|
My earlier post, I questioned the if multi-classing didn't work and used a logical argument to demonstrate that it didn't. It's a long post.
Yes I read it, but the bottom line of whatever point you trying to make was obfuscated from me.
It read kind of like this to me:
"multiclassing is unneeded and gets in the way of concepts because it may add abilities that don't 100% fit that concept"
(which you termed legacy abilities)
Maybe I missed some underlying theme, but that does not demonstrate to me that multi-classing does not work. Maybe that the system is not a perfect fit for every single concept, I can see being said. But it can fit most concepts fairly well without any houseruling whatsoever. And if you get stuck with a "legacy" ability, that breaks your immersion..don't use it.
But I still go back to my original question: how would anything posted after that post be considered missing the point or promoting fallacy?
love,
malkav
So you are saying that the system of Pathfinder doesn't work because it doesn't provide a warrior/mage base class? I'm really not trying to be facetious here, just wondering.
Other than the fact that some people are a bit bummed from lack of a warrior/mage starting class I honestly think 3.5, and in turn Pathfinder, are the best roleplaying systems out there today. I can understand that a system might feel flawed because it doesn't offer an option you want, but I question the statement that the whole system is flawed because of this. I have played several multi-class options and always found a way to enjoy myself immensely.
Elven Fighter4/Mage2 in Forgotten realms
Human Barbarian3/Rogue3 in Homebrew game world
Elven Cleric5/Bard4 in different Homebrew game world
Human Cleric7/Loremaster2 in Greyhawk
Again, not trying to be sarcastic or obnoxious. Just wondering because I feel the systems of both games are incredibly well made. Pathfinder has the leg up on 3.5 in class customization and I feel is the logical progression from 3.5. Honestly I feel Pathfinder is brilliant.
Sorry for not being more specific. The goal of muli-classing was never to eliminate the need for extra classes, the goal of it was to increase character customization options. However the system is unpredictable, the legacy abilities I addressed, also the problems with stacking one save like fortitude, by taking making a barbarian/fighter/ranger/cleric. There is also the issue of having to use feats and prestige classes to patch a normally unworkable concept, wizard/cleric for example.
What I was demonstrating, well trying to, is if multi-classing is week as a system, shouldn't it be eliminated as a system before we start eliminating "Unnecessary" classes.
As I stated the goal is to create the character you want, not to use muli-classing to create the character you want. Hence the "You can't see the forest through the trees" comment.
Also this was not directed towards you, it was directed towards the stead-fast anti-class posters on the board.
Hope it helps.
Again I'm sorry for those people who got confused. Yes it is important to have fun, and I'm not questioning if the system is fun or not, I'm just questioning multi-classing as a character customization element.
The whole argument against new classes, is they are unnecessary because of multi-classing. I'm accusing them of not seeing the point. Mutli-classing wasn't added to the game to eliminate classes it was added to increase character creation options, and is problematic in this role. So, logically shouldn't we eliminate the problematic system first then discus the need for a new class or not. Intesd it's being, incorrectly, use as an excuse to justify the elimination of any additional classes.
Again, I don't like multi-classing because it's weak, unpredictable, and ultimately needs feats and optional class abilities added to it to work. However, feats and alternative class abilities, as well as new classes don't need multi-classing to work. I can't stop you from multi-classing to create the concept you want, but if it's easier to do so with new classes, feats, and class abilities, is multi-classing needed?
While I do understand the basic idea behind what you are saying, the system literally is what it is. You can say it should be changed, but in effect that means a complete build from the foundation back up.
Multi-classing might not be perfect, and can be argued as flawed in it's ability to support a character concept. But what you are suggesting does exist in 4th edition D&D, albeit in a different form. The ambiguity, both insinuated and implemented in 4th edition D&D looks great in theory, however it is incredibly bland and over generalized in practice. Seeing it first hand really makes me understand how well Pathfinder and 3.5 are made.
While I agree that a character concept can be hard to hash out in some circumstances, I feel it is the player's job to tailor the rules to his game. The alternative is a complete realization of the fundaments of the system. Which in all honesty will not happen.
I understand that you might not always like working within the system, but the other system simply doesn't work. If you thought so, you wouldn't be here on these forums.
I also understand that the only alternative I've been discussing is 4th edition. If there are better systems out there I'm not all that familiar with them, but welcome it if anyone wants to discuss them.
Game on :)
Sorry for not being more specific. The goal of muli-classing was never to eliminate the need for extra classes, the goal of it was to increase character customization options. However the system is unpredictable, the legacy abilities I addressed, also the problems with stacking one save like fortitude, by taking making a barbarian/fighter/ranger/cleric. There is also the issue of having to use feats and prestige classes to patch a normally unworkable concept, wizard/cleric for example.
What I was demonstrating, well trying to, is if multi-classing is week as a system, shouldn't it be eliminated as a system before we start eliminating "Unnecessary" classes.
As I stated the goal is to create the character you want, not to use muli-classing to create the character you want. Hence the "You can't see the forest through the trees" comment.
As long as there is a class system at all, you are going to run into issues when trying to create a given character concept.
I have run into this problem more times than I can count and is responsible for my occasional breaks from D20 based systems in favor of skill-based/quality-based systems...trying to create an agility-based fighter who doesnt have to rely on an every growing number of magical items comes to mind (rogue never worked, monk never worked, swashbuckler never worked).
So, from the beginning there is a huge aspect of compromising the original concept to fit the rules. So I dont see an issue with mutli-classing and feats to play a fighter-arcane caster.
And as i mentioned on another thread, where do these hybrid base classes end? By the end you'd have around 20 base classes.
-Weylin
Again it is not the point on how many classes their are, the point is creating a concept as close as possible to what the character wants. Again, isn't more logical to use the feats, new classes, and new class feature, if all three work better alone then multi-classing, and work far better in conjunction with each other. This is not an attack on a specific individual, this is proof the the beloved multi-classing system is flawed and redundant and should be removed.
|
|
Again I'm sorry for those people who got confused. Yes it is important to have fun, and I'm not questioning if the system is fun or not, I'm just questioning multi-classing as a character customization element.
The whole argument against new classes, is they are unnecessary because of multi-classing. I'm accusing them of not seeing the point. Mutli-classing wasn't added to the game to eliminate classes it was added to increase character creation options, and is problematic in this role. So, logically shouldn't we eliminate the problematic system first then discus the need for a new class or not. Intesd it's being, incorrectly, use as an excuse to justify the elimination of any additional classes.
Again, I don't like multi-classing because it's weak, unpredictable, and ultimately needs feats and optional class abilities added to it to work. However, feats and alternative class abilities, as well as new classes don't need multi-classing to work. I can't stop you from multi-classing to create the concept you want, but if it's easier to do so with new classes, feats, and class abilities, is multi-classing needed?
But what if I think it is more efficient and easier to use multiclassing to fit new concepts rather than designing and balancing a new class from the ground up? Then would it be ok for me to ask if the new classes are really needed? Or would I still be off in the trees?
I mean at what point do you stop making core classes if you need one for every concept.It is my opinion that it seems like it would lead down the road of 3.x power creep.
I am thinking from reading your posts that maybe a sourcebook that had some type of point buy classless system for modding character classes would give you better results than making new classes would. That would address the problems you seem to be having with the multiclassing in whole. And it could be done in one book, as opposed to and endless stream of classes that fit different folks ideas of the perfect fantasy trope like a glove.
In short, I am not trashing your opinions. I think they are valid. But I don't agree that creating new classes is the way to deal with the issues you are having with multiclassing, and I don't think the folks who are talking about using multiclassing to reach the gish are somehow ignoring your point, promoting fallacy, or otherwise missing forests or trees. I think they just don't agree with your assessment of the state of multiclassing, and thusly aren't continuing down that train of logic to arrive at the same destination you have as a result. This does not mean they are daft, or somehow being disingenuous. They just have an opinion that differs from your own.
love,
malkav
I literally think of 20 or so character concepts a day if not in an hour. Sometimes it can be maddening to try and shoe-horn them into a class-based system. Yet I have always fallen back on D&D in it's many incarnations and in turn Pathfinder.
As I have progressed as a gamer I have come to realize (at least for me) that true character customization isn't really about creating new classes, but making unique character concepts within a very diverse and rich gaming system. Multi-classing, while not perfect, is an amazing tool for this. And I rarely find concepts that I can't make work after a bit of thought.
I'm not arrogant enough to think my opinion is the be-all, end-all though. And it does bother me to know that a fellow gamer might not be satisfied by a system I enjoy. I'm not sure making new base classes solves this as the system is already im place and fairly balanced. As Malkav said, a skill or point buy system might be the way to go for any who are having trouble fitting concept into game mechanics.
Actually one of the few things I like about fourth edition was the elimination of the overuse of multi-classing. Also, let me make the statement, I'm not interested in using a point buy or skill based system, for the very reason that I don't like multi-classing. It's unpredictable.
The "not seeing the forest through the trees" comment, is directed at anyone who is anti new class, the goal of a character creation system, and the sub-system of multi-classing,is to create the character you want not eliminate another character creation option, in other words adding a new base class to the game. And, again folks, I'm not trying to be a jack@ss, but the number of classes is irrelevant, the goal for any player is to get the character he wants, not to do so with the least amount of classes to choice from as possible.
All of my argument is addressing and countering the bold statement that new classes are unnecessary because of multi-classing, my argument is multi-classing is unnecessary because it's a flawed system.
Class bloat is mostly an illusion and can be keep under control by adding new feats and class abilities. You probably could get away with only 18 to 20 classes, and still be able to create any concept with alternitive class abilities and feats.
Also, the game wouldn't need to be redesigned from the ground up to eliminate multi-classing, people happily play single class characters all the time.
Lastly, pathfinder already moved slightly in the direction I prefer. Capstone abilities, a new special ability at every level, alternative class abilities, new classes all of these are signs that muli-class system is flawed. Anyone can say it's not, but it is prone to breaking, cannot give you the character you want by itself, and is redundant.
So logically isn't it more logical to focus on the sub-systems for character creation that do work, in other words new classes, new feats, and new alternative class features. This seems to be the way the game is naturally moving.
For me, I'd have to say "No". I have yet to find a concept from myself or my players that can't be supported somehow within the Pathfinder or 3.5 system. And yes, I do get tested from time to time, not all my group think like I do, even my wife. For the most part though, the system really is working fine. Granted I am much more traditionalist in my settings and I expect that from my players as well.
If others find problems expressing their ideas for character or setting however, I can't argue that. Our gaming experiences all vary and no one idea is truly wrong or right if it is fun for those involved.
|
|
Actually one of the few things I like about fourth edition was the elimination of the overuse of multi-classing. Also, let me make the statement, I'm not interested in using a point buy or skill based system, for the very reason that I don't like multi-classing. It's unpredictable.
How is multiclassing or a pointbuy system unpredictable?
If I take a level fighter and a level of wizard it does not take any measure of prognostication to figure out what bottom line is, in as far as game mechanics.And to creep further down that vein, if I were to make 10 different characters that all had one level of fighter and one level of wizard, even though they could all be different conceptually, and they likely have different feats, or spells selected. They all have the exact same class features. To me, this gives the impression of a state of being that is in practice, the opposite of unpredictable.
And how would adding another base class add to the predictability of a system? IMO, the addition of new base classes that have no prerequisites for entry in fact complicate the issue of multiclassing in general, by making n+1 more combinations available for each additional base class.
love,
malkav
So I am playing the system I want to play, just get rid of the multi-classing as an unnecessary addition and it would be perfect. I'm struck that I'm being accused of being a jerk while Abraham's statement, and unnecessary attack is not being a jerk.
Folks did you ever consider you, in-fact may not be playing the system you think your playing, in other words a multi-class based system. After all there is no additional support for multi-class character, but there are new feats, new classes, and new class abilities, the very thing I said should just be used instead of multi-classing.
there are some concepts that don't need a new class.
Swashbuckler? Rogue, maybe a duelist level or few
Ninja? Rogue, or arcane trickster if you are doing a naruto ninja build
Samurai? Fighter or Paladin
Viking? Fighter or Barbarian
Valkyrie? Fighter
Angel? Aasimaar Cleric of Sarenrae or Iomedae (Depending on build)
Roman Gladiator? Fighter
Gish? Fighter1/wizard5/eldritchknight10/abjurantchampion4
or Tiefling wizard5/eldritchknight10/abjurantchampion5
So I am playing the system I want to play, just get rid of the multi-classing as an unnecessary addition and it would be perfect. I'm struck that I'm being accused of being a jerk while Abraham's statement, and unnecessary attack is not being a jerk.
Folks did you ever consider you, in-fact may not be playing the system you think your playing, in other words a multi-class based system. After all there is no additional support for multi-class character, but there are new feats, new classes, and new class abilities, the very thing I said should just be used instead of multi-classing.
Multi Classing has become vastly less desirable, and some, like myself, feel that you lose too much, and become useless than a pure one way or another.
I'm playing Pathfinder. And while nixing multi-class or adding new base classes might sound like a great idea in theory, it simply doesn't exist in the system as it is. I'm not understanding what is being argued here. The "what could be" vs. "what is" is kinda what I'm hearing. I'm very open minded to new ideas, but I would prefer they go beyond the idea stage. They need to be put to the drawing board before I'm going to even take them into consideration. Concrete product takes presidence over concept at this point.
Multi Classing has become vastly less desirable, and some, like myself, feel that you lose too much, and become useless than a pure one way or another.So I am playing the system I want to play, just get rid of the multi-classing as an unnecessary addition and it would be perfect. I'm struck that I'm being accused of being a jerk while Abraham's statement, and unnecessary attack is not being a jerk.
Folks did you ever consider you, in-fact may not be playing the system you think your playing, in other words a multi-class based system. After all there is no additional support for multi-class character, but there are new feats, new classes, and new class abilities, the very thing I said should just be used instead of multi-classing.
Now, take this to it's next conclusion, why do you think multi-classing has become less desirable, is it because, maybe multi-classing was a problematic system? Why do you think both Paizo's and WOTC have limited multi-classing, remember they are game designers, it's what they do for a living. Now, do you think the game is as a whole what you though it was, or is it a very different system, and why is that?
And finally to sum up the point, is adding a new class wrong, if multi-classing is flawed? Have any of you experimented in running the game without multi-classing and prestige classes, and isn't fair to say single class characters are more balanced then muli-class characters? In Pathfinder not 3.x edition, wotc couldn't balance a class to save their lives. So whats the logical conclusion?
Don't worry about character customization, you can do it with feats and new class feature alone, you don't need to multi-class, it's redundant.
What you are saying is that it doesn't work for you. Other tables say it does work for them. So it is flawed for you. I'm still not sure what you are asking of a company with a whole gaming system already in place and a writing schedule booked until 2011?
What you are proposing goes against every piece of literature they've released and plan to release for the next year. This is what I mean by "what could be" vs. "what is". If you feel you have a better way to translate a system to paper and express character concept by all means let's hear it. Other than that I don't know how else to discuss this.
Fighter says: I got yer magic right here buddy! BOO-yah!
What you are saying is that it doesn't work for you. Other tables say it does work for them. So it is flawed for you. I'm still not sure what you are asking of a company with a whole gaming system already in place and a writing schedule booked until 2011?
What you are proposing goes against every piece of literature they've released and plan to release for the next year. This is what I mean by "what could be" vs. "what is". If you feel you have a better way to translate a system to paper and express character concept by all means let's hear it. Other than that I don't know how else to discuss this.
I'm not asking Paizo's to do anything. They already did it by making multi-classing less desirable, over a single class character. I'm not playing the wrong system, you are. Every one is arguing that a arcane warrior is redundant, I'm saying muit-classing is. Your saying the system isn't supporting my style of play, I'm saying the system is slowly moving towards my style of play, it has just failed to take that final step.
Folk, why are Paizo's adding new classes to the game, to support multi-classing? Logic! (I'm being sarcastic here, they clearly not adding new classes to increase mulit-class options, less more open classes would work better for multi-classing)
This is the core of the statement that your missing the forest through the trees. Just think about it, why isn't their additional multi-class options to cut down on the number of classes?
So by enjoying the option of multi-classing set forth in their core rulebook, I'm playing the wrong game? I guess by your definition, I am. But by mine I am doing just fine. And yes, I think the game has been designed to make pure classes much more disirable without the cherry picking from 3.0 and 3.5. But just because you see it one way does not make it universal. If it were 100% we wouldn't see the discussion on multi-class we do here every day. Neither of us is wrong here. My play style may differ, but that doesn't prove you right any more than my multi-class builds prove you wrong.
Again. NO ONE is asking for a full BAB full caster. An arcane Paladin IS what is being asked for, or something along the same power level with its own flavor. Duskblade and Hexblade were both good classes, something in the middle is what I'm looking for.Slippery slope my ass, I used your exact words against you and you have no way to defend your own utter lack of logic.
My words:
If you want to fight, and use magic... multi class! It seems rather silly to me to expect paizo to create a base class that would eliminate part of the need for a prestige class (eldritch knight). The niche of which you speak is already covered. The only time a magic using fighter class isn't feasible is at first level and even then... what's in a name? Just take your sorcerer/wizard/druid/cleric/bard level first and your fighter level second.
Your response:
PALADIN!
I say we remove the paladin, bard, ranger and cleric classes. Better take out druid too to be safe. I mean if you can cast spells AND fight better than a dead fish out of the box you're OBVIOUSLY OVERPOWERED!!!
It's silly to expect Paizo to create a base class just because you want to fight AND cast divine spells.
You took a position, moved it to its most extreme position and then used the appeal to sarcasm fallacy in addition to the slippery slope.
My position is a fully acceptable one. If you want to use magic and fight you can always multiclass and it is acceptable to do so. Does this mean it is the only way to fight and use magic? NO. You could use any of the classes you mentioned. OR you could summon monsters and have them fight for you, you could "fight" by using spells such as the fist spells. In fact depending on what the OP means by the word "fight" many many many other options are still open.
NOW if you wanted to say, "Your post and position have absolutely nothing to do with what the Original Poster is asking for" You would be absolutely right in doing so -- however your response was not that, and...
Wait I'm the one whose argument consists of logical fallacies?
You say that if we want to fight and cast ARCANE spells then we have to multiclass, but divine magic is different (why exactly) because it gets a core base class to represent the proper enmeshing of its two disparate halves (Paladin). This is not a logical extreme, this is your exact argument.
So by enjoying the option of multi-classing set forth in their core rulebook, I'm playing the wrong game? I guess by your definition, I am. But by mine I am doing just fine. And yes, I think the game has been designed to make pure classes much more disirable without the cherry picking from 3.0 and 3.5. But just because you see it one way does not make it universal. If it were 100% we wouldn't see the discussion on multi-class we do here every day. Neither of us is wrong here. My play style may differ, but that doesn't prove you right any more than my multi-class builds prove you wrong.
Alright, I'm sorry I've offended you. This attack of mine is simply directed at the accusation that a new class is not needed. You may play differently, which is all well and fine, but I'm the one who is getting his play style more fully supported not you, new classes and alternative class features are coming after all. However, and I'm sorry to tell you this, as time goes on, your likely to be less and less interested in the system, because of the lack of support for muti-classing over single class characters, and the inclusion of new classes (likely unnecessary classes to you). The class bloat that you fear is already here, and it will likely get worse.
So, why do you think, I'm getting more support then you? If you don't think I am, then why do you think a spell-casting warrior class is not going to happen when a wizard/cleric class (the witch) is?
Ok, it's getting late here and I'm tired, again, I'm sorry that I was a little rough in my statements, and unclear. Hopefully, no one will hold that against me, your all fine people even if we disagree. However, I fully believe that constant demand will result in a single class spell-casting warrior class, it's just a mater of time.
|
|
This also brings in one of my issues with caster types. Supposedly arcane casters can't cast through armor because the armor intereferes somatic components. Yet a divine caster can cast spells with somatic components even in heavy armor. not buying that reasoning myself. If it interferes with arcane somatics then it should interfere with divine somatics (which likely just as intricate and complex).
-Weylin
That's an interesting point. I have always rationalized that very point by viewing the casting of divine spells as more of a prayer. For example holding your holy symbol to sky and beseeching the aid of your god to remove the venom from the veins of your just companion. In other words I feel that the somatic components of divine spells have more to do with showing the holy symbol bling and praying for divine help. I find this idea reinforced by the concept that most standard action divine spells require a focus as opposed to actual material components (of course there are exceptions for potent healing magics, but I think that is just a check and balance to add some level of severity to the condition being treated, so it isn't ignored or considered a moot threat)
Whereas I view arcane spells with their varied components to be more of an excursion into the realms of sleight of hand for some of the spells mixed with a lot carefully planned chants and somatic gestures to bend the laws of reality and put forth magic effects. I find this concept reinforced by the fact that wizards use spellbooks with detailed formulas in then and the rules by which they "memorize" spells. Studying those formulas and making sure they have the gestures, chants and components down pat.
In that sense it makes sense to me that wizards would be impeded by armor for their craft and clerics and paladins would not. A strong argument could be made for why sorcerers are subjected to spell failure like a wizard in my mind. As, to me it seems like a sorcerer is a more force of will off the cuff kind of caster,t hat doesn't study anything or ask for any help. They have magic because its in their blood. I don't see their castings as the same types of rigorously practiced castings that the wizard uses. But I think they live by same rules as a wizard as more of an easy to balance issue. In other words I think they were made the same to avoid having to create a third type of magic (ie arcane, divine, and blood). I would not be opposed to making available through feats the ability for sorcerers to ignore some spell failure.
But those are just my own opinions and the ways in which I rationalize divine vs arcane spellcasting and spell failure. YMMV.
love,
malkav
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
there are some concepts that don't need a new class.
Swashbuckler? Rogue, maybe a duelist level or few
Ninja? Rogue, or arcane trickster if you are doing a naruto ninja build
Samurai? Fighter or Paladin
Viking? Fighter or Barbarian
Valkyrie? Fighter
Angel? Aasimaar Cleric of Sarenrae or Iomedae (Depending on build)
Roman Gladiator? Fighter
Gish? Fighter1/wizard5/eldritchknight10/abjurantchampion4
or Tiefling wizard5/eldritchknight10/abjurantchampion5
Paper cat,
I think you just shot yourself in the foot here.
You list one class clear down to the spellthane concept, then you dive into multiclassing.
Kind of shows something is missing.
(I've liked the tiefling sorcerer/EK for a while, but then Magik was my favourite New Mutant)
For me, what a thaneblade core class doesn't need:
I'm willing (as a player) to sacrifice 7-9th level spells for good bab a d8, casting in light armour, and getting spells out of the gate.
If I want 9th level spells, I'm willing to sacrifice caster level to go fighter 1/Sorcerer 9/EK 10. If I want 4 attacks, I'm willing to go ftr 2/sorcerer 8/EK 10 (+16 bab) that's delayed gratification.
|
Part of the problem with an martial arcanist base class comes down to the in-game metaphysics and game mechanics. Why does this guy get to cast spells with somatic componoents in armor while a wizard or sorcerer can't beyond the feats Arcane Armor Training and Arcane Armor Mastery?
This also brings in one of my issues with caster types. Supposedly arcane casters can't cast through armor because the armor intereferes somatic components. Yet a divine caster can cast spells with somatic components even in heavy armor. not buying that reasoning myself. if it interferes with arcane somatics then it should interfere with divine somatics (which likely just as intricate and complex).
-Weylin
Well, some people see divine somatic components as nothing more than raising the holy symbol and pointing, much of the time (edit: ninja'd on that point by malcav666, by, what, almost an hour and a half?). Nothing particularly complex about that, really. Even the pulp lit that inspired the game has most EHPs just pointing and bad stuff happens. Unfortunately, the very specific pulp/lit source for D&D arcane magic (Vance, Dying Earth), did describe very complex somatic components for arcane casters. And it stuck. Until 4th edition. But, Pathfinder isn't based on 4e, it's based on 3x which is loosely based (fluff-wise) on D&D.
And, if you consider the source, 1e clerics filled a specific niche (combat medic/combat support), they were nothing like the CoDzilla monsters of 3x: The Magic Steroid Edition. Spell levels only went to 7 for clerics (and druids), and offensive combat spells were scarce; most of the cleric spells in 1e are of the utility/divination/healing-removing negative stuff-support type. Druids had somewhat better combat spell capacity, but were limited to non-metallic armor and wooden shields, so they weren't exactly tanking.
The Practiced Spellcaster feat will fix a lot of the multiclass Fighter Wizard problems.
I agree with you and in games where 3.5 feats are allowed and I'm playing such a multiclass character, I'm likely to pick it up. However, for some individuals, their campaign may be restricted to PF only or are participating in PFS where such options are not available to them as it is not looked upon as 'core'.
In my opinion, the duskblade was just a 'rule of cool' thing.
The worst thing Paizo could do would be to make a fighter who could cast arcane spells. Then we'd get stuck with Eldritch Knights without any multiclass disadvantage.
And if we want a fighter that does meditaty things, give that to the monk. It fits them better.
Let the fighter stay pure-fighter. It just makes sense.
I've played every edition of D&D. Started playing as a kid in 82-83, still going pretty strong. I actually play 3.5 more these days than when it was released and am trying to get a few groups I play with to switch to Pathfinder. I've also played 4th edition (Hate it, refuse to pay a cent for the products, but really like the gaming group) and am in the process of starting that group anew on Pathfinder as well. I'm going to be playing for a while. I'm not trying to be obnoxious here, I'm just saying it's hard to gauge a person by a few sentences. I don't assume to know anything about you other than you don't like multi-classing in Pathfinder.
The addition of new classes doesn't mean multi-classing is not supported. It actually expands the options for multi-classing if a player chooses to play that way. But again, that doesn't prove me "right" any more than it proves you "wrong". We simply enjoy the game in different ways.
Very fair point Urizen :-)
I have a DM (who runs Dark Heresy now so splatbooks are not an issue) that would disallow all splatbooks except in limited circumstances. In some cases though it worth saying to the DM hey I just want to use this one feat from this one book to make my charcater more effective. Presented that way I think many DM's would be ok with it.
The problem with that is it leaves out organized play as well as unfamiliar games. Sure I can go to anyone in my regular gaming group and talk to the dm and sort out a feat or two from a 3.5 book. But that is harder to do if I A dont know the dm, B dont know how this group plays. There are people who are dead set against 'outside' material, there are those who are accepting of it. The point of having a unified game system is to have an accepted standard that can be played at just about any table without difficulty.
I'd like to see a martial class with limited spell casting of the arcane flavor done along similar lines as the Paladin and Ranger. So it would be a Full BAB class, couple of class features, and arcane spell list with spell casting granted at level 4 and up.
With a class like this I could see the prestige class Arcane Archer being used though but I don't think that would be a terrible thing.
Now the play test has 4 classes. Cavalier and Oracle in play test right now. The Witch and Summoner sound like caster classes as does the artificer. The Inquisitor though I'm unsure. Here's hoping it's martial spell caster.
We need something moar than spells and BAB... please, something interesting needs to be added.
I've never needed more than a Bladesinger, Spellsword and Eldrich Knight.
I guess I'm just too awesome for my own good. Sometimes... when I'm alone at night I take out my dice and play all three.
Oh, on the whole Gish thing with Dusks and Hexes... the Beguiler was a cool Gish class, it needed work but it was a riot to play one, I enjoyed it.
A better approach IMO is to figure out the something interesting, then fit the spells and BAB to it.
QFT.
The biggest problem I see with most of the Gish classes is that while Ranger and Paladins have cool abilities and divine spell power, most the Arcane spells are more brutal in combat and then they pile on all these psychotic and inane offensive class abilities that make the Ranger and Paladins class abilities look weak.
Arcane Warriors don't need some kick-ass special power every level and then also need arcane spells too. People can't seem to find a decent balance between meshing the two. The Duskblade and the Hexblade were just bad, to that same token so was the beguiler who basically was a Rogue that could never get caught with the right Feats and spells.
Why would I play an Arcane Core Class character with a limited spell list and decent attack bonus when I could start with a weak attack bonus and unlimited spell selection and later branch out into PrCs that augment my attack bonus to a Fighters, don't hinder my spell selection, give me all kinds of cool way to augment my magic, and suppliment my low HPs with d10s now.
Hell I'd play a Wizard(Sorc)/Eldrich Knight/Bladesinger combination before I'd ever touch a Dusk/Hex gish again.
I'd still play a Beguiler though, hehe.
<dons asbestos suit>
What I'd prefer to see out of an Arcane Warrior/Gish/Spellblade/what-have-you base class is something less "I want X BAB and Y Spell Access" and more "I want a warrior who fights with magic". In other words, take the same approach 4th Edition did in making their Swordmage class. Build it from the ground up as a magical warrior, rather than jamming a square peg into a round hole (ie, trying to jam a wizard into a warrior or vice versa). A warrior isn't going to use spells the same way a wizard or sorcerer does. Come up with inventive new mechanics that provide the flavor and capability without simply giving them X-Y level spell access and Z BAB and saying "here's your gish class, come and get it!".
Why would I play an Arcane Core Class character with a limited spell list and decent attack bonus when I could start with a weak attack bonus and unlimited spell selection and later branch out into PrCs that augment my attack bonus to a Fighters, don't hinder my spell selection, give me all kinds of cool way to augment my magic, and suppliment my low HPs with d10s now.
Because as it stands you can't "stab dudes magically" i.e. cast something THROUGH your attack to augment your damage like the Duskblade could and the Eldrich Knight can albeit at lvl 10 of the PrC.
Build it from the ground up as a magical warrior, rather than jamming a square peg into a round hole (ie, trying to jam a wizard into a warrior or vice versa). A warrior isn't going to use spells the same way a wizard or sorcerer does.
I'd like to point you both HERE
I think this explains what I feel the dilemma is and suggests a solution which is wholly open for discussion.
Zurai - I generally agree, and I came at this subject thinking a unique spell list would be a given. But when this whole hubbub started a couple of days ago, an early post by Loopy suggested just giving Sor/Wiz levels 1 through 4. I browsed through the spell lists and actually found a lot of good back-up for a warrior type, and couldn't find anything thematic at 5 or 6 that could reasonably be downgraded on the "late entry" principle.
Combined with the looming issue of forwards-compatibility, this convinced me to just stick with that list for the actual spellcasting for my go at the arcane warrior (here: Iron Mage). However, the spells definitely take a back seat to arcane-themed class features.
Just to throw it out there again, but a 'magical warrior' type class without any spells was done pretty well with Monte Cook's Runeblade class from Book of Experimental Might.
I believe this was mentioned in another thread about this but we have what, eight of them?
there are some concepts that don't need a new class.
Swashbuckler? Rogue, maybe a duelist level or few
Ninja? Rogue, or arcane trickster if you are doing a naruto ninja build
Samurai? Fighter or Paladin
Viking? Fighter or Barbarian
Valkyrie? Fighter
Angel? Aasimaar Cleric of Sarenrae or Iomedae (Depending on build)
Roman Gladiator? Fighter
Gish? Fighter1/wizard5/eldritchknight10/abjurantchampion4
or Tiefling wizard5/eldritchknight10/abjurantchampion5
Paper cat,
I think you just shot yourself in the foot here.
You list one class clear down to the spellthane concept, then you dive into multiclassing.
Kind of shows something is missing.
(I've liked the tiefling sorcerer/EK for a while, but then Magik was my favourite New Mutant)
For me, what a thaneblade core class doesn't need:
Good BAB
Spells past 6th level
I'm willing (as a player) to sacrifice 7-9th level spells for good bab a d8, casting in light armour, and getting spells out of the gate.If I want 9th level spells, I'm willing to sacrifice caster level to go fighter 1/Sorcerer 9/EK 10. If I want 4 attacks, I'm willing to go ftr 2/sorcerer 8/EK 10 (+16 bab) that's delayed gratification.
you mean Cat Goddess. (the interpretation i intended)
the spellthane concept can also be done with a duskblade
It's not my fault the words for goddess of cats and paper cat are so similar. i intended for the result of goddess of cats.
just add to it's list any spells you may need.
Because as it stands you can't "stab dudes magically" i.e. cast something THROUGH your attack to augment your damage like the Duskblade could and the Eldrich Knight can albeit at lvl 10 of the PrC.
Spellsword allows you to channel a spell, and it doesn't hamper your ability to learn spells or advance in your spell progression.
|
|
Ugh. I just wrote an epic-length post only to have it not work and have the last half an hour of my life wasted.
I don't think I can stomach typing all that out again, but I will retype the last part of my post since it's freshest in my mind.
The following is a quote from Monte Cook's Book of Experimental Might in justification of his decision to include the runeblade base class in the book:
The runeblade is an amalgam of two classes from Monte Cook’s Arcana Evolved, the runethane and the mage blade. It exists because I am forever seeking the perfect synthesis of magic and martial arts. That makes it the latest in a long line of similar classes I’ve designed, including the (in my opinion overlooked) eldritch warrior, the warrior of darkness, the mage blade, and to some extent the ritual warrior.
With the runeblade, I wanted to create a class that used magic to enhance its combat abilities but didn’t cast spells at all. The runeblade character in my current campaign, Aesa, has a very Viking feel to her. The player even has little runestones she uses to keep track of her runes.
The original poster seems to be implying that Monte Cook, one of the game's original and most revered designers, is opposed to this concept, when in fact he has personally overseen at least six attempts to make this (or a similar) concept into a base class. I can only assume that in the original quotes by Mr. Cook he means the actual fighter class when he says "fighter." That's really the only sensible reading of those quotes anyway.
|
|
Ugh. I really don't want to type all that stuff out again, but I really want it all expressed. I'll try to simplify it.
The crux of it was that the addition of new base classes as well as multi-classing both provide options, which is what the entire system is based on. Lobbying to remove multi-classing from the system, or fighting tooth-and-nail against the addition of any new base class is really just fighting a system that lives and breathes customization. Really, the best thing to do if you don't like a class or don't like the system of multi-classing is simply not use it. And let the rest of us who understand that any option is a good option, as long as it's not over-powered, regardless of whether or not we want that particular option.
I also fail to see how power creep is implicit to the creation of new base classes. This isn't a game where you're competing against the other players, and it isn't a game that benefits from certain pieces retaining a higher power level over other pieces. In other words, the game isn't prone to power creep, and nothing about the way Paizo has handled things so far leads me to believe that it will ever be the victim of such a problem, even if they print 100 new base classes over the course of the next twenty years.
Bottom line: this system is about options, and having more ways to accomplish similar concepts is a blessing, not a curse. The only "shoulds" in Pathfinder have to do with people being able to do what they want, how they want.
I love a lot of 3.5 material, I've seen great stuff come out of third parties, and I've put together more than my fair shair of homebrew material, but in the end I still want Paizo itself to be responsible for publishing as many books as they can, because the quality of their products is so high, and because nothing they don't publish is legal for the game's organized play, which may not be a consideration for everybody, but is a consideration for a great many.