WotC released a lot of base classes. Some asian flavored classes are off topic for PF (I think), so lets forget them (but I still like them!). Putting just some of the classes that are not based in optional systems (like Tome of Battle) lets see what we have.
Archivist- Nice idea, a divine caster that studies like a Wizard. I think that can be done for PF.
Beguiler- I get the concept, but it’s a bit unnecessary.
Dragon Shaman- Different mechanics, so lets forget by now.
Dread Necromancer- Same of the Beguiler (but here we have bigger differences like channel energy and arcane spells together).
Duskblade- I love the concept, that’s really interesting.
Factotum- Pointless.
Favored Soul- Spontaneous divine caster, a must!
Hexblade- Interesting, but needs a lot of work to be fine.
Knight- Cavalier, perfectly PFed.
Scout- See the Beguiler.
Spellthief- It works better as a Prestige Class IMO.
Spirit Shaman- I think it can be mixed with the Favored Soul in one new class.
Swashbuckler- I don’t want a Fighter/Rogue, I want a swift swordsman!
Warlock- I love, but I know that a different spell system at this point it’s not interesting.
Warmage- See the Beguiler.
Now let’s put together that info and the new classes. Oracles are great, I think they work nicely. Cavaliers too. The Summoner is more like a restricted role, just like the Witch. I think the Summoner works better as a Prestige Class… The Alchemist is interesting, but maybe something like an Inventor (like the Artificer) would be nicer. Why make just potions and bombs instead of an item building oriented class? I don’t know about the Inquisitor…
Finally, I’d really like to see a mechanic like the old AD&D kits for restricted roles (Beguiler, Dread Necromancer, Scout, Witch, etc) and conceptual classes like the Cavalier, the Oracle, the Swashbuckler, the Spiritual Mystic (Favored Soul+Spirit Shaman) and the Occult Blade (Duskblade+Hexblade).
In the end, I know it was a little bit off topic, but I hope it helps in some way for future developments.
Why is a thread titled "Being objective" just a list of your subjective, unjustified evaluations of a bunch of non-core base classes?
Because I'm going right to the point instead of talking about the good/bad things about the new non-core classes... I've seen a bunch of people doing the same thing in different threads all over the boards, so I put my personal impressions here about all the non-core classes. And I justified everything with "I like that, I don't like that". Really, that's not a discussion about laws, but about a game based on subjectivity.
...instead of talking about the good/bad things about the new non-core classes...
So, you're NOT being objective. Objectivity is EXACTLY that. Discussing the positive and negative points of (in this case) the classes and taking it all into account. Subjectivity is talking about what you liek or dislike, stating opinions.
A fine line, but it is being tread.
Objective: Hard facts.
Subjective: Opinions.
The first post is not objective. This thread is mistitled.
Being objectiveI put my personal impressions hereOne of these things is not like the other...
And since most of your opinions are of the form:
There's really nothing to discuss. You don't say much and offer even less insight.Duskblade- I love the concept, that’s really interesting.
Factotum- Pointless.
I have to agree with a man in black here. I mean I disagree with alot of your evaluations for the WoTC base classes but I dont even know how to address it. Why exactly is the beguiler unnecesary but the Hexblade interesting? Why is the summoner a restricted role? It may very well be the most flexible class ever produced for a 3.x game.
Personal impressions are not objective, they are by definition subjective.
Objective:
not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased: an objective opinion.
I assume that was the definition you were going for there.
Subjective:
1. existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective ).
2. pertaining to or characteristic of an individual; personal; individual: a subjective evaluation.
3. placing excessive emphasis on one's own moods, attitudes, opinions, etc.; unduly egocentric.
Ok, the objective I mean is being practical, going right to the point, the idea is not discussing etymology... And the Summoner is a restricted role because any Sorcerer or Wizard can summon creatures, the difference is the ubber familiar, hit dice, BAB and less spells. Why not put that as a kit? Like the WotC substitution levels? I'm not a huge fan of substitution levels, but the kits were great. I think some possibilities of customizing characters can be really interesting, and you don't need a prestige class or a whole new base class for doing that. And come on, I'm not talking about your beliefs, or your family, I'm just giving some opinions about what I think could work better than adding more classes, and in the end having a bunch of not so useful classes like WotC did.
|
I'm a big fan of base classes, myself. I think there's a time and a place for prestige classes and alternate class features, but frankly, a well-written base class is usually more cohesive and less exploitable, and I'd honestly rather see it most of the time. I like prestige classes as a way to tie general classes to a specific setting or to a very, very specific focus, but it has to be pretty incredibly specific for it to feel like prestige to me.
Personally, I think the summoner, the beguiler, the dread necromancer, and the idea behind the warmage are all great. The idea of taking a wizard focus and expanding on it, and making a class that's better at doing that one thing than any wizard could ever hope to be is incredibly intriguing to me. I like it and hope to see many more of these types of base classes. Ultimate dispeller/counter-speller anyone?
Ok, the objective I mean is being practical, going right to the point, the idea is not discussing etymology... And the Summoner is a restricted role because any Sorcerer or Wizard can summon creatures, the difference is the ubber familiar, hit dice, BAB and less spells. Why not put that as a kit? Like the WotC substitution levels? I'm not a huge fan of substitution levels, but the kits were great. I think some possibilities of customizing characters can be really interesting, and you don't need a prestige class or a whole new base class for doing that. And come on, I'm not talking about your beliefs, or your family, I'm just giving some opinions about what I think could work better than adding more classes, and in the end having a bunch of not so useful classes like WotC did.
Ok, so you cannot even come close to what the summoner is able to do with either a sorceror or a wizard without, you know, re-writing the class. If a 'kit' replaces all of the class abilities, that isnt a kit, its a new class. The eidolon isnt a familiar, its closer to an animal companion that you can customize and shape as you see fit. That coupled with a different spell casting progression, and a summon monster SLA, and you have a new class. Like it or hate it, this is a new class, and cannot be achieved with an existing one. Saying a summoner can be achieved with a sorceror or wizard because they can summon monsters is like saying a paladin can be achieved with a warrior because they both have martial weapon profficiency.
Personally, I do not like kits or replacement levels. I believe that a base class should give you some direction with the character. The reason I feel this way is because of my experience with star wars saga edition. There they have never introduced new base classes, they instead introduce new talents a base class can take on odd levels. Essentially this makes each base class have a set of loosely themed class features that can be customized. This is great in theory, but as the game expands, it's overwhelming. Trying to figure out what works well and what doesnt is a nightmare.
You say, ok i am going to play a jedi, and you have quite literally not made any descision whatsoever. Not only is this bad for new players, or those who are not good at making characters, but even experienced players look at everything in front of them and go, "I have no idea what to pick". Its kind of like in school when a teacher would assign a paper 'write 5 pages about whatever you want'. I hated that nonsense. I am all for flexible classes (sorceror bloodlines, options for mercy/divine bond in the paladin, oracle foci). These I like, but the class itself still gives direction. This helps players and dms alike. A dm with a base class can make npc fairly quickly. If he has to sort through 'kits' or replacement levels to achieve whatever effect, it will take alot more effort. Making the DM's already difficult job harder is not good design.
So that said, since we are talking about practical, could you explain to me the practical reasons for the Dread Necromancer/Beguiler being unnecesary? Or the factotum being pointless? The beguiler for instance allows you to at least partially cover both the arcane caster and skill monkey niche. This is important for groups that are either small, or with inconsistent player bases (not always the same people at every game session). There is no practical way to do what the beguiler class does without it. The dread necromancer allows an exterme focus in necromancy, but spontaneous casting and also has what is effectively channel negative energy. This cannot be achieved with either a sorceror or a wizard. You can get the flavor, but certainly not the result. Being practical is about results right?
Now the warmage. This happens to be one of my favorite 3.5 classes. And despite it getting some seriously bad press (not undeserved) no other single 3.5 splat class has been more popular here on the pathfinder boards. There were 5 or 6 separate threads on using the warmage in pathfinder, all started by different people. And while an evoker gets a good chunk of what the warmage's primary ability is (edge vs intense spells) it doesnt compare to the warmage in longevity or in terms of being able to use armor, of use the 'sudden' feats. So again, to achieve something like the warmage (which is clearly desired) you need a separate class, or you need to do some major retooling of a base class, that is beyond what I think a 'kit' should entail.
Now on prestige classes. I hate prestige classes. Why? Well there are a bunch of reasons, but first and formost are levels 1-6. A prestige class does nothing for low level play. If i want to be a summoner, or a fightermage, or arcane caster/rogue, a prestige class does me no good until I can actually get into it. In the mean time I am stuck playing for months of real world time with a character that cannot yet do what I want him to do, and in general is usually poor in comparison to other classes. A wizard/rogue, is not going to be as good at doing anything as a beguiler for instance. Skills arent as good, casting is poor and you are stuck with very little to do in combat. A beguiler on the other hand is a full caster but with a focused spell set, and a good skill set, and far better in balance with the other classes. So basically I would much rather a new base class then a prestige class because my group almost always starts at low level, and we generally stop play at mid levels and move on to a new game. Prestige classes do very little for us.
Ok so lets recap. My understanding is that you would like to see more replacement levels/kits and prestige classes instead of new base classes. Above are the reasons I do not like that idea. I like new base classes because they are easier to use then kits, and are easier to balance with existing classes then prestige classes. And ofcourse you get to do whatever it is you want to do from day one as opposed to waiting till levels 6-8 to get started with that.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Objectively, I wonder whether this point that has been directly driven at is really relevant or productive to the playtest. I was expecting some clear, analytical assessments of the Playtest classes, but this is just a list of other classes which Paizo can't legally support or really even take into account, as their the intellectual property of a different company. Being objective in this case, is using reason and actual playtest experiences to make the six new classes as good as possible. Paizo has committed to making these six classes as base classes. They are not going to make them as substitution levels or prestige classes. Let's accept that and provide useful feedback.
Ok, so you cannot even come close to what the summoner is able to do with either a sorceror or a wizard without, you know, re-writing the class. If a 'kit' replaces all of the class abilities, that isnt a kit, its a new class. The eidolon isnt a familiar, its closer to an animal companion that you can customize and shape as you see fit. That coupled with a different spell casting progression, and a summon monster SLA, and you have a new class. Like it or hate it, this is a new class, and cannot be achieved with an existing one. Saying a summoner can be achieved with a sorceror or wizard because they can summon monsters is like saying a paladin can be achieved with a warrior because they both have martial weapon profficiency.
Now you're stretching things beyond reach... A Paladin and a Warrior have one or two things in common, unlike the Summoner and the other arcane casters. I know an eidolon isn't a familiar, but it's a pet, just like the familiar. The kits were like that, you change a lot of things, but staying with the concept. The Summoner would be a kit for Sorcerers, because they're spontaneous arcane casters, and that would be the concept.
Personally, I do not like kits or replacement levels. I believe that a base class should give you some direction with the character. The reason I feel this way is because of my experience with star wars saga edition. There they have never introduced new base classes, they instead introduce new talents a base class can take on odd levels. Essentially this makes each base class have a set of loosely themed class features that can be customized. This is great in theory, but as the game expands, it's overwhelming. Trying to figure out what works well and what doesnt is a nightmare.
I'm DMing SW Saga and I know exactly what you're talking about. I think SW Saga is awesome with few base classes and a lot of versatility, but the mistake is having 1000+ talents, but in the end you'll pick just 10, and I don't think having 100+ classes would solve the problem...
So that said, since we are talking about practical, could you explain to me the practical reasons for the Dread Necromancer/Beguiler being unnecesary? Or the factotum being pointless? The beguiler for instance allows you to at least partially cover both the arcane caster and skill monkey niche. This is important for groups that are either small, or with inconsistent player bases (not always the same people at every game session). There is no practical way to do what the beguiler class does without it. The dread necromancer allows an exterme focus in necromancy, but spontaneous casting and also has what is effectively channel negative energy. This cannot be achieved with either a sorceror or a wizard. You can get the flavor, but certainly not the result. Being practical is about results right?
Don't get me wrong, I love the concepts of Dread Necromancers and everything else, but since you have a Sorcerer with undead bloodline, why not give an option to focus even more in necromancy and getting channel negative energy, while giving up some spell flexibility? Takes less space, less time, less books, to do that than "designing" a "new" base class.
Ok so lets recap. My understanding is that you would like to see more replacement levels/kits and prestige classes instead of new base classes. Above are the reasons I do not like that idea. I like new base classes because they are easier to use then kits, and are easier to balance with existing classes then prestige classes. And ofcourse you get to do whatever it is you want to do from day one as opposed to waiting till levels 6-8 to get started with that.
I know you're going the easy way, but come on, it's an Advanced PG, not a Novice PG. Prestige Classes are there, I don't need to defend their concept, and I think they work pretty well. And about the complexity of building an NPC, you need to waste some time on that just with really important NPCs, and that can be solved with some character building tables.
Objectively, I wonder whether this point that has been directly driven at is really relevant or productive to the playtest. I was expecting some clear, analytical assessments of the Playtest classes, but this is just a list of other classes which Paizo can't legally support or really even take into account, as their the intellectual property of a different company. Being objective in this case, is using reason and actual playtest experiences to make the six new classes as good as possible. Paizo has committed to making these six classes as base classes. They are not going to make them as substitution levels or prestige classes. Let's accept that and provide useful feedback.
Actually they can, just take a look on the Cavalier... No one can sue you because you're using a Necromancer based class, because that's common sense, and everybody that knows something about high fantasy knows that necromancers are out there, just like the Warmage types, Beguiler types, Scout types, Knight types, and so on. They can't, for example, use a five headed dragon named Tiamat, but they can have the same five headed dragon with a diferent name or even the same name (since the name comes from mythology) with a different concept. And what I'm trying to say here is that Paizo is following the same path of WotC, while they could use some of their great creative brains to work in different, more flexible and, possibly, more entertaining way. Finally, I really don't know if they're commited to do that. I think if they get a huge rejection with those concepts they'll think about ways to fix than, or even replace than with better options. In the end it's all about making a sellable product.
Now you're stretching things beyond reach... A Paladin and a Warrior have one or two things in common, unlike the Summoner and the other arcane casters. I know an eidolon isn't a familiar, but it's a pet, just like the familiar. The kits were like that, you change a lot of things, but staying with the concept. The Summoner would be a kit for Sorcerers, because they're spontaneous arcane casters, and that would be the concept.
No I am not. Nothing in the sorceror class can A summon monsters as an SLA (which is considerably more powerful then any other 1st level sla the sorceror gets), and no pet is anywhere remotely like the eidolon. Things had to be taken away from the summoner to balance that out. He casts slower and has an isolated spell list because if you gave an eidolon and a summon sla as bloodline powers they would be way overpowered compared to the other bloodlines.
I'm DMing SW Saga and I know exactly what you're talking about. I think SW Saga is awesome with few base classes and a lot of versatility, but the mistake is having 1000+ talents, but in the end you'll pick just 10, and I don't think having 100+ classes would solve the problem...
First of all I am not advocating 100 base classes. But I think there are lots of concepts best fit by a new class. And while you think the versatility is awesome, I think it is a headache. I too dmed a star wars game, and found that making npcs unique to eachother was a painstaking and unpleasant process. It also makes the npc's harder to keep track of in game. There are so few common features, that if I have 2 of the same class, there is no gaurantee that any of their abilities match. I could have 10 scoundrels that do not have a single feat or talent in common. There is no common ground among the members of a class. So based on our OPINIONS we disagree on which method is preffered.
Don't get me wrong, I love the concepts of Dread Necromancers and everything else, but since you have a Sorcerer with undead bloodline, why not give an option to focus even more in necromancy and getting channel negative energy, while giving up some spell flexibility? Takes less space, less time, less books, to do that than "designing" a "new" base class.
The class you describe would be better then every other bloodline. When a power or feature has to be balanced by restricting another feature, its time for a new class. Replacement features of the kind you are talking about would be clunky and probably require more errata then the actual rules take up. You also could never acheive the same effect as the dread necromancer, or the beguiler or even the warmage, by adjusting the sorceror. The difference is spells known/vs restricted spell list. These classes have many more spells known in a much more focused category. This provides a kind of flexibility that a sorceror cannot provide, but does so in a way I believe is reasonably balanced.
I know you're going the easy way, but come on, it's an Advanced PG, not a Novice PG. Prestige Classes are there, I don't need to defend their concept, and I think they work pretty well. And about the complexity of building an NPC, you need to waste some time on that just with really important NPCs, and that can be solved with some character building tables.
First of all, I agree, its an advanced APG, but there is a difference between advanced, and headache. Lots of replacement features is a headache. And as for prestige classes, since you feel I need to defend new base classes, which are also already there, you too need to defend prestige classes. You think they work pretty well, I think they ignore the most common area of play (lower levels) and completely fail to make good on lots of concepts (arcane trickster and eldritch knight come to mind). As for NPC's, i dont know about you but i dont throw generic npc #5 at my players often. That gets real old real fast. Designing interesting npc's is important to me, and I like their abilities to vary. A new base class is the best way for that to be accomplished. Replacement features are a poor way for this to be accomplished. And character building tables dont even come close to addressing the issue.
I like the idea of my Scoundrel in SW being completely different from Han Solo, or playing a Jedi that isn't a mockery of any other, but that's me... And I think the NPC #5 is nice when it’s just for background sake or even the one supposed to die. Take classic great stories, like LotR. How manny NPCs with statistics you think is needed? Maybe 7: Sauron, Saruman, Wormtongue, King Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn and Gollum. And just because those characters would get involved in combat situations. I don't need to know every single spell in Galadriel's sheet, she's there just to compose the background story. I think that 7 character sheets in a complete saga isn’t a herculean job, but, again, that's me.
So let's talk about kits and Prestige Classes. I agree with you about Prestige Classes, they're there for higher levels. The kits would be the opposite of them. The kits of AD&D used to add things and take other things out, but sticking to the basic concept. Let's say that Paizo makes 4 new unique base classes, we'll have 15 base classes. Let's say that for each one they make 3 kits. In the end we'll have 45 options for beginning characters! Isn’t that enough? I think that a book with 45 options would be a great must have book, sure I'd buy that, but a book with 6 not so good caster friendly new base classes I don't know, maybe it's not worthy the money/effort...
I like the idea of my Scoundrel in SW being completely different from Han Solo, or playing a Jedi that isn't a mockery of any other, but that's me... And I think the NPC #5 is nice when it’s just for background sake or even the one supposed to die. Take classic great stories, like LotR. How manny NPCs with statistics you think is needed? Maybe 7: Sauron, Saruman, Wormtongue, King Theoden, Eomer, Eowyn and Gollum. And just because those characters would get involved in combat situations. I don't need to know every single spell in Galadriel's sheet, she's there just to compose the background story. I think that 7 character sheets in a complete saga isn’t a herculean job, but, again, that's me.
So let's talk about kits and Prestige Classes. I agree with you about Prestige Classes, they're there for higher levels. The kits would be the opposite of them. The kits of AD&D used to add things and take other things out, but sticking to the basic concept. Let's say that Paizo makes 4 new unique base classes, we'll have 15 base classes. Let's say that for each one they make 3 kits. In the end we'll have 45 options for beginning characters! Isn’t that enough? I think that a book with 45 options would be a great must have book, sure I'd buy that, but a book with 6 not so good caster friendly new base classes I don't know, maybe it's not worthy the money/effort...
Do you really want me to list the unique characters in the lord of the rings trilogy? Elrond's sons, Glorfindel, Halbarad, Denathor, the king of the dead, Madril, Imrahil, Forlong, Angbor, Faramir, Gamling, Erkenbrand, hama, theodred, Haldir, (And i am not done, just tired of typing). That only includes major characters on the good side, on the bad side you have a whole host of evil villians, the witchking, the other 8 wraiths, gothmog, Lurtz, all the numerous captains of forces goblin orc, uruk, the mouth of sauron. And if you think you only need to stat out 'combat' characters, you have never played with my group. They always will try to bluff, enchant, fascinate, use diplomacy, steal from, or any other number of abilities against most npc's. For that I need stats.
Ok so i digress, I highly doubt we are only going to see 6 new sets of character options in the APG, in that case i will totally agree with you that it wont be worth it. But it wont be the case. Then again, we are not going to agree here, and since the matter is entirely subjective we can agree to disagree and hope paizo satisfies us both.
Ok, I really disagree with the stats thing... I don't need full stats just to guess some possible skill tests or even combat situations. But Getting back to what is really important here, I hope Paizo do a good job, because I just can see them following the same steps of WotC: some possibly unnecessary base classes, a lot of feats, prestige classes, few skill uses, and repeating that till the ideas begin to rot... Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but to satisfy us both is really easy, and I think they could at least try it!
|
Director of Brand Strategy
|
Ok, I really disagree with the stats thing... I don't need full stats just to guess some possible skill tests or even combat situations. But Getting back to what is really important here, I hope Paizo do a good job, because I just can see them following the same steps of WotC: some possibly unnecessary base classes, a lot of feats, prestige classes, few skill uses, and repeating that till the ideas begin to rot... Maybe I'm being pessimistic, but to satisfy us both is really easy, and I think they could at least try it!
They've already said they're only doing three hardcover rules supplements a year and that one of them will most likely always be a monster book. That's a mere fraction of the rules content WotC put out in a year. In the first calendar year, only the Core Rulebook and the Advanced Player's Guide will have the type of content you seem worried will overwhelm the system. There have been a number of alternate classes already mentioned by Jason, James, Erik, et al, such as the anti-paladin and the templar. Until the book comes out, what reason do you have to think it's going to be one thing or another except what they say it'll be? The playtest is to test these specific six classes, but that doesn't mean the book won't contain some of the very things you say are so important. I don't think they'll ever go all out with a "kits" system, since PFRPG is built off a 3.5 baseline instead of 1st or 2nd edition AD&D. But everyone in Paizo's development and editing team is an old school gamer and wants to maintain the feel of those older editions and they have consistently done so in their time with both Dungeon and Dragon and with Pathfinder. So it seems this whole line of discussion is just your subjective gut reaction to some element of the game you feel is missing.
The kit is just a concept, I think it can be worked in different and interesting ways, but answering you, I'm worried because the classes released to playtest were very disapointing to me... I don't see a reason to have more of the same, and saying that means I don't think adding classes with restricted roles while we have a bunch of classical ideas not already PFed is something good... But I do believe in the Paizo team, I was a Dungeon and Dragon reader, and a PF enthusiastic, let's see if they'll release more playtest stuff in a near future and if this time they go in a different way.