|
IMHO a spell-less ranger is just leads to a better ranger, which leads to, we need a better fighter, and thus Book of Nine Swords B.S. begins.
I'm not keen on more base classes beyond the 6 we're getting. I'm against making variants of them.
Somethings have to be a 10 level prestige class and I honestly believe a Swashbuckler is one of them.
The class doesn't even have to bow focused. Name it something like Marksmen and have two paths, one for the bow another for the crossbow. Give it abilites beyond the scope of a fighter just taking bow/crossbow related feats and you got yourself a base class. Granted, might be better as a PrC but that could be said of any class.
The doesn't even have to bow focused. Name it something like Marksmen and have two paths, one for the bow another for the crossbow. Give it abilites beyond the scope of a fighter just taking bow/crossbow related feats and you got yourself a base class. Granted, might be better as a PrC but that could be said of any class.
Dude thats a fighter with a feat chain. Really there is not much I can think of for an archer that can not be done with a fighter and his 21 feats
other publsihers don't seem to have a problem coming up with non-spell casters like 4 Winds and Super Genius
good for them, the 3pp stuff I have saw to be honest I would not allow without modifying it. But I do not know anything they have made
Dude thats a fighter with a feat chain. Really there is not much I can think of for an archer that can not be done with a fighter and his 21 feats
I can think of plenty things that can't be done with a fighter. Shooting while threatened without giving an AoO, perform a Combat Maneuver with an arrow/bolt, use an arrow/bolt as improvised melee weapon, etc..
Dude thats a fighter with a feat chain. Really there is not much I can think of for an archer that can not be done with a fighter and his 21 featsI can think of plenty things that can't be done with a fighter ... perform a Combat Maneuver with an arrow/bolt, use an arrow/bolt as improvised melee weapon, etc..
You might want to check the feats section again.
You might want to check the feats section again.
Unless I've missed something (posible) I don't think any of those are feats.
I can think of plenty things that can't be done with a fighter. Shooting while threatened without giving an AoO, perform a Combat Maneuver with an arrow/bolt, use an arrow/bolt as improvised melee weapon, etc..
All of that sounds like feats to me, sept the hawkeye/green arrow tricks which are the realm of a PRC or magic items
All of that sounds like feats to me, sept the hawkeye/green arrow tricks which are the realm of a PRC or magic items
That could be said of most base class abilities but thankfully they're not.
You might want to check the feats section again.Unless I've missed something (posible) I don't think any of those are feats.
You actually don't even need a feat to have the ability to do either of those things. They're both usable out of the box as a level 1 Commoner, let alone as an actual PC class.
You can take the Catch Off Guard and Improvised Weapon Mastery feats to actually make it a semi-useful option.
You actually don't even need a feat to have the ability to do either of those things. They're both usable out of the box as a level 1 Commoner, let alone as an actual PC class.
You can take the Catch Off Guard and Improvised Weapon Mastery feats to actually make it a semi-useful option.
Commoner would be -4 on the attack so not so good at it. As you stated, a semi-usful option that no one would typically use feats on. As a class ability that lets the archer/marksmen do it while keeping the base damage, crit threat range and multiplier of the arrow/bolt all at lower level a decent perk to a class.
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 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?
My point is if there isn't a niche or place for them there isn't a need for them and therefore they aren't getting added in.
IF you think there is a spot for more non magic users then make a class for that spot.
And how many books do those publishers get onto store shelves? Better still, how many of those books sell?
Paizo isn't going to publish crap for the sake of publishing it.
Of course not, I am merely stating there is room for some additional non-spell casting classes
and I dispute the notion that the Super Genius classes are crap. The Shaman is an interesting (no spells) take on the class.
|
|
Shooting while threatened without giving an AoO
Well Improved Unarmed Strike removes the AoO deal.. so how's about Improved Archery. Does the same thing and it's a feat. :P
perform a Combat Maneuver with an arrow/bolt
Like what? Disarm? Improved Range Disarm, instead of Improved Disarm. Let's you Disarm an opponent with a shot.
Just because the current combat maneuvers don't cover ranged weapons, it doesn't mean new ones can't be created.
use an arrow/bolt as improvised melee weapon
Actually there's a rule for this already. It's called Improvised Weapon. Even 3.0 had it. Want to be proficient at it? Simple enough to create a proficiency feat if you think it's necessary to have a "complete" archer chain.
Don't really understand the resistance to an archer based class. Wonder if WotC had the same issue with the Barbarian or the Monk when they first created 3.0.
"So, whats this barbarian class concept? A savage warrior who gains increased fighting prowess thru rage? Sounds like an angry ranger to me. Just make rage a feat chain and nix the class idea."
"Now tell me more about that monk class you were talking about? An enlightened warrior who fights with nothing but his bare fists and feet? Sounds like a lightly armored fighter who specializes in unarmed combat. Make a few unarmed feats and throw in a PrC or two and no need for a base class."
"So how many non-spellcasting base classes do we have now? Two??? Hmmmm...thats...errr...bad. Tell me about the rage ranger and the no weapon fighter concepts again."
Because what your asking for can be pulled off with a fighter, and all the class features mimic feats. The ranger can also pull off what your asking for, maybe not as well.
Really what your looking for is new feats not a new class.
Really what your looking for is new feats not a new class.
This. And it's not often that seeker and I agree, so this agreement should say something!
heh,we do every now and then.We have been agreeing more then not on the playtest stuff it seems. Odd huh
All the class features? I mentioned three as possible ideas. Only one was pointed as being replicated by a feat and only marginally so.
As for new feats. Couldn't most, if not all, of the new classes being put forth by the Advanced Player's Guide Playtest be achieved thru new feats and improved/greater feat chains?
As for new feats. Couldn't most, if not all, of the new classes being put forth by the Advanced Player's Guide Playtest be achieved thru new feats and improved/greater feat chains?
Not most, no. Feats are used for simple concepts, something that can be explained in a paragraph or less (Leadership being a notable exception, and keep in mind it wasn't in the 3.5 PHB for a reason). Most of the new classes include very complex abilities that require several paragraphs to explain. They also tend to include abilities that would be unbalanced as feats for already-existing characters; just imagine a Summoner's Eidolon on top of a standard Wizard! That's worth spending a few feats on.
I understand that not every ability can or should be replicated thru feats hence the creation of base and prestige classes. But to say every archer based idea is best represented by feats rather than a class is nonsense. Granting something like precision damage, or as a full round action resolving a single ranged attack as a ranged touch attack, or whatever, shouldn't always come down to new feat creation.
Anyway, I see that this is going nowhere. I'll concede to disagree at this point (I hate that saying).
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.
I think the lightly armored / swashbuckler could be handled through the Fighter by feats. The leader type would be best served by a prestige class imo rather than a base class.
A specialized archery class would be nice, so long as its not useless. Being able to rain down a hail of arrows, or bolts does not make a useful character. If it has to reside in the back line, and doesnt have the skills of a rogue/ranger/scout(from 3.5) its a 5th party member. Which is not a good class to have in my opinion.
That is a good point. By the same token, the summoner could be a prestige class reallyNo, it really couldn't. Summoner is the one single APG character concept that could not be reasonably pulled off as a Prestige Class.
Unless it was done like a really extensive rebuild, like the 15 levels of Hellknight that appeared in the latest adventure path perhaps...
No, because the Summoner is based on having your Big Bad Eidolon from level 1. No prestige class can be taken at level 1.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
A specialized archery class would be nice, so long as its not useless. Being able to rain down a hail of arrows, or bolts does not make a useful character. If it has to reside in the back line, and doesnt have the skills of a rogue/ranger/scout(from 3.5) its a 5th party member. Which is not a good class to have in my opinion.
I could see a specialized archer PrC, maybe, but it sounds like what you're looking for already exists. It's called a Fighter. :)
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?
I agree. I also think the paladin shouldnt have spells. I was so glad to see the assassian losing it's spells. Spells are great for some but why tack on spells to classes that dont need them?
I could see a specialized archer PrC, maybe, but it sounds like what you're looking for already exists. It's called a Fighter. :)And what if you don't want the armor-based abilities,
Wear light armor; you don't have to run (clank) around in full plate just because you're a fighter.
don't want anything to do with getting better at using weapons other than bows,
Considering that simply choosing Weapon Training groups Bows, Crossbows, and Thrown accounts for three of the four possible choices that a fighter can take, covers all ranged weapons, and accounts for the first 16 levels in the fighter class, having the fighter "getting better at using weapons other than bows" is a deal-breaker? O-kay....
and maybe want different saving throws and skills?
Iron Will and Lightning Reflexes (plus the improved versions) are wonderful things. A fighter has the feats to spare for them, too. Don't dump Int and use the Favored Class benefit to pick up an extra skill rank per level; that gives you at least 3-4 skill choices. Since PF has eliminated the worst of the "cross-class" skill penalties (1 rank = 1 rank for all skills; class skills get a +3 check bonus), pick whatever skills you want; the fighter really doesn't have any "must have" skills, so they can all be based on the concept (and if you really want to excel, there's Skill Focus and other skill-boosting feats). Want a fighter that's an archer/scout? Take Craft (Bowmaking), Perception, Stealth.
I just don't see the validity of the complaint (raised several times already in this thread), that certain classes aren't narrow enough for certain niche concepts, no matter how well they can cover them with the options already available.
Case in point: The ranger makes just about as good a swashbuckler as a fighter/rogue. Just start with a high Dex and above average Int, take "swashbuckler" skills (Acrobatics, Diplomacy, Knowledge (Local), etc.) and feats (Weapon Finesse, Combat Expertise, Improved Disarm, Dodge, Mobility, Spring Attack, etc.), take Urban as your Favored Environment and your companions as your Hunter's Bond (instead of an animal), and use fencing weapons. Combat Style can give the ranger the ability to fight two-weapon style, also. A ranger can easily qualify for the duelist PrC at 6th level, the minimum possible to meet the +6 BAB requirement.
I personally think that martial classes can be easily personalized with a good 3.5 concept: Substitution levels". I would not mind seeing substitution levels in PF (were those in the SRD?)
Casters (or hybrid casters) are harder to give variant concepts with substitution levels, as much of the "concept" rests on the spell selection, I think. In that sense, a longer list of classes with spells vs. classes without spells would make sense.
I really dislike seeing too many classes (either base or prestige). The new classes look interesting, but I would not grow too much from there. Even an "Oriental" supplement could be really well crafted by adding substitution levels for our base classes.
Tripod Machine hust released a pdf that has a boat load of martial classes
Things like Rage and Favored Enemy would make good Fighter feats.
No, actually, they wouldn't. Rage alone takes up 3 paragraphs, then there's a page and a half of rage powers. Similarly, Favored Enemy is three paragraphs and a chart, taking up a total of about a third of a page of text. Neither is at all a good example of something to be made into a feat.
And really, why do you care how someone else gets their concept made? Why do you feel the necessity to say how "Concept X" should be done?
Because there is a limited budget that Paizo works within. Three of them, actually; money/time, space, and classes.
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.
Two responses to this:
Firstly, you can say the same thing about spellcasters. What concept do you need that can't simply be filled by Wizard and Cleric? You've got your arcane and divine right there. Everything else is just personal flavor. If you really want to get down to brass tacks, there should only be 4 classes: Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. Everything else is unnecessary. It's also easily arguable that the distinction between Wizard and Cleric is unnecessary. One spellcasting class should be enough, by your standard. So Fighter, Rogue, Caster, should be enough, if you want to be that minimalistic.
Secondly: What if I wanted to play a character who wielded a sword, but also had innate supernatural abilities resulting from mystic training? There is no base class that would let me simulate that very accurately. The Swordsage class from Book of Nine Swords would, but it's not in Pathfinder. Multiclassing Monk and Fighter wouldn't work, since Monks don't get most of their powers if they're not unarmed or wielding "special monk weapons", of which a sword is not one.
I could not play a Hero/Crouching Tiger/House-of-Flying-Daggers type character now, with the rules being the way they are. That's just one example.
The D&D/Pathfinder character format is just not one that encourages alot of character customization and individualism. Your character concept, the way they look, the way they act, is already pretty narrowly defined for you. You have a set of archetypes to choose from, and not alot of customization options. Hence the need for more classes to give players more choice. Since Paizo is either unable or unwilling to make the structure of the game character creation system more free-form, the only way to satisfy players who have more unusual preferences is to make more classes.
Personally I wish they'd made 2 non-casters, 2 half-casters, and 2 full casters. But instead they only included 1 non-caster in the playtest. Oh well.
What concept do you need that can't simply be filled by Wizard and Cleric?
Final Fantasy/Advanced Player's Guide style Summoner.
What concept do you need that can't simply be filled by Wizard and Cleric?Final Fantasy/Advanced Player's Guide style Summoner.
My first response was mostly sarcasm. Obviously there are plenty of character types that cannot *really* be represented by just the four basic classes, or even all the ones in the PFRPG book. I was simply turning the same concept around on you.
Just like you cannot simulate a Sword-Saint/Nameless style character with the existing melee classes, you cannot accurately represent an FF type summoner with the existing casters. Ergo the need for either:
A) More classes to select from
B) A more free-form, classless character build system.
Since Paizo is unwilling to do B, A is the only option. So you need more classes.
Just like you cannot simulate a Sword-Saint/Nameless style character with the existing melee classes
What's the reference? I would be very surprised if it couldn't be replicated with an existing class and either an alternate class feature or a feat, both of which we're getting in the APG for the core classes.
sword saint is a kensei, or a FF tactics class, A Kensei is just a fighter, while the other class reads like a sword focused paladin
sword saint is a kensei, or a FF tactics class, A Kensei is just a fighter, while the other class reads like a sword focused paladin
I know what a generic sword saint (kensai, not kensei) is. I got the feeling that he was referencing a particular character named Sword Saint, but I don't know the reference.
Speaking for just a generic kensai, though, all it would take to simulate it would be a simple "swords are now monk weapons" feat. One of those actually exists (in the Eberron Campaign Setting) for longswords.
I often rebuild the monk weapon list for games I run. I find it silly all monk's use the same type of weapons myself. There was a great dragon article about just that. with different styles having different monk weapons.
But yeah that would work for that concept or go monk/fighter if you needed to
What does that have to do with telling people how to make the classes they want using existing mechanics? Just say "I don't want Paizo to waste time on making this". Anything else is telling someone else how to play the game.
If a class can be made with existing mechanics, then it needs to be made with existing mechanics, not made as a new class. It's not telling you how to play the game, it's telling you that Paizo has a budget and they're going to focus on the best uses of that budget. Making classes that are only slight variations from already-existing classes, or classes that just plain ARE already-existing classes, isn't going to happen.