|
Rather than new base classes, I'd MUCH rather see ways to expand the roles of existing classes to take their place, through variant class features, new rogue talents, etc. Don't add a swashbuckler class -- add variant fighter class features to make a swashbuckler out of a fighter! Unearthed Arcana was worth its weight in gold for things like the druidic avenger, the battle sorcerer, the bardic sage, and the prestige paladin.
I really like the idea of alternate class features as well...ESPECIALLY for monks!!
But, frankly, I think the idea that prestige classes are patches is a bit silly.
When I say "patch", I'm talking about something which is stitched onto something else to fix or modify it. In other words, any mechanic which you apply to a core class to change its direction or make it work the way you want it to. Prestige classes, yes, but also replacement levels or class variants.
This is a robust approach because it allows 11 core classes to roughly model many, many archetypes (that is, many more than the ones they can on their own).
It has limitations, however, in that it requires you to build towards what you want rather than just playing it from the start. If paladin were a prestige class, for instance, you couldn't be "just a paladin". You would also have to be a fighter, or a cleric, or what have you.
But, frankly, I think the idea that prestige classes are patches is a bit silly.When I say "patch", I'm talking about something which is stitched onto something else to fix or modify it. In other words, any mechanic which you apply to a core class to change its direction or make it work the way you want it to. Prestige classes, yes, but also replacement levels or class variants.
This is a robust approach because it allows 11 core classes to roughly model many, many archetypes (that is, many more than the ones they can on their own).
It has limitations, however, in that it requires you to build towards what you want rather than just playing it from the start. If paladin were a prestige class, for instance, you couldn't be "just a paladin". You would also have to be a fighter, or a cleric, or what have you.
I agree. I think that EK is a "patch" prestige class making 2 classes that don't 'normally' work together, work together. As opposed to the structure of a lot of other P-Classes which function more for taking a class(es)in a particularly defined flavor direction similar to what 'kits' did in 2nd ed.
'Patch' P-Classes don't interest me as much as the latter and, IMO, is better served in a base class with its own flavor.
|
|
I am interested to see the Runeblade from Monte Cook. Thats my thoughts. Instead of giving the class the ability to case spells, I would chnage it so they could enchant their weapon temporarily, give them mage armor abilities and some other stuff. I would not want a fighter/mage per seI don't really understand the call for a g*** class. That's a concept that's already really well covered, especially with the boosts to Eldritch Knight.While despising the term the other posters are using for a fighter/mage, I can understand the interest in something beyond the Eldritch Knight. It's not very flavorful, for one thing. Even the Mystic Theurge has more interesting class features. Just diverse training, a few combat feats, and spellcasting advancement isn't all that interesting, if you ask me. Functional, yes, but not flavorful. If there were other precursor abilities before Spell Critical, or a way to enhance one's sword, it would be more interesting.
The Spellblade in Tome of Secrets is more along the lines of what I'm thinking, but that's lacking somewhat, too. What I can't really say for certain right now, but it just doesn't feel quite "right" either.
Runes are cool, Especially if you could use them to enhance your allies. Temporarily boost weapons & armor, grant bonuses or penalties to objects. Imagine putting a Brittle Rune (Shatter) on a wall and then hitting it with the hammer you have just imbued with the Adamantine Rune. This could actually be a feat line or class alternates that have requirements.
Also on that front, an "Alchemist" similar to those from Full Metal Alchemist would be pretty cool as well.
I've spent a fair bit of time mulling over the concept of a FMA "alchemist".
Basically, they're transmuters. They can all cast "polymorph any object" at will. Except that their laws for transmutation are much more stringent than the "it's magic!" rules in D&D (which bypass conservation of law and energy).
The laws they have to work within are nuanced and interesting, with lots of potential for both specialization and improvisation, but they're based on physic. They aren't at -all- game-friendly.
Powers in D&D usually have pre-determined costs and pre-determined benefits. "I want to change the carbon density of his exoskeleton so that his diamond shell becomes as soft as pencil led" is not the kind of thing that players are encouraged to say.
You'd need a whole new paradigm for handling player abilities.
On an equally tangental note, I've already half-written a class for rune-mages for my game, and it's actually a lot like what Xaaon just described.
My girlfriend is going to play one (as a grailwarden dwarf) in our upcoming Ptolus game.
I think that the reason to make different classes rather then sticking with prestige classes largely depends on the campaign setting. For Oriental campaigns might need something like Samurai or Shugenja as Fighter or Cleric aren't all that appropriate (Wu Jen would probably be an easy mod to Wizard). Duelist might cover a regular old D&D campaign, but Swashbuckler would be better for an Age of Sail game. Some classes might be good additions. For instance the Inquisitor could work in the Age of Sail and Gothic Horror settings.
|
|
I've spent a fair bit of time mulling over the concept of a FMA "alchemist".
Basically, they're transmuters. They can all cast "polymorph any object" at will. Except that their laws for transmutation are much more stringent than the "it's magic!" rules in D&D (which bypass conservation of law and energy).
The laws they have to work within are nuanced and interesting, with lots of potential for both specialization and improvisation, but they're based on physic. They aren't at -all- game-friendly.
Powers in D&D usually have pre-determined costs and pre-determined benefits. "I want to change the carbon density of his exoskeleton so that his diamond shell becomes as soft as pencil led" is not the kind of thing that players are encouraged to say.
You'd need a whole new paradigm for handling player abilities.
That would be easy enough in setting level based limits. Maximum volumes for material affected, max damage for attacks, modify objects hardness/HP bonuses based upon level. AC bonuses, etc...
Keep in mind that both Ed and Al, were exceptional...Leira was a one trick pony when she first appeared...I would not allow reactions without circles for players, they would have to create their arrays which would take a minimum of a move action for a minor array that didn't give any bonuses...while larger more intricate arrays would give bonuses...
|
|
I think that the reason to make different classes rather then sticking with prestige classes largely depends on the campaign setting. For Oriental campaigns might need something like Samurai or Shugenja as Fighter or Cleric aren't all that appropriate (Wu Jen would probably be an easy mod to Wizard). Duelist might cover a regular old D&D campaign, but Swashbuckler would be better for an Age of Sail game. Some classes might be good additions. For instance the Inquisitor could work in the Age of Sail and Gothic Horror settings.
But, they can easily be handled as alternate class abilities. Instead of Weapon Training, you get Family Daisho for a Samurai.
You take ninja talents instead of rogue talents.
Shugenja and Wu-Jen could be defined by their spell lists and the domains/schools they choose...
Prestige Classes are not really needed...I understand where they're from and how they work...but I think you can do everything with alternate class abilities.
"Conceptually and mechanically new and different" can be hard to pin down. If you read it strictly many of the core classes aren't needed: druid, paladin, barbarian, and monk. Read it loosely and people might see a class variant as quite different.(Personally I'd like to see a base class focused around becoming a beast/monster, either or both shapeshifting and gaining permanent changes. This would be different from a sorcerer because the concept doesn't call for spellcasting.)
Yes, it's walking a bit of a tightrope, like trying to define art versus pornography, there's no clear-cut definition, but I feel like I know it when I see it. (Also, it's too late, but I think the monk and BBN should have been prcs) Conversely, taking a really liberal approach is equally bad as we'll end up with the "swordfighter" or "fire wizard" core classes. People don't need new rules for every single concept. It already made a mess of 3.5.
But, they can easily be handled as alternate class abilities. Instead of Weapon Training, you get Family Daisho for a Samurai.
You take ninja talents instead of rogue talents.
Shugenja and Wu-Jen could be defined by their spell lists and the domains/schools they choose...
Prestige Classes are not really needed...I understand where they're from and how they work...but I think you can do everything with alternate class abilities.
+1.
|
Powers in D&D usually have pre-determined costs and pre-determined benefits. "I want to change the carbon density of his exoskeleton so that his diamond shell becomes as soft as pencil led" is not the kind of thing that players are encouraged to say.
Greed was cool. Did anyone else notice there were 7 Sin homunculi and 7 Runelords?
A player could say, "I want to weaken its natural armor by moving his tough skin to another part of his body."
|
|
That would be easy enough in setting level based limits. Maximum volumes for material affected, max damage for attacks, modify objects hardness/HP bonuses based upon level. AC bonuses, etc...
Keep in mind that both Ed and Al, were exceptional...Leira was a one trick pony when she first appeared...I would not allow reactions without circles for players, they would have to create their arrays which would take a minimum of a move action for a minor array that didn't give any bonuses...while larger more intricate arrays would give bonuses...
You could also allow the ability to make arrays as part of items(like Strongarm's or Mustang's gloves) that allow for quick transmutations. You could even try making Scar's tattoo.
Al still had to use an array, and Ed circulated energy using his auotmail arm. Wrath used his(Ed's actually) right arm and left leg as a transmutation circle to perform his alchemy.
The problem with "just make it a prestige class" is that in that case, you won't be playing the class until the high levels, generally.
And in my experience, 1. few campaigns make it to the high levels, and 2. high level stuff tends to get more and more difficult to run.
So, if you have, say, a 20-level gish, you're sure of being able to play it through the campaign.
Now let's say you go 10 levels before going into Eldritch Knight, and the campaign peters out at 12 or 13. So instead of playing the class you wanted for 12 or 13 levels, you played it for 2 or 3 levels, and never even got to use most of its abilities.
So I can see the use of 20-level classes as well ....
See, I don't have a problem with this. A lot of these concepts are literally prestigious. I like the idea of characters having to work toward becoming that cool concept, and I think it's fun watching people go from common fighters and mages to unique, and interesting characters.
That being said, I do feel the pain of your example. I've had it happen, and I was playing a dual caster, so I got hit pretty hard. The thing is, when we're specifically talking about a gish as a fighter mage, it works fine taking levels of both at low levels. I think the solution to the problem is to make some of these PRCs available at around level 5-7. And, in the case of the EDK, you can get into it after 6. If we're talking about games that only last for 5 levels, I don't think that's a wide enough margin of games to create class bloat for.
I agree, I was just trying to illustrate my point. I actually do think class variants can do most of what's needed. Unearthed Arcana swapping features between classes actually opened up the system a little because once one sort of swap was done often you could take that and apply it in a variant that hadn't even been illustrated.
Right right. I do agree we don't want to be too conservative. I mean, I'm certainly not the final arbiter, and despite some really awful classes (samurai, wu jen, anything from tome of magic) 3.5 did get some really cool classes (archivist, warlock)
And, for what it's worth, all 4 of the new classes make it sound like Jason has a good idea of where the balance lies with this.
I am interested to see the Runeblade from Monte Cook. Thats my thoughts. Instead of giving the class the ability to case spells, I would chnage it so they could enchant their weapon temporarily, give them mage armor abilities and some other stuff. I would not want a fighter/mage per se
This doesn't sound awful, mostly because it's a concept not completely covered by existing rules. What did the runeblade do/would you have it do?
But, they can easily be handled as alternate class abilities. Instead of Weapon Training, you get Family Daisho for a Samurai.
You take ninja talents instead of rogue talents.
Shugenja and Wu-Jen could be defined by their spell lists and the domains/schools they choose...
Prestige Classes are not really needed...I understand where they're from and how they work...but I think you can do everything with alternate class abilities.
Samurai and Shugenja would require enough class features to be replaced that you might as well start off from the beginning. Samurai don't use shields and while they had heavy armor it wasn't nearly as good as plate and most representation of Samurai are in light or no armor. So you at least would have to replace all the armor feats and abilities. The Weapons Training is alright, but should probably reduced to Swords, Spears, Bows, and possibly muskets (the traditional Samurai weapons) so I'd honestly rather see something else. I think the version in Oriental Adventures is a better base then Fighter.
Shugenja would need a new spell list, loose Channel Energy, and would probably have to loose shield and medium armor at least. I'd also say that the elemental domains would have to be changed a bit too. Again, better to start over IMO.
Ninjas on the other hand can be done with Rogues and Rangers (though I'd say they got a bonus feat every time they would get a new Spell Level). Monk also works too if you ignore the spiritual consequences of that.
Wu Jen are easy with different specialties for Wizards.
Sorcerers: Add a few bloodlines like Immortal and you should be good.
Barbarians: Probably rare, but still workable.
If you're going to run a setting specific game you might as well put some work into it. Sure you can have Fighters represent a Swashbuckler in an Age of Sail game, but why?
Change some proficiencies, the armor training still works or change it to a dodge bonus, give them more skill point and class skills. If you want them to have "Super Sword Strike" make it a samurai-only feat based off of the paladin's smite.
Sounds like you could make them with a variant sorcerer with elemental schools instead of bloodlines.
I'm not trying to single you out or ridicule your desires. I just want to point out how easy making variants is.
My point is in, the case of classes like classes like Samurai and Swashbuckler, you're making a campaign and you're already making changes to the class, why not take the extra step. I made a rough draft of one the other day that focuses on mobile fighting, initiative, and awareness (uncanny dodge, etc) at the cost of somebonus feats and other fighter abilities. Unfortunately it hasn't drawn any feedback as far as balance goes and my normal format failed to tranlate on the forum but it was easy to make.
As far as Shugenja go they are divine spellcasters with arcane spells thrown in the mix. They trade martial powers for having healing and spells like invisibility and scorching ray. Sure you can use Sorcerer with them as a base but then you have to figure out the Spell List (which is my nightmare for class building) and Elemental Focus, which means you're making a new class already.
A variant, to me, is changing one or two things to a class while the concept and the bulk of the class remains the same. For instance, if I wanted to make a Martial Artist that specialized in a particular weapon I'd take Monk reduce their starting unarmed damage to 1d3/1d2 give them a weapon focus for one weapon, which counts as a monk weapon now, and allow them to use things like stunning blow with that weapon. Maybe tack on something like Ancestral Daisho to make up for the fact that the weapon damage doesn't increase. Its the same class with a minor change.
Not that I don't agree with you, I just think that at some point when you're making a variant you have to step back and go "I'm changing this much, why not start from square one."
|
I am interested to see the Runeblade from Monte Cook. Thats my thoughts. Instead of giving the class the ability to case spells, I would chnage it so they could enchant their weapon temporarily, give them mage armor abilities and some other stuff. I would not want a fighter/mage per se
My own tweak on that was to take the Soulknife, and remove every reference to psionics and turn it into a 'Spellblade.' Instead of needing a power point to gain access, the character would need a spell-like ability or spell slot to tap into (either from a racial ability, such as the spell-like abilities of a Gnome, or from a Feat that grants access to a few SLA's, such as the ones from Complete Mage; Communicator, Necropolis Born, Night Haunt, etc.).
Tweaking out the weapon properties that the character could add to his 'arcane blade,' removing stuff like Feeder and Collision and adding in some of the more traditional DMG options, made for an interesting class. The changes were 90% flavor, although, with the advent of Pathfinder, it could be argued that the Soulknife could use a splash of Psychic Warrior and / or Soulbow thrown in, to catch up to the higher power level of the base classes.
I like the idea of an arcane warrior type with an innate store of magic that he can play around with, instead of a Fighter with a few spells. The Paladin and Ranger already did that, and, IMO, it's not the most effective mix, as a warrior type caught by surprise shouldn't be spending actions during a fight casting buff spells to make him as effective as a normal Fighter or Barbarian would have been in round one...
As PrCs, I wouldn't mind someday seeing Fighter / Mage builds for each of the schools of magic. We've already got the Abjurant Champion as a guideline for what an abjuration-based Fighter would look like, and a plethora of 3rd party Necromancer/Fighter mixes (Scarred Lands Unfailing, Secret College of Necromancy's Death Knights, Arcana: Societies of Magic's Moon Wraith Adepts, etc), but it could be cool to see a Divination-based fighter, anticipating and avoiding attacks with unnatural ease, waiting to strike uncannily accurate blows, or a Glamer Knight, who conjures up quasi-real armor and weapons that carry illusion effects, or a Conjurer-Fighter who fights along side a magical Companion creature, or an Evocation-Fighter who enhances his strikes with different energies, depending on the situation.
|
|
If I could pick the other class, it would be a witch. The witch could draw from customs/myths like the "evil eye", "voodoo dolls", and real world zombies (the puffer-fish-poison kind). I'd like to see something like the 3.5 warlock, with a bunch of special abilities instead of outright spellcasting. She'd definitely have a familiar as well, one far superior to the wizard's.
Ah, I can only hope...
Ooh, a Witch's Familiar that actually provided supernatural tutoring and insight would be cool. The Witch herself might have various skills, while her Familiar would have maxed out ranks in Knowledge (arcane) and (the planes) and be her source of information on all things esoteric. It might gain Druid Companion like advancement, as her increasing level of power and awareness allows it to bring more of it's otherworldly essence into the material world (or, alternate fluff, perhaps she is nurturing and advancing the demon/whatever's power along with her own advancement, sort of like an idea bandied about for the Al-Qadim Sha'ir, that, as it gained levels, it's Gen didn't become 'a bigger Gen' but actually matured into a full-fledged Genie!).
Honestly, I hope they minimize the amount of base classes they add. Most (not all, but most) of what people say they want, can be done with multi classing between just the core classes. In some cases, just replacing certain abilities with another will do the trick.
And alot of concepts people want to be full 20 level classes just shouldn't be. I play fighter/mages alot...and I don't want to see a 20 level class for it. Part of the trade off for the power I get is that a certain chunk of my feats are tied up to meet PrC and adventure requirements, and the slightly slower power gain early on keeps me from unbalancing a game early. And at 20th character level...I get my 4 attacks per melee, and I'm casting 8th or 9th level spells depnding on how I did it. Fighter/mages (sorry, gish are githyanki...I rarely play those.) They need to be kept as PrC's
Most of the other classes you see people tossing around are doable with multiclassing and feat selection. Some are probably even worth doing a 10 level PrC for (Swashbuckler would fit that bill...make it so a fighter/rogue could make it in by 5th or 6th level, there you go.) Some of them could be done by just adding in feats (samurai would be a good example there, some feats that make the samurai's combat stykle a focused choice would do the ob for fighters), and some just need an expansion of a classes built in options (probably the easiest way to do the ninja, much like they did for the ranger and druid, give them options to chose from at certain levels to allow a certain playstyle.) And yes, most (not all, but most) variant spellcasters could be done this way...just alter the spell lists, replace certain core class abilities, and your on the right track.
My 2 cents...I'd rather see more PrC's to allow for flexibility than see abother base class glut...
This doesn't sound awful, mostly because it's a concept not completely covered by existing rules. What did the runeblade do/would you have it do?
which is what I would like to see. The scout is cool but its covered by ranger/rogues and whatnot
I like a holy warrior type character. I think that's missing.
I like a shaman as long as its not just a druid. Limited new spells, spirit guides, powers based on that stuff
See, that's the shugenja as imagined by Legend of the Five Rings/Oriental Adventures. Real world shugenja are just ascetic Shinto priests, not unlike cloistered Christian monks. So unless you're particularly fond of WotC's shugenja incarnation, there's no reason why you can't play a plain old cleric, druid, or even monk and call him a shugenja. It's just a matter or flavor.
As far as Shugenja go they are divine spellcasters with arcane spells thrown in the mix. They trade martial powers for having healing and spells like invisibility and scorching ray. Sure you can use Sorcerer with them as a base but then you have to figure out the Spell List (which is my nightmare for class building) and Elemental Focus, which means you're making a new class already.
Yes. I'm not really sure why they'd have to lose channel energy. Did those priests not perform healing rituals on people? If it's that important, I'd create a variant that let them channel fire or something.
As for the spell list....erm...isn't that what domains are for? Assign domains based on the elements rather than the gods. It seems pretty simple.
I had a similar thing occur in one of my games when one of my players wanted to be a Buddhist cleric (not monk, cleric). I didn't want a pacifist adventurer, so I told him to go for Mahayana Buddhism and select a more warlike Bodhisattva to meditate to. It worked out rather well, as his character was nothing like the normal clerics we see. that's the beauty of the new cleric, it can be applied in many different ways. Everyone likes healing.
See, that's the shugenja as imagined by Legend of the Five Rings/Oriental Adventures. Real world shugenja are just ascetic Shinto priests, not unlike cloistered Christian monks. So unless you're particularly fond of WotC's shugenja incarnation, there's no reason why you can't play a plain old cleric, druid, or even monk and call him a shugenja. It's just a matter or flavor.
As far as Shugenja go they are divine spellcasters with arcane spells thrown in the mix. They trade martial powers for having healing and spells like invisibility and scorching ray. Sure you can use Sorcerer with them as a base but then you have to figure out the Spell List (which is my nightmare for class building) and Elemental Focus, which means you're making a new class already.
Yes. I'm not really sure why they'd have to lose channel energy. Did those priests not perform healing rituals on people? If it's that important, I'd create a variant that let them channel fire or something.
As for the spell list....erm...isn't that what domains are for? Assign domains based on the elements rather than the gods. It seems pretty simple.
I had a similar thing occur in one of my games when one of my players wanted to be a Buddhist cleric (not monk, cleric). I didn't want a pacifist adventurer, so I told him to go for Mahayana Buddhism and select a more warlike Bodhisattva to meditate to. It worked out rather well, as his character was nothing like the normal clerics we see. that's the beauty of the new cleric, it can be applied in many different ways. Everyone likes healing.
First of, yes I'm using L5R Shugenja as a base as that is what most people have been exposed to through AEG and WotC supplements. Admittedly I thought the Shugenja class was awful in 3.0 & 3.5, mostly due to the prohibition on casting from one element which had to be the opposite element of your school element, but that's got nothing to do with this arguement. And, yes, you would need new spell lists as the system it draws from assigns many other attributes to elements then doing X elemental damage. My main point in using Shugenja as an example was a class design to fit the cosmology of a specific setting, not hammer an existing one in until it fits and often creating more work then just starting fresh.
Variants work fine if you have a player who says I want to play a wilderness Rogue. All you have to do then is swap out some class skills and maybe add some different Rogue Abilities. No real major changes. Say you don't like spellcasting Rangers and Paladins. That's an easy fix, just give them a bonus feat everytime they'd get a new spell level. If you're going to make significant changes to a class to fit it into a game, start over.
Ultimately you're going to do what you want to do for your game. I always thought a lot of the classes WotC came up with were silly and unnessecary (ninja, scout, warlock, hexblade, war mage, just to name a few) but there is a secret for dealing with them: I said no. This doesn't mean I didn't think WotC shouldn't have published them (well except Incarnum), because ultimately it provided new ideas and some people do like those classes I listed and thoght they were appropriate for their games.
|
Samurai and Shugenja would require enough class features to be replaced that you might as well start off from the beginning. Samurai don't use shields and while they had heavy armor it wasn't nearly as good as plate and most representation of Samurai are in light or no armor. So you at least would have to replace all the armor feats and abilities. The Weapons Training is alright, but should probably reduced to Swords, Spears, Bows, and possibly muskets (the traditional Samurai weapons) so I'd honestly rather see something else. I think the version in Oriental Adventures is a better base then Fighter.
A samurai class is wholly unnecessary and would actually be counter-productive in many cases considering the broad array of abilities that samurai have shown throughout history, legends and fiction. A single class could never do the concept justice and many of the existing classes could easily be used to model different types of samurai from the fighter (easily the best substitute for a standard samurai), the upcoming cavalier class (probably ties with the fighter for being a great fit), paladins (yes, paladins!), rangers and rogues (yes, rogues too!).
Shugenja would need a new spell list, loose Channel Energy, and would probably have to loose shield and medium armor at least. I'd also say that the elemental domains would have to be changed a bit too. Again, better to start over IMO.
As far as Shugenja go they are divine spellcasters with arcane spells thrown in the mix. They trade martial powers for having healing and spells like invisibility and scorching ray. Sure you can use Sorcerer with them as a base but then you have to figure out the Spell List (which is my nightmare for class building) and Elemental Focus, which means you're making a new class already.
Full stop. The shugenja of history, legend or fiction is nothing like the class presented in OA/Complete Divine/Lot5R. Full stop. The druid (yes, the druid!), cleric, or even the monk is a much better fit for the ascetic, mountain-dwelling practitioners of Shugendo. Not that we should look to the shugenja as a generic Japanese-inspired priest anyway (they weren’t), for that we should look to the Shinto and Buddhist priests and we could easily use clerics, druids, monks (or some sort of shaman class) for these.
Ninjas on the other hand can be done with Rogues and Rangers (though I'd say they got a bonus feat every time they would get a new Spell Level). Monk also works too if you ignore the spiritual consequences of that.
Depending on where (in history, legend or fiction) you want to take inspiration from, rogues, fighters, rangers, sorcerers, monks, wizards can all work as a basis for shinobi characters.
Wu Jen are easy with different specialties for Wizards.
Wu Jen, as a name of a class, really needs to go. In a Japanese-inspired setting, the term “onmyouji” is much more fitting. In a more generically Asian-inspired setting, any term other than “wizard” is really unnecessary. Some elemental-based “schools” would be a great addition for Taoist & Onmyoudo-inspired wizards.
Sorcerers: Add a few bloodlines like Immortal and you should be good.
Immortal?
Barbarians: Probably rare, but still workable.
It really depends on the setting. They could be Ainu- or Mongol-inspired, or just rural and backward.
And now for a rant:
One of the things that annoy me very much is that many gamers and game supplements seem to assume that “Asian-inspired” means “Japanese-inspired”. As much as I love Japanese-inspired gaming and Japanese history, there is so much more to Asian-inspired roleplaying than Japan. Any decent
Asian-inspired game supplement needs to have a much broader focus than just Japan.
I'd like somthing like a mystic, a class able to fill a divine role without being tied to beleifs or deities, and act as a possible replacment for clerics in a more ambigious campaign.
My main point in using Shugenja as an example was a class design to fit the cosmology of a specific setting, not hammer an existing one in until it fits and often creating more work then just starting fresh.
But, see, that's also an example of my main point. you don't have to hammer,. The Shugenja, as per OA lore, slides into cleric quite neatly. The one mechanic that was unfitting was changed. Yes, I can say no, but it doesn't prevent class bloat as an overall system problem. Worse yet, book space that could be devoted to good base classes, races, monsters, feats that support existing classes, or variant/kits is being wasted on people who want a slight reflavor of mechanics. And class writeups take a lot of space. Well over half the classes people suggest already exist within the game.
Look at the Asian classes for example. I'd much rather see an OA book that gave Japanese inspired variants, rather than whole class writeups.
Shugenja-As I've already said, replace god with element and maybe give a variant channel energy.
Wu Jen-This is one of the stupidest, most redundant classes I've ever seen. Make a spell secret feat.
Samurai-If you want a historical samurai, it's a fighter or an Aristocrat. If you want a romantic samurai, it's a paladin. Switch chivalry with bushido, switch smite/detect evil with dishonorable, take away heavy armor and give it 4 skill points/level for social/artsy skills. Boom, we're done. The intimidating glare is already a part of the system via intimidate/dazzling strike feat chain. The special weapon bond is part of the paladin, and the shout thing is stupid, as is the "can only use a daisho". Let's not screw history that much. Make a quick draw feat chain if you must. See, that took waaay less space than a full class writeup would.
Shaman-Can't we just create a spirit guide variant of animal companion and call it a day?
Ninja-I'm sorry, a ninja is a rogue with some fancy equipment. If new feats or talents are a must, fine. If assassination is a big deal, make it an assassin.
I'm not trying to pick on Asian classes specifically here, they're just the best example of really really bad class design. I'd be annoyed if Americans did that to any other culture as well.
A Scout like the one in CA would be cool.
BTW: How about so called alternate class features ? They can make a difference. I hoped, the concept would make it into PFRRG Core Rulebook.
The scout makes me sad, I loved the class ever so much, yet I found it redundant (Actually, mechanically, I vastly prefer the scout to the ranger). It's a shame it isn't OGL. Really, you could accomplish it with a sneak attack variant and some new rogue talents. Or would it be better served as ranger variants?
See, that's the shugenja as imagined by Legend of the Five Rings/Oriental Adventures. Real world shugenja are just ascetic Shinto priests, not unlike cloistered Christian monks. So unless you're particularly fond of WotC's shugenja incarnation, there's no reason why you can't play a plain old cleric, druid, or even monk and call him a shugenja. It's just a matter or flavor.
As far as Shugenja go they are divine spellcasters with arcane spells thrown in the mix. They trade martial powers for having healing and spells like invisibility and scorching ray. Sure you can use Sorcerer with them as a base but then you have to figure out the Spell List (which is my nightmare for class building) and Elemental Focus, which means you're making a new class already.
Huh?
I appreciate the discussion of real-world history/mythology, don't get me wrong. It's an interesting and valuable addition to the conversation. But what it doesn't do is address Skaorn's post in any way.
He told you exactly what he wanted to play and he told you exactly how it differs from a plain old cleric/wizard/whatever.
Should the term "shugenja" be the one associated with that archetype? Perhaps not. But at this point L5R is a vastly popular setting (and rightly so I feel), and the term has stuck.
And whether or not someone should be able to play aristocratic elementalists and animists is a discussion that has little to do with the etymology of the class name.
A samurai class is wholly unnecessary and would actually be counter-productive in many cases considering the broad array of abilities that samurai have shown throughout history, legends and fiction. A single class could never do the concept justice and many of the existing classes could easily be used to model different types of samurai
I don't see how that is a problem. A "samurai class" doesn't have to do EVERYTHING that has ever been called a "samurai" in order to be a good class.
I could name several things which "wizards" have done in mythology or fiction that the wizard class doesn't model well. They don't talk to animals or plants, they don't experience time backwards, they don't have to tell the truth, they don't need wands, etc. In some of those cases I could even point out other classes that model a given wizard archetype better (many depictions of Merlin would probably be druids). But the wizard is still a perfectly good class.
Likewise, consider WOTC's ninja. I don't know if you like that class or not, but I really do; it fills a solid mechanical nitch (rogue-like who relies heavily on supernatural stealth) and has a lot of flavorful abilities. Does it model EVERYTHING that fictional ninjas have ever done or been? Of course not. So what?
All a samurai class would have to do is model ONE archetype well. It doesn't have to be all-inclusive.
|
|
I am looking forward more to the variant core classes part of the APH than the new base classes. The things that made 3.5 prestige classes desirable was mostly the continuing gain of abilities and the particular unique flavor, which the core classes lacked. Now, with increased number of feats and possibly swapping out automatic feats, you should be able to replicate a lot of the old 3.5 classes and prestige classes with variants instead. Obviously there will still be some prestige classes that are unique enough to need to remain, but for example battlesmith is pretty much replaced with the feat master craftsman. The scout could be a variant ranger using the new PF feats(increased movement, etc), and really you just have to add skirmish ability in instead of one of the existing ranger feats.
One thing that disappoints me the tendency to want to ramp up old prestige classes to make them even more powerful and scale them to the PF core classes. I don't think its necessary anymore and even the tome of secrets, most of the new classes I just didn't think were necessary to be defined as such. Its sort of like if you take a +1/lvl BAB d10 base class and add movement and acrobatic abilities and call him a daredevil. We don't really need to define a separate daredevil class for that imo, it can be done with a combination of fighter and possibly monk or rogue levels, along with the correct feats. Just my 2 cents...
Huh?
I appreciate the discussion of real-world history/mythology, don't get me wrong. It's an interesting and valuable addition to the conversation. But what it doesn't do is address Skaorn's post in any way.
He told you exactly what he wanted to play and he told you exactly how it differs from a plain old cleric/wizard/whatever.
Should the term "shugenja" be the one associated with that archetype? Perhaps not. But at this point L5R is a vastly popular setting (and rightly so I feel), and the term has stuck.
And whether or not someone should be able to play aristocratic elementalists and animists is a discussion that has little to do with the etymology of the class name.
Thank you, seeing your post almost made up for the long reply I just lost when I tried to post it.
I want to see tome of battles again, so the Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade. IMO that book "fixed" the fighter, for example the Warblade got the ability to take any of it's weapon specific feats and after just an hr of practice, convert that feat to another weapon. They also added some utility and better functionality at higher levels. I am tired of playing a fighter that has to rely on his magical equipment in order to do anything at higher levels, while the casters level entire maps in a couple of rounds. The Tome of Battles did that.
Also I know that it was mentioned once, but I would like to bring it up again, Psionics.....pleaaaaaaaase.....
I'd like to point out that a lot of Core classes were, infact variants of other classes, at one time or another. This is a stroll down memory lane for me, so I can't vouch for complete addition accuracy.
Barbarian: presented in the original Unearthed Arcana with no real difference that I recall except the d12 Hit Dice, became a variant of Fighter in 2nd Ed. Complete Fighter.
Bard: The Original AD&D presitge class, cause if you managed to get to it you accomplished the nearly impossible. Didn't become a true class until 2nd Ed, and the later half of the Edition if I remember correctly. Some magic and some Rogue skills. You could probably do a variant of it as Rogue still.
Druid: Don't really remember it from AD&D (except as a requirement for Bard) but in 2nd Ed it was a Cleric with different spheres, weapon proficiency requirements, and a level cap (which might have been just AD&D). Might be hard to do it as a Cleric variant now, but with a big enough hammer it should fit.
Monk: AD&D class, dropped from 2nd, with maybe oblique referrences to it in Fighter and Cleric variants.
Paladin and Ranger: Variants of Fighter, which technically you could still do now, rather then have the classes.
Before you start going off on people for developing classes when you feel it should be a variant, think about how many of the current classes could be variants themselves. Hey, Ive even played games where it was just Warrior, Expert, and Adept and you built your character from there (which usually ended badly due to super shticks).
Again, do what you want for your games. If a class you don't like gets added, say no to it. I personally don't like Ninja, Warlocks, or Fighter/Mages but I started this thread to see what people might think would be a good archetype to add, even if it was setting specific.
I want to see tome of battles again, so the Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade. IMO that book "fixed" the fighter, for example the Warblade got the ability to take any of it's weapon specific feats and after just an hr of practice, convert that feat to another weapon. They also added some utility and better functionality at higher levels. I am tired of playing a fighter that has to rely on his magical equipment in order to do anything at higher levels, while the casters level entire maps in a couple of rounds. The Tome of Battles did that.
Also I know that it was mentioned once, but I would like to bring it up again, Psionics.....pleaaaaaaaase.....
Warblade, that was the name! I did like that particular ability and thought it was great for Fighters. 9 Swords was cool for me at first, but reading through it I just started to feel bad for Fighters. I also didn't really like "Fighter Magic". I'd rather see their abilities as Feat based rather then spell-like myself.
What would people do for Psionics, would you keep the classes like the original or would you get new ones? I like the Soulblades, but the rest never did anything for me.
Before you start going off on people for developing classes when you feel it should be a variant, think about how many of the current classes could be variants themselves. Hey, Ive even played games where it was just Warrior, Expert, and Adept and you built your character from there (which usually ended badly due to super shticks).Again, do what you want for your games. If a class you don't like gets added, say no to it. I personally don't like Ninja, Warlocks, or Fighter/Mages but I started this thread to see what people might think would be a good archetype to add, even if it was setting specific.
Yeah, I don't really see anybody going off on you so much as politely disagreeing. It's possible some of the tone of our statements has been lost in translation online, but nobody's being aggressive. Some of us would just prefer Pathfinder be a little more conservative in introducing new base classes so we can get better solutions like variant class features or "kits" where needed. I don't think anyone has said "no new base classes ever". I personally think several suggestions made here are good ones.
I do agree, a lot of those classes started out as variants, and some should probably go back. But, backwards compatibility kind of prevents that from happening. I don't personally think that's a good excuse to bloat the shiny new system we're all so invested in further.
EDIT: "don't use it" also doesn't address the problem of limited bookspace being wasted on whole class write-ups for things that are just slight variants.
I want to see tome of battles again, so the Crusader, Swordsage, and Warblade. IMO that book "fixed" the fighter, for example the Warblade got the ability to take any of it's weapon specific feats and after just an hr of practice, convert that feat to another weapon. They also added some utility and better functionality at higher levels. I am tired of playing a fighter that has to rely on his magical equipment in order to do anything at higher levels, while the casters level entire maps in a couple of rounds. The Tome of Battles did that.
Also I know that it was mentioned once, but I would like to bring it up again, Psionics.....pleaaaaaaaase.....
To be honest, I think very few players here want TOB stuff to return. It just...makes a fighter, not a fighter. Especially since the idea of PFRPG was to keep 3.5 alive, and TOB seems to be very 4e.
As for psionics, yeah, I think we all want it back. I was initially derisive of psionics as redundant but the XPH was so well done it was hard not to like it. If they don't want to go back with the XPH system (as, really, psionics could just be another from of magic), I'd like to see a book of prestige classes like MOTUH make a comeback.
While I agree with you (Velderan) on some points and disagree on others, I'll admit that the fear of "system bloat" utterly baffles me.
The only thing I care about is whether new rules material written by Paizo is good and whether it enriches the games of Paizo customers.
Yes, writing lots of classes CAN result in poor game design (if the classes are becoming unimaginative), but only indirectly. How many classes there are is by itself a non-issue; if they're all well written and executed, then as far as I'm concerned they can write as many classes as they want.
Of course, not everyone can write a lot of classes without being unimaginative. Some people can't even write one class without being unimaginative. Like I said, I agree with you on several specific counts, but your language makes it sound like "preventing bloat" should be a goal unto itself. I just don't get that.
EDIT: "don't use it" also doesn't address the problem of limited bookspace being wasted on whole class write-ups for things that are just slight variants.
Actually, it's the anti-baseclass side of these debates which usually insists that anything should be a "slight variant".
Those who advocate new classes are usually advocating numerous changes in the way a class works, with new kinds of class ceatures, and new spell lists or even new spell systems.
To which the anti-baseclass side of the debate retorts "You don't need all those changes, a few changes would be enough", and then follows with "if you're only making a few changes then you don't need a new class".
Yeah, I don't really see anybody going off on you so much as politely disagreeing. It's possible some of the tone of our statements has been lost in translation online, but nobody's being aggressive. Some of us would just prefer Pathfinder be a little more conservative in introducing new base classes so we can get better solutions like variant class features or "kits" where needed. I don't think anyone has said "no new base classes ever". I personally think several suggestions made here are good ones.I do agree, a lot of those classes started out as variants, and some should probably go back. But, backwards compatibility kind of prevents that from happening. I don't personally think that's a good excuse to bloat the shiny new system we're all so invested in further.
EDIT: "don't use it" also doesn't address the problem of limited bookspace being wasted on whole class write-ups for things that are just slight variants.
Actually that was just poor choice of phrasing on my part with some frustration with some of Paizo's forums. I had a nice long, and IMO, eloquent post eaten on me. I apologize for that, I don't think any ones been "going off", just debating. Though I am getting a little frustrated with ninjas! I swear I never said I wanted the class, honest :D!
I just feel if someone wants something in their game, like a Swashbuckler in an Age of Sail game (deploys smoke bombs to destract from setting switch), whats the harm? I think it'd fit better then a fight. If you don't want it in a high fantasy game, say no and suggest Duelist instead.
As for wasted space, if paired with a campaign setting, I wouldn't call it a waste. DnD in an Age of Sails campaign book would probably require a Swashbuckler class or people would be out for blood. Its sort of like Artificer. There are a number of campaigns I wouldn't allow it in, but it is certainly a valid part of Eberron.