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


General Discussion (Prerelease)

1 to 50 of 144 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

See the above.

I mean, why is it that they simplified some things, and made the rest awfully more complicated?

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.

As it stays the amount of stuff for the classes are overkill.

I love how the combat rules and skill rules and feats are simplified. I playtested with the new combat rules (it rox), but none of my players were willing to read so much crunch to playtest the classes themselves.

Please continue in that vein for the classes please, keep it to 3 pages per class...


eh I like the new changes I have no issue with takeing up more space as long as it's put to good use and it has been.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I like the new classes as well.


As do I. Besides, it's not like every player has to read every class, if they don't want to. They only need to know how theirs works...


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

I'm really fond of the newly revised core classes. If nothing else, the changes brings them in-line with the power levels of the 20-level base classes released in the Complete series books and other publications.

Scarab Sages

I really like the changes - and the pagecount for the classes doesn't seem to be THAT high. Since P&P Roleplaying kind of requires reading I don't think to many players will see that as a bad thing - since much of the additional material are not rules the reader has to memorize but options of choice - like the sorcerer bloodlines. By the way, there will be no Warlock in the Pathfinder game since it is not OGL.


For me...

Complicated = Choices
Choices = Good

If I wanted to play a less complicated version of D&D, I'd be playing Basic D&D.

Grand Lodge

hogarth wrote:

For me...

Complicated = Choices
Choices = Good

If I wanted to play a less complicated version of D&D, I'd be playing Basic D&D.

Or 4E.

Really I like what they did to the classes as well. However, the only problem with the new classes is that if anything they will complicate issues at high levels. The consensus for the problem with high level play is that there are too many options, too many things to account for, too much paperwork.

The only way I could see impproving high level play would have been to reduce the number of abilities classes get.

As it is I think the new classes increase the enjoyability of playing in the sweet spot, but high level play is likely to be more complicated.


The rules are not something a player should feel the need to swallow in one gulp.

I'm playing a cleric in a Beta campaign, and I'm picking up the new rules as I go along. I just got to third level on Friday - that's when I first took a look at the 2nd level spells. I won't glance at the 3rd level spells until I hit 5th. There's little reason to. Most of the other players in the group seem to be taking the same approach.


[/snark] Oh no! We might have to *read* and put forth effort to figure out a few extra pages. What will we do? [/unsnark]

Seriously though, what is the current trend to avoid complexity? I mean I know there has always been a desire to make things easy to deal with, but why do people feel like they need things handed to them without putting forth mental effort?

I really don't mean to be rude, but one of the points of P&P games (or hopefully most games in general) is that they stimulate you mentally. Why is this a problem? Mental stimulation helps fend off things like alzheimer's. It helps expand the individual. It makes you more capable of coping with day-to-day problems and challenges. Why would a few extra pages of game info be a problem? (and quite frankly, the info given isn't all that complex)

<sorry ... pre-coffee posting as I prepare for a new semester of freshmen>


Ixancoatl wrote:
Seriously though, what is the current trend to avoid complexity? I mean I know there has always been a desire to make things easy to deal with, but why do people feel like they need things handed to them without putting forth mental effort?

Simplicity and elegance are admirable, too; sometimes things are unnecessarily complicated. I like the decent selection of sorcerer bloodlines, though.

Jon Brazer Enterprises

Evanta wrote:
I for one could do with a sorcerer with just maybe 3 bloodlines (maybe leave infernal to the warlock for example)

There is no warlock. Warlock is WotC. WotC doesn't have much that is open for other companies to use. So an infernal bloodline sorcerer is Pathfinder's version of a warlock.

I like the changes to the barbarian. Having an extraordinary ability that you can only do so many times a day is really dumb. With rage points, its just a matter of how long it lasts.


The thing to consider is that the pages dedicated to each class are not just crunch, abilities and numbers. There is also a good amount of semi-fluff, presenting the class and explaining in details each ability.
You could re-write each class in a digest, a short version which would probably fit on one single page. Many abilities can be summarized in a few words (ex: Sneak Attack 1d6, +1d6/2 levels).
Note that i don't recommend that at first contact with the class, as reading the whole thing is good for immersion in the class. But it can be done for further check, as a class log, handout or whatever.

Sovereign Court

I like the new classes and choices given, it also helps remove "dead levels".


Cylerist wrote:
I like the new classes and choices given, it also helps remove "dead levels".

Indeed. Good point.


I like the new versions, add options and some background depth (Bloodlines). Plus options for those who are not into animal companions, familiars, mounts, are also good. More options in core classes also reduce the PrC / Splatbook class insanity which invaded 3.5 in later stages. Of my 6 players, only one is PrClassing, the rest are digging the new core classes for now
(and that is actually simplifying, as you keep your PC options in a single book).

Scarab Sages

I also like the updates to the classes, and more options is good so every [your class here] doesn't feel too much like every other one.

The Exchange

Yeah, I like the new class versions also, so to sum up....
Looks like no one agrees. Of course there are some who do but maybe just not as much or they don't feel like posting or something.

Sovereign Court

DMcCoy1693 wrote:
Evanta wrote:
I for one could do with a sorcerer with just maybe 3 bloodlines (maybe leave infernal to the warlock for example)

There is no warlock. Warlock is WotC. WotC doesn't have much that is open for other companies to use. So an infernal bloodline sorcerer is Pathfinder's version of a warlock.

I like the changes to the barbarian. Having an extraordinary ability that you can only do so many times a day is really dumb. With rage points, its just a matter of how long it lasts.

I kind of agree that some of the classes in the Beta are perhaps too complicated. "Power points" for the barbarian and monk complicate things needlessly. If a player wants to deal with points or spell slots, they will probably want to play a caster or psionic character. The barbarian, as presented in the 3.5 PHB, is IMHO one of the most balanced classes in the book. It really didn't need tweaking. The monk really just needed some AC and offensive abilities similar to what the Pathfinder fighter got (maybe a full BAB and d10 hit dice as well). It ssems to be contradictive when you simplify things like combat maneuvers and buffs, yet add a layer of complexity to "simple" melee classes. I know some people like the points, and it gives more options, but I think simpler is definitely better in this case.


Evanta wrote:

See the above.

I mean, why is it that they simplified some things, and made the rest awfully more complicated?

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.

As it stays the amount of stuff for the classes are overkill.

I love how the combat rules and skill rules and feats are simplified. I playtested with the new combat rules (it rox), but none of my players were willing to read so much crunch to playtest the classes themselves.

Please continue in that vein for the classes please, keep it to 3 pages per class...

You always have the choice not to use things.

You dont like Infernal Sorcerers. Then don't allow them in your game. If you want to simplify it more then make all sorcerers Draconic origin. Think Barbarian rage is confusing? Just use rage points for rage duration and ignore the rage powers. The chooses are out there players dont have to take or use them. The game is as simple as you want it to be.

Sovereign Court

Ok, so most ppl here who post like the complexity.

IMO by level 12, the game still breaks down due to having too many options, so PRPG doesn't look like it'll fix the high-level problems.

My other concern is that with the current system, multiclassing will be a *huge* mess of abilities.

Oh well. Guess I might as well not allow any PRCs to keep things simpler.


Evanta wrote:

Ok, so most ppl here who post like the complexity.

IMO by level 12, the game still breaks down due to having too many options, so PRPG doesn't look like it'll fix the high-level problems.

I agree that high-level play is a problem. I don't know how to solve this other than hitting high-level spellcasters with the ol' nerf bat.

Sovereign Court

hogarth wrote:
Evanta wrote:

Ok, so most ppl here who post like the complexity.

IMO by level 12, the game still breaks down due to having too many options, so PRPG doesn't look like it'll fix the high-level problems.

I agree that high-level play is a problem. I don't know how to solve this other than hitting high-level spellcasters with the ol' nerf bat.

That, and giving a simpler, yet effective alternative for ititerative attacks.


Classes and Races are the part I like the least. They either change things that weren't so good for other things that are not better, or increase power for everyone instead of balancing out.

But the rest of the book has some very neat stuff.

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

Evanta wrote:

Ok, so most ppl here who post like the complexity.

IMO by level 12, the game still breaks down due to having too many options, so PRPG doesn't look like it'll fix the high-level problems.

My other concern is that with the current system, multiclassing will be a *huge* mess of abilities.

Oh well. Guess I might as well not allow any PRCs to keep things simpler.

My issues with high level play are not with " a *huge* mess of abilities" available to PCs especially since you will stick to your most effective options to the exclusion of those older now subpar abilities. My issue with High Level play has been more of organization and book keeping particularly for the DM.

For me High level play doesn't breakdown because player's have too many options but because bookkeeping all the bonuses gets to be a head ache. We've adopted buff sheets that track our most commonly used buff's.

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.

Liberty's Edge

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.

Hi Locke,

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

Scarab Sages

Evanta wrote:

See the above.

I mean, why is it that they simplified some things, and made the rest awfully more complicated?

I agree. On paper, the classes are more complicated than they were in 3.5.

In practice, they are about the same (assuming you start level 1 here and don't try to swallow everything at once), because you pick one level after the other, pick among the options as you go, bit by bit.

In the end, I think it looks daunting on paper (and that in itself is not a great thing) but plays out just fine. I insist on the daunting aspect of the text: that's not a detail. This is important for new players of the game.


Krome wrote:
hogarth wrote:

For me...

Complicated = Choices
Choices = Good

If I wanted to play a less complicated version of D&D, I'd be playing Basic D&D.

Or 4E.

Really I like what they did to the classes as well. However, the only problem with the new classes is that if anything they will complicate issues at high levels. The consensus for the problem with high level play is that there are too many options, too many things to account for, too much paperwork.

The only way I could see impproving high level play would have been to reduce the number of abilities classes get.

As it is I think the new classes increase the enjoyability of playing in the sweet spot, but high level play is likely to be more complicated.

Or 4e! *LOL* Now THAT'S funny!

On subject, I agree. The low and mid-level abilities for the classes are great. Upper-mid level and high level characters are going to NEED the 4-page character sheet (or 4e-like "[insert clever marketing name] cards") just to keep up with everything they can do. Maybe making some of these "options" and just increasing the potency or frequency of use of these options at higher levels would be better than giving so many abilities (or scaling slightly back on them altogether - do we really NEED an ability or boost in ability as a class feature on practically every level of most of the base classes!?).


I like the new classes!

One problem with Prestige Classes has been that there are so many that they are no longer "prestigious".

When you examine them, you realize many are just advanced versions of the base classes (an Archer), others are variations of the base clases (an Urban Druid) and what is left are the actual "Prestige Classes".

The new options in the Pathfinder base classes have made the "Advanced PrCs" part of the base class. You don't have to drop your base Rogue class to be a Trapmaster or a Sniper, you just select or create specific Rogue Talents. Most of the new classes have "Open options" that can be added to as the game contimues, although the Fighter could use those Tactical feats from most of the 3.5 books, but as they re not OGL, we will have to add them ourselves.

Variant classes can be done with substituting class abilities as seen in the Pathfinder Chronicles book.

And hopefully this will return the Prestige classes back to the orginal "prestigious" concept when we finally see them.


Certainly not me. Love every single change!

Liberty's Edge

I like the new classes with additional choices and customization. I also see class complication usually being in the build, and complication sort of "fades away" as play begins.

Points for the Barbarian's rage powers in playtest so far with my group has not been to any detrement. Personally, yes, I would prefer to avoid "power point"-based class mechanics and find a way to allow the Barbarian to choose other abilities to trigger with a rage besides using points...but at the moment it's pretty slick and confined to that one class, so I'll live.

-DM Jeff

Liberty's Edge

I don't think on a whole Pathfinder base classes are too complicated. However, what I think is missing is an introductory class. When introducing a new player to 3.5 D&D, I'd usually recommend they try either a barbarian or sorcerer. These two classes were self-explanatory and fun to play even with minimal knowledge of the rules. Playing an easily understood class meant the player had less to grasp when learning the game's other rules, like combat and skill use.

So it's a toss-up. The new sorcerer excites me but might intimidate a new player. But then leaving some classes mostly the way they were, like the Bard, leaves that class behind in the race.


I disagree with the main post.

Dark Archive

A few 'Iconic' characters written up using the class options as 'pre-gens' and examples of a complete generic character of that type might help break any perceived entry level barrier here.

If Seoni and Amiri and Sajan and Valeros are all statted up at 1st level, 4th level, etc. as examples of what a Sorcerer / Barbarian / Monk / Fighter of X level would look like with their particular choices already made, it might help to take some of the 'wall of text' factor away for new players.

That being said, I'm not sure that Pathfinder is marketed to 'new players,' so much as experienced 3.X gamers.

Still, there's no reason to not publish a few 'generic' sample characters to show how a Sorcerer of X level would look with a particular set of class selection. The different Iconics could even be handled at different levels. Perhaps one group of four would be shown at 1st level, a second group of four at 4th level and the last group of four at 8th level, to give a sense of what is possible without taking up tons of space on 1st, 4th, 8th, etc. versions of Valeros alone. (And additional level builds of each Iconic could be available online, either as company-generated, or, more likely, fan-generated builds, so that someone who wants to see what Ezren looks like at 4th, 8th, 12th, etc. levels, following his base 'generalist' build.)

Indeed, once the official Pathfinder RPG is out, I expect there to be many unofficial 'Pathfinderized' versions of classes like the Scout, Warlock, Psion, etc. to begin appearing in short order, and they'll no doubt have Pathfinder-esque 'Iconics' of their own posted up on the Wiki or some other fansite.


Laithoron wrote:
I'm really fond of the newly revised core classes. If nothing else, the changes brings them in-line with the power levels of the 20-level base classes released in the Complete series books and other publications.

Sorry, but... you're totally wrong on this.

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.

Ixancoatl wrote:

[/snark] Oh no! We might have to *read* and put forth effort to figure out a few extra pages. What will we do? [/unsnark]

Seriously though, what is the current trend to avoid complexity? I mean I know there has always been a desire to make things easy to deal with, but why do people feel like they need things handed to them without putting forth mental effort?

I remember that same kind of attitude coming from AD&D grognards. "Kids nowadays want it to be easy! Complicated rulebooks weed out the dumb ones!"

Confusing rulebooks that are difficult to get through, where things are hard to find, are not a good thing.

As a side note, "/" means you're closing a tag. You're looking for "[snark]" and "[/snark]".

Ixancoatl wrote:
I really don't mean to be rude, but one of the points of P&P games (or hopefully most games in general) is that they stimulate you mentally. Why is this a problem? Mental stimulation helps fend off things like alzheimer's. It helps expand the individual. It makes you more capable of coping with day-to-day problems and challenges. Why would a few extra pages of game info be a problem? (and quite frankly, the info given isn't all that complex)

Because I'm playing this game to have fun and digging through page after page of stuff to find the rule I'm looking for, or constantly looking stuff up, makes everything less fun.

Pretending that an overcomplicated rulebook is good because it "stimulates you mentally" and "helps expand the individual" is ridiculous. The game rules are there to help me run/play the game, not so I can sneer at people who don't enjoy leafing through RPG rulebook pages.

Also, because look at the new Barbarian. It has a wide array of potential abilities poorly balanced against each other, requires the player and the DM to track both points per day and points expended each round, and generally could do what it does far more simply. As is, it'll just make gameplay even slower--and having briefly tested the new Barbarian, it's not like it's more fun to run. You just spend a swift action for a bonus most rounds, and in return you complicate the game.

Scarab Sages

Could it be that the new base classes just seem complicated because they're, well, new? 3.5 has been with us forever, so long time players by now are going to see it as relatively simple, where these 'new' mechanics require *gasp* referencing the book. I don't know about you, but when I first learned 3.5 years ago, that was complicated as ****. Still is. Knowing the right spells, managing the feat trees, everything is still complicated. We've just learned to adapt.

The new class mechanics are just another piece. It really isn't any more complicated than the whole game has been so far, and so far, the changes have been loved by my players. Has our game slowed down? A bit, there's a lot of new material and we frequently check what's been changed. Will we adapt? Of course. I guarantee once it's out and we've had time with the changes, it will be second nature again, just like it used to be.

Dark Archive

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 wouldn't state it quite this strongly, but yeah, the splatbook classes are generally fairly weak. I'd rather play a Rogue than a Ninja any day, as Sneak Attack utterly owns Sudden Strike. A TWF or Archery Ranger schools a Scout with his Skirmish dice. The Complete Warrior classes were the worst of the lot, but even some of the later designs, such as the Dragon Shaman or Knight were fairly unimpressive compared to a Cleric or Barbarian.

The Warlock, Beguiler, Duskblade and Dread Necromancer all have totally cool 'gimmicks,' but they aren't true powerhouse classes, despite their specialized tricks (EB all day, diplomancy, Arcane Channel alpha strikes, vast hordes of undead) that nobody else can match.

And the Incarnum and Binder classes, unfortunately, seem only to exist as Feats to shape a specific meld or few levels taken to Bind Focalor or Naberius or whomever to abuse other classes mechanics, which still beats the Truenamer and Shadowcaster, which were DOA, despite their totally cool and evocative natures.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber

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...


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.

Dark Archive

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.

If you deliberately chose 'incite' instead of 'insight,' I salute you, because that was pretty clever wordplay. :)

But interpreting my claim that 'I'd rather play X than Y' as a condemnation of you, whom I don't know at all, and your tastes and preferences, which I know even less of, is granting me powers of omniscience I do not possess.

Unless I mention you, Laithoron, or respond to you, as I am doing now, it might be safe to assume that I'm not actually referring to you. When I specifically mention that *I'd* rather play a Rogue over a Ninja and feel that a Rogue's Sneak Attack is superior to a Ninja's Sudden Strike, or that a Warlock is an extremely cool one-trick pony (a dozen invocations and like *three* feats to modify them) compared to a Wizard (thousands of spell options and dozens of metamagic feats to modify them with), that's actually what I meant, that it's thematically cool, but not nearly up there with the Cleric/Druid/Wizard holy trinity, and the 'I' was intended as a personal pronoun, not an backhanded oblique reference to 'some other dude on the internet who goes by the alias Laithoron.'

Just wanted to clear that up, since when *you* say 'I,' you probably are referring to 'someone who goes by the alias Laithoron,' but I'm a completely different person, and I mean something different when I use that pronoun, and my statements of preference are not meant to invalidate anyone elses. I also like vanilla and chocolate, but do not deny that other people enjoy the taste of mint, nor is my liking of vanilla or chocolate meant to denigrate them, just as my preferences regarding the Druid and Wizard aren't meant to to invalidate your liking of Bards, of which I was, in my ignorance, quite unaware.

I've also enjoyed playing Bards, so your own powers of omniscience appear to be as faulty as my own. :)

Perhaps I should install some sort of camera in your brain, so that I never again make the terrible mistake of saying that I don't like something that you do like, and thus incurring the sting of your singular wit, as you are urged to retaliate at my unthinking hubris of believing that I could have an opinion that differed from yours.


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
Set wrote:
If you deliberately chose 'incite' instead of 'insight,' I salute you, because that was pretty clever wordplay. :)

Actually I was replying to LogicNinja, but since I was in a hurry to leave for work I didn't use the quote function (for once).

Sadly it would seem like saving a minute or so on my end, cost You a few. Truth be told, I'm not sure Your post had even shown up yet when I hit the reply button... :-\

At any rate, the word-play was intentional, thanks for catching that. :)


Pathfinder Rulebook Subscriber
LogicNinja wrote:
"Good levels of power"? Depends on how you look at it.

One of the ways in which I look at this is to consider the spectrum of encounters (social, hazard, combat, or otherwise) in which a character of a given class remains can have a significant impact. Maybe it's just the way I build or multi-class my characters, maybe it's the sorts of modules/encounters those characters find themselves in, but in my experience, I found those 3 classes (plus the bard, ranger and cleric) to be the classes most likely to remain significant in any given type of encounter.

Now if we are just speaking in terms of raw combat power then I'll have to admit that I was approaching the matter from a different viewpoint.


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

WoTC


I like the way the new classes are set up. What remains to be seen is if all of them are relevant/useful at higher-level play.

Sovereign Court

I like the revised core classes. Ever look at core classes from other books? With a few exceptions, most of them are pretty "complicated." And that's what makes them so darn fun! The class descriptions will be as long as they need to be. ;)

Sovereign Court

The Authority wrote:
Evanta wrote:
Who agrees with me that the base classes are too complicated?
WoTC

Well said!

Scarab Sages

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

I like the new classes, as well. I don't mind additional choices and ways to develop characters- especially for classes that were considered weak or boring in 3.5.

Liberty's Edge

LogicNinja wrote:
a bunch of condescending and insulting stuff

dude, seriously, read some dale carnegie.

RPG Superstar 2011 Top 32

Sorry, cannot agree. I like the classes as they're presented, especially the choices for the Sorcerer (which I pondered for days, coming up with the best conversion for my gal). I've not hit anything yet that I'd consider too complicated.

Sovereign Court

Simplicity is the way that 4th edition went where every character class does one or two things and that's all you can do with them. It wouldn't make sense to oversimplify the classes. Plus a lot of what you seem to talk about is just the options you have to take, which isn't complicating things but letting you make the character you want.

1 to 50 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