it a very different system, and why is that?

That seems like a Red herring. So you say multi classing is messed up and not working like it should? Then why does everyone seem to think WoTC's multi classing was over powered for non casters, and underpowered for caster?

Now it just seems like a bad idea all around, which seems like what you want to say, so then we really do need a base class.

I don't see your logic, if this was true then WOTC would never have toned done multi-classing in 4e, and would never add the sword mage class, but that's what they did. I'm missing your point.

Anyway, this is really starting to get out of hand, more options are good, but everyone has their preferred options. All I was showing was that the system is perfectly playable, and perhaps even better without multi-classing, I can't stop you from using the system, but I can suggest that you try not using and see the results. On that note, I think I going to back of for this topic a while, it's stating to give me a bit of a headache.

Remember, I can't force you to stop playing the game, or to stop playing the way you like, I can only make suggestions to improve your experience, and point out that both WOTC and Paizo's seem to be moving that direction.

Good gaming everyone.

So by enjoying the option of multi-classing set forth in their core rulebook, I'm playing the wrong game? I guess by your definition, I am. But by mine I am doing just fine. And yes, I think the game has been designed to make pure classes much more disirable without the cherry picking from 3.0 and 3.5. But just because you see it one way does not make it universal. If it were 100% we wouldn't see the discussion on multi-class we do here every day. Neither of us is wrong here. My play style may differ, but that doesn't prove you right any more than my multi-class builds prove you wrong.

Alright, I'm sorry I've offended you. This attack of mine is simply directed at the accusation that a new class is not needed. You may play differently, which is all well and fine, but I'm the one who is getting his play style more fully supported not you, new classes and alternative class features are coming after all. However, and I'm sorry to tell you this, as time goes on, your likely to be less and less interested in the system, because of the lack of support for muti-classing over single class characters, and the inclusion of new classes (likely unnecessary classes to you). The class bloat that you fear is already here, and it will likely get worse.

So, why do you think, I'm getting more support then you? If you don't think I am, then why do you think a spell-casting warrior class is not going to happen when a wizard/cleric class (the witch) is?

Ok, it's getting late here and I'm tired, again, I'm sorry that I was a little rough in my statements, and unclear. Hopefully, no one will hold that against me, your all fine people even if we disagree. However, I fully believe that constant demand will result in a single class spell-casting warrior class, it's just a mater of time.

What you are saying is that it doesn't work for you. Other tables say it does work for them. So it is flawed for you. I'm still not sure what you are asking of a company with a whole gaming system already in place and a writing schedule booked until 2011?

What you are proposing goes against every piece of literature they've released and plan to release for the next year. This is what I mean by "what could be" vs. "what is". If you feel you have a better way to translate a system to paper and express character concept by all means let's hear it. Other than that I don't know how else to discuss this.

I'm not asking Paizo's to do anything. They already did it by making multi-classing less desirable, over a single class character. I'm not playing the wrong system, you are. Every one is arguing that a arcane warrior is redundant, I'm saying muit-classing is. Your saying the system isn't supporting my style of play, I'm saying the system is slowly moving towards my style of play, it has just failed to take that final step.

Folk, why are Paizo's adding new classes to the game, to support multi-classing? Logic! (I'm being sarcastic here, they clearly not adding new classes to increase mulit-class options, less more open classes would work better for multi-classing)

This is the core of the statement that your missing the forest through the trees. Just think about it, why isn't their additional multi-class options to cut down on the number of classes?

And finally to sum up the point, is adding a new class wrong, if multi-classing is flawed? Have any of you experimented in running the game without multi-classing and prestige classes, and isn't fair to say single class characters are more balanced then muli-class characters? In Pathfinder not 3.x edition, wotc couldn't balance a class to save their lives. So whats the logical conclusion?

Don't worry about character customization, you can do it with feats and new class feature alone, you don't need to multi-class, it's redundant.

Ismellmonkey wrote:

So I am playing the system I want to play, just get rid of the multi-classing as an unnecessary addition and it would be perfect. I'm struck that I'm being accused of being a jerk while Abraham's statement, and unnecessary attack is not being a jerk.

Folks did you ever consider you, in-fact may not be playing the system you think your playing, in other words a multi-class based system. After all there is no additional support for multi-class character, but there are new feats, new classes, and new class abilities, the very thing I said should just be used instead of multi-classing.

Multi Classing has become vastly less desirable, and some, like myself, feel that you lose too much, and become useless than a pure one way or another.

Now, take this to it's next conclusion, why do you think multi-classing has become less desirable, is it because, maybe multi-classing was a problematic system? Why do you think both Paizo's and WOTC have limited multi-classing, remember they are game designers, it's what they do for a living. Now, do you think the game is as a whole what you though it was, or is it a very different system, and why is that?

So I am playing the system I want to play, just get rid of the multi-classing as an unnecessary addition and it would be perfect. I'm struck that I'm being accused of being a jerk while Abraham's statement, and unnecessary attack is not being a jerk.

Folks did you ever consider you, in-fact may not be playing the system you think your playing, in other words a multi-class based system. After all there is no additional support for multi-class character, but there are new feats, new classes, and new class abilities, the very thing I said should just be used instead of multi-classing.