I apologize for the length of this.
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.
Yeah, I sound like a broken record player, don't I? The thing is, I do feel that that preventing bloat should be a goal unto itself, and here's why (though this is all based on my experience:
First of all, the d20 system is already quite complex for a game that takes place in your imagination. But, as more and more, mechanically and conceptually redundant classes are added, it becomes a headache for DMs. Sure, you can so, but the assumption at most tables I've played at is "yes, unless I have a good reason to say no," and DMs who don't run their games that way tend to be treated like a!@~@$!s. So DMs have more and more classes that they have to go through to determine whether or not this new class, which was already quite doable, will screw up their game.
Second of all, this becomes a daunting mess for new players. Getting an idea of the 11 core classes and what they do can already be a lot, so I have to think hard before adding 6 new classes for the more advanced players, who I probably don't want to limit in what they play. Now, if these 6 classes are all conceptually quite different, and mechanically add a lot, I don't mind doing this (for example, the 4 new classes announced sound pretty good), but I don't want to have to explain a fighter v a fighter/duelist v a swashbuckler. And many DMs don't know to limit their new players' choices, which I've seen lead to some really poor choices.
Third of all, in theory, I agree, if they can keep pumping out new ideas that are conceptually and mechanically diverse, then by all means do so. In practice, this tends to lead to poor mechanics because, people want a samurai class, but the samurai class is covered quite well by the rules. So, as a writer, what will I do? I'll end up scrambling to come up with ideas of new mechanics just for the sake of new mechanics, which will lead to things coming out too quickly and being undertested. And, of course, we want them to be exciting for new players, so we better give them good abilities, which leads to power creep. Sure, I don't see this particular one being an issue at Paizo, because the writers here seem to be aware of this problem, but even really great writers can only come up with so many unique mechanics to fit more and more desired classes.
Fourth, bloat leads to bloat. If I want to play a spartan and a samurai exists, why on earth would I be content with the fighter? I want a spartan class! Why doesn't that exist?
Fifth, and this is the big one, it takes away from support of existing classes. Let's say I'm an intimidation-based fighter at level 11. I take all of the feats to be awesome at using the intimidation skill in combat. Suddenly, the Samurai comes along with his deadly stare, and there's somebody doing my shtick better than I do. That's not fair, that option didn't exist when I made my fighter. I could ask my DM to convert to a samurai, but my character isn't Asian. I suppose we could reflavor the whole class to make it a fighter, but then what's the point of all that flavor? why not make it a fighter? Suddenly, what should have been additions to a feat chain to support an existing class end up crapping on my poor theoretical fighter since the guy playing the new class does what I did better than I do. Yes, some of this is unpreventable, because you can't make your character with material you don't have, but it can be prevented by adding support to existing classes, rather than adding whole new shtick-stealing classes.
Or I'm just a curmudgeon and I don't like new classes.
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".
Conversely, I feel like the yay-baseclass side feels like "If the class doesn't have my concept in the title, it doesn't fit that concept." To which the other side says "Well, here's how you can do everything you want with this existing class."
Then, once they show them, they say "no, I need different mechanics to do the exact same thing. Time for a complete class overwrite."
Really, let's just agree to disagree on the discussion of new magic systems so it doesn't hijack the thread. New class features good.
|
Doing up the Samurai, etc. as just Alternate Class Feature templates, replacing X, Y, and Z from the Fighter class features with shiny new Samurai class abilities A, B and C might be a decent compromise.
In fact, I wouldn't mind seeing that as an offering *in addition to* any new base classes, for those who prefer a more minimalist structure with modifications of the original 11 core classes, rather than the addition of new base classes.
That way, both sides 'win.' Those who want a strictly new class, can have it, those who would rather see 'deadly staredown' as an optional Alternate Class Feature their non-Samurai Intimidate-based Fighter / Barbarian can use can *also* use that option, without necessarily taking a 'dip' in some class that has nothing to do with their concept.
For me, the main deciding point on adding new classes should be, 'is this fulfilling a vital role.' A new skill-monkey class to add to the Rogue and Bard options would seem *far* more useful to add to the game than yet another melee combatant / tank class (to stand alongside the Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian and some Monk, Ranger and Cleric builds). A Samurai or Swashbuckler is ultimate just going to be yet another melee build, and I've seen some pretty compelling arguments that even core classes like the Paladin, Barbarian, Ranger and Monk could be stripped down into feat chains and presented as Alternate Class progressions for Fighters...
At one point, we're playing with three classes; Warrior, Expert and Adept. At the other point, we've got the 35 base classes of 3.5. I kinda like *both* options, which means the whole 'class bloat' debate goes over my head.
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.
Ah, but this thread is about what classes people would add to the PFRPG game. Now honestly, I wouldn't mind if Paizo did a few eastern flavored base classes. However, the odds that such classes would resemble stuff already published by WotC is slim to nil, especially when - in the case of the shugenja - the class has no precedent in the real world aside from the name. If Paizo did end up making a shugenja, I don't think it would be anything like the Lo5R/Complete Divine incarnation.
In fact, I would be rather interested in seeing a more legitimate shugenja; someone who practiced animism, drew on the powers of the spirits, gained special gifts from their ascetic lifestyle (something like the Vow of Poverty feat), etc.
As for samurai, I really don't think they could warrant a new class. Real-world samurai were, first and foremost, archers (!) with superb horseback skills. Some used a katana, yes, but others used spears and the like. I don't know of any actual, historical samurai that duel-wielded a katana and wakazashi. Sounds just like a fighter to me. One change I would make would be their class skills: samurai were trained in Diplomacy and Knowledge (nobility).
Fair enough, I don't think AEG wants another run at d20 systems either. Though I think the traditional Shugenja you describe would be good for its own class.
As for Samurai, the dual-wielding Katana/Wakizashi is describe by Miyamoto Musashi in his Book of Five Rings, in the Book of Fire, as it gave you the advantage of having to blades instead of you opponents one. He also stressed that you practice in all the weapons of the samurai, like the bow, the gun, and the spear. The Daisho is just the symbol of a samurai's status, so it often gets more notice. Not to mention the fine engineering that went into the blades.
The Samurai I came up with had more skills and skill points which Diplomacy and Know: Nobility were two. I gave the m some bonus feats, but mostly focused on things like Uncanny Dodge and bonuses to Initiative and Perception to represent that they constantly trained for unexpected attacks (I forget the Kendo ritual's name). I left room for people to choose their own fighting styles and left out the very traditional horsemanship, because like Paladin Mounts, gives no benefits if all you do is dungeon crawl. In the end, its an archetype. Chances are if Paizo or affiliated company does a Oriental Campaign book, Samurai will be there as a class along with (sigh) Ninja.
Maybe something similar to Eberron's Artificer.
Or is that what the Alchemist is?
It might be cool to see a class that focuses more on defense or tactical strategy.
For me, the main deciding point on adding new classes should be, 'is this fulfilling a vital role.' A new skill-monkey class to add to the Rogue and Bard options would seem *far* more useful to add to the game than yet another melee combatant.
Yeah. I feel like core casters are pretty well covered (though the summoner sounds like good fun), but I think the surface of skill-classes has only been skimmed. I'm really hoping the alchemist is a skill-monkey, or something like the inquisitor mentioned here, or a tinker. I think bards and rogues are actually far more interesting than most wizards.
Maybe something similar to Eberron's Artificer.
Or is that what the Alchemist is?It might be cool to see a class that focuses more on defense or tactical strategy.
Alchemist is apparently like the Dr. Jekyll kind. I liked Artificer for games like Eberron, but I think Alchemist would only work for me in low magic settings. I just see the Alchemist in most games being the magic nerd getting beat up by the joke Sorcerers throwing fireballs and Druids turning into bears. With magic like that getting thrown around, Artificer makes way more sense to me. Low magic, especially horror, It'll fit right in, IMO.
I don't know if this would be possible, be I think some kind of construct expert would be cool.
Somebody who could build and control various constructs.
Maybe even have a construct battle suit...
It is worth noting, though, that using two swords made Musashi a bit of a maverick. For most samurai of his era, the wakizashi was just for show.
I agree that Musashi could have easily been a fighter. I also think that a wizard/rogue could join a ninja clan even in a game which uses the ninja base class.
Or that a ninja with wilderness lore could be a wilderness guide even in a game that has ranger.
Or that a ranger could fit right in with a Mongol tribe even in a game that has barbarians.
Or, to bring things full-circle, that the barbarian class can easily represent the "samurai" of a certain L5R clan of rough-edged borderlanders. ;)
I think it's folly to equate class names too closely with class function. Even in the core rules, a class' name is just a handy label.
This may be why I'm so open to the idea of a samurai class. "Samurai" would be a fine name for any number of mechanical nitches; a mystical warrior-watched-over-by-his-ancestors, a quasi-mystical perfection-through-concentration class, an anime-esque fiend-in-a-kimono class, whatever. There's no way I'm going to judge until I actually know what we're talking about.
Velderan, thanks for the food for thought, but I'll have to get back to you tomorrow. I'm about ready to hit the sack here, and I know that picking my way through those posts could take me awhile. :)
Inquisitor: A lot less "The Spanish...", a lot more Van Helsing. Moderate Divine Caster (Bard Spellcasting).
I didn't expect you to suggest this.
|
|
This may be why I'm so open to the idea of a samurai class. "Samurai" would be a fine name for any number of mechanical nitches; a mystical warrior-watched-over-by-his-ancestors, a quasi-mystical perfection-through-concentration class, an anime-esque fiend-in-a-kimono class, whatever.
A valid point. In the real world, women could be 'samurai' (or at least, of the samurai class) without learning any of the combat stuff we associate with samurai. A 'barbarian' isn't necessarily a valid title either (berserker would make more sense), since it's a word arbitarily assigned by city folk to rural folk, regardless of whether they are warriors, wise women or farmers by profession.
Still, the names exist, and they are as good as any. In D&D, a 'barbarian' is a member of a specific class, not just any yob who lives in a tribal society and a 'samurai' could similarly represent a specific class, and not just any person, combatant or artisan, of the samurai social position.
AEG? I'm not sure what that is.
Alderac Entertainment Group, the company that publishes L5R.
Edit: If you read nothing else from them read the Book of the Shadowlands by Kuni Mokuna (this one book sold me on the entire game) and Way of the Scorpian.
|
I have a feeling we may get an unholy warrior, ala the blackguard. His conspicuous absence from the core rules makes him a safe bet.
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...
I have a similar wish:
#5) Blackguard (unholy warrior; an evil, chaotic opponent to the Hellknights),
#6) Witch (specially designed to incorporate a blend of spontaneous and prepared spell casting that is better than a multiclass sor+wiz, plus superior familiars -- possiblity able to acquire a menagerie of familiars as a capstone).
We hope! :-)
|
|
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.
You know, I agree with this point. I play Civilization IV Beyond the Sword and that computer game touches - albeit lightly - on a host of Asian concepts for units, architecture and oodles of names distinguishing the Chinese from the Japanese from the Mongols from the Koreans from the Khmer. And then there is the Indian subcontinent too!
Given east Asia's rich history, Japan is not enough!
So I think if Paizo wants to introduce to us asian-themed character concepts, it should combine variants of core classes plus a few new ones, like the eastern shaman. This would have to be a whole new product, and if done, we probably wouldn't see it until 2012 or so. **sigh** (I'm too greedy, I want it all now! lol)
Alchemist is apparently like the Dr. Jekyll kind. I liked Artificer for games like Eberron, but I think Alchemist would only work for me in low magic settings. I just see the Alchemist in most games being the magic nerd getting beat up by the joke Sorcerers throwing fireballs and Druids turning into bears. With magic like that getting thrown around, Artificer makes way more sense to me. Low magic, especially horror, It'll fit right in, IMO.Maybe something similar to Eberron's Artificer.
Or is that what the Alchemist is?It might be cool to see a class that focuses more on defense or tactical strategy.
I get the feeling that the Alchemist is going to be mechanically similar to the binder--he'll drink different elixirs depending on what he wants to accomplish that day: Does he want to be The Invisible Man, Mr. Hyde, the 50 Foot Woman, the Incredible Shrinking Man, or transform himself into some kind of alchemical goo? It also sounds like he'll eventually be able to make concoctions that his allies can use. I think he'll also be able to make alchemical items relatively quickly, and be really, really good at using them, possibly making them (Empowered Alchemist's Fire, Ability Focused Thunderstones, etc.).
|
|
Oh dude, that's a wicked idea. Maybe each one could do something different; an imp assassin, a humunculus assistant, a raven spy, and a cat stand-around-looking-menacing guy. Argh, I'm beginning to want to play a hypothetical class.
#6) Witch (specially designed to incorporate a blend of spontaneous and prepared spell casting that is better than a multiclass sor+wiz, plus superior familiars -- possiblity able to acquire a menagerie of familiars as a capstone).
I like your thinking about the diversity of a high-level witch's familiars; all serving specialized roles that when combined make a witch a formidible ally -- or opponent! The witch could gain her/his menagerie with increasing experience, saving the most powerful for last! lol
Or, if all the familiars she gains are approximately equal in comparison, perhaps the Witch can choose which ones she wants and when, much like Rangers choose their favoured enemies and terrain. That choice mechanism would be thematically consistant with the overall game even if the details aren't.With respect to combining spontaneous spells with prepared ones, I'm thinking a witch's spontaneous spells would be those that are simple arcane manipulations with cheap or no components, like various charm spells and illusions, whereas her prepared spells would be complex binding, creating and summoning spells that often require expensive spell components. I figure if it requires a 1000 gp gemstone, for example, then it shouldn't be in her spontaneous repertoire, it would be more appropriate if the witch prepared such expensive spells from her, or his, Book of Shadows!
:-)
Ya know, I wrote up my own witch class based upon the 3.5 DMG remarks. Maybe it is time to Pathfinderize mine, use some of today's brainstorms, and share it with others here -- assuming Paizo doesn't beat me to it! lol
Oh dude, that's a wicked idea. Maybe each one could do something different; an imp assassin, a humunculus assistant, a raven spy, and a cat stand-around-looking-menacing guy. Argh, I'm beginning to want to play a hypothetical class.
#6) Witch (specially designed to incorporate a blend of spontaneous and prepared spell casting that is better than a multiclass sor+wiz, plus superior familiars -- possiblity able to acquire a menagerie of familiars as a capstone).
Before Pathfinder came out I had been working on retooling 3.5. Because I didn't think Wizards needed as big a boost as other classes but I didn't want to leave them alone, one of the things I looked at was boosting the familiar, so I did some research on them and this is what I got:
Familiars served as advisors and spies in their base form and gave information on spells (I thought it would be cool if they could "memorize" a certain number of spells and you could consult the familiar to cast them instead of the one you memorized). They also had a larger form to act as guardians for combat. They could supposedly take a small humanoid form to serve as assistants and to fool other people. Finally they where supposed to be able to take the form of shadows (which I took to be etherial form). I thought it would be cool to have a Familiar that got those powers as it advanced so you can get a spie, a defender, and assistant all in one.
I'd like to see Scout and Tempest re-done. (Yes, please).
|
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.
Not saying that it has to do everything, silly. However, it should have enough flexibility to allow for multiple play styles. The more special abilities you give a class to model a specific archetype, the less flexibility that it has to model other archetypes.
When designing a class to model an archetype, you need to ask yourself is this archetype viable enough to build an entire base class around, is the modeled archetype what players expect when they hear the class' name, does it fill a mechanical or roleplaying niche that other classes don't, and is it flexible enough not to railroad a player into a single play style?
The biggest problems I have with many proposed samurai classes (whether published or fan-made) and classes in general is that they fail this litmus test (and typically on more than one point).
In my opinion, instead of trying to shoehorn the concept of the samurai into a narrowly defined class that is likely to overlap with several other, existing classes, you could achieve far more flexibility and effect by just using feats and prestige classes to modify the existing classes.
I am looking forward more to the variant core classes part of the APH than the new base classes.
I agree. I would love a non-spellcasting Ranger myself
The thing is, I do feel that that preventing bloat should be a goal unto itself,
of course, the problem is bloat makes money and Paizo is a business after all
After reading the posts the impression that I get (and apologies now if I am wrong) is that there seems to be a difficulty in splitting the difference between a new class and a class build.
I have never been one for fancy pants classes as I see little wrong with the good old tried and tested ones. In my experiance people would roll out a new fancy pants class trying to powergame and get a rules advantage over everone else.
Someone raised the old 2E Barbarian, the original would have *nothing* to do with magic mistrusting it. That balanced the class. Then Unearthed Arcana came along which threw all that out and you had an unbalanced class.
A new class should be exactly that and not something you could build by taking the right feats, skills and core classes.
IMHO, and I am not trying to be difficult, a Scout could be "made" by taking ranger and rogue classes and doesn't need to be a seperate class in itself. That is why the assassin class was dropped (or one of the reasons) as an assassin in the D&D sense was someone who killed for payment. In that sense rogues, fighters, mages could all be assassins.
*RANT* I have to say one of the things about D&D which bugs the hell out of me is people playing a Half Dragon Unicorn Celestial Werebear Ninja/Warlock/Wu Jen and thinking thats okay. What is wrong with a human fighter!*END OF RANT*
IMHO, and I am not trying to be difficult, a Scout could be "made" by taking ranger and rogue classes and doesn't need to be a seperate class in itself.
No offense, but I'm not sure if you've actually read the scout class.
What it does mechanically isn't possible to do with other classes (or at least, isn't possible to do effectively. Sure, a fighter/rogue can move-and-attack every round if he wants to, but he will be hamstringing most of his own potential. In fact, the effective way to build a fighter/rogue is to build synergy with SA by making lots of attacks, and one who moved every round would suck to high hell).
*RANT* I have to say one of the things about D&D which bugs the hell out of me is people playing a human fighter and thinking thats okay. What is wrong with a Half Dragon Unicorn Celestial Werebear Ninja/Warlock/Wu Jen !*END OF RANT*
^~
*RANT* I have to say one of the things about D&D which bugs the hell out of me is people playing a human fighter and thinking thats okay. What is wrong with a Half Dragon Unicorn Celestial Werebear Ninja/Warlock/Wu Jen !*END OF RANT*
^~
LOL!
*RANT* I have to say one of the things about D&D which bugs the hell out of me is people playing a human fighter and thinking thats okay. What is wrong with a Half Dragon Unicorn Celestial Werebear Ninja/Warlock/Wu Jen !*END OF RANT*
^~
The problem with being 1/2 dragon, unicorn, celestial werebear is that it's mathematically impossible.
You'd have to be 1/3 dragon, unicorn, celestial werebear.And then your character would be fugly as hell.
*RANT* I have to say one of the things about D&D which bugs the hell out of me is people playing a human fighter and thinking thats okay. What is wrong with a Half Dragon Unicorn Celestial Werebear Ninja/Warlock/Wu Jen !*END OF RANT*
^~
The problem with being 1/2 dragon, unicorn, celestial werebear is that it's mathematically impossible.
You'd have to be 1/3 dragon, unicorn, celestial werebear.And then your character would be fugly as hell.
Actually, I read that as a half-dragon unicorn (i.e. half dragon, half unicorn) who is also celestial (i.e. born and raised on the upper planes) and also a werebear (carrier of lycanthropy).
It actually makes sense given that werebears are Lawful Good.
Not saying it wouldn't be fuggly, though. Especially in hybrid bear form. What the heck would that look like?
Spacelard, thanks for the sweeping ad hominem accusation that people who want new classes are just trying to powergame.
Please note I said "in my experiance".
I never accused anyone on the boards of it.In my experiance I have.
It also used to be noted that quite a few of the concepts you claim can be rendered perfectly by multiclassing into several base classes tended to be much weaker than straight classes at EITHER of the niches they're supposed to occupy.
Whereas a base class based around a similar concept may actually be able to pull its own weight in a party -- say, being a 12th level character rather than two 6th level characters trying to keep up with a party of 12th level characters.
One thing I thought of to help out the multi classer was a set of Feats that gave you the +1 to your caster level (to a max of your character level) or +1 to your BAB (to the highest maximum of one of the classes you are in for your character level). So if your playing a 5th level rogue/5th level wizard you could spend 3 of your 4 feats to boost either your BAB to +6/+1 (rather then +3, and to a maximum of +7/+2 if you can weasel some extra feats somewhere), your spellcasting to an 8th level wizard, or a combination of the two. The downside is you have no Feats to spend on other things.
To be fair, threads like these are places were we all weigh in with our varied and sundry opinions and experiences.
If you or I say that new classes don't cause problems in our games, Spacelord probably isn't going to take that as a judgment of his group claiming that his players don't powergame with new classes.
However, I think a distinction can be made between a (nonjudgmental) sharing of personal experience and an attempt to judge the balance of something. Yes, even balance varies somewhat from group to group, but it's a bit more of a common ground compare to other things, and I think it's silly to assume new classes won't be balanced as well as old ones. Especially if 12-month playtests become the norm.
However, I'm going to put my money where my mouth is. I'm going to look for a campaign to roll a character up in, and I'm going to try to build a "gish" character by multiclassing fighter and wizard. I'm going to split it exactly down the middle, taking alternate levels of each class. When he reaches 10th level and can cast 3rd-level arcane spells, I'll take the Eldritch Knight prestige class.This experiment will take a while, obviously, but if the resulting character turns out to be even semi-viable, then I'll admit -- on these messageboards -- that no gish class is necessary, at least, and the base classes are enough to represent that archetype.
I'm looking forward to seeing how this turns out.
Uhhh...this isn't going to prove anything. I mean, are you deliberately building the character not that well so you can go "Oh man, this character sucked, we need a gish class?"
If you want to do the experiment properly, go fighter1/wizard5/edk4, so that at 10th level you aren't crippled. The point being made is that, for the first few levels it takes to get to EDK, (namely, you qualify by 6) the differences between a fighter and mage BAB and HP don't make it impossible to play the concept, and there are plenty of spells like True strike, mage armor, etc to make you a decent melee combatant until you get to that point.
Then, by the time you're at the levels where a mage can never hit and will get pooed on by monsters, you will already be well into the EDK class. After you fill out EDK, go fighter 1-2 and wizard 2-3, so that you end up with 9th level spells and 4 attacks, so that your build is something like fighter1/wizard5/EDK10/fighter2/wizard2, and tell me that, over 20 levels, and with the correct selection of spells and equipment, this character doesn't feel like a gish.
And, really, this isn't as complicated as it looks, most 1st-time players will go after the PRCs they like asap, so at least your first 16 levels should look like this for the experiment to work.
Seconded. If you're trying to find out if ftr/wzd/ek works, there's no need to intentionally delay your entry into the PrC by 4 levels.
Not that fighter levels 2, 3 and 4 are bad, but they aren't as good (for a gish) as the first 3 EK levels.
Spacelard, thanks for the sweeping ad hominem accusation that people who want new classes are just trying to powergame.
Please note I said "in my experiance".
I never accused anyone on the boards of it.
In my experiance I have.Technically true, but since you brought it up as an argument against new classes in a thread dedicated to people saying what new classes they'd like to see, I can't help but think that it's being used as a general condemnation of new classes and the desire to have new classes.
If it somehow got in there randomly, then I apologize.
Not nescessary but thanks.
Its the curse of forums not being able to see the person's face or tone of voice when trying to communicate.I'm just very wary of class bloat.
I've been playing and running D&D since the mid to late '70s and have had to endure a lot of oneupmanship by people and the introduction of a new "super class" was the most common way of doing it. To be fair most were from non-official sources such as Fanzines but never the less the problem was still there.
I have no problem with new classes if it adds something to the game which can't possibly be done another way with feats, multi-classing, etc. I personally would like to see a Shaman type class which deals with spirits. As spirits are nonexistant in D&D it ain't goin' to happen!
Please forgive an old gamer who remembers when orcs looked like pigs and bugbears just looked stupid!
Ah, but this thread is about what classes people would add to the PFRPG game. Now honestly, I wouldn't mind if Paizo did a few eastern flavored base classes. However, the odds that such classes would resemble stuff already published by WotC is slim to nil, especially when - in the case of the shugenja - the class has no precedent in the real world aside from the name. If Paizo did end up making a shugenja, I don't think it would be anything like the Lo5R/Complete Divine incarnation.
I agree mostly. I also think you're getting caught up on the name (the poster in question never asked for a historical shugenja). At the same time, the concept of the "aristocratic elemental animist" is pretty specific to the shugenja of the Land of the Five Rings, and paizo would have a tough time making that their own.
I do, however, think there is a lot of room in the system for an elementalist (whether oriental or otherwise) with new elemental spells to back it up. And this does dovetail nicely with animism (whether you're talking native American, African, whatever).
|
Then, by the time you're at the levels where a mage can never hit and will get pooed on by monsters, you will already be well into the EDK class. After you fill out EDK, go fighter 1-2 and wizard 2-3, so that you end up with 9th level spells and 4 attacks, so that your build is something like fighter1/wizard5/EDK10/fighter2/wizard2, and tell me that, over 20 levels, and with the correct selection of spells and equipment, this character doesn't feel like a gish.
Your math is a bit off. A fighter3/wizard7/EDK10 is casting as a 16th level wizard, since the first level of EDK doesn't give you a +1 to your spellcasting. Still an excellent build though.
As spirits are nonexistant in D&D it ain't goin' to happen!
I appreciate having an "old-school" perspective in any thread.
However, I do find it tiresome when other posters go so far as to take an active stance against creativity.
Creativity and imagination are at the heart of this game- of this type of game- and have been since its founders first conceived of it. "If it's not in the rulebooks, it's not out there somewhere" is a sentiment any 0e dm should be ashamed of.
The thing is, I do feel that that preventing bloat should be a goal unto itself,of course, the problem is bloat makes money and Paizo is a business after all
Yes and no.
Luckily for us, Paizo is too small (read: please stay small) to produce book-o-the-month, and most of their energy is devoted to adventures and setting, not new core rules. The simple fact that we're discussing a book that will be out a year from now, rather than a month and will be forum beta tested negates about 90% of the problem.
And, actually, I don't know a ton about business, but I don't think bloat is good for business. If your first few books do well, and you pump your production schedule up to something ridiculous like 3 core books a month (WOTC), at some point, you're going to end up filling it with inferior, untested material. Fans realize the emperor has no clothes, and this "awesome new prestige class" is nothing but an EDK on steroids (I'm lookin at you Abjurant champion). So they don't buy your books. Suddenly, you've got this this crazy production schedule, and a lot of unsold books. Which, I think, is why the 3.5 stuff wasn't selling so well at the end. Skill tricks, really?
Also luckily, Paizo doesn't have an evil megagorp setting their production schedule to maximize profits over the quality of the product. I think a slower schedule is actually better in the long run, as it doesn't let fans become inundated. Namely, we won't realize the emperor has no clothes, because, ya know, he's got like a winter coat and like a parka and galoshes and a hat and stuff....
Of course, business people are welcome to tell me I don't know what I'm talking about...
Then, by the time you're at the levels where a mage can never hit and will get pooed on by monsters, you will already be well into the EDK class. After you fill out EDK, go fighter 1-2 and wizard 2-3, so that you end up with 9th level spells and 4 attacks, so that your build is something like fighter1/wizard5/EDK10/fighter2/wizard2, and tell me that, over 20 levels, and with the correct selection of spells and equipment, this character doesn't feel like a gish.Your math is a bit off. A fighter3/wizard7/EDK10 is casting as a 16th level wizard, since the first level of EDK doesn't give you a +1 to your spellcasting. Still an excellent build though.
Oops, that's what I get for not looking at the book.
I don't know if this would be possible, be I think some kind of construct expert would be cool.
Somebody who could build and control various constructs.
Maybe even have a construct battle suit...
This could be really cool. I loved the old Eberron homunculi. I think a mech might be too crazy, but something smaller like "golem armor" could be fun.
As spirits are nonexistant in D&D it ain't goin' to happen!I appreciate having an "old-school" perspective in any thread.
However, I do find it tiresome when other posters go so far as to take an active stance against creativity.
Creativity and imagination are at the heart of this game- of this type of game- and have been since its founders first conceived of it. "If it's not in the rulebooks, it's not out there somewhere" is a sentiment any 0e dm should be ashamed of.
Totally agree with you. First few lines of the DMG sum it up IMO "these are guidelines not rules".
I doubt no DM hasn't got house rules. If we didn't we wouldn't have Pathfinder!
I personally would like to see a Shaman type class which deals with spirits. As spirits are nonexistant in D&D it ain't goin' to happen!But they do. Incopereal undead(like ghost) exist, dryads and other fey are spirits of the nature, and elementals are spirits of air, earth, fire, and water.
Doh!
Now I'm going to have to think how to do it!I must admit I thought of ghosts but forgot the rest...
*hangs head in shame*