To start off with I'd like to state that I don't see the need for Warlocks (they seem like Sorcerer lite to me, though I'd probably be more agreeable if they where more like Binders), Scouts (especially know with Feats like Vital Strike and Cleave), or a Fighter/Mage class. That isn't to say that I don't feel there aren't campaigns were they might be appropriate.
So to try to get the thread back on track I'd like to present my ideas for an Inquisitor class. I really just threw it out as an example but I've been thinking about it since and this is what I came up with:
The Inquisitors are groups of highly educated men and women who choose to fight against something they see as wrong. They form Orders with like minded people and use knowledge and belief to combat their foe. Some concepts I came up with for abilities would be using Knowledge checks against a monster (i.e. not unaugment humanoids, beasts, plants, etc.) to give you and your allies bonuses to hit, damage, caster level checks to beat SR, and the ability to bypass a certain amount of DR for one round. Essentially you'd be able to buff a party through bits of knowledge you picked up. This would have a limited number of uses per day. I also figured you could choose an order to belong to that gave you abilities specifically designed to fight a particular enemy like Angels, Demons, Fey, etc. I also though it would be good to have more politically inspired Orders that focused on things like Constructs (Ludites-like Orders), those that targeted Humanoids or partcular groups like nobles or slavers, and of course those that targeted Arcane casters. This way you could have Orders in your campaign that were part of a church or just idealists and radicals. I was also thinking they would get certain abilities to represent the fact they had their Order to draw on.
Add to this the ability to cast 6 levels of Divine Magic that stems from their belief in their cause, if not a god. I'd also give them A moderate attack bonus, good will saves, d8 HD, 4 to 6 + Int skills, and I was toying around with Order specific weapons to go along with simple weapons. I got this mostly from the anti-construct order, because they should have hammers.
Sure, this isn't appropriate for all games, but I think it would be sufficiently unique, fits an archetype, and fills a role as it gives "Divine" character classes a skill monkey.
Er, sorry. I posted this like two and a half hours ago, but did so in the wrong thread.
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.
(...)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
(...)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?
(...)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 (...) 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.
These are all insightful arguments.. the thing is, most of them apply to other mechanics at least as much as they apply to feats.
If a character wants to use a single new class, that's very easy for me to read and either reject or accept. I seriously don't understand the DM-centric complaint here. A class is a neat, tidy bundle of new abilities; at least, when compared to a bundle of feats or spells with the same page foothold.
I welcome new mechanics most of the time, at least if that's what my players want. But if I had to choose between a player using a new "ninja" class or a player using three pages of new "ninja feats" and spells, based on what is easier for me to handle, frankly I'd take the base class.
It's also much, much, MUCH easier for me to say
"The dread necromancer and the duskblade will be available for play, they're in these books. No, the archivist and dragon shaman don't exist in this world, but see me if you want to play a beguiler."
compared to,
"Feats H, I, J, K, L, M, N, O, P, Q, R and S will be available in my game. See me about feats A, B, and C. You can't take feats D, E, F, G, H, T, U, V..."
I just tell my players verbally what classes I use in a given game, and can easily explain a class they've never heard of. Feats, however, almost always require a printed document with summaries and page references. Same with setting-specific spell lists.
Your second point runs afoul I feel for similar reasons. Base classes are very easy to explain to new players.
I explained the 11 core classes to my girlfriend on a long car ride (when she had known nothing about D&D that morning) and she had no trouble grasping them. "Fighters are solid warriors with lots of specialized weapon-skills; barbarians are like fighters who aren't trained as well but can become stronger for short period by getting really angry; rogues are sneaky and dirty fighters who have lots of out-of-combat skills and deal lots of extra damage during an ambush", etc. We got caught up on the wizard and sorcerer for awhile because I had to explain the difference between "spontaneous" and "prepared" casters, which in turn required me to explain vancian casting (she thought that wizards were more her style, with all the structure and planning). She eventually decided that druids sounded awesome.
By comparison, when I tried to walk her through selecting her first feat she was utterly baffled.
Your third point does apply to new classes moreso than to other mechanics, I'll admit. I'll concede, some people just want their class name to match what their character is.
But not many.
In reality, most people don't just want a new name, they want a retooled progression and new abilities that capture the feel of their concept and inspire them to play such a character.
I don't see how or why you would dismiss that as "writing mechanics just to write mechanics". Isn't that what all RPG companies do?
"Come up with a cool mechanical nitch that screams 'samurai'" is as valid as any other challenge a designer might choose to tackle. And it might lead to shoddy, hastily written mechanics, true. Or it might lead to real innovation and an enrichment of the game.
Just like any other challenge a designer might choose to tackle.
Your fourth point (bloat leads to bloat) applies to other mechanics to exactly the same degree as to classes. "He gets a feat to represent being raised in a jungle? I was raised in the mountains, I want a feat for that!" I hardly thing that that is a bad thing, though. It's an engine that drives creativity, enriches the game, and helps keep Paizo in business.
Occorse, I know you disagree, at least on the point of classes. I want to ask why class-bloat is bad and feat-bloat isn't, but that brings us back to square one.
I actually think your fifth point is two points. "5a", if you will, would be "It takes away from support of existing classes in future books", while "5b" is more like "it might step on the toes of players who have tried to build their concept without access to such mechanics".
I actually feel that the first point is valid, and it's why I feel that new base classes shouldn't see support in future products (unless those future products are explicitly called out as supporting a base class). I want to be able to buy a Paizo book and fully enjoy it whether or not I've purchased all their previous books.
But then, some posters strongly disagree, and are up in arms over the prospect that new classes might not see support. Go figure.
As for the second, again, it applies equally to all elements of the game. If a player tries to make a "psychic" by taking lots of sense motive feats and then suddenly a feat chain comes out representing telepaths, you're in the exact same situation.
For the most part, your post reads as an indictment of ALL new mechanics, not just base classes.
So to try to get the thread back on track I'd like to present my ideas for an Inquisitor class. I really just threw it out as an example but I've been thinking about it since and this is what I came up with:
Would you give them spontaneous or prepared spells? The whole learned men thing would lend itself to prepared, but the need for the versatility of spontaneous for a class like this. And would you keep the list somewhat clericy? or would you allow for things like divine invisibility?
Also, just my opinion, but giving allies a bonus feels like the bard or (I think) the new cavalier. I'd focus on things that debuff the enemies, like reducing their saves or SR, or curse effects like the hexblade. I could see this developing really awesomely over 20 levels, like making golems vulnerable to magic or fire elementals vulnerable to fireball.
I like the weapons by order thing, though i can't stop picturing the warhammer with hunter with a gun. The problem with stuff like a hammer is that it seems like something a big fighter guy would have, and not a stealth guy.
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...
Its the quality vs quanity dispute (business people still argue it...)
Personally, I like paizo's business model they seem to have. They put out the main line (Pathfinder RPG) with certain useful/required rules suplements (Bestiary, GM Screen, and so on), when they can be put out as quality rock solid products after testing (as in , no set release schedule), and for month to month cash flow to keep solvent, releasing adventures, game aids and such. It lets them do monthly releases to keep cash flowing in without a loss in quality, and by doing so, alows them to feel less pressure about releasing new splatbooks.
And...as to the topic at hand...
As has been stated, we don't need a new class for everything. Alot can be done with class variants (ala Unearthed Arcana for 3.5) or even substitution levels and newer feats. People get way to hung up on the name of soemthing, and don't look at the fact that mechanically, the difference between, oh say a samurai and a fighter are cultural (we don't need a base class for every culture) and training (feat selection, and possibly swapping out certain features for other features), but mechanically, they do the same thing...they hit things, well, and kill things...well, and do it by force of arms.
On the same hand...while I liked the intent of the scout class, I think WotC fell short, I'd love to see Paizo do a scout type class well. Unlike a fighter/mage, or even a ranger/rogue, to try and mechanically replicate a fast moving mobile stealthy fighter who functions well as the eyes and ears (a scout by difinition in most fantasy novels), you need features from at least 3 classes, maybe 4 depending on how you do it...and that I can see as at least a presitige class, but more likeley a base class.
Which I guess kinda illistrates my feelings on it. Something that its possible to do by variant features on an already existing class, or adding in some feats to make certain concepts viable shouldn't be given a base class...a prestige class at most. Concepts that, mechanically, require soemthing thats not in the game, and that adding in as variant features or feats could break the game, aught to recieve a base class, or at the very least a prestige class you can get into at 5th or 6th.
Would you give them spontaneous or prepared spells? The whole learned men thing would lend itself to prepared, but the need for the versatility of spontaneous for a class like this. And would you keep the list somewhat clericy? or would you allow for things like divine invisibility?Also, just my opinion, but giving allies a bonus feels like the bard or (I think) the new cavalier. I'd focus on things that debuff the enemies, like reducing their saves or SR, or curse effects like the hexblade. I could see this developing really awesomely over 20 levels, like making golems vulnerable to magic or fire elementals vulnerable to fireball.
I like the weapons by order thing, though i can't stop picturing the warhammer with hunter with a gun. The problem with stuff like a hammer is that it seems like something a big fighter guy would have, and not a stealth guy.
I would go with spontaneous for the reason that the spells they cast stem from their passion and belief rather then just learning it. I think it would add an interesting dicotomy to the class. Their spells would be based on clerics, but I haven't ruled out taking a few appropriate spells from elsewhere too.
I was probably aiming more for debuffing monsters. I don't want to step on Bardic toes (which my initial thought does) and I'm still thinking of Cavaliers as Knights, which might be a problem, but then again they aren't a base core class so I'm not all that concerned there.
I wouldn't say Inquisitors are sneaky, I probably wouldn't give them Stealth, just secretive. There role is to gather a party and go to a crypt to drive stakes through vampire hearts and such or breaking into factories with a mob and smashing machines with hammers. I could easily see Inquisitors with guns, provided the setting allowed for it.
To start off with I'd like to state that I don't see the need for Warlocks (they seem like Sorcerer lite to me, though I'd probably be more agreeable if they where more like Binders)
I don't agree with this, because I really don't feel (and have never felt) that vancian casting is a good general mechanic for "magic powers".
A sorcerer is a person who's innate magic is articulated in a very precise and sophisticated way (in my mind, this should be because their ancestors were innate spellcasters: dragons or fiends or the like). I think there's plenty of room for an innate mage with more of an "x-men" feel, where they can't express their magic in complex and precise ways but instead get a more primitive/general suite of at-will powers.
Would you give them spontaneous or prepared spells? The whole learned men thing would lend itself to prepared, but the need for the versatility of spontaneous for a class like this. And would you keep the list somewhat clericy? or would you allow for things like divine invisibility?
The themes of occult research and lore really scream "prepared" to me.
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 still like Kirth's idea, here.
Features to make your fighter a heavily-armored juggernaut of destruction, or, by selecting other feats and variants, a table-jumping Zorro who's just as effective, but in a different way. The Duelist PrC class looks that way, but some people aren't happy with it, it seems.
I liked the variants in that book, and I think more feats and options using core classes is easier and more consistent than throwing in very alien base classes.
The idea of a monk-like "sword saint" (there was one in 2e Oriental Adventures, but I forgot the name of it) with monk-style abilities and a dedication to perfect mastery of a single weapon sounds promising. The weapon could replace flurry-of-blows, maybe.
Perhaps he would get abilities similar to the Soulknife from Psionic Handbook, enchanting his weapon with powers of the mind, or ki powers, or something like that.
Just thinking out loud. A variant of that sort would be fun to play, I'd bet.
As has been stated, we don't need a new class for everything. Alot can be done with class variants (ala Unearthed Arcana for 3.5) or even substitution levels and newer feats. People get way to hung up on the name of soemthing, and don't look at the fact that mechanically, the difference between, oh say a samurai and a fighter are cultural (we don't need a base class for every culture) and training (feat selection, and possibly swapping out certain features for other features), but mechanically, they do the same thing...they hit things, well, and kill things...well, and do it by force of arms.
This is the last time I bring this up, I swear. In the Conversion forum there is a couple of threads related to Kaidan: a Japanese Ghost Story setting. The person who started the thread has a number of variants in the the works like Yamabushi = Druids, Miko = Clerics, Omnyouji = Wizard. They also have a few new classes, one of them being Samurai, which exists right alongside with Fighter = Bushi/Ashigaru. My understanding for the reason for this was that the designer wants, among other things, to have peasant warrior and noble warriors and have something to seperate the two.
I bring this up because it is a case where the designer feels it is necessary for the game to have the Fighter class and something similar, yet still different the Fighter. Sure you can argue the need for it (as I said, its in the Conversion section) but if it fits into a setting and there is a reason the designer wants it, then why?
To start off with I'd like to state that I don't see the need for Warlocks (they seem like Sorcerer lite to me, though I'd probably be more agreeable if they where more like Binders)I don't agree with this, because I really don't feel (and have never felt) that vancian casting is a good general mechanic for "magic powers".
A sorcerer is a person who's innate magic is articulated in a very precise and sophisticated way (in my mind, this should be because their ancestors were innate spellcasters: dragons or fiends or the like). I think there's plenty of room for an innate mage with more of an "x-men" feel, where they can't express their magic in complex and precise ways but instead get a more primitive/general suite of at-will powers.
I thought Binders were the ones with the Vestiges from the Tome of Magic? Could be wrong about the name. Whatever the name for the class, they got powers by calling up extra planar beings and making a contract with them. There were no spells but powers that included things like natural attacks to calling up a cloud of darkness at will, which was really useful in a desert. I liked this better then the "I've got lasers and few funky powers for flavor." As I said, I don't like the warlock but combining the two might make me change my mind.
The themes of occult research and lore really scream "prepared" to me.
Would you give them spontaneous or prepared spells? The whole learned men thing would lend itself to prepared, but the need for the versatility of spontaneous for a class like this. And would you keep the list somewhat clericy? or would you allow for things like divine invisibility?
Prepared. After spending an hour reading that musty tomb....Would you introduce the Sanity rules from UA? Forbidden Lore and all that.
Or Taint?
But if I had to choose between a player using a new "ninja" class or a player using three pages of new "ninja feats" and spells, based on what is easier for me to handle, frankly I'd take the base class.
You and I will have to agree to disagree on this. I really don't want to restate my entire argument.
I just tell my players verbally what classes I use in a given game, and can easily explain a class they've never heard of. Feats, however, almost always require a printed document with summaries and page references. Same with setting-specific spell lists.
Here's the problem: Ideally, feats aren't whole new mechanics, they improve something that already exists or alter it in some way. Good feats interact with existing feats, existing mechanics, and existing classes. It's pretty hard to make a whole new class (and new mechanic) that interacts with existing feats, mechanics, and classes well. And really, I don't WANT to say no to my players. I want them to be able to play a ninja without me having to look through a whole new class. If it's just a feat or rogue ability, I can look at it, with a decent knowledge of what already exists and say yes or no. If it's a whole new class I have to go ahead and look through tuns and tons of stuff to make sure there's not some hidden problematic loophole. I'd rather build on existing knowledge
I explained the 11 core classes to my girlfriend on a long car ride (when she had known nothing about D&D that morning) and she had no trouble grasping them. "Fighters are solid warriors with lots of specialized weapon-skills; barbarians are like fighters who aren't trained as well but can become stronger for short period by getting really angry; rogues are sneaky and dirty fighters who have lots of out-of-combat skills and deal lots of extra damage during an ambush", etc. We got caught up on the wizard and sorcerer for awhile because I had to explain the difference between "spontaneous" and "prepared" casters, which in turn required me to explain vancian casting (she thought that wizards were more her style, with all the structure and planning). She eventually decided that druids sounded awesome.
By comparison, when I tried to walk her through selecting her first feat she was utterly baffled.
I think you missed my point here. The concept of either feats or classes are pretty easy to grasp. I'm saying, in order to have an out of character understanding of the world, with some consistency, you should have an idea of all 11 classes. Not that surprises aren't good or interesting, but, if you've got 40 classes to figure out that all occur equally commonly, it will be daunting for a new player. (Example: Wizards do X. "Oh, ok, so you're a wizard, you do X right?". "no no, I'm a fire wizard from book Y. It's TOTALLLY different". I don't want to limit that other guy or confuse the new player.
You need no such understanding of feats to get a feel for the world.
In reality, most people don't just want a new name, they want a retooled progression and new abilities that capture the feel of their concept and inspire them to play such a character.
I don't know what to say, except that our experiences have completely differed in this area. And I don't think I'm the only one.
I don't see how or why you would dismiss that as "writing mechanics just to write mechanics". Isn't that what all RPG companies do?
God I certainly hope not. I hope they have cool ideas, so they decide to publish them, then they get more people with more cool ideas so they decide to publish those. Once companies start coming up with material to fill space rather than come up with space to contain their ideas they've gone stale and need to begin moving on.
"Come up with a cool mechanical nitch that screams 'samurai'" is as valid as any other challenge a designer might choose to tackle. And it might lead to shoddy, hastily written mechanics, true. Or it might lead to real innovation and an enrichment of the game.
This really gets to the crux of the matter, I think. I think, in a well-designed class, form and function follow one another as being equally important. In your example, it's pretty much pure function following form, in the same that I feel many 4e classes are pure form following function. Sure, theoretically, that designer making the samurai could come up with brilliant mechanics and dazzle the crap out of everybody. But, I don't think we've ever seen it happen, and I doubt its very likely. I think good base classes come from "what can't you do?" Or "I want to do this, but there's really not a good way, and, from there, both mechanics and niche fit one another". I think "We need a samurai from this book" or "hey, there's this totally neat mechanic, let's make a fighter for it" both lead to crap. (I know you like the ninja, but...well, I've never heard anyone say that before).
Your fourth point (bloat leads to bloat) applies to other mechanics to exactly the same degree as to classes. "He gets a feat to represent being raised in a jungle? I was raised in the mountains, I want a feat for that!" I hardly thing that that is a bad thing, though. It's an engine that drives creativity, enriches the game, and helps keep Paizo in business.
Yes it does. I won't even begin to argue this. Which is why I don't want 200 feats in the next book either. But I think this problem is worse for classes, and I'd rather see Paizo stay in business with good ideas, of which there are plenty.
I actually feel that the first point is valid, and it's why I feel that new base classes shouldn't see support in future products (unless those future products are explicitly called out as supporting a base class). I want to be able to buy a Paizo book and fully enjoy it whether or not I've purchased all their previous books.
But this IS a problem. Suddenly you're not supporting the stuff you came out with in the first place. Look at the poor warlock. Mages got spells and spells and spells and they got like 5 invocations in like 2 books.
As for the second, again, it applies equally to all elements of the game. If a player tries to make a "psychic" by taking lots of sense motive feats and then suddenly a feat chain comes out representing telepaths, you're in the exact same situation.
The thing with feats is, most campaigns don't take place AT level 20, and most players don't plan their characters from 1-20 (remember, by dint of being on the forum, we're all already more into system mechanics than the average player) and it's a hell of a lot easier to let them swap out some feats. This is still a problem, yes, but again, more for classes than feats.
For the most part, your post reads as an indictment of ALL new mechanics, not just base classes.
It could, but it wasn't a thesis. That was one post in a long forum of posts, over the course of which I talked about several well-done classes. So, you pretty much know that's not what I'm saying.
The idea of a monk-like "sword saint" (there was one in 2e Oriental Adventures, but I forgot the name of it) with monk-style abilities and a dedication to perfect mastery of a single weapon sounds promising. The weapon could replace flurry-of-blows, maybe.
I believe that was what the Sohie was in that book, unless I missed the 2nd Ed version. I think the original one was regular AD&D from what I remember of the binding style and the fact that they experimented with a Comeliness stat :D. I think dropping the unarmed damage would be better, since they train more in weapon styles and because regular monks can flurry with monk weapons.
This is the last time I bring this up, I swear. In the Conversion forum there is a couple of threads related to Kaidan: a Japanese Ghost Story setting. The person who started the thread has a number of variants in the the works like Yamabushi = Druids, Miko = Clerics, Omnyouji = Wizard. They also have a few new classes, one of them being Samurai, which exists right alongside with Fighter = Bushi/Ashigaru. My understanding for the reason for this was that the designer wants, among other things, to have peasant warrior and noble warriors and have something to seperate the two.I bring this up because it is a case where the designer feels it is necessary for the game to have the Fighter class and something similar, yet still different the Fighter. Sure you can argue the need for it (as I said, its in the Conversion section) but if it fits into a setting and there is a reason the designer wants it, then why?
I can't argue against a designer wanting something...if the designer see's a niche for soemthing in their game, and feels the niche is big enough to justify a full class...then...so be it.
That being said...lets look at european history (I'm assuming most of us are familiar with it at least.) What seprated out a career man at arms and a noble born knight on the battlefield? Not alot really, at least in the professional armies. The noble born would have access to better quality of gear (money issue), but in terms of fighting ability, thats an experience issue. The noble learned from tutors and instructors and doing the actual fighting and bleeding, the career man at arms learned from grizzled vets who had been there done that and from doing the actual fighting and bleeding. So, mechanically, I would say they are both fighters, what seperates them is their birth status.
Same for samurai...if all they are is fighters of noble birth, what kind of class feature do you need to represent noble birth? If they are a class that are better at fighting that a fighter...isn't that rendering the fighter class obsolete?
*shrug* Like I said, if a designer thinks theres a need, than so be it, doesn't mean I'll agree with them, or even use what they design. And I won't tell a designer they are wrong, but I would still presnt an alternate option that tries to keep what they have shared of their wiew of the world intact without adding a base class.
To start off with I'd like to state that I don't see the need for Warlocks (they seem like Sorcerer lite to me, though I'd probably be more agreeable if they where more like Binders)I don't agree with this, because I really don't feel (and have never felt) that vancian casting is a good general mechanic for "magic powers".
A sorcerer is a person who's innate magic is articulated in a very precise and sophisticated way (in my mind, this should be because their ancestors were innate spellcasters: dragons or fiends or the like). I think there's plenty of room for an innate mage with more of an "x-men" feel, where they can't express their magic in complex and precise ways but instead get a more primitive/general suite of at-will powers.
Let's just not start this one up. An argument about magic systems will hijack the thread even more.
The idea of a monk-like "sword saint" (there was one in 2e Oriental Adventures, but I forgot the name of it) with monk-style abilities and a dedication to perfect mastery of a single weapon sounds promising. The weapon could replace flurry-of-blows, maybe.I believe that was what the Sohie was in that book, unless I missed the 2nd Ed version. I think the original one was regular AD&D from what I remember of the binding style and the fact that they experimented with a Comeliness stat :D. I think dropping the unarmed damage would be better, since they train more in weapon styles and because regular monks can flurry with monk weapons.
It was called the Kensai, and they were walking engines of destruction...when they had a non-magical version of their chosen weapon in hand (and pretty restricted magic items to). They were in the first OA book. Good lord I loved playing one of those in 1st. Especially since my DM back then was super stingy with magic items.
Same for samurai...if all they are is fighters of noble birth, what kind of class feature do you need to represent noble birth?
In the real world, we know that being a noble doesn't really make you different from commoners, aside for your attitude, your equipment and the training you've had access to.
Romantically speaking, however, different casts are often depicted as being made of entirely different stuff.
Let's just not start this one up. An argument about magic systems will hijack the thread even more.
1.) The thread is about what we would like to see in future classes. New magic systems are highly relevant.
2.) Not to be terse, but if you don't want to reply to posts concerning new magic systems you don't have to.
I wouldn't say Inquisitors are sneaky, I probably wouldn't give them Stealth, just secretive. There role is to gather a party and go to a crypt to drive stakes through vampire hearts and such or breaking into factories with a mob and smashing machines with hammers. I could easily see Inquisitors with guns, provided the setting allowed for it.
I think I'd still give them stealth. From a mechanical standpoint, skill monkeys without stealth just aren't that sexy, it's probably why none exist in core. Besides that, if my job was to tail nobles around the town and find out who is or isn't a vampire, but I was lightly armored and not a magical powerhouse, I'd damned well walk on my tip-toes.
On a sidenote, aside from debuffing, there's so much you could do in regards to finding out a monster's weaknesses and vulnerabilities. I could see this kind of mechanic really filling 20 levels.
1.) The thread is about what we would like to see in future classes. New magic systems are highly relevant.
2.) Not to be terse, but if you don't want to reply to posts concerning new magic systems you don't have to.
LOL. Ok.
Yes, I agree, vancian doesn't simulate point and shoot powers. I often said when 3.0 came out that I thought the sorcerer was a freaking stupid class for that point alone. I've since recanted only because I like bloodlines. That being said, Vancian is how magic operates on Golarion, and indeed, most D&D settings. Once you've established it, and every core class uses those rules, that's pretty much how magic works. Those are the rules of the universe. I'm not interested in every guy and his uncle having a completely non-compatible subsystem for re-inventing the wheel that doesn't support core characters when they could've simply added a few new spells. That's why I was practically giddy when Jason announced that the Summoner would be a spellcaster, and that's why I thought tome of magic and incarnum were both awful (and, incidentally, proved to be 4e experiments).
That being said, Vancian is how magic operates on Golarion, and indeed, most D&D settings.
Not really. Most monsters have supernatural abilities that work nothing like vancian casting. It's well established that a creature can have "point-and-shoot" powers, as you put it. Heck, even core classes get countless magic powers that aren't spells.
Even were this not the case, however, I refer back to my response to Spacelord's assertion that D&D doesn't have spirits: Just because it isn't in the core rules doesn't mean it can't be out there somewhere.
I think that spellcasting is okay for the "summoner" because the archetype has long been associated with wizards and sorcerers. In D&D fiction, guys who make monsters can also cast fireball and stoneskin. I would be a little disappointed if the "alchemist" also used vancian casting, however.
I feel that if you're going to have one-magic-system-to-rule-them-all and are going to focus on compatability and inclusiveness, you are going to need a MUCH more robust and flexible system than vancian casting.
I wouldn't say Inquisitors are sneaky, I probably wouldn't give them Stealth, just secretive. There role is to gather a party and go to a crypt to drive stakes through vampire hearts and such or breaking into factories with a mob and smashing machines with hammers. I could easily see Inquisitors with guns, provided the setting allowed for it.I think I'd still give them stealth. From a mechanical standpoint, skill monkeys without stealth just aren't that sexy, it's probably why none exist in core. Besides that, if my job was to tail nobles around the town and find out who is or isn't a vampire, but I was lightly armored and not a magical powerhouse, I'd damned well walk on my tip-toes.
On a sidenote, aside from debuffing, there's so much you could do in regards to finding out a monster's weaknesses and vulnerabilities. I could see this kind of mechanic really filling 20 levels.
What I might do is give a few bonus skills based on the order. I could see Revolutionaries having Stealth but not Undead Hunters as a lot of their enemies are mindless. Also the PFRPG skills make taking it as a non-class skill more forgiving.
Also I was thinking about giving them abilities to spot monsters hidden by disguise so they could spot the fact that said noble casts no reflection or catches a glimpse of a patch of scales a dragon forgot about in a few moments. Keep in mind I haven't even crackedopen Tome of Horror to take a look at Archivist, right now I'm just brainstorming. But knowing the weaknesses and such was something I was lumping in with debuffing, so they will have abilities there.
To reply to Hydro about their spells being prepared, I understand your point and it is a tough call for me. I don't really want them to have a broad access to magic spells, just some tricks they've picked up. Also I lean toward spontanious as their isn't any spontanious divine casters until Oracle comes out. If I do go with prepared I'll probably have them suffer spell failure to compensate for a broader range of spells.
That being said, Vancian is how magic operates on Golarion, and indeed, most D&D settings.Not really. Most monsters have supernatural abilities that work nothing like vancian casting. It's well established that a creature can have "point-and-shoot" powers, as you put it.
Even were this not the case, however, I refer back to my response to Spacelord's assertion that D&D doesn't have spirits: Just because it isn't in the core rules doesn't mean it can't be out there somewhere.
I think that spellcasting is okay for the "summoner" because the archetype has long been associated with wizards and sorcerers. In D&D fiction, guys who make monsters can also cast fireball and stoneskin. I would be a little disappointed if the "alchemist" also used vancian casting, however.
The monsters you speak of typically have SLAs or one or two distinct powers. Not whole systems.
Spirits (and by this, I'm thinking WOD style) would add something new and different to the game, so would be interesting to see in a book. Hell, we could give the Druid a spirit variant for their animal companion abilities, or some new cleric domains, or some spirit-slaying powers for the ranger, paladin, or monk (I'd prefer arcane casters stay out of it, thank you).
What I mean by variant magic systems are things like the shadowcaster that made me say "well, this'd be a neat PRC...hell, I think this was a PRC...a couple, actually."
As for the alchemist, that does leave me a little bit nervous. But Jason has stated he doesn't want to step on anyone's toes, so I'm thinking it'll largely be self-transformative and not quite have the complexity or range of options as vancian (here's hoping for another skill monkey).
What I might do is give a few bonus skills based on the order. I could see Revolutionaries having Stealth but not Undead Hunters as a lot of their enemies are mindless. Also the PFRPG skills make taking it as a non-class skill more forgiving.Also I was thinking about giving them abilities to spot monsters hidden by disguise so they could spot the fact that said noble casts no reflection or catches a glimpse of a patch of scales a dragon forgot about in a few moments. Keep in mind I haven't even crackedopen Tome of Horror to take a look at Archivist, right now I'm just brainstorming. But knowing the weaknesses and such was something I was lumping in with debuffing, so they will have abilities there.
To reply to Hydro about their spells being prepared, I understand your point and it is a tough call for me. I don't really want them to have a broad access to magic spells, just some tricks they've picked up. Also I lean toward spontanious as their isn't any spontanious divine casters until Oracle comes out. If I do go with prepared I'll probably have them...
I Wouldn't bother with ASF (I hate it anyway). I think either system would be fine.
TOH is a decent read, if only for the archivist class. They're very cool, a little bardlike for their knowledge mechanic, but very cool. my one big complaint was that they could've been a cleric variant (see, I have that complaint even for classes I like), but tweaking them to be more skill based and less magic based would fix a lot of it. And your knowledge-based ability sounds pretty different.
[That being said...lets look at european history (I'm assuming most of us are familiar with it at least.) What seprated out a career man at arms and a noble born knight on the battlefield? Not alot really, at least in the professional armies. The noble born would have access to better quality of gear (money issue), but in terms of fighting ability, thats an experience issue. The noble learned from tutors and instructors and doing the actual fighting and bleeding, the career man at arms learned from grizzled vets who had been there done that and from doing the actual fighting and bleeding. So, mechanically, I would say they are both fighters, what seperates them is their birth status.
For the most part you're correct, though it would be rare to find peasants who knew how to fight on a horse in heavy armor. Still this leads back to there not being a need for Paladin or Ranger. If you want to play a holy warrior, take the right feats and say you follow X god/religion. If you want to be a yoeman, bump up those wilderness skills. The main reason why we have them is because people want to play Saint George and King Arthor and Aeregorn and Robin Hood, so they wanted a class that reflected that archetype.
It was called the Kensai, and they were walking engines of destruction...when they had a non-magical version of their chosen weapon in hand (and pretty restricted magic items to). They were in the first OA book. Good lord I loved playing one of those in 1st. Especially since my DM back then was super stingy with magic items.The idea of a monk-like "sword saint" (there was one in 2e Oriental Adventures, but I forgot the name of it) with monk-style abilities and a dedication to perfect mastery of a single weapon sounds promising. The weapon could replace flurry-of-blows, maybe.I believe that was what the Sohie was in that book, unless I missed the 2nd Ed version. I think the original one was regular AD&D from what I remember of the binding style and the fact that they experimented with a Comeliness stat :D. I think dropping the unarmed damage would be better, since they train more in weapon styles and because regular monks can flurry with monk weapons.
Yeah, that's it! I never played one, but they were intriguing, all the same. A monk-based warrior of that sort would be a cool variant. Maybe play with the BAB, hps, saves, re-scale the monk abilites, and the abilities the sword could have, and you'd have a skilled, unarmored, sword-swingin' warrior.
A variant class would make more sense than a PrC, since it would be a life-long dedication to a single weapon that fuels the class. What happens when he loses it? What ki powers can he manifest with it?
Bring on the PF Kensai!
It was called the Kensai, and they were walking engines of destruction...when they had a non-magical version of their chosen weapon in hand (and pretty restricted magic items to). They were in the first OA book. Good lord I loved playing one of those in 1st. Especially since my DM back then was super stingy with magic items.
Well, there is a feat in eberron (I think) that allows the monk to basically use a longsword as a monk weapon for flurrying. Is that more what you're looking for? Alternately, a variant monk feature that lets you increase weapon base damage for a specific weapon rather than unarmed strikes would be neat.
I dunno, what else would they do?
For the most part you're correct, though it would be rare to find peasants who knew how to fight on a horse in heavy armor. Still this leads back to there not being a need for Paladin or Ranger. If you want to play a holy warrior, take the right feats and say you follow X god/religion. If you want to be a yoeman, bump up those wilderness skills. The main reason why we have them is because people want to play Saint George and King Arthor and Aeregorn and Robin Hood, so they wanted a class that reflected that archetype.
Which is why I like having the ranger and paladin in the game. But like you said, they are based on broad archetypes of the fantasy genre, when soemone says they want a samurai or a ninja class...what broad archtype are they basing it on? Samurai historically are one thing, in movies and fiction and anime, they vary, wildly...with ninja it gets even worse (I'm guessing they don't want the pajma clad mooks, but do they want the super sneak, the spy, the assassin, or what?) Which is why I say...alot of what people want, can mechanically be done with feats or class variants...they either a)aren't a broad enough archtype to justify a new base class (prestige class, yeah, in a lot of cases), or b) are a core class with extra advantages rendering the core class obsolete.
A variant class would make more sense than a PrC, since it would be a life-long dedication to a single weapon that fuels the class. What happens when he loses it? What ki powers can he manifest with it?
Bring on the PF Kensai!
Well, there is a feat in eberron (I think) that allows the monk to basically use a longsword as a monk weapon for flurrying. Is that more what you're looking for? Alternately, a variant monk feature that lets you increase weapon base damage for a specific weapon rather than unarmed strikes would be neat.
I dunno, what else would they do?
OK, I went and grabbed my copy of OA out the box...and, heres a list of the Kensai and their awesomeness (remember, they were written for 1st ed AD&D, so hope your familiar with the old system...)
Fought and saved as fighters, could use any weapon, recieved a free proficiency in their weapon of choice (i.e longsword, or battleaxe, ect), couldn't wear armor, but had a natural armor class that improved by level (based off dex, it was 23 minus dex, which with the attri requirements and race limts, meant you started with an ac of 9 to 5), got no dex bonus to ax (they had a better version really), a bonus to init checks that rose as their level did, a bonus to saves, he could do maximum damage with his weapon of choice a number of times per day equal to his level, and is immune to fear (all that at first level =])
As he rose in level, he gained:
extra damage with his chosen weapon (started at second level, amount rose as his level did.
Bonus to hit with his chosen weapon, rose as his level did. (both of the above capped at +5 at 20th)
Lesser chance to be suprised
Ability to dual wield with no penalty
Ability to make a whirlwind attack, but it ate up all his Ki power.
Restrictions were:
Couldn't use magic weapons of his chosen weapon type
Couldn't wear armor...period.
Got half XP if he didn't fight with his chosen weapon.
got double xp for defeating other kensai in a duel (no outside buffs, no interference, could only fight any given opponent once per level).
Had to practice 2 hours a day
could be challenged to a duel when he leveled, if he lost, he went down a level (yeah, really sucked)
So, thats what they could do, originally.
*edited for a couple tupos and some grammar
Which is why I like having the ranger and paladin in the game. But like you said, they are based on broad archetypes of the fantasy genre, when soemone says they want a samurai or a ninja class...what broad archtype are they basing it on? Samurai historically are one thing, in movies and fiction and anime, they vary, wildly...with ninja it gets even worse (I'm guessing they don't want the pajma clad mooks, but do they want the super sneak, the spy, the assassin, or what?) Which is why I say...alot of what people want, can mechanically be done with feats or class variants...they either a)aren't a broad enough archtype to justify a new base class (prestige class, yeah, in a lot of cases), or b) are a core class with extra advantages rendering the core class obsolete.
Exactly what I mean about class bloat.
If you want to play a samurai use a fighter as the base take the feats which *you* as a player see as fitting, same with skills. Arm yourself with a katana wear lamellar plate and be honourable you have a samurai. There is no need to produce a class for it.Same with a ninja, take a rogue base class or better with a few monk levels as well, jiggle around the feats and skills, get yourself a few magic items and black PJs and call yourself a ninja. No need for a specific class.
I know people will say ninjas can do this and that but they (in the real world) couldn't. They had good PR.
If you want a new class then it needs to be unique, fulfill a niche not covered by the core classes and bring something to the game. IMO.
I really like the idea of the Inquisitor probably 'cos it strikes me as Cthulhu-esque. It is unique, fills a niche and brings something to the game.
Okay, thanks for the advice. I've literally never played a multiclassed character before, and didn't have much idea how to do it.
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 another peice of advice while your trying it out...play to your characters strengths...most multiclassed characters get Multiple Attribute Disease (a nasty affliction requiring multiple good stats) and, during the mid low levels (3 to 5ish) can lag behind the other party members in their given areas (spellcasting in particular). So keep in mind whats important, take feats to maximize your abilities, and whe magic items and money start rolling in, focus on the important stuff thats generically good, and not situationally good items that don't usually come into play. Oh...and don't forget that at early levels of being fighter mage, while yes, magic can go boom, it tend to be more effective boosting your offense and defense.
Exactly what I mean about class bloat.
If you want to play a samurai use a fighter as the base take the feats which *you* as a player see as fitting, same with skills. Arm yourself with a katana wear lamellar plate and be honourable you have a samurai. There is no need to produce a class for it.
Same with a ninja, take a rogue base class or better with a few monk levels as well, jiggle around the feats and skills, get yourself a few magic items and black PJs and call yourself a ninja. No need for a specific class.
I know people will say ninjas can do this and that but they (in the real world) couldn't. They had good PR.If you want a new class then it needs to be unique, fulfill a niche not covered by the core classes and bring something to the game. IMO.
I really like the idea of the Inquisitor probably 'cos it strikes me as Cthulhu-esque. It is unique, fills a niche and brings something to the game.
Why would you talk about "the real world". This is fantasy. It doesn't matter that in the real world the legends of ninjas were exaggerated because this is a game that is based on legends.
Why would you talk about "the real world". This is fantasy. It doesn't matter that in the real world the legends of ninjas were exaggerated because this is a game that is based on legends.
Because I run a low fantasy game where every knight isn't in polished armor on a white charger. I find high fantasy games...I just don't like them.
I'm sure there are legends in a fantasy world, doesn't make them true.One of those legends *might* speak of black PJ clad men walking on water, turning invisible, walking through walls, etc. But to me they are rogues with rings of invisiblity, water walking and the walls bit was made up by the guards they duped.
Interesting. I'm familiar enough. This is definitely more monk than it is fighter. Here's how I would do them: (which, honestly, is just my opinion, not a "this is how it should be"). A lot of the old 'class powers' type things have been replaced with feats to maximize flexibility, so I certainly wouldn't replicate all of these powers as class powers, since they're now a more-flexible player choice.
-The Weapon Prof could probably just be a monk prof variant.
-Armor class is taken care of. The current monk system is a bit different, but I think it captures what you want.
-The bonus init I wouldn't be that comfortable giving to a class, since it exists as a feat.
-Monks already have 3 good saves, they don't need more help
-Bonus against fear is interesting. I might replace slow fall with the fighter's bravery. It really depends how vital you think that is to the class. I might skip it.
-To simulate the attack powers, I'd allow flurry with his weapon of choice, which takes care of dual wield. Whirlwind already exists as a feat, so I'd leave that choice up to the player.
-To compensate for damage, I would either allow him to do double base damage at some point (I wouldn't allow max damage, that's crazy) or, more likely, I'd take away his unarmed damage, and give him the ability to apply an innate enhancement bonus to his weapon of choice (ranging 1-5) and I'd allow the Ki pool enhancements (lawful, adamantine) to apply to the weapon as if it were his unarmed attack. This, right here is the big variant, which would need some testing, but ultimately serves as the focal point of the change.
-Whirlwind already exists as a feat, and I hate redundancy. Plus, the monk can already attack extra as a function of his ki pool.
As for the restrictions, this is only stuff that makes me miss the older books and a small part of what I hate about 4e. What happened to fun RP code of honor stuff like this? So flavorful.
Now, here's the point of this post: I personally don't feel that a Kensai fulfills a new enough conceptual or mechanical niche for a whole class. It might be enough on both counts to justify a PRC, which I wouldn't argue with, but it seems to work as a monk variant (which really only had one big change made to it). But, I only take one side of the argument. On the converse side, another litmus test would be, are you, as a player, happy with this? Is this variant going to be enough to satisfy the need for a kensai, or does it need it's own class?
The same way as I would apply the other litmus test (does it fulfill a new conceptual and mechanical niche) before saying yes, I would probably apply this before saying no.
Okay, thanks for the advice. I've literally never played a multiclassed character before, and didn't have much idea how to do it.
Oh, I'm sorry. My post was aggressive. I took yours wrong. If you want to play an EDK gish, the build most people will give is, in this order:
fighter1/wizard5/EDK10/fighter1/wizard3.
This gives you a really standard gish with 9th level spells and 4 attacks at level 20, and, despite looking complex, it's only got 3 classes, with no real level dips (you gotta get those weapon profs someplace) and no obscure classes. The only aspect that's min/maxed is the number of levels you take in each class, which seems pretty fair optimization to me (come on, there's NOone who NEVER optimizes).
Because I run a low fantasy game where every knight isn't in polished armor on a white charger. I find high fantasy games...I just don't like them.
I'm sure there are legends in a fantasy world, doesn't make them true.
One of those legends *might* speak of black PJ clad men walking on water, turning invisible, walking through walls, etc. But to me they are rogues with rings of invisiblity, water walking and the walls bit was made up by the guards they duped.
But you're game is unusual. D&D and thus Pathfinder are High Fantasy by default.
Interesting. I'm familiar enough. This is definitely more monk than it is fighter. Here's how I would do them: (which, honestly, is just my opinion, not a "this is how it should be"). A lot of the old 'class powers' type things have been replaced with feats to maximize flexibility, so I certainly wouldn't replicate all of these powers as class powers, since they're now a more-flexible player choice.
-The Weapon Prof could probably just be a monk prof variant.
-Armor class is taken care of. The current monk system is a bit different, but I think it captures what you want.
-The bonus init I wouldn't be that comfortable giving to a class, since it exists as a feat.
-Monks already have 3 good saves, they don't need more help
-Bonus against fear is interesting. I might replace slow fall with the fighter's bravery. It really depends how vital you think that is to the class. I might skip it.
-To simulate the attack powers, I'd allow flurry with his weapon of choice, which takes care of dual wield. Whirlwind already exists as a feat, so I'd leave that choice up to the player.
-To compensate for damage, I would either allow him to do double base damage at some point (I wouldn't allow max damage, that's crazy) or, more likely, I'd take away his unarmed damage, and give him the ability to apply an innate enhancement bonus to his weapon of choice (ranging 1-5) and I'd allow the Ki pool enhancements (lawful, adamantine) to apply to the weapon as if it were his unarmed attack. This, right here is the big variant, which would need some testing, but ultimately serves as the focal point of the change.
-Whirlwind already exists as a feat, and I hate redundancy. Plus, the monk can already attack extra as a function of his ki pool.As for the restrictions, this is only stuff that makes me miss the older books and a small part of what I hate about 4e. What happened to fun RP code of honor stuff like this? So flavorful.
Now, here's the point of this post: I personally don't feel that a Kensai fulfills a...
I dunno, I can see a variant working (although I'd prbably use fighter as a base, and swap out all of the fighters armor based stuff and some of the feats for other abilities), but I could also see them being a base class, mainly because when it was written, OA focused on the orient, but even in more western fiction, blademaster, knife masters and such do exist...enough to justify a class highlighting the difference between them and the baseline fighter/ranger/paladin.
Interesting. I'm familiar enough. This is definitely more monk than it is fighter. Here's how I would do them: (which, honestly, is just my opinion, not a "this is how it should be"). A lot of the old 'class powers' type things have been replaced with feats to maximize flexibility, so I certainly wouldn't replicate all of these powers as class powers, since they're now a more-flexible player choice.
-The Weapon Prof could probably just be a monk prof variant.
-Armor class is taken care of. The current monk system is a bit different, but I think it captures what you want.
-The bonus init I wouldn't be that comfortable giving to a class, since it exists as a feat.
-Monks already have 3 good saves, they don't need more help
-Bonus against fear is interesting. I might replace slow fall with the fighter's bravery. It really depends how vital you think that is to the class. I might skip it.
-To simulate the attack powers, I'd allow flurry with his weapon of choice, which takes care of dual wield. Whirlwind already exists as a feat, so I'd leave that choice up to the player.
-To compensate for damage, I would either allow him to do double base damage at some point (I wouldn't allow max damage, that's crazy) or, more likely, I'd take away his unarmed damage, and give him the ability to apply an innate enhancement bonus to his weapon of choice (ranging 1-5) and I'd allow the Ki pool enhancements (lawful, adamantine) to apply to the weapon as if it were his unarmed attack. This, right here is the big variant, which would need some testing, but ultimately serves as the focal point of the change.
-Whirlwind already exists as a feat, and I hate redundancy. Plus, the monk can already attack extra as a function of his ki pool.As for the restrictions, this is only stuff that makes me miss the older books and a small part of what I hate about 4e. What happened to fun RP code of honor stuff like this? So flavorful.
Now, here's the point of this post: I personally don't feel that a Kensai fulfills a...
See, here is a case where I can agree that it doesn't need to be a seperate class. They have a lot of the same powers or they get subsumed by things like a good will save. They don't get a good attack bonus, but take feats like Improved Sunder and Disarm to compensate.
I feel the monk weapon specialist has always been lacking from the class. The fact that spears are not monk weapons has always bugged me. I'd probably avoid making it feat based because it makes taking a level out of class attractive to get all the martial weapons plus whatever else Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin give you.
Why would you talk about "the real world". This is fantasy. It doesn't matter that in the real world the legends of ninjas were exaggerated because this is a game that is based on legends.Because I run a low fantasy game where every knight isn't in polished armor on a white charger. I find high fantasy games...I just don't like them.
I'm sure there are legends in a fantasy world, doesn't make them true.
One of those legends *might* speak of black PJ clad men walking on water, turning invisible, walking through walls, etc. But to me they are rogues with rings of invisiblity, water walking and the walls bit was made up by the guards they duped.
So far the only DnD setting I've seen that attempted to really go for the Low Fantasy was FFG Midnight. Sure every one could get magical powers but it was easily less powerful then any other DnD setting I've seen (save a few homebrews based on d20 Modern). You got Babarian, Fighter, and Rogue for the base classes plus Channeler (low wattage spell caster), Wildlander (very different from Ranger), and Defender (extremely different from Monk). Sure Legates where Clerics but they were all bad.
For their setting they had to make 3 completely new classes that had concept already covered in 3.0/3.5 because they didn't fit the setting. I honestly like the Wildlanders build better then the Ranger myself, more wild less Scimitar Drow.
...Interesting. I'm familiar enough. This is definitely more monk than it is fighter. Here's how I would do them: (which, honestly, is just my opinion, not a "this is how it should be"). A lot of the old 'class powers' type things have been replaced with feats to maximize flexibility, so I certainly wouldn't replicate all of these powers as class powers, since they're now a more-flexible player choice.
-The Weapon Prof could probably just be a monk prof variant.
-Armor class is taken care of. The current monk system is a bit different, but I think it captures what you want.
-The bonus init I wouldn't be that comfortable giving to a class, since it exists as a feat.
-Monks already have 3 good saves, they don't need more help
-Bonus against fear is interesting. I might replace slow fall with the fighter's bravery. It really depends how vital you think that is to the class. I might skip it.
-To simulate the attack powers, I'd allow flurry with his weapon of choice, which takes care of dual wield. Whirlwind already exists as a feat, so I'd leave that choice up to the player.
-To compensate for damage, I would either allow him to do double base damage at some point (I wouldn't allow max damage, that's crazy) or, more likely, I'd take away his unarmed damage, and give him the ability to apply an innate enhancement bonus to his weapon of choice (ranging 1-5) and I'd allow the Ki pool enhancements (lawful, adamantine) to apply to the weapon as if it were his unarmed attack. This, right here is the big variant, which would need some testing, but ultimately serves as the focal point of the change.
-Whirlwind already exists as a feat, and I hate redundancy. Plus, the monk can already attack extra as a function of his ki pool.As for the restrictions, this is only stuff that makes me miss the older books and a small part of what I hate about 4e. What happened to fun RP code of honor stuff like this? So flavorful.
Now, here's the point of this post: I personally don't feel that a
I also see it as a monk variant, with a decidedly OA feel. Maybe it could turn up in the Pathfinder OA books, sometime later when that part of Golarion sees more development.
It would be fun to play a sword-maniac, but to balance it, you'd have to revisit some of the other features of the monk class and tone it down a bit to compensate for the sword powers.
I liked the original OA because all of the classes were the same but different, reflecting Oriental culture and incorporating the fantasy elements of that very different world. The classes were all bound by their caste and/or honor, and had to know various things like calligraphy in order to be who they were.
Armor was different, spells were different, even the dragons were different. I wish I still had those books. I never got to play my ninja wu-jen! (:-(
I dunno, I can see a variant working (although I'd prbably use fighter as a base, and swap out all of the fighters armor based stuff and some of the feats for other abilities), but I could also see them being a base class, mainly because when it was written, OA focused on the orient, but even in more western fiction, blademaster, knife masters and such do exist...enough to justify a class highlighting the difference between them and the baseline fighter/ranger/paladin.
[
Yeah, an unarmored fighter variant would be neat, If, and pretty much only if, it's still got lower AC and higher mobility than a heavily armored fighter. I really detest the idea that a 'dude with a sword' wades into a battlefield unarmored and is safer than the guy wearing platemail, in all but the most extreme archetypal circumstances (namely, things like a duelist or Monks are exceptions).
I can get behind the idea of a ki-based swordmonk, because it's conceptually new and different. But I can't get behind a swordmaster. I find the idea of a swordmaster completely redundant in the way the writers found an archmage completely redundant. The fighter, to me, is the gold standard of 'wearing armor and hitting things with a weapon.' So, if he gets to high levels, and focuses all of his feats and class features on the sword, he is now a swordmaster. The same with a knife. The "He's only good with a sword" argument has never worked to me because pretty much all of the players I know specialize their characters to one weapon/style, so the Sword-fighter is pooed on by the swordmaster.
See, here is a case where I can agree that it doesn't need to be a seperate class. They have a lot of the same powers or they get subsumed by things like a good will save. They don't get a good attack bonus, but take feats like Improved Sunder and Disarm to compensate.
I feel the monk weapon specialist has always been lacking from the class. The fact that spears are not monk weapons has always bugged me. I'd probably avoid making it feat based because it makes taking a level out of class attractive to get all the martial weapons plus whatever else Fighter, Ranger, or Paladin give you.
Yeah, I agree. It's kind of a stinky feat. There's no reason not to have variant weapon lists (though I'd make them variant, rather than core).
Yeah, an unarmored fighter variant would be neat, If, and pretty much only if, it's still got lower AC and higher mobility than a heavily armored fighter. I really detest the idea that a 'dude with a sword' wades into a battlefield unarmored and is safer than the guy wearing platemail, in all but the most extreme archetypal circumstances (namely, things like a duelist or Monks are exceptions).I can get behind the idea of a ki-based swordmonk, because it's conceptually new and different. But I can't get behind a swordmaster. I find the idea of a swordmaster completely redundant in the way the writers found an archmage completely redundant. The fighter, to me, is the gold standard of 'wearing armor and hitting things with a weapon.' So, if he gets to high levels, and focuses all of his feats and class features on the sword, he is now a swordmaster. The same with a knife. The "He's only good with a sword" argument has never worked to me because pretty much all of the players I know specialize their characters to one weapon/style, so the Sword-fighter is pooed on by the swordmaster.
Well, like you said...kind of a swordmonk...so much like duelist or monk, they should be able have a pretty solid AC. And yes, the fighter is the gold standard of wearing armor and hitting things with a weapon. A Kensai (orginally) was supposed to be the gold standard of not wearing armor and hitting things with a weapon. They gave up certain things the fighter had (armor, magic versions of their weapon of choice)to gain certain kensai abilities.
So...I'd base them off fighter...I'd drop the fighters armor and shield proficiencies, the armor training and mastery abilities, the weapon training abilities (keeping weapon mastery though), and some of the bonus feats (like the one at 1st level, not sure about which others) and give them the Monks AC Bonus ability, and these:
Weapon of Choice
At 1st level, A Kensai must choose a weapon to master. This can be any weapon usable by a character of the Kensai’s size and race. If necessary, he gains proficiency in the weapon. This is the weapon the Kensai has chosen to master, and many of his class abilities only function when he uses a non-magical version of this weapon. His intense focus with this weapon grants him certain benefits. At 1st level, he may make an additional attack per round during the full attack option by taking a -2 penalty to all attack rolls that round. At 8th level, this ability improves, and he may make the additional attack when using a standard action to attack (still taking the -2 penalty). At 16th level, this ability improves again, allowing the Kensai to make an additional two attacks during a full attack action, the first at his base attack bonus, the second at his base attack bonus -5. He still takes a -2 penalty to all attacks during the round. Additionally, for every 5 levels gained, the kensai gets a +1 bonus to hit and damage with his weapon of choice.
Focused Training.
At 3rd level, the Kensai receives a +1 enhancement bonus to attack and damage rolls when using his weapon of choice. This bonus increases by +1 at 7th, 11th, 15th, and 19th levels, for a total of +5 at 19th level. From this point on, any non-magical version of his weapon of choice is treated as a magical weapon for purposes of bypassing damage reduction .
Weapon Bond.
At 5th, 9th, 13th, and 17th levels, the Kensai’s supreme skill with his weapon has allowed him to duplicate certain magical abilities normally applied to weapons. He can choose any ability from the following list, subject to any level restriction listed.
Bane
Distance
Ghost touch
Keen
Merciful
Mighty cleaving
Returning
Seeking
Throwing
Thundering
Vicious
Anarchic 9th
Axiomatic 9th
Disruption 9th
Holy 9th
Unholy 9th
Speed 13th
Vorpal 17th
And probably call it day. And before anyone nitpicks apart the abilities I wrote...I typed em up in about 10 minutes, and was just ballparking the levels based off of what gaps the fighter would have by removing the other abilities...so I'm sure they need a little tweaking.
I dunno...almost a new class...but still more a variant.
To start off with I'd like to state that I don't see the need for Warlocks (they seem like Sorcerer lite to me, though I'd probably be more agreeable if they where more like Binders),
the reason I like them is they have a completely different mechanic. That to me, is a good new base class
Anything but Warlock.
ANYTHING.
Disclaimer: I have not read all 190+ posts in this thread. Just giving my thoughts.
First, I don't think I'd add another base class. I like the ones we have and think they're a great starting point.
Sincer none is not a choice, I like the Duskblade. Great combo of wizard and fighter.
-Swiftbrook
Just My Thoughts
The only base class I don't like is Scout. People keep saying I should play one... But I would rather play the CA ninja than the Scout.
I gave the Shaman/Elementalist do-dad a bit of thought last night and had an idea of controlling elementals/spirits like a cleric commands undead.
Give it a bit of divine casting from the druids list restricted to divination and air/earth/fire/water descriptors. Instead of natures ally allow the shaman to summon an elemental of the correct HD.
Limit the armor and weapons to the simple stuff.
Give the shaman the ability to bind an elemental to a fetish/medicine bundle/staff/tattoo/animal equal to the shaman's level.
Be able to discorporate and move on the ethereal plane for 1 min per level.
Dunno...these are just late night thoughts.
