We have 17 base classes and by my count, only 6 don't caster spells: fighter, rogue, barbarian, monk, cavalier, and alchemist. And the alchemist creates spell like abilities. That leaves 5 strictly martial types.
To me, thats not enough. I would like to see a few more choices that don't include spells within the class. Even if that means spell less versions of the Ranger and Inquisitor.
What say you?
The thing is well most non magic stuff you can pull off with the base 6 you have. I mean what concept do you need filled that can not be done by the fighter, rogue, barbarian, monk, or cavalier.
Swashbuckler maybe? that can be done with a rogue if ya really want to however
EDIT: I like the ideal of a spellless Ranger , Inquisitor is very tired both to his god and faith and would be pretty much a whole new class if ya ripped that out
That is a good point. By the same token, the summoner could be a prestige class really
and the ranger as a spell caster always bugged me
I think the inquisitor could easily drop spells for more class abilities/feats/whatnot
I like the idea of a noble class. Maybe take some old swashbuckler stuff (like insightful strike) with 8+ int skills, and some noble talents (from the Rodney Thompson version). That would be an interesting alternative
I am sure the Pathfinder boys could come up with some
I disagree on the summoner , but yeah the thing is it really needs to be something that can not be pulled off well with the current builds and such. The caviler was a good example of this. Mounted is really hard to be effective without an animal companion.
Swashbuckler is a rogue, or a fighter with the right feats. Almost every one I have saw was more or less a combo of fighter/rogue. I think the issue is most none magic nitches are filled by the classes we have now.
|
I find it iteresting that you didn't say "primary spellcasters," which would have excluded paladins, rangers, inquisitors, and possible bards and Summoners(in the opinions of some people).
The list would have then been as follows:
Casters: Druid, Cleric, Oracle, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard.
Non-Casters: Bard, Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Ranger, Paladin, Inquisitor, Cavalier, Summoner, and Alchemist.
If you create a third category...
Full Caster: Druid, Cleric, Oracle, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard.
Secondary Casters: Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Inquisitor, and Summoner.
Non Casters: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Cavalier, and Alchemist.
|
We have 17 base classes and by my count, only 6 don't caster spells: fighter, rogue, barbarian, monk, cavalier, and alchemist. And the alchemist creates spell like abilities. That leaves 5 strictly martial types.
To me, thats not enough. I would like to see a few more choices that don't include spells within the class. Even if that means spell less versions of the Ranger and Inquisitor.
What say you?
My group does wind up with a lot of spell-less rangers. We usually swap in a feat when a ranger would normally get a new spell level.
The one I'm playing right now has some interesting features that follow along with combat style ability; normal feats that drop a prerequisite, but restrict him to light/medium armor, like mounted archery in my case.
Swashbuckler maybe? that can be done with a rogue if ya really want to however
There's the duelist PrC already.
You can have spell-less Rangers/Paladins quite easily. Just take away spells. Give them some bonus feats - one for each spell level - or do something with their class abilities.
I don't think we will see many more base classes period.
If we see more classes, they will belong to a theme - like Oriental Adventures (which will have Samurai and Ninja and stuff like that), or Psionics (no spellcasters at all - because, well, psionics!).
What do you want beyond those alternate class choices?
If you create a third category...Full Caster: Druid, Cleric, Oracle, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard.
Secondary Casters: Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Inquisitor, and Summoner.
Non Casters: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Cavalier, and Alchemist.
Ya know thats interesting 6 caster's, six non casters and 5 hybrids. Although alchemist could be a hybrid as well
I wouldnt mind seeing a spell-free variant of the ranger and paladin. There were such options for both in 3.5.
To be honest I like the inquisitor with spells, since a divine bard spell progression character has been lacking. Not to mention the fluff is essentially a holy warrior, if you drop spells, you are totally changing the class.
Now that said, I dont have a problem with more non-caster types, the question is, what should they be? Magic is a big part of the game, and most traditional fantasy worlds. What do we need from a non-caster? A swashbuckler? Probably, if its done right. Too often I have seen such classes fall flat. But besides that what arch-types are there? Ninja/samurai will likely come when paizo does their oriental adventures style book. What other archtypes would you like to see?
There are less martial classes but that is ok for me... It is a high magic fantasy setting after all, so magic users should be varied and many. And the paladin and ranger are hybrids actually, since their spells are support only. Also, the inquisitor strikes me as a melee class with spells to back him up, instead of a caster, and I see the alchemist as more of a caster than a melee build.
Melee: fighter, rogue, barbarian, monk, cavalier
Hybrid: paladin, ranger, inquisitor, bard
Caster: Druid, Cleric, Wizard, Sorcerer, Witch, Summoner, Alchemist, Oracle
So in my opinion, of 17 classes, we have 8 casters, 4 hybrids, and 5 melee
Because the hybrids lean more towards melee (except maybe the bard), I see no problem with this, as long as if there will be new classes from now on, they should be equally divided between caster and melee...
The two empty niches for nonspellcasters that I can think of are a Swashbuckler/Unfettered style lightly armed/armored warrior (who doesn't use sneak attack) and a Marshal/Warlord style leader. So there's room for new base clases there, BUT...personally I'd rather see some fighter feats inspired by Monte's Book of Experimental Might so that those are options for the fighter class.
If we see more classes, they will belong to a theme - like Oriental Adventures (which will have Samurai and Ninja and stuff like that), or Psionics (no spellcasters at all - because, well, psionics!).
I know I am in the minority But I am hoping the ninja is just an alt rogue, as well thats just what they are.
|
|
Ya know thats interesting 6 caster's, six non casters and 5 hybrids. Although alchemist could be a hybrid as well
If you create a third category...Full Caster: Druid, Cleric, Oracle, Sorcerer, Witch, and Wizard.
Secondary Casters: Bard, Ranger, Paladin, Inquisitor, and Summoner.
Non Casters: Barbarian, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Cavalier, and Alchemist.
I'd probably make an alchemist a hybrid, but yeah, listed that way it seems pretty well balanced.
The two empty niches for nonspellcasters that I can think of are a Swashbuckler/Unfettered style lightly armed/armored warrior (who doesn't use sneak attack) and a Marshal/Warlord style leader. So there's room for new base clases there, BUT...personally I'd rather see some fighter feats inspired by Monte's Book of Experimental Might so that those are options for the fighter class.
Both roles there can be done with feats I am thinking. The caviler seems would make a nice Marshal/warlord with the right feats, and swahbuckler ya can do with rogue/fighter with the right feats. Some feats to give a boost when in light armor and armed with a buckler and a light weapon would be nice
Well if you want a spell-less ranger, you should check out Kobold Quarterly Issue 11
It has a spell-less ranger variant, designed specifically for PathfinderAnd like everything with KQ it is very high quality
Have it. Its quite good
I think the only non-caster class that has yet to be addressed would be a tinkerer (not the Dragonlance gnome variety). A class based on building non-magical devices and gadgets would be fitting and a niche not yet filled by the other classes.
|
I know I am in the minority But I am hoping the ninja is just an alt rogue, as well thats just what they are.
If we see more classes, they will belong to a theme - like Oriental Adventures (which will have Samurai and Ninja and stuff like that), or Psionics (no spellcasters at all - because, well, psionics!).
I'm with you on that; I've played "Ninja", and "Samurai" (both OA and CW versions), and frankly I've had monk/rogues make better ninjas, and paladin/fighters (or ranger/monks) make better samurai. An asian setting doesn't require unique classes, though perhaps some cavalier orders could be produced with a more bushido-esque mindset ...
|
I think the only non-caster class that has yet to be addressed would be a tinkerer (not the Dragonlance gnome variety). A class based on building non-magical devices and gadgets would be fitting and a niche not yet filled by the other classes.
I definitely agree with this sentiment as I am working on a Steampunk campaign and have yet to find a good "tinkerer" class
|
|
One I've heard several people I know asking for is a non-casting shapeshifter character.
A primary combatant that uses something like wildshape instead of rage, feats, skills, sneak attack, or (insert combat booster) here.
+1
It takes some of the concepts of the Bear Warrior PrC (from CW), druid, and alchemist and spits it out. What would be a good thought-process behind the class? Something more substantial than "non-spellcasting druid" or "shapeshifting barbarian", perhaps a "Totemist"? I'd rather see them have a variety of different forms available, but maybe with enhanced bonuses when they take their preferred form?
That is a good point. By the same token, the summoner could be a prestige class really
No, it really couldn't. Summoner is the one single APG character concept that could not be reasonably pulled off as a Prestige Class.
|
|
One I've heard several people I know asking for is a non-casting shapeshifter character.
A primary combatant that uses something like wildshape instead of rage, feats, skills, sneak attack, or (insert combat booster) here.
A totem warrior of sorts, which goes from the non-lycanthropic shapechanging tribal champion up to the shamanic empowered guardian apotheosis would be good.
Also a noble class shall be excellent for any urban and/or politics abd intrigue based adventure or campaign.
I think the only non-caster class that has yet to be addressed would be a tinkerer (not the Dragonlance gnome variety). A class based on building non-magical devices and gadgets would be fitting and a niche not yet filled by the other classes.
The issue with this is unlike the other classes it is very, very pigeonholed. It will only work in a few settings or it becomes very jarring. Really good for a streampunk themed source book though, but not great for a base class
The issue with this is unlike the other classes it is very, very pigeonholed. It will only work in a few settings or it becomes very jarring. Really good for a streampunk themed source book though, but not great for a base class
While I see where you're coming from I still have to disagree. I don't see a gadget based class being anymore restrictive than the alchemist. One achieves wondrous affects though chemical concoctions the other through mechanical devices. Both have their place and fill different roles.
See one deals in potions and herbs, mixing things...something folks have been doing before they could smelt iron. Sure you can max it all fancy with glass and such, but rough clay vials work just as well
Where as your other class your "tinker" not only requires a high amount of skill, but clockwork and gears, springs and just technical know how outside of the "standard" setting. Most games wont blink at an alchemist, but say your working with gear, pullys and springs and ya run into alot of "I do not think they fits the setting john"
Where alchmist relays on skill and assumptions already built into the game {folks mixing potions] a tinker would have to introduce a whole new level of tech beyond the norm
I don't mind the ideal of it, but find it far to specialized and setting themed for a general base class
Swashbuckler maybe? that can be done with a rogue if ya really want to however
I love swashbucklers... they just weren't worth it past level 3 in 3.5 though... they'd be the perfect class for pazio to work its pathfinder magic on and revise in my opinion... pity the class is owned by WotC and very likely not allowed for 3rd parties to tinker with :(
Again, see where your coming from but don't see where a tinker like class wouldn't fit in your "standard" setting. Having a class that could create non magical spell-like effects, much like the alchemist, would fit in most campaign worlds IMO.
Again, see where your coming from but don't see where a tinker like class wouldn't fit in your "standard" setting. Having a class that could create non magical spell-like effects, much like the alchemist, would fit in most campaign worlds IMO.
Fair nuff, well have to agree to disagree is all. Still thats a very hard concept to balance without slots or something going on
Serious:
Looking for a nonmagical shapeshifter class, and possibly a warlock-type (creating effects but not casting spells). Also, more feats and alternate class abilities for fighter and rogue to allow for more varied types of combat.
Nonserious:
I'd kill for a decent fisherman class. Landing the Big One is too good an ability name to pass up.
Fair nuff, well have to agree to disagree is all. Still thats a very hard concept to balance without slots or something going on
Agreed. Something along the lines of the alchemist's extract formulae mechanic would need to be worked into such a class.
It should be a Prestige Class anyway.
(I don't say designed for Pathfinder because I've heard the book failed to match PF in all ways, but PF was the intention)
I absolutely love the Priest Class from Tome of Secrets. A little less martial and a little more learned then the Cleric. Suits me better.
I think Paizo did uncommonly well with their core classes but I think you are going to see that its more difficult to expand from core for anyone.
Sigurd
|
|
I'm sure that somewhere in mythology there's a word for people who morph themselves into other shapes without lycanthropy or more versatile forms of magic use.
I'll have to consult my local GM/author/medieval folklore buff.As to mechanics, I'd actually base it off of the Eidolon, and let the character build their own alternate form, or sets of alternate forms.
As an afterthought, I was similarly thinking of using the eidolon and alchemist as a starting point for abilities.
As for alternate names, though it may suffer similar comments as the "oracle" class, but "changeling" may be appropriate, especially if it allows multiple forms?
|
|
(I don't say designed for Pathfinder because I've heard the book failed to match PF in all ways, but PF was the intention)
I absolutely love the Priest Class from Tome of Secrets. A little less martial and a little more learned then the Cleric. Suits me better.
I think Paizo did uncommonly well with their core classes but I think you are going to see that its more difficult to expand from core for anyone.
Sigurd
I agree, the Priest class I thought opened up many roleplaying opportunities, as would the shaman.
Wouldn't mind seeing as true archer base class. While there are fighter, ranger, and rogue builds that optimize the use of the bow they just don't capture the true archer feel.
I can see the argument that its to "nichey" to warrant full class but think it would be cool none-the-less.
I really don’t think it matters what niche needs filled, all I think is that melee non-spell casters are unfairly represented and I do agree we do play in a high fantasy game but when you have so few non-spell casters it feels unfair for people like me who don’t enjoy spell casters.
I really don’t think it matters what niche needs filled, all I think is that melee non-spell casters are unfairly represented and I do agree we do play in a high fantasy game but when you have so few non-spell casters it feels unfair for people like me who don’t enjoy spell casters.
So create another one.
We'll call it "archer"
it gets bonus feats every even level, and a bonus to damage with range weapons... and... oh wait that's a fighter...
Well we will make him woodsy instead and... oh wait ranger...
How about he's uncivilized and... barbarian...
hm... this is hard how about you make one?
I really don’t think it matters what niche needs filled, all I think is that melee non-spell casters are unfairly represented and I do agree we do play in a high fantasy game but when you have so few non-spell casters it feels unfair for people like me who don’t enjoy spell casters.So create another one.
We'll call it "archer"
it gets bonus feats every even level, and a bonus to damage with range weapons... and... oh wait that's a fighter...
Well we will make him woodsy instead and... oh wait ranger...
How about he's uncivilized and... barbarian...
hm... this is hard how about you make one?
so your response is that there are already non-spell casters, let me guess you like spell casters,my point is that there are too many casters.
I think there are too many fighter types actually. Casters for me are those who are TOTALLY aimed at that (9th level spells), and there are less of those than there are Full BAB guys.