Who agrees with me that the base classes are too complicated?


General Discussion (Prerelease)

51 to 100 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

houstonderek wrote:
LogicNinja wrote:
a bunch of condescending and insulting stuff

There's a reason he's widely referred to as "sh*tninja" on every board he's ever posted on.


Because people are whiny douches.

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Card Game, Rulebook Subscriber

I like the level of complexity in the new classes as well. Not too much but not as many dead levels either. I especially like all the new options open to the sorcerer class (and the possibility of even more in future supplements). I viewed sorcerers since their 3e introduction as a lazy man's wizard. Now I actually might want to play one.


I LOVE the new classes -- Jason Bulmahn is a wizard himself when it comes to class design. Options make me smile.


At this point I have to disagree with the OP. As Kirth points out above, having options available from the get-go seems the best way to start the ball rolling.

The base classes should be, IMO, the bar of comparison for everything else. Part of the 'power creep' nonsense that I've seen happen in vanilla 3.5 is because of the multiclassing and prestige classing mixtures. PF Beta attempts to rectify this by making the core classes solidly worthwhile to take from beginning to end. It also establishes certain precedents (HD attached to BaB, to name one).

If one has plenty of draw to go all the way 'up the ladder', rather than the dreadful 'cherry picking' that crept into the game or in some cases cannonballed into the game, it is a real reward. And a nice nod to the earlier editions of the game. One does not have to stick to the one class of course, yet another strength of 3.5 / 3.Paizo. :)

All in all, a solid improvement. And of course we get the next, oh, 7 or 8 months to 'live test' the Beta ruleset. Permitting public discourse over how things worked at our collective pools of game tables, then applying the goodies the Paizo honchos like, love, dislike, hate and loathe to the finished product.

I rather doubt they will need to 'nerf' a core class next August. ^_^ Let alone a month or three after release this way...

Dark Archive

LogicNinja wrote:


They are rather cool base classes with good levels of utility. Uniqueness, not so much for the Scout (Skirmish is just another precision damage mechanic), but definitely for the Binder.

"Good levels of power"? Depends on how you look at it. The Scout's weak enough they basically made the Swift Hunter feat to "fix" it. The Warlock is very lackluster, and the Binder is unexceptional for the most part.
The Binder and Warlock aren't awful, power-wise, but the point remains: the vast majority of splatbook classes range from "awfully weak" to "middle-of-the-road".

I'm not insulting your favorite classes, I'm pointing out that splatbook base classes do not have any sort of overall "power creep", and in fact tend to suck compared to their core equivalents.

The Scout is a interesting case where a class is underpowered due to how the rules interact with its class abilities. What kills it is that you have to move 10 feet or more to get use of the skirmish ability, which limits you to a standard action normally. Find a way to use full-attack with the skirmish ability, and it moves to a solid class power wise (or solid for a non-caster). IIRC, Swift Hunter allow you to move 10 feet as a swift action?

Most of the Base Classes in the splatbooks are underpowered or very average which is sad, because there are some cool ideas in there (not that would stop me from playing some of them). Where the really broken stuff lays is in the PrCs. They're just generally better then the base classes as the good ones give you your class features you care about with more powerful abilities. Its a obvious imbalance, and there real reason the base classes and the spellcasters in particular got more stuff, so there would be a reason not to instantly PrC when they can.

Liberty's Edge

Evanta wrote:
The 11 classes alone take up way more space than they used to. This also means that there are a LOT more rules you have to read through. I for one could do with a sorcerer with just maybe 3 bloodlines (maybe leave infernal to the warlock for example), or a standard barbarian with just a few changed abilities.

What so complicated about there being more than three bloodlines? You only choose one for a character, so you're not having to keep up with what the others do.

By "too complicated" do you simply mean "too many choices?" If so, then I heartily disagree--I like options (variety be the spice of life and all).

Liberty's Edge

The Authority wrote:

There's a reason he's widely referred to as "sh*tninja" on every board he's ever posted on.

Psychic_Robot wrote:
Because people are whiny douches.

Will the two of you cut it out with the insults.

Scarab Sages RPG Superstar 2013

Not me.


The Authority wrote:

There's a reason he's widely referred to as "sh*tninja" on every board he's ever posted on.

A few trolls on /tg/ = every board ever.

BRILLIANT

Why did you even bother posting?


LogicNinja wrote:
nickname rage

Cool post brother.


The Authority wrote:
LogicNinja wrote:
nickname rage
Cool post brother.

This isn't 4chan. Don't act like it is.

Sovereign Court

LogicNinja wrote:
Laithoron wrote:

And here I thought the Scout, Binder and Warlock were rather cool new base classes with good levels of power, utility and uniqueness. Thank You for informing me that my opinion was utterly wrong, I appreciate the incite.

Of course, I've always liked bards so what do I know...

They are rather cool base classes with good levels of utility. Uniqueness, not so much for the Scout (Skirmish is just another precision damage mechanic), but definitely for the Binder.

"Good levels of power"? Depends on how you look at it. The Scout's weak enough they basically made the Swift Hunter feat to "fix" it. The Warlock is very lackluster, and the Binder is unexceptional for the most part.
The Binder and Warlock aren't awful, power-wise, but the point remains: the vast majority of splatbook classes range from "awfully weak" to "middle-of-the-road".

I'm not insulting your favorite classes, I'm pointing out that splatbook base classes do not have any sort of overall "power creep", and in fact tend to suck compared to their core equivalents.

I agree. The only base classes guilty of power creep were the Book of Nine Swords classes and maybe the duskblade. The main power creep from splatbooks came from feats, spells, and PrC's.

The Exchange

LogicNinja wrote:

The vast majority of splatbook base classes are AWFUL. The rest are, at best, either roughly in the middle of the power curve, or lower-powered counterparts of their core equivalents. The Artificer and Archivist are the ONLY splatbook classes on the level of the core Big Three (Cleric/Druid/Wizard). The Beguiler is pretty strong, but it's one of a handful of exceptions.

The Scout, Spellthief, and Ninja? All lower-powered than the Rogue. The Hexblade? Weak. Swashbuckler? I've almost never seen anyone take more than three levels, because it's so weak. Samurai? Worst base class WotC has ever printed. The Psion is an inferior Wizard, the Favored Soul is an inferior Cleric, the Spirit Shaman is an inferior Druid. The Psychic Warrior is solidly balanced. The Warlock is mediocre, the Warmage is one of the worst full casters, the the Wu Jen is again an inferior Wizard, the Shugenja is pretty bad... I could go on and on. The poiint is, the vast majority of non-base classes suck, and giving the Pathfinder classes extra powerful abilities just makes them even better in comparison. Especially when those classes, like the wizard and sorcerer, were already too powerful.

You have stated that these classes are "awful," "weak," "inferior," etc. Can you provide the basis for such conclusions?

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

Locke1520 wrote:

My other frustration has been that the DM frequently had quite a few options on some monsters and NPCs and those options were poorly presented. The cluttered D&D statblock made it easy to miss options or the actual rules for a particular option. Paizo's new statblock has fixed a lot of that I'm really looking forward to the eventual MM replacement for that reason alone.

eric kiser wrote:

Hi Locke,

Could you point me to an example of this so that I can better understand what you are reffering to?

Sorry it's taken me so long to reply Eric.

The old typical adventure statblock was all shoved together in attempt to get the most information in the least amount of space. I don't have an example right at my fingers at the moment but if you pick up any 3.0/3.5 module published before DMG2 you'll get an idea of what I'm talking about. Even the Monster Manual entries are not as clear for me as the new Monster entries at the end of each Pathfinder Volume.

Now in fairness WotC was the first to introduce a revised statblock but I prefer the Paizo block even over that one. For me the improved presentations (both WotC and Paizo's) have sped up combat a great deal.


WotC's Nightmare wrote:
I agree. The only base classes guilty of power creep were the Book of Nine Swords classes and maybe the duskblade. The main power creep from splatbooks came from feats, spells, and PrC's.

The vast majority of PrCs are terrible, too--people just tend to not remember those.

The Tome of Battle classes weren't "power creep" so much as an intentional fix for what's wrong with melee characters (both power/versatility-wise and fun-wise). The Duskblade isn't particularly stronger than the Barbarian, despite having more nova capability; you'd be better off pointing at the Beguiler.

prashant panavalli wrote:
You have stated that these classes are "awful," "weak," "inferior," etc. Can you provide the basis for such conclusions?

Without getting into extreme detail on possible ways to optimize each class (and their counterpart)? Sure.


  • Scout, Spellthief, Ninja: all of these are weaker than the Rogue.
    -The Spellthief's abilities are very situational, and it doesn't get the cool Rogue Special Abilities.
    -The Scout, barring optimization, gets 1 attack/round, with less bonus damage than the Rogue is getting on each attack. Even if you can get the Scout's Skirmish on multiple attacks, they're still doing less than the rogue (who can trigger Sneak Attack easily by flanking). On top of that, their skill list is less versatile (Rogue gets social skills, for example).
    -The Ninja stops being able to trigger Sudden Strike as soon as he runs out of Ki points. Anything that can see invisible also stymies him. Beyond that, he has no real advantages over a Rogue (especially considering that a rogue can acquire a wand of invisibility or Ring of Invisibility--or even a wand of Greater Invisibility at high levels).
  • The Hexblade has its high points (Mettle, CHA to saves vs. spells, and with the PHB II a companion that gives -2 saves), but its half-spellcasting-progression really hurts, and the class doesn't really get much by way of melee abilities. First four levels are good, beyond that, highly mediocre. Certainly worse than even a Fighter-heavy Fighter/Sorcerer/Eldritch Knight build, whic casts Sorcerer spells.
  • Swashbuckler is actually one of the worst classes in the game. It's a melee class without damage output--"+INT vs. sneak-attackable things" is a handful of extra damage. A strong guy with a greatsword does vastly more. And they get nothing to compensate them for their extremely minimal damage--their class abilities are all very minor, right up until the CON damage on a crit, which is too little, far too late.
  • Samurai (Complete Warrior): worst base class in any WotC book. Using TWF actively makes them worse than using a katana in two hands, their Intimidate abilities don't work on anything (monsters gain HD far faster than PCs), and they get a handful of bonus feats the fighter could just take--crappy bonus feats at that. These guys just can't do anything.
  • Psion: psions are still a strong class, being a spellcaster... but they're inferior to sorcererers/wizards in pretty much every single way except damage output (and an optimized wizard beats them at that, too). This is because of their power list vs. the Sor/Wiz spell list: Psions just don't get 90 of the best spells out there, like Haste, Slow, Ray of Enfeeblement, Stinking Cloud, Glitterdust, etc.
  • Favored Soul: again, still strong, but inferior to their core counterpart (cleric). They need 2 stats for casting (and thus have to choose between melee and no-save buffs/defensive spells/healing, and focusing on both offensive and defensive spellcasting). On top of that, when a Favored Soul knows like 30 spells, a Cleric knows every single spell that has ever been printed in any splatbook allowed in the game, which is huge.
  • Spirit Shaman: they don't know the whole Druid list at once, they don't get a huge animal companion, they can't turn into bears or birds and stay that way all day. Not weak, but nowhere near as strong as the Druid. pretty well-balanced overall, but inferior to its core counterpart.
  • Warlock: high point is at level 1 or so, with 1d6 eldritch blast and either Shatter at will or the blast at up to 250 feet. Good invocations are mainly defensive, but damage output is really low (barring on of the later published "fixes" like Hellfire Warlock and Eldritch Glaive). These guys can go all day, but parties wind up needing to rest anyway, and real arcanists (wizards, sorcererers, etc) do far, far more than they do with their spells.
  • Warmage: their spell list is mostly damage spells, which are the weakest kind. They get a splash of battlefield control, which makes them OK, but they still can't fill the arcanist role. Plus, with Sorcerer-only spells like Wings of Flurry and (Greater) Arcane Fusion, Sorcerers wind up being better blasters, too.
  • Wu Jen: It's just a wizard with a smaller spell list that lacks some of the awesome Wizard mainstays. Strictly inferior in every way.
  • Shugenja: restricted spell list, fragile, no class abilities.

And so on. Basically, the idea that splatbook base classes are somehow more powerful than their core counterparts and that there has been a steadily increasing level of power in terms of splatbook classes isn't true at all. Splatbook classes by and large range from "terrible" (Samurai, Swashbuckler) to "weak" to "not (so) bad, but strictly inferior to the Core class filling the same role".

It's telling that of the five most overwhelmingly powerful base classes in the game, three are from the PHB and only two are from splatbooks.


LogicNinja wrote:


The Tome of Battle classes weren't "power creep" so much as an intentional fix for what's wrong with melee characters (both power/versatility-wise and fun-wise).

It's power creep for those people who think that spellcasters should be nerfed instead of melee classes getting better.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the Tome of Battle (other than one or two small items, and some flavour I don't like).


While I agree that ToB is "power creep," it is necessary power creep. And while I detest "Weaboo Fightan Magick," the ideas behind it are solid.

Hogarth: The problem is that a fundamental "fun" problem remains with regard to spellcasters vs. melees. The spellcasters get ten trillion options while the other characters are, overall, reduced to "I full attack." Yes, characters can try to trip, disarm, etc., but that is largely useless when the opposition has a +16 bonus against such attempts on top of a 500 Strength score.


Psychic_Robot wrote:

While I agree that ToB is "power creep," it is necessary power creep. And while I detest "Weaboo Fightan Magick," the ideas behind it are solid.

Hogarth: The problem is that a fundamental "fun" problem remains with regard to spellcasters vs. melees. The spellcasters get ten trillion options while the other characters are, overall, reduced to "I full attack." Yes, characters can try to trip, disarm, etc., but that is largely useless when the opposition has a +16 bonus against such attempts on top of a 500 Strength score.

Oh, I agree. Did I imply otherwise?

My personal opinion is that melee folks should get "more stuff", and that the top 10% of spells should get nerfed. And the Universal wizard should get most of his new toys taken away.

Dark Archive

LogicNinja wrote:
The vast majority of PrCs are terrible, too--people just tend to not remember those.

Even then, most of the PrCs themselves aren't problems so much as they have one ability that becomes gross if stacked with a bunch of other stuff or an ability that was just flat-out ill-conceived (Planar Shepherd anyone?). The few that are gross all by themselves, such as the Incantatrix or Frenzied Berserker, are drowning in a sea of other PrCs that might be thematic as all heck, but, in some cases, barely improves the base class, or even handicaps it (Dragon Disciple, give up 10 character levels to gain a +4 LA template? Woo, what a bargain!)

LogicNinja wrote:
It's telling that of the five most overwhelmingly powerful base classes in the game, three are from the PHB and only two are from splatbooks.

Just to see if we're on the same page;

Core - Cleric, Druid, Wizard

Splat - Artificer, ???


Pathfinder Companion Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

I think the new core classes got more "interesting" more than complicated. They were a underpowered compared to the other "non-core" classes and few people would stay in a core class after 8-10th level for the lack of new interesting abilites on most of them. So the new abilities upgrade them pretty nice.

High-level play its been complicated and slower since 3.0 and so far I haven't seen a good option to simplify it. So, that's yet to be solved.


Set: Half-dragon is +3 LA. (It's even worse.)

Archivist is the fifth on the "most powerful class" list.

Dark Archive

Psychic_Robot wrote:

Set: Half-dragon is +3 LA. (It's even worse.)

Archivist is the fifth on the "most powerful class" list.

And even worst still is that the Half-Dragon has never been worth that +3 LA in the first place.


It's too bad that level adjustment is such poop.


Psychic_Robot wrote:
While I agree that ToB is "power creep," it is necessary power creep. And while I detest "Weaboo Fightan Magick," the ideas behind it are solid.

Anyone who thinks Tome of Battle is OMG SO ANIME LOL hasn't actually looked at the ability, or is hung up on stuff like Sapphire Nightmare Blade being called that instead of "Fencing Lunge I".

hogarth wrote:

It's power creep for those people who think that spellcasters should be nerfed instead of melee classes getting better.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the Tome of Battle (other than one or two small items, and some flavour I don't like).

Spellcasters should be nerfed *and* melee classes should get better. You gotta understand--stuff like a very weak Will save, dependency on the Full Attack, etc are problems for melee characters not because of spellcasters (except NPC ones), but because of monsters.

Also, ToB classes are vastly more fun to play, in combat and out of it.

Set wrote:

Just to see if we're on the same page;

Core - Cleric, Druid, Wizard

Splat - Artificer, ???

Archivist is the fifth.

Hugo Solis wrote:

I think the new core classes got more "interesting" more than complicated. They were a underpowered compared to the other "non-core" classes and few people would stay in a core class after 8-10th level for the lack of new interesting abilites on most of them. So the new abilities upgrade them pretty nice.

Please show me how the core classes were underpowered compared to noncore base classes. I just showed that non-core classes where overwhelmingly inferior to the core ones (or even downright terrible), and it's like you skipped that.

People jumping out of base classes and into PrCs is a separate issue from core vs. noncore base class poewr level.


LogicNinja wrote:
Point by point response that's wildly incorrect

Thanks for sharing your opinions. Yet again you've gone to great lengths to claim that you have a valid point and failed to produce anything other than your opinion to back it up.

Please, take a minute between cries of "nerf spellcasters" and "tome of battle is really balanced" and go back and actually read or god help you play the game you're talking about.

You're a big fan of complaining about class balance based on a level 20 build. I suggest you take a level five character and run him around Golarion for a few sessions and see what actually happens, not what's possible via crawling through the rulebooks on your stomach weeping about time stop and force cage.


The Authority wrote:
Thanks for sharing your opinions. Yet again you've gone to great lengths to claim that you have a valid point and failed to produce anything other than your opinion to back it up.

Actually, I explained why the classes are underpowered. You're the one going "no, you're wrong."

The Authority wrote:
Please, take a minute between cries of "nerf spellcasters" and "tome of battle is really balanced" and go back and actually read or god help you play the game you're talking about.

"I disagree with you, but instead of backing up what I say or trying to counter the evidence you present, I'm going to say you've never played the game."

The Authority wrote:
You're a big fan of complaining about class balance based on a level 20 build. I suggest you take a level five character and run him around Golarion for a few sessions and see what actually happens, not what's possible via crawling through the rulebooks on your stomach weeping about time stop and force cage.

I've played the game at levels from 1 into epic. I've played homebrewed campaigns and published modules. I'm talking from practical experience and from an understanding of how the game works and how its math works.

I haven't mentioned level 20 at all. I did post a sample level 11 wizard in the Wizard vs. Sorcerer thread. At level 5, melee types and spellcasters are pretty balanced overall, although as with all 3.5 it relies on X encounters per day for balance. Monks still suck, though, sorcerers are behind (two level 2 spells, no level 3), wizards have devastating punch but haven't acquired staying power yet, and so on.

So, please, take a minute between cries of "spellcasters are fine, I swear!" and "tome of battle really is broken, really, even if I can't prove it" to play the game yourself.

Are you about done, or do you have something actually productive to contribute? Because so far, all you've done is go "you're wrong because I said so." I told you why, for example, the Swashbuckler is severely underpowered, or the Scout is less powerful than the Rogue. If this is so wrong, surely you should be able to back your point up in some fashion?


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Authority, you are actively trolling, please cut that out. LogicNinja may sometimes be a bit rude, but his math is sound.

Liberty's Edge RPG Superstar 2014 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 16

LogicNinja wrote:
  • Warmage: their spell list is mostly damage spells, which are the weakest kind. They get a splash of battlefield control, which makes them OK, but they still can't fill the arcanist role. Plus, with Sorcerer-only spells like Wings of Flurry and (Greater) Arcane Fusion, Sorcerers wind up being better blasters, too.

I think your milage with the non core classes may vary. I'm playing a Warmage and with the Warmage edge and the feat extra edge I make the Sorcerer in our group look like a popgun. And since I can add other spells to my list with Arcane Training my list is not as limited as all that. PH2 even expanded the spells you can add by allowing non evocation spells to be added to the list as spells one level higher.

While if it is your intent to build the best blaster sorcerer you may be able to build a bigger one than the Warmage but out of the box the Warmage offers a substantially bigger bang.

And as for not filling the arcanist role My Warmage holds his own and we did okay before adding the Sorcerer.


Locke1520 wrote:
I think your milage with the non core classes may vary. I'm playing a Warmage and with the Warmage edge and the feat extra edge I make the Sorcerer in our group look like a popgun. And since I can add other spells to my list with Arcane Training my list is not as limited as all that. PH2 even expanded the spells you can add by allowing non evocation spells to be added to the list as spells one level higher.

Warmage Edge and Extra Edge add 4-5 damage tops, which is insignificant when you're flinging 10 or 15 d6 around.

Eclectic Learning is nice, but it's just three non-cantrips. That's not much utility at all.

Locke1520 wrote:
While if it is your intent to build the best blaster sorcerer you may be able to build a bigger one than the Warmage but out of the box the Warmage offers a substantially bigger bang.

...yes. The Warmage is a better blaster than a Sorcerer who isn't built for blasting.

I'm not sure what your point is. Any sorcerer who wants to blast can be built for blasting. Is the Warmage more "newbie-friendly"? Sure, mostly (the sorcerer has fewer spells the player needs to remember--the Warmage has a whole list).

Locke1520 wrote:
And as for not filling the arcanist role My Warmage holds his own and we did okay before adding the Sorcerer.

I guarantee that you're not doing what a Wizard would be doing for a party, though, not having access to Invisibility, Charm Person, Rope Trick, Fly, etc. On top of that, he can't use Glitterdust to disable dangerous melee opponents, can't use Haste to boost the party or Slow to hamper the opposition, etc. He can do damage, and that's about it.

The Warmage is basically an archer with AoE arrows and a small amount of control spells (Stinking Cloud, for example) sprinkled in. They can still be pretty decent, because they are full arcane casters; they're just strictly inferior to their core counterparts (and the other arcane casters), which was my whole point.


(Deep breath)

Swashbuckler is basically a fighter who has his bonus feats selected for him. Ditto for the Samurai. Weaker? Well, maybe not necessarily, but really they seem more like examples of Fighter builds than base classes. Scouts, too, are fun to play, but the skirmish mechanics do make them weaker combatants than the rogue... and, really, they're just modified rogues themselves, when you get right down to it.

But they're not really the issue. What people really talk about in terms of power creep in the "splatbook" classes are the PrCs like Radiant Servant of Pelor (a 3.5 cleric gives up exactly nothing by joining, but gains a lot of free abilities), or especially Abjurant Champion (an elf wizard or sorcerer gives up one (1) feat and gains d10 HD, full BAB, quickened spells, and a host of other freebies).

If Paizo's new classes can compete with these PrCs, or at least make them less mandatory, then the changes to those classes are well-merited indeed.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

But they're not really the issue. What people really talk about in terms of power creep in the "splatbook" classes are the PrCs like Radiant Servant of Pelor (a 3.5 cleric gives up exactly nothing by joining, but gains a lot of free abilities), or especially Abjurant Champion (an elf wizard or sorcerer gives up one (1) feat and gains d10 HD, full BAB, quickened spells, and a host of other freebies).

If Paizo's new classes can compete with these PrCs, or at least make them less mandatory, then the changes to those classes are well-merited indeed.

Except people said BASE classes, specifically, not PrCs. That's what I was arguing against. And, yes, weaker. MUCH weaker. The Swashbuckler and Samurai are not "fighter builds"--they are vastly inferior to the Fighter. The Samurai in particular is pretty much the worst base class WotC has printed, and a Warrior with a two-handed weapon would be more effective than a Samurai using his class features.

(And what are you talking about anyway? The only thing the Swashbuckler has that's a Fighter bonus feat is Weapon Finesse, basically. The rest is unique class features. It's just really bad unique class features.)

Radiant Servant of Pelor? Sure. But it doesn't appeal to anyone who isn't taking the Sun and Healing domains, basically. I've built a lot of clerics, but I've never felt the need for RSoP. Church Inquisitor is a better example, being "balanced" by fluff and RP requirements, which is a bad way of doing things.
Abjurant Champion? The opportunity cost is the host of other powerful full-casting PrCs available. Quickened Shield and some HP aren't really all that good for anyone who isn't a fighter/mage, and they were lagging behind their pure-mage counterparts.

There's a lot of PrCs any wizard or sorcerer would be better off getting than Abjurant Champion. I'd even rather take the core Loremaster than Abjurant Champion for a pure wizard.

There are some really powerful PrCs outside of core, but not nearly as any as you seem to be imagining. On top of that, for every powerful PrC, there's ten terrible ones. Would you like me to go through, say, the Complete Divine or Complete Arcane or Complete Warrior for you like I did through the base classes?

The Pathfinder "fix", however, has made the vast majority of wizard PrCs completely useless, since they don't get the bonus spell slots. That means that players will largely ignore them... unless they're really excessively powerful, like Incantatrix or Initiate of the Sevenfold Veil. Furthermore, any new PrCs will have to compete with that in order to be considered.
The fix means that Wizard PrCs will have to be *more* powerful to be a better choice for any wizard player.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
LogicNinja wrote:


I'm not sure what your point is. Any sorcerer who wants to blast can be built for blasting. Is the Warmage more "newbie-friendly"? Sure, mostly (the sorcerer has fewer spells the player needs to remember--the Warmage has a whole list).

That's an important distinction. He does have the WHOLE list of bang bang spells available. Which means that no matter what you're fighting whatever it's resistant to, incorporeal or not he's likely to have a spell in place to swack it. acid, fire, cold, lightning, force, sonic. He'll have it all covered.


LazarX wrote:
That's an important distinction. He does have the WHOLE list of bang bang spells available. Which means that no matter what you're fighting whatever it's resistant to, incorporeal or not he's likely to have a spell in place to swack it. acid, fire, cold, lightning, force, sonic. He'll have it all covered.

Sure. It doesn't take all that many spells to be able to smack anything, though. And a new player will have to keep looking through that list of spells, looking them up.


LogicNinja wrote:
(And what are you talking about anyway? The only thing the Swashbuckler has that's a Fighter bonus feat is Weapon Finesse, basically. The rest is unique class features. It's just really bad unique class features.)

The swashbuckler's "class features" are basically bonus feats, and should have been designed as such. Grace? Take Lightning Reflexes. Dodge? Take the dodge feat (which in Pathfinder even scales). Con damage? Take a level of rogue and one of those ambush feats. That's what I'm talking about. The swashbuckler isn't really a base class, it's a vague idea about how to build a lightly-armored fighter or fighter/rogue, which somebody at WotC then decided to turn into a new class, for no reason apparent to me.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Swashbuckler is basically a fighter who has his bonus feats selected for him. Ditto for the Samurai. Weaker? Well, maybe not necessarily

No.

Fighters get a ton of bonus feats. This makes them far more viable than either the swashbuckler or the samurai. The swashbuckler is good for a three-level dip, and only then for specific builds.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
The swashbuckler's "class features" are basically bonus feats, and should have been designed as such. Grace? Take Lightning Reflexes. Dodge? Take the dodge feat (which in Pathfinder even scales). Con damage? Take a level of rogue and one of those ambush feats. That's what I'm talking about.

Ambush feats weren't even published when they made Swashbuckler.

Grace does not do the same thing as Lightning Reflexes. The Swashbuckler's Dodge ability does not do the same thing as the Dodge feat (at the start, sure, but it gets 5x better, not that that saves the class).

Saying that the class features should've been designed as feats is one thing, but it's also kind of pointless in a discussion about the class as it is.

Kirth Gersen wrote:
The swashbuckler isn't really a base class, it's a vague idea about how to build a lightly-armored fighter or fighter/rogue, which somebody at WotC then decided to turn into a new class, for no reason apparent to me.

There's a difference between making these things feats (and thus available to everyone) and class features.

This argument makes no sense to me. If you're going to do that, why not make the Barbarian a series of feats (Rage, Damage Reduction, etc), the Paladin a series of feats, the Ranger a series of Rogue feats, the Bard a series of Sorcerer feats, the Monk a series of Fighter feats... in fact, why not just use the Generic Classes in UA?
And once you've gone that far, why not just use a classless system?

Dark Archive

LogicNinja wrote:

If you're going to do that, why not make the Barbarian a series of feats (Rage, Damage Reduction, etc), the Paladin a series of feats, the Ranger a series of Rogue feats, the Bard a series of Sorcerer feats, the Monk a series of Fighter feats... in fact, why not just use the Generic Classes in UA?

And once you've gone that far, why not just use a classless system?

Ooh, I've wanted the Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger and Monk to just be feat chains that a Fighter could pick and choose from for so long...

But it wouldn't really be D&D anymore. It would be True20. So I'll stop drooling and go back to stuff we *can* do and still call it 'D&D.'


LogicNinja wrote:
And once you've gone that far, why not just use a classless system?

Actually, as long as it's usable with Paizo adventures, that sounds ideal to me. I'll leave your awesome brilliance to illuminate how poorly benighted everyone else is, and go play that other game as soon as I get it tweaked. Thanks!


Set wrote:

Ooh, I've wanted the Barbarian, Paladin, Ranger and Monk to just be feat chains that a Fighter could pick and choose from for so long...

But it wouldn't really be D&D anymore. It would be True20. So I'll stop drooling and go back to stuff we *can* do and still call it 'D&D.'

So what exactly is the difference between playing a Barbarian and playing a Fighter who takes Rage feats?

(...what exactly is the difference between playing a Barbarian and playing a Fighter with the Weapon Focus/Spec line who roleplays getting really angry, anyway?)

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Actually, as long as it's usable with Paizo adventures, that sounds ideal to me. I'll leave your awesome brilliance to illuminate how poorly benighted everyone else is, and go play that other game as soon as I get it tweaked. Thanks!

For a bunch of guys who complains about people being mean to you and implying that you're dumb, you're awfully quick to be snarky and condescending around here.

If you prefer classless systems, great! Fine. D&D is the only class-based system I play (okay, that's not true, Weapons of the Gods is *slightly* class-based, in a way... but pretty much). I was not attacking classless systems, so you don't need to jump up to valiantly defend their honor. I wasn't attacking you for playing or liking classless systems.

But D&D is NOT a classless system. It's a heavily class-based system. Saying "I think they should take out the classes" is kind of like saying "I think they should take out the heroic stuff and make it WFRP" or "I think they should take out the wizards and magic and stuff."


LogicNinja wrote:
But D&D is NOT a classless system. It's a heavily class-based system. Saying "I think they should take out the classes" is kind of like saying "I think they should take out the heroic stuff and make it WFRP" or "I think they should take out the wizards and magic and stuff."

Correct... but my point regarding the Swashbuckler has still been missed, however. Most of the base classes represent archetypes. The swashbuckler, samurai, and scout don't represent new archetypes, however; they're minor variations of existing ones. Instead of necessarily "valiantly" defending classless systems, I was more remarking on the silliness of WotC's efforts to, in my view, do the equivalent of statting up an evoker as a totally separate class from a conjurer. (A somewhat inferior conjurer at that, as you pointed out.)

Edit: I'll be the first to admit I'm often snarky. Too much so, almost certainly, but it usually represents (badly failed) attempts at humor. Condescention? I can't come close to the likes of you and Frank, I don't think. Or -- if it seems I do -- here's an offer in good faith: point it out when I do so, and I'll either apologize or rectify it in some way, or at least provide an explanation. I try not to be a dick just to be doing it, but rather only in a response to direct attacks.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Correct... but my point regarding the Swashbuckler has still been missed, however. Most of the base classes represent archetypes. The swashbuckler, samurai, and scout don't represent new archetypes, however; they're minor variations of existing ones. Instead of necessarily "valiantly" defending classless systems, I was more remarking on the silliness of WotC's efforts to, in my view, do the equivalent of statting up an evoker as a totally separate class from a conjurer. (A somewhat inferior conjurer at that, as you pointed out.)

And the Paladin (Fighter/Cleric), Ranger (Fighter/Druid), Barbarian (angry Fighter), and Bard (Rogue/Sorcerer... with a lute!) aren't distinct archetypes anymore than the Swashbuckler is.

The D&D classes are not archetypes. Some are very broad (Rogue), while some are incredibly specific (Druid). Some are "pure" concepts (Wizard) while some are hybrids (Paladin). It's been that way ever since we developed past Fighting-Man, Thief, Priest, and Magic-User.


LogicNinja wrote:
The D&D classes are not archetypes. Some are very broad (Rogue), while some are incredibly specific (Druid). Some are "pure" concepts (Wizard) while some are hybrids (Paladin). It's been that way ever since we developed past Fighting-Man, Thief, Priest, and Magic-User.

Yeah, they grappled with the broad vs. narrow concept with the "sub-classes" in earlier editions. I certainly feel that your viewpoint is equally as valid as mine here. I guess it's a matter of personal preference, as to what degree of similarity to an existing class, vs. narrow focus on a specific idea, constitutes justification for a new class as opposed to a different build of a broader class.

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Edit: I'll be the first to admit I'm often snarky. Too much so, almost certainly, but it usually represents (badly failed) attempts at humor. ...

Rough day at the office?


Moff Rimmer wrote:
Rough day at the office?

Rough coupla weeks. Constant travel, long hours, unpleasant working conditions, and haven't seen my wife in a week now. Things are looking up, though. Thanks for the interest, Moff; you're a good friend, even if we haven't met in person yet!

Scarab Sages

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Moff Rimmer wrote:
Rough day at the office?
Rough coupla weeks. Constant travel, long hours, unpleasant working conditions, and haven't seen my wife in a week now. Things are looking up, though. Thanks for the interest, Moff; you're a good friend, even if we haven't met in person yet!

Thanks. LN has a tendency to get under your skin pretty easily. Just looking at the last few points, it almost looks like you two are arguing with each other while being on the same side of the argument. (Or perhaps closer than either one really realizes.)

Why not have class talent trees? That's basically what classes are anyway -- you have a BAB, good saves and bad saves. Each class has normal feats offered. Fill in with an appropriate talent tree and you have your class.

(And druid should be a modified cleric IMO.)

Anyone remember the days when a "bard" was a 10th level fighter, 10th level rogue and 10th level wizard before they could become a 1st level bard?


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Yeah, they grappled with the broad vs. narrow concept with the "sub-classes" in earlier editions. I certainly feel that your viewpoint is equally as valid as mine here. I guess it's a matter of personal preference, as to what degree of similarity to an existing class, vs. narrow focus on a specific idea, constitutes justification for a new class as opposed to a different build of a broader class.

What I'm trying to say is that regardless of your personal preference, D&D has chosen a model (a base class can be narrow *or* specific) and stuck with it, from the PHB on. If you don't like that model... well, tough luck, I guess, but complaining that they're still sticking to that model in splatbooks seems just like complaining that D&D isn't Warhammer Fantasy RP.


Moff Rimmer wrote:
Why not have class talent trees?

Talent trees?! That'd make D&D into a MOREPIG! ;)

Liberty's Edge

Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure, Companion, Lost Omens, Pawns, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I don't see much complication.

Scarab Sages

LogicNinja wrote:
Talent trees?! That'd make D&D into a MOREPIG! ;)

"MOREPIG"? Is that an acronym that I'm not familiar with? Sometimes it's hard for us oldtimers to keep up with you whippersnappers and your shortcuts...

;)

51 to 100 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Roleplaying Game / General Discussion (Prerelease) / Who agrees with me that the base classes are too complicated? All Messageboards