I think they'll do Psion, Psychic Warrior and Wilder, but not soulknife - that one is a feat chain disguising as a class.With apologies for the thread derailment. . .
what do you mean by "feat chain disguising as a class"?
I mean that while the concept of a weapon made up of mental energy is really cool, it is not enough to justify being a whole class.
Look at the class: what is there, really?
The mindblade mechanic itself: Create a shortsword with your mind
Some improvements on the mindblade, make it use a different weapon, throw it - stuff that copies existing items and/or magic abilities
Some actions you can use with your mind blade that copy existing feats.
Enhancement bonuses to the mind blade - basically stuff that emulates magic items.
extra damage when you "charge" the mind blade - something that is a lot like psionic weapon. Now, if you turn the mind blade into a feat that lets you manifest a, say, light martial weapon with your psionic power (would be a psionic feat), focussed on some item (let's say a crystal), and say you can treat it like a normal weapon made out of wood or metal, and can even have it enchanted by enchanting that focus crystal, you have one feat that eliminates most class features:
The core mechanic is a feat
You can use feats like whirlwind attack as normal
you can get enhancement bonuses as normal
You can get psionic weapon as normal The only thing that doesn't quite work yet is the shape mind blade feature, and that can be solved with another faet or two.
Thanks for the response. I wasn't attacking you; I just didn't understand what you meant. I do now.
By the bye, my first 3e character was/is a soulknife. . . I liked the concept a lot, worked well with my idea of the character's backstory. The only thing that killed it for me was that, at some point, I realized I was playing a veiled, fantasy-esque jedi.
To return to the thread's purpose. . .I really can't guess what classes will be announced. My familiarity with the game is so very limited. I played about nine sessions with one group over the course of two years and (they tell me) they aren't playing anymore.
i hope for artificer, arcane warrior of some type,monk,psionic
i know they'll get around to the rest
|
Based on what's been said here and elsewhere by the Paizo staff I would say that most things point towards a book will be announced with the 4 base classes. High level/epic play is very unlikely since it's base classes and not prestige classes. Bestiary II is also unlikely since Bestiary I is not even out yet, and also I find it hard to believe that they would put base classes in a bestiary. So of these four a psionics book or a monster character book seems most likely. Since they are announcing it during GenCon this seems to indicate that the new book will add a new element of rules to the game, which actually is true for both books. However, from what I can tell interest seems higher for a psionics book, which is why I think that's what they will be announcing during GenCon. Also, since they are doing an announcement this way I also think that they will subject the new psionics rules to an open playtest similar to the one for the core rulebook, although not as big. That's my prediction, but what do I know...So, consensus on predictions?
High Level/Epic Play
Psionics
Monster Characters/Savage Species
Bestiary II(and onwards)
?
Oh no, those weren't predictions of what books these classes would be turning up in. They were part of that tangent going for a while, guessing exactly what new rulebooks were likely to be in the pipeline.
My guesses: Warlock, Swashbuckler, Scout and Assassin..why? 'cos that's what I want to see ;)
I want a psionic handbook, but I would like to see the Beguiler, the Binder/Pact Mage, The Duskblade, and the Dragon Shaman.
|
The argument that we shouldn't have assassins because a rogue can do it is a fine point... for a game that isn't D&D/PRPG with numberous classes that are variations on a theme. Sadly, that is not the case since we ARE talking about D&D/PRPG.
D&D, which seems to think that the Sorcerer and Wizard are valid as seperate classes, *should* have room for more than one skilled surgical combatant. It's got enough room for two divine-caster/fighter hybrids (Paladins and Rangers), after all.
|
|
1. Akashic2. Blackguard
3. Scout (Harrier)
4. Avenger
I wouldn't put your hopes on the Scout. I believe Mr. Mona has said elsewhere in this thread (or somewhere on the boards) that the Scout steps on the Ranger's toes a bit too much. Swap Cavalier for Scout and that'll be the four I'm hoping for, other than the psionic ones.
1. Akashic
I like the idea of an Akashic slightly reimangined to be like a cross between the Dungeonscape Factotum and Dragon Compendium Savant. They can use delves into the akashic record to temporarily "fill in" for Seoni, Valeros, etc without being able to do it all day long. Spell Memory could be remodelled to be more like the Factotum Spells. Skill memory to be more like the Savant's Academic lore, etc.[...]
4. Avenger
In concept but not execution, kinda like the 4e cleric/rogue class of the same name. In the absence of an assassin class, this might just be the next best thing.
Edit:
Can you tell me some more about these two classes and the Cavalier? What are they? From what books?I hope for some totaly new classes.
Me I like the divine agent concept, "the concept but not execution".
I would make it a divin caster with full spell progression, more skill points, and with skills like bluff, diplomacy, sence motive, survival, perception, liguistics, Climb, Swim, more knowledge skill, etc. and some SPA and BAB 3/4. Perhaps no channeling.
I also liked the Fiend slayer, "the concept but not execution".
Edit: Can you tell me some more about these two classes and the Cavalier? What are they? From what books?
Akashic: From Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved alternative PHB. There is a preview at his website:
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_MCAE_Akashic
Avenger: A "Divine Striker" from the 4th edition Player's Handbook 2. They use 4e-style divine powers to deal extreme damage to a single foe.
Thanx. And the Cavalier?
|
Thanx. And the Cavalier?Edit: Can you tell me some more about these two classes and the Cavalier? What are they? From what books?
Akashic: From Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved alternative PHB. There is a preview at his website:
http://www.montecook.com/cgi-bin/page.cgi?mpress_MCAE_Akashic
Avenger: A "Divine Striker" from the 4th edition Player's Handbook 2. They use 4e-style divine powers to deal extreme damage to a single foe.
It's the mounted knight archetype. Originally a 1E Unearthed Arcana class, it is similar to a non-divine Paladin. Latest version has been done by 3PP such as Green Ronin.
"Peasant Hero" ... although I kind of agree with Bulmahn. A commoner that becomes a hero has (in certain interpretations of game terms) long since left his Commoner level behind and become something else instead.
In most cases, it seems generally perceived that one transitions from Commoner to [core class/base class] at the beginning of play, subsuming one's peon roots.
This is actually an interesting problem. If your PC had 10 levels of Commoner, there would be no hope of catching up no matter how you multi-classed levels 11-20. There ought to be a way to cash in those Commoner levels for class levels, maybe 2:1 or 3:2, so eventually you're fully PC.
For the "dumb luck" that Erik Mona had in mind, why not create a new class to express the concept? The Clod comes to mind. Or why not make it a feat chain so PCs also have access to dumb luck?
In my opinion, both commoner and noble are backgrounds, not classes.
|
"Peasant Hero" ... although I kind of agree with Bulmahn. A commoner that becomes a hero has (in certain interpretations of game terms) long since left his Commoner level behind and become something else instead.
In most cases, it seems generally perceived that one transitions from Commoner to [core class/base class] at the beginning of play, subsuming one's peon roots.
True. A 20-level Commoner class makes no sense.
I accept that some people get born into a rotten deal, but any Commoner1 who bops 10 goblins on the head while defending his farm, and earns the requisite 1000xp, is not going to cash in those xp for another level of Commoner.He's going to get noticed by the local baron, and inducted into the army as a Fighter. Or pick something else of his own choice. Hey, if PCs can suddenly decide that they're taking levels as a spellcaster, why not him?
Even if you restrict him to NPC classes, why not take Warrior or Expert?
(I'd also consider making any NPC class favoured for all races, to reflect that they're so simple and common. So an extra hp or skill point in PFRPG, and no xp penalty in 3.5, for the peasant turned squire, who takes up his master's profession.)
If WotC was still putting out 3.5 books, most of us would probably still be buying them and PFRPG may never have been realized. The only thing that really disenchanted us with WotC was the fact that they created a new edition (about three years too soon) and most of us don't really care for it.
Actually, I grew tired of their new releases even before they ever announced 4e. I got some of them, but not at full price.
And for the record: The thing that really disenchanted me with wotc is the way how they treat their former fans, and how they fired those fans. Producing a game that is neither D&D nor a roleplaying game and selling it as such was bad enough, but the crap they pulled off ever since they announced 4e is what did it for me.
Oh, and the murder of the Forgotten Realms.
Thanks for the response. I wasn't attacking you; I just didn't understand what you meant. I do now.
I never thought you attacked me. I suspected you wanted an explanation, so I gave one. No problem here.
By the way: I tried my hand at the soulknife feats. Check them out here
(I'd also consider making any NPC class favoured for all races, to reflect that they're so simple and common. So an extra hp or skill point in PFRPG, and no xp penalty in 3.5, for the peasant turned squire, who takes up his master's profession.)
That's a good idea, although I'm probably not going to use favored classes. The rule constrains your character concept and feels like a holdover from the arbitrary level limits of AD&D. It doesn't really do anything for balance, and it feels like someone telling me which class to play.
I still haven't predicted anything. I'll go with Watcher and predict some kind of crafter class (probably wishful thinking; I'd like to see some changes to really blow the roof off the Craft skill).
Blackguard.
Hm. Someone said Jester. (Definitely wishful thinking :)
I wouldn't be surprised if the Pathfinder Chronicler got promoted to a base class.
I want a psionic handbook, but I would like to see the Beguiler, the Binder/Pact Mage, The Duskblade, and the Dragon Shaman.
The Duskblade and Beguiler are easily playable as-is. There's really no reason to create Patherfinder versions of them. They're part of the reason why Piazo made the core classes better.
I never played the other two so I'm not sure what their power level is.
|
|
Thanks for the response. I wasn't attacking you; I just didn't understand what you meant. I do now.
I never thought you attacked me. I suspected you wanted an explanation, so I gave one. No problem here.
By the way: I tried my hand at the soulknife feats. Check them out here
Dreamscarred Press beat you to it by several months.
Oh, and the murder of the Forgotten Realms.That is the number 1 reason I am here
Dreamscarred Press beat you to it by several months.
Possible, though I did create this some time ago. I think it was around the time when the Paizo community use policy was released.
|
I wholly disagree about the Scout stepping on the Ranger's toes. The game needs a mobile woodsman that's not using spells. It could be done through an option that gives up Ranger spells in exchange for something else, though, if that were preferred. Also, I'd like to see some other option instead of animal companion, now that I'm thinking of a toolkit approach (and the 'urban ranger' is such a cool idea, but so dull in UA).
|
I'm not sure why anyone would ever stat out a commoner though. If they don't die, or at least fall unconcious with one hit, they probably aren't a commoner...unless they happen to be wearing a mithril shirt as in Frodo's case. I've always thought about playing one though just for the heck of it.
My idea was to build in death-averting powers for higher-level commoners such as "dumb luck" or "destined" or something, but nobody really bit on it. Jason's contention that the classes should be easy for GMs to use on the fly ultimately won the day, and it frankly wasn't even that difficult of a fight.
One of my favourite moments of gaming was when I came across the 'Press-ups make you bulletproof' ability for Marines in the SG-1 game.
|
|
If WotC was still putting out 3.5 books, most of us would probably still be buying them and PFRPG may never have been realized. The only thing that really disenchanted us with WotC was the fact that they created a new edition (about three years too soon) and most of us don't really care for it.Actually, I grew tired of their new releases even before they ever announced 4e. I got some of them, but not at full price.
And for the record: The thing that really disenchanted me with wotc is the way how they treat their former fans, and how they fired those fans. Producing a game that is neither D&D nor a roleplaying game and selling it as such was bad enough, but the crap they pulled off ever since they announced 4e is what did it for me.
Oh, and the murder of the Forgotten Realms.
Easy on the bad vibes, dude. We don't wanna start another forum for that kind of stuff (though the FR thing I tend to agree on but it's an opinion of course).
I do also have to say I agree with your sentinment of being bored with their products. One thing they DID come out with though at the end that had me actually STOKED was the Magic Item Compendium. That book is STILL smexy as crap. Also brought back a non sucky version of my favorite weapon property EVER ... Vampiric. Can't hate Wizards for that.
However what Paizo did with the Ring of Regeneration is equally hawt. Good times.
On a personal note with core classes, I'd rather see variants put out then too many more core classes. Hell I think the Paladin could quite easily be turned into a Blackguard or Anti-Paladin with a variant setup. Ranger can easily cover Scout with variant setup. Fighter could cover Samurai, Rogue cover Ninja, etc etc. That's just my opinion though.
I wholly disagree about the Scout stepping on the Ranger's toes. The game needs a mobile woodsman that's not using spells. It could be done through an option that gives up Ranger spells in exchange for something else, though, if that were preferred.
how about you drop the spells for trapfinding?
|
|
I wholly disagree about the Scout stepping on the Ranger's toes. The game needs a mobile woodsman that's not using spells. It could be done through an option that gives up Ranger spells in exchange for something else, though, if that were preferred.how about you drop the spells for trapfinding?
All the spells in exchange for just trapfinding? That seems like a poor trade, to me.
|
|
All the spells in exchange for just trapfinding? That seems like a poor trade, to me.I wholly disagree about the Scout stepping on the Ranger's toes. The game needs a mobile woodsman that's not using spells. It could be done through an option that gives up Ranger spells in exchange for something else, though, if that were preferred.how about you drop the spells for trapfinding?
How about taking 1 level of rogue for trapfinding and then the rest ranger using the variant rules in complete warrior.
|
|
How about taking 1 level of rogue for trapfinding and then the rest ranger using the variant rules in complete warrior.All the spells in exchange for just trapfinding? That seems like a poor trade, to me.I wholly disagree about the Scout stepping on the Ranger's toes. The game needs a mobile woodsman that's not using spells. It could be done through an option that gives up Ranger spells in exchange for something else, though, if that were preferred.how about you drop the spells for trapfinding?
So, uh ... have I mentioned lately that the next issue of Kobold Quarterly might have something that might be right up your alley?
Just sayin' ... :)
How about taking 1 level of rogue for trapfinding and then the rest ranger using the variant rules in complete warrior.All the spells in exchange for just trapfinding? That seems like a poor trade, to me.I wholly disagree about the Scout stepping on the Ranger's toes. The game needs a mobile woodsman that's not using spells. It could be done through an option that gives up Ranger spells in exchange for something else, though, if that were preferred.how about you drop the spells for trapfinding?How about skirmish with the serial number filed off...
MOBILE AMBUSH
Class: Ranger
Level: 4th, 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level.
Replaces: Spells
Starting at 4th level, a ranger who moves more than 10 feet away from where he started his turn can use his sudden movement to attack from a surprise angle. Attacks that he makes before the end of his turn deal an extra 1d4 points of damage. This damage only applies against targets that are within 30 feet. At 8th, 12th, 16th, and 20th level this extra damage increases by an additional 1d4 points.
I like the skirmish idea to go along with trapfinding in a replacement for spells
How about skirmish with the serial number filed off...
Rangers already do precision damage from favored enemy. Granting a second type of precision damage doesn't make any sense. If you want to do something like this you should replace favored enemy rather than replacing non-combat/ utility abilities.
|
|
They only plan three PFRPG books a year but if demand is high, I'm sure that they can put out more without destroying their reputation.
Not sure about it. As it seems, they're already working as hard as they can just to do those product lines already available. As more rules products would add to their workload, they probably had to hire additional staff members (and as Vic or Lisa stated some time ago they do not want to become really big, so this seems improbable), or they would have to cut on other product lines. Which is exactly the scenario some of us don't want to become a reality.
Because that's what actually disenchanted me with WotC. That they seem to have stopped to care for worldbuilding, storytelling and generally for high quality background material.. and quite frankly, I don't want to repeat this experience.
I wholly disagree about the Scout stepping on the Ranger's toes. The game needs a mobile woodsman that's not using spells.
Use rogue. He can do it. Or ignore the spells. Maybe talk the GM into getting an extra bonus feat or two out of it. BAM! Problem solved.
As for the mobile part: That's a rules problem. Classes should not fix rules problems. The rules themselves should do that. From what I've heard, the Vital Strike feats are supposed to do that.
If they don't, let's use our heads and fix it ourselves. But not with a class, but with a change to the combat rules, or maybe with a bunch of feats.
No, really: Beyond this "If I move I become better", what does the scout really have? Nothing really. There's the ranger who can do it all. Even the move part, if the feats fix it.
(the real Anti-paladin is something I need since I started playing 3e)
What is that one supposed to be like? I'm not familiar with the old anti-paladin rules (or they're the ones I remember, where they are an exact opposite).
Couldn't this be done with the blackguard? Or a variant paladin?
Easy on the bad vibes, dude.
Nah, that was just opinion. If I started bad vibes, you'd know it.
I wholly disagree about the Scout stepping on the Ranger's toes. The game needs a mobile woodsman that's not using spells. It could be done through an option that gives up Ranger spells in exchange for something else, though, if that were preferred. Also, I'd like to see some other option instead of animal companion, now that I'm thinking of a toolkit approach (and the 'urban ranger' is such a cool idea, but so dull in UA).
I'd go with ranger options. Similarly, I'd like paladin options to downplay divine magic in exchange for other paladin-flavored hero-saves-the-day abilities. Although a scout class is not terribly bad, certainly much better than a cavalier.
Rangers already do precision damage from favored enemy.
Not any more. Unless they have left out some writing in beta they're going to put back in, the favoured enemy bonuses are regular bonuses now.
As for the mobile part: That's a rules problem. Classes should not fix rules problems. The rules themselves should do that. From what I've heard, the Vital Strike feats are supposed to do that.
If they don't, let's use our heads and fix it ourselves. But not with a class, but with a change to the combat rules, or maybe with a bunch of feats.
No, really: Beyond this "If I move I become better", what does the scout really have? Nothing really. There's the ranger who can do it all. Even the move part, if the feats fix it.
That makes a lot of sense.
How about skirmish with the serial number filed off...Rangers already do precision damage from favored enemy. Granting a second type of precision damage doesn't make any sense. If you want to do something like this you should replace favored enemy rather than replacing non-combat/ utility abilities.
but I believe the issue was getting rid of the ranger's spell casting ability which I agree with
Well just putting in my two CP into the frey.
I think their is way too much overthinking the what the new classes will be. For me I perfer more classes or 'base' classes to make them distinct from 'core' classes. Now, unless the announcement is in 2010 well see Psionics or OA, in which case it'll be a very diffenrt list here is a a list what I think will make it and why.
1. Cavalier Mainly because there have been rumors that Jason was working aon such a class. Personally I like GR version of the class because they sort of went away from only the "Knight" concept gave a universal mounted warrior type. Since I have a Knight class I like, this fit in well.
2. Anti-Palladin/Blackguard: Again because of rumors and because its the one class that may or may not be needed but would filla and satisfy the 'cool' factor that I think alot of the staff at Paizo seem to enjoy when making anything.
3.Mystic: I think for the most part Paizo will stay away from re-doing, updating, or otherwise doing most classes from Wizards, however the Mystic was very well done and concived in Dragonlance, it really needs to be updated, and it fills the spon. Divine Caster which isn't core. Myabe it'll be a differnt name, but its needed.
4. Tinker, forget Emberons artificer I doubt it'd work (look at the setting, remember we are talking base not core)rail trains run on magic just dosen't seem right. Now WoWC wouldn't fit either, in fact pazio goblins on a zepplin, well lets just say they wouldn't be in the air long. On the other hand tech dose exist, and anyone 'tinkering' with it might justify a whole class. Moreover tech rules would be a nice addition and fill a nich.
What would I like to see done, well a lot of what's already been said. But I'd like an update to classes I use all the time such as....
Knight
Archer
Noble
Tinker
Mystic
But I think I can update them myself, if I ever had time.
TTFN DRE
|
|
1. Akashic
I like the idea of an Akashic slightly reimangined to be like a cross between the Dungeonscape Factotum and Dragon Compendium Savant. They can use delves into the akashic record to temporarily "fill in" for Seoni, Valeros, etc without being able to do it all day long. Spell Memory could be remodelled to be more like the Factotum Spells. Skill memory to be more like the Savant's Academic lore, etc.
A Golarion-flavored Factotum variation could be a Shoanti 'Speaker for the Dead' sort of Ancestral Speaker class, that, instead of just pooping out whatever skillset/class ability subset was required, channeled the spirits of ancestors who temporarily filled him with the abilities of the appropriate class.
Alternately, a Gebbite version could collect the skulls of the dead and contact the same 'shadow of the soul' that Speak with the Dead contacts to tap into the abilities / skills of those individuals.
Either would be a very flavorful Factotum sort of deal, able to temporarily use lower level class abilities from others, under limited circumstances.
Okay, how about half-crank then? Dedication and respect for the game is very admirable but there's nothing wrong with making money either. It's not like they have to spit out crap. They only plan three PFRPG books a year but if demand is high, I'm sure that they can put out more without destroying their reputation. If WotC was still putting out 3.5 books, most of us would probably still be buying them and PFRPG may never have been realized. The only thing that really disenchanted us with WotC was the fact that they created a new edition (about three years too soon) and most of us don't really care for it.No disrespect Frogboy, but I think it would be harmful to "crank" anything out..
It's like a sugar rush, eventually you crash. In this case it wouldn't be Paizo's energy level, it would be their reputation. That really means a lot.
I read these boards all the time, and there is a lot of trust placed in Paizo as a publisher to deliver quality materials. I'm not going to bash WOTC to any great extent (and I buy some stuff from them too), but that continues to be a problem that haunts them.
I think don't think there is anything foolish about knowing your limitations, in the context of; "If we can't deliver a quality product within this timeframe, it's going to have to wait until we can."
....and what they did to Forgotten Realms. That was the biggest thing that chapped my hide!
Sensible stuff about NPC classes, specifically commonersYeah, we've been using commoner/expert/aristocrat as single-level classes since 2000. 2nd level commoner? with 3e's (then) shiney new multiclassing? Pffft.
Aside: With that in place, I've long toyed with the idea of replacing the first level of Aristocrat with the first level of Noble (from the Dragonlance Campaign Setting) to make it a playable 1-level "dip" for "son of the baron" types. Favours and skills and lots of starting cash in exchange for losing a level of your class. Maybe something similar for experts too. Never actually tried it out though.
We've had at least 2 players take 1 level of noble (Mongoose version) at first level for back ground reasons and it worked quite well. I've seen a social focused rogue work pretty well for this as well. Bard can do the job if for some characters too. A marshal can be used for this also.
How about skirmish with the serial number filed off...Rangers already do precision damage from favored enemy. Granting a second type of precision damage doesn't make any sense. If you want to do something like this you should replace favored enemy rather than replacing non-combat/ utility abilities.
IIRC favored enemy bonus damaged stopped being precision damage with 3.5.
Well that's just plain incorrect (in Beta). However I do concede that having two kinds of *situational* damage bonus is a bit silly, which I think is what you really meant.
Rangers already do precision damage from favored enemy. Granting a second type of precision damage doesn't make any sense.
Oh dear I made a terminology blunder... what shall I do!
If you want to do something like this you should replace favored enemy rather than replacing non-combat/ utility abilities.Funny you should mention that... we long-since replaced favoured enemy with the damage-portion of skirmish for rangers in our games. Favoured Enemy has been a pet-hate since 2e because it is so DM/campaign dependent. It counts as "unfun" for us.
Upgrade to a ranger friendly GM? It's a big part of the GMs contract with the players to help them build characters that are effective in a given campaign. You might check out the Adventure Paths, the players guides really give the players the sort of background they need to make effective characters that will fit into a setting. Rangers a blast to play with just a little clue in from the GM.