|
Am I the only one starting to begin to see a problem with Pathfinder and the growing preponderance of base classes, if one includes 3rd party releases? 3.0 and 3.5 were defined by their over-abundance of prestige classes, now with Pathfinder it seems like we're getting ever more base classes. The current list of known base classes includes (quoting from jaerdaph's "Base Classes You'd Like to See" thread on ENWorld)
Tome of Secrets (Adamant Entertainment)
Artificer
Knight
Priest
Shaman
Spellblade
Swashbuckler
Warlock
WarlordLost Classes of Fantasy (LPJ Design)
Blooded Noble
Illusionist
ThiefAcrobatAdventuring Classes: A Fistful of Denarii (Tripod Machine)
Beastmaster
Bounty Hunter
Corbie
Corsair
Gladiator
Hunter
Knight
Martial Artist
Scholar
Scout
SpyThe Genius Guides (Otherworld Creations)
Dragonrider
Shadow Assassin
ShamanThe Great City: Player's Guide (0one Games)
Cultkiller
Ghostblade
Guttermage
Neopagan
UrbanistPaths of Power (4 Winds Fantasy Gaming)
Anti-paladin
Gladiator
Samurai
Voyageur
Witch
Add to these the six classes from Paizo's own Advanced Player's Guide and we're looking at 41 additional classes beyond the 11 core. Is this just a natural thing, the expansion of the game by 3rd party pubs, or is it a warning sign of the chaos yet to come?
|
Right now I am only allowing the Pathfinder Core Classes in my game to include the playtest version of the new six. I figure until we really have the Pathfinder rules down I am not allowing other books. So no splat books or compendiums, etc. Besides all those other books are not Pathfinder even if it is backward compatible.
There were that many or more base class in 3.5 counting splat alone. Now 3pp had even more, I man boatloads
But I only allow core class, + the apg playtest ones in my game as of now. Of the 3pp class I have saw I was far from impressed
|
Right now I am only allowing the Pathfinder Core Classes in my game to include the playtest version of the new six. I figure until we really have the Pathfinder rules down I am not allowing other books. So no splat books or compendiums, etc. Besides all those other books are not Pathfinder even if it is backward compatible.
Actually, they are all books for the Pathfidner system by third parties, but you're right, you don't have to use them. And it's certainly not the beginning of the end or any such doom and gloom as the problem with the class bloat in 3.5 was that it was the game's owners themselves (WotC) adding loads and loads of classes, whereas here Paizo have added a grand total of 6 (which appears to be the limits of their ambitions in this regard). Third party publishers have always published additional content, including. That's what they do. It doesn't mean the system as a whole is bloated.
The fact that they decided to make Pathfinder backwards compatible with 3.x--means that you can of course include all these OGL based classes in your game if you want.
But if there's a "problem" with it, it's with the players who think they must use every single class (or feat or spell or race) that's ever been published, which is not nor ever has been the case.
Paizo can't control what 3rd party products have already been out--or the glut of extra base classes WotC made--or what 3PP will come out.
For their official Pathfinder products, however, if they want to support some extra class concepts, then they have to publish their own classes, because they can't use non-OGC classes like, say, WotC's Swashbuckler or Factotum or Beguiler. You're not going to ever see the 41+ base classes from every 3.x book ever in a Pathfinder product. You're just going to see the core classes plus maybe the 6 from APG.
NOW, if Paizo itself starts publishing a billion Pathfinder base classes and all those classes appear in their APs, etc. requiring everyone to own 12 books to run one adventure, then THAT will be a problem. But as far as I understand it, that's not going to happen.
Add to these the six classes from Paizo's own Advanced Player's Guide and we're looking at 41 additional classes beyond the 11 core. Is this just a natural thing, the expansion of the game by 3rd party pubs, or is it a warning sign of the chaos yet to come?
Any time you have broad 3rd party support, chaos will come. That's the burden of freedom. But it's totally manageable. Don't want to include it in your game? Then don't.
More of something is never a problem, so long as it is at least decently made and balanced for interaction with the base stuff. If, say, a 3PP put out a book of base or prestige classes that only interacted well with each other and did not work well with what Paizo has published, then that book would be out in my campaigns.
Another point of view on all this is from PFS play, where only Paizo published material is allowed. So if the only time you get to play the PF RPG is in a PFS game, then all that other stuff may as well not even exist.
|
|
I like all of the 3pp support personally. I usually don't let the stuff in the game as is (there have been a few exceptions), but its fun to read through, and often there are some pretty good ideas.
I have gotten some pretty good use out of Tome of Secrets myself. I never let the players choose from 3pp material without DM approval, but I do allow them to use the books with approval, and I have never had a problem.
love,
malkav
You can have too much of a good thing: too many clases, too many feats, too many spells, too many monsters...
...but you only have to allow what you want into your own game and if you're playing PFs the thinking is done for you - you can use what they say and nothing else.
Personally I don't think you even need the six extra classes that Paizo are coming up with, but I'm sure that won't stop some of my players wanting to try one of them on for size. Usually I'm happy to negotiate to allow non-core stuff into my game as long as I can take it all back when it goes horribly wrong.
Usually I'm happy to negotiate to allow non-core stuff into my game as long as I can take it all back when it goes horribly wrong.
Ah, but what do you interpret as "core"? To me, anything Paizo publishes for PF RPG is "core" because it will generally be useable in PFS play and, to me at least, PFS play is as core as you can get with the PF RPG rules. In other words, I see the six new classes as core and not extra because of this.
But even paizo has not labeled the 6 new classes as core. They are base class but not core. Anything past the core book+ MM is not core. You may allow it and it may be supported but it's not assumed to be core
Personally, if it doesn't have Pathfinder written as the top title bar (ie official PF rules) I wouldn't be allowing it :p
The reason PF is so attractive to me is that it is very straightforward, reasonably balanced, and hasn't simply descended into who has the biggest collection of splat books wins.
Everyone at the table is playing on an even field, and that's pretty rewarding all round I reckon.
Personally, if it doesn't have Pathfinder written as the top title bar (ie official PF rules) I wouldn't be allowing it :p
The reason PF is so attractive to me is that it is very straightforward, reasonably balanced, and hasn't simply descended into who has the biggest collection of splat books wins.
Everyone at the table is playing on an even field, and that's pretty rewarding all round I reckon.
So if a great 3rd party class came out that was better, not necessarily more powerful, than a comparable pathfinder class you still would not use it?
PS: I am not asking to start a debate, just a curiosity thing.
So if a great 3rd party class came out that was better, not necessarily more powerful, than a comparable pathfinder class you still would not use it?
PS: I am not asking to start a debate, just a curiosity thing.
Well to turn that around, I'd have to ask in what way was it 'better'?
Why not just use the original comparable class?The problem I see with a lot of the zillion and one hybrid classes kicking around is that someone liked a really cool concept 'that was kind of like an X' so simply made a new class that did what X did, but offloaded anything 'inconvenient'.
The RAW allows an enormous amount of felxibility and customisation that would allow one to notionally 'build' just about any character concept that one could imagine without relying on fishing from material that could be unbalanced, contextually out of place, or written from a fanboi perspective.
If someone came to me with a cool character concept to include in a session I'd be all ears about it and throw them all the bones I could (within the core material) before considering a 3rd party option (unless we were playing in that 3rd party world using their modules etc).
It's unlikely I'd be copping to your wayward Elven Samurai, Half Dragon Necro-Ninja, or Half Orc Angel Summoner in the average campaign.
As I say though, I am flexible, but I do expect that peoples choices are designed to harmonise and fit with the general vibe of the campaign and to think about how and why their character would be there.
--Edit:
I appreciate you are having a conversation, so please only take my tone as being conversational in return :)
Id be happy to post up the sort of Campaign Synopsis I present to my players if that helps.
So if a great 3rd party class came out that was better, not necessarily more powerful, than a comparable pathfinder class you still would not use it?
PS: I am not asking to start a debate, just a curiosity thing.
Well to turn that around, I'd have to ask in what way was it 'better'?
Why not just use the original comparable class?The problem I see with a lot of the zillion and one hybrid classes kicking around is that someone liked a really cool concept 'that was kind of like an X' so simply made a new class that did what X did, but offloaded anything 'inconvenient'.
The RAW allows an enormous amount of felxibility and customisation that would allow one to notionally 'build' just about any character concept that one could imagine without relying on fishing from material that could be unbalanced, contextually out of place, or written from a fanboi perspective.
If someone came to me with a cool character concept to include in a session I'd be all ears about it and throw them all the bones I could (within the core material) before considering a 3rd party option (unless we were playing in that 3rd party world using their modules etc).
It's unlikely I'd be copping to your wayward Elven Samurai, Half Dragon Necro-Ninja, or Half Orc Angel Summoner in the average campaign.
As I say though, I am flexible, but I do expect that peoples choices are designed to harmonise and fit with the general vibe of the campaign and to think about how and why their character would be there.
--Edit:
I appreciate you are having a conversation, so please only take my tone as being conversational in return :)
Id be happy to post up the sort of Campaign Synopsis I present to my players if that helps.
I understand, and I do take it as conversational. I was just asking because it sounded like there was no way, not matter what, not even for a million bucks......, you get the picture, that any 3rd party class would find its way into your games.
I have a campaign guide I present with any houserules to my players also. I think its the way to do things, instead of letting a player build his character up to some ability, and then suddenly say it's not allowed.
I try to encourage background stories too, but I guess I will have to wait for my latest group to come along slowly.
So if a great 3rd party class came out that was better, not necessarily more powerful, than a comparable pathfinder class you still would not use it?PS: I am not asking to start a debate, just a curiosity thing.
Well, the obvious first reply would be if the group only plays official Pathfinder Society, then there is no option but to use only what Paizo has published. The second reply would be if you are playing casual campaigns using PF RPG, yes, 3PP stuff would be fine to include if it is balanced and fits in well with the core rules. The primary example of your question right now would be the Witch class. Which is better, the 3PP version or the APG version? Only you and your gaming group can answer that question.
I actually think it is a better system to have more base classes and weaker Prestige Classes. If people are encouraged to stay with one class for all 20 levels instead of jumping around to rack up neat powers, having a great number of base classes that cover specific concepts (rather than resorting to multiclassing) is the best way to go. As long as each class is comparable or better than a multiclass character, where's the harm in more options?
Plus, it's a simple matter to rule that only core classes are allowed. Class bloat problem solved.
Am I the only one starting to begin to see a problem with Pathfinder and the growing preponderance of base classes, if one includes 3rd party releases? 3.0 and 3.5 were defined by their over-abundance of prestige classes, now with Pathfinder it seems like we're getting ever more base classes. The current list of known base classes includes (quoting from jaerdaph's "Base Classes You'd Like to See" thread on ENWorld)
Add to these the six classes from Paizo's own Advanced Player's Guide and we're looking at 41 additional classes beyond the 11 core. Is this just a natural thing, the expansion of the game by 3rd party pubs, or is it a warning sign of the chaos yet to come?Tome of Secrets (Adamant Entertainment)
Artificer
Knight
Priest
Shaman
Spellblade
Swashbuckler
Warlock
WarlordLost Classes of Fantasy (LPJ Design)
Blooded Noble
Illusionist
ThiefAcrobatAdventuring Classes: A Fistful of Denarii (Tripod Machine)
Beastmaster
Bounty Hunter
Corbie
Corsair
Gladiator
Hunter
Knight
Martial Artist
Scholar
Scout
SpyThe Genius Guides (Otherworld Creations)
Dragonrider
Shadow Assassin
ShamanThe Great City: Player's Guide (0one Games)
Cultkiller
Ghostblade
Guttermage
Neopagan
UrbanistPaths of Power (4 Winds Fantasy Gaming)
Anti-paladin
Gladiator
Samurai
Voyageur
Witch
Dude, it's your game, allow anything you want. It's not a problem, lol.
big class list omitted
Thank you for this! 90% of my dislike of 3e comes from the implementation of the base class set, so in the new game I'm running, I have fighter, sorcerer, and rogue only, along with the new base classes.
It looks to be interesting and flavorful, but I was looking for a few more classes. You did my work and made an excellent list. Thanks!
-Campbell
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Pathfinder's mechanics regarding favored classes tilts game design away from prestige classes towards classes that, although otherwise identical, would give PCs a hit point / skill rank advantage.
I'm not sure that careers like "Dragon Rider" and "Cultkiller" are, on their face, the kind of character development a player needs to make before the first game session.
Yeah, some of these seem dubious. For example, the "shamans" in my game are Sorcerers, Clerics, or Druids (usually Clerics).
The monks in my game are just ascetic holy men, usually commoners or aristocrats. ALL adventurers are "fighters". The the clerics are experts who know how to read and write, and the barbarians can belong to almost any class out there.
I don't know what Adamant's shaman does or if it is a good class, but quibbling over class names is just silly.
I actually think it is a better system to have more base classes and weaker Prestige Classes. If people are encouraged to stay with one class for all 20 levels instead of jumping around to rack up neat powers, having a great number of base classes that cover specific concepts (rather than resorting to multiclassing) is the best way to go. As long as each class is comparable or better than a multiclass character, where's the harm in more options?
Plus, it's a simple matter to rule that only core classes are allowed. Class bloat problem solved.
I have to agree with Evil Lincoln's response. I know a lot of you will disagree with this but I would like to see no more Prestige Classes, more base classes or at least guildlines on building base classes, also info for taking characters past 20th level.
I have to agree with Evil Lincoln's response. I know a lot of you will disagree with this but I would like to see no more Prestige Classes, more base classes or at least guildlines on building base classes, also info for taking characters past 20th level.I actually think it is a better system to have more base classes and weaker Prestige Classes. If people are encouraged to stay with one class for all 20 levels instead of jumping around to rack up neat powers, having a great number of base classes that cover specific concepts (rather than resorting to multiclassing) is the best way to go. As long as each class is comparable or better than a multiclass character, where's the harm in more options?
Plus, it's a simple matter to rule that only core classes are allowed. Class bloat problem solved.
I am on board with more base classes ... I would much rather see multiclassing that PrC's ... the later often leads to unbalance in my experience
I have to agree with Evil Lincoln's response. I know a lot of you will disagree with this but I would like to see no more Prestige Classes, more base classes or at least guildlines on building base classes, also info for taking characters past 20th level.I actually think it is a better system to have more base classes and weaker Prestige Classes. If people are encouraged to stay with one class for all 20 levels instead of jumping around to rack up neat powers, having a great number of base classes that cover specific concepts (rather than resorting to multiclassing) is the best way to go. As long as each class is comparable or better than a multiclass character, where's the harm in more options?
Plus, it's a simple matter to rule that only core classes are allowed. Class bloat problem solved.
I too prefer new base classes over the horde of prestige classes we had in 3.5. And if you include all the 3rd party material for 3.5 the number of baseclasses was huge. I highly doubt pathfinder will come close to that, and certainly with 3 books a year one of them being a bestiary, Paizo wont approach the number of base classes that Wizards put out. It just isnt going to happen. Especially since new classes are not going to appear in every book.
The thing is VARIETY. Variety and the ability to achieve the kind of class you want must be achieved either through PrCs, multiple base classes, or multiple class options. It appears Paizo is aiming alot for multiple class options, which is good, but I fail to see how more PrCs or base classes will hurt as long as they are on the same power level.
|
|
I appreciate the backwards compatability for 3.5 stuff, but I am tired of the Goliath fighters and other typical stuff we used to see. I am sticking to Pathfinder RPG products from Paizo only. If any of my players want to use 3rd party stuff, that is fine too, but I am not buying any of the material yet. For Pathfinder Scoiety, the choices are simple. For Pathfinder Home games, it is up to the GM and the players to decide what races and classes will be allowed. Having more options are always good, but makes the game harder to keep track of and risks broken rules.
Am I the only one starting to begin to see a problem with Pathfinder and the growing preponderance of base classes, if one includes 3rd party releases?
1. How is this a problem?
2. How is it a problem with Pathfinder?3. How would you propose we solve this problem? Keep in mind that Paizo cannot stop people from making new base classes because they had to publish the basic rules under the d20/OGL license.
The thing is VARIETY.
Which is the first thing that goes out the window when you make so many of these new classes. All that happens is that you end up with a couple of classes EVERYONE takes due to them being overpower...er...OPTIMAL and thats it. Why take a Rogue when you can have a Shinobi Death Master who has all the benefits and none of the problems, just find a splat book (or write one) and bingo!
I myself would like to see legitimate competition at my gaming table for Wizards, Clerics, and Rogues, and to see good stuff to help keep the Monks and Barbarians worth playing (Alternate class features, new feats, etc etc)
I think Barbarians were pretty badly robbed in the transition from Beta to Final rules. Pretty tragic really.
Anyhow, that said, I prefer the variety to be added by the player in the game - not by the page number of their book. The RAW allows for a shedload of customisation of stats, and the minds of the players allows for a near infintite amount of different personalities, motives, and desires.
The thing is VARIETY.Which is the first thing that goes out the window when you make so many of these new classes. All that happens is that you end up with a couple of classes EVERYONE takes due to them being overpower...er...OPTIMAL and thats it. Why take a Rogue when you can have a Shinobi Death Master who has all the benefits and none of the problems, just find a splat book (or write one) and bingo!
I'm sorry, when did this ever happen? Ever?
When were there any classes more powerful than the Barbarian, Sorcerer, Wizard, Rogue,Cleric, or Druid that everyone took? Never. They were the best of their respective fields. Spellthief, Scout, or Beguiler NEVER overtook Rogue. The tons of field focused spellcasters never overtook Sorcerer or Wizard. No one dared to make a new class as broken as the Druid. Did the Factotum overtake the Rogue? Hell, the Archivist didn't even stand up to the Cleric, and it had far more abilities.Did people stop playing Fighter? Probably because it fracking sucked.
|
|
You clearly didn't play Living Greyhawk. It happens. A lot. Some of the Presitge Classes are simply more interesting and strictly more powerful; it's all well for the "fun gamers" to say they'd play anything, but far moreso than Pathfinder 3.5 devolved into these splash-class silly setups, where most people generally took a few very specifically devised groups (especially in LGR). It wasn't fun. I don't miss the myriad of prestige classes at all, and love what PF is doing with the new Advanced Guide.
I hope no new Prestige Classes EVER come out again; I like base classes since they are better built out and give you more flexibility (no "need X feats and this only goes for 5-10 levels").
That's a problem with game balance, not a problem with class glut.
If there is a 3.P variant class which you feel is too powerful, complain about that.
That's a problem with game balance, not a problem with class glut.
If there is a 3.P variant class which you feel is too powerful, complain about that.
I'm with Thalin.
The problem with your suggestion is that once the figurative milk is split, there's little point complaining etc, it's all out there.
By keeping things compact and well balanced you avoid the design flaws of others, and tend to have happier players.
On further reflection though, it becomes moot if the style of campaign simply doesn't 'fit' for them, which means a lot of the time these variants simply wont be available anyway.
It's all about the VIBE of the campaign milieu and whether the characters 'fit'. Once the GM writes the brief, the character options become more apparent.
That makes absolutely no sense to me.
It should not bother anyone in the slightest that a class is "out there". That's absurd. Just because the toys exist doesn't mean you have to buy them, and just because you buy them doesn't mean you have to play with them.
The LG comparison doesn't hold up. Yes, you can draw comparisons to the Pathfinder Society, but Paizo isn't going to publish 40+ new base classes. They are going to publish six.
Further, if you think that a problem is a problem and there is no use complaining about it, then why complain about class glut, ESPECIALLY when class glut is not actually the problem?
Further, if you think that a problem is a problem and there is no use complaining about it, then why complain about class glut, ESPECIALLY when class glut is not actually the problem?
Balancing is the issue, but the only time it becomes an issue is when new classes are brought into the equation to create the imbalance - so no glut = no problems :)
Not true. Imbalance still exists in the core rules, and alternatives might easily be MORE balanced than what they're replacing (see: 3.5 fighters vs swordsages). Further, even if no one on earth ever wrote another class for the Pathfinder RPG, they would still be writing new mechanics, which could still imbalance the game.
Unless you also feel the same way about spells, feats, magic items, replacement levels, et all (i.e., "No new mechanics = no problems!"). In which case I believe you might want to invest your money in something other than RPG supplements.
Unless you also feel the same way about spells, feats, magic items, replacement levels, et all (i.e., "No new mechanics = no problems!"). In which case I believe you might want to invest your money in something other than RPG supplements.
I have a shelf full of supplements for AD&D, just about every supplement for 2nd Ed, and a whole smackload of supplementary material for everything from Shadowrun and Cyberpunk through Cthulhu and Vampire - the one thing I will say is 'I have seen it all before' and frankly I would prefer that the rules simply stay as compact and elegant as possible rather than just descend once again into a book fest.
My preference is for 'official' content that adds flavour to what we have, rather than add a whole bunch of stuff that becomes a replacement for yesterdays kit (new class/feat/gear that becomes the new 'soup d'jour').
The thing I appreciate about the way Pathfinder is being done is that there is much more widespread playtesting of new material, and hopefully this will overcome the problems we have been having with 'supplements' since the D&D white box.
That's a problem with game balance, not a problem with class glut.
If there is a 3.P variant class which you feel is too powerful, complain about that.
This. Markedly more powerful classes were used more. Hence the lack of Fighters (other than feat dips), Knights, Dwarven Defenders, etc etc.
There were tons of classes that wern't used that were released at the EXACT same time and did very similar things. The problem is class BALANCE, not number of classes.|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
There's a position around here I'm afraid I don't understand. That's the person who claims: "I think 3.5 went to Hell in a handbasket with all the hundreds of prestige classes, and over 50 base classes, just from Wizards' supplements, not to mention all the Third Party products! And when it comes to Pathfinder, I'm only going to allow the core classes."
I understand each part of that position, but I can't seem to reconcile them. If you're restricting your table to only the core game with Pathfinder, why did you open the door to all of those prestige classes and supplemental base classes, and class variants, and spells and magic items, from all of those supplements, in your previous campaign?
Some people, Viletta Vadim among them, permit as much into their campaigns as possible, restricting or banning certain mechanics only when a serious problem arises which can't be soled otherwise. Some people have always cracked down on the game elements they want in their campaigns.
Each Pathfinder product is going to have sidebars presenting new rules or mechanical elements --some feat, or trait, or spell, or prestige class, or new base class-- that'll be legal play in Pathfinder Society games and that the designers hope to see in home campaigns as well. After 5 years, there'll be a lot of official material, not to mention all the Third Party products. Some people will allow all of it into their campaigns. A few GMs will allow none of it. Many will be somewhere in the middle.
Jason didn't discourage this in Pathfinder. (Indeed, I don't see how he could have.) Instead, he implemented favored class mechanics that shifted the desirability from prestige classes to base classes, and from multi-classing to taking a single class. (At least, until somebody at Paizo writes up a feat that allows your character to take a second favored class...)
But there will be strong classes and weak classes. There will be mechanics-glut. There will be rules that every house-rules away. That's just the nature of the game, folks.
There's a position around here I'm afraid I don't understand. That's the person who claims: "I think 3.5 went to Hell in a handbasket with all the hundreds of prestige classes, and over 50 base classes, just from Wizards' supplements, not to mention all the Third Party products! And when it comes to Pathfinder, I'm only going to allow the core classes."
I understand each part of that position, but I can't seem to reconcile them. If you're restricting your table to only the core game with Pathfinder, why did you open the door to all of those prestige classes and supplemental base classes, and class variants, and spells and magic items, from all of those supplements, in your previous campaign?
Personally, I think that history is a great teacher, and that the experience from last system has created our opinions from what we want this time around. Pathfinder is seen by many as a 'fresh start' and hence a new approach to how they would like to see things play out.
Now that they have seen things go to Hell in a handbasket, a lot of people will be wary about what they consider kosher at their gaming table, and make their choices accordingly.
The problem with supplements is that they all start out so cuddly and innocuous, but over time stuff creeps in that creates imbalances that are very hard to take away again without upsetting the players.
Discretion really is required.
This isn't new - I blame Unearthed Arcana (though my mate blames Oriental Adventures)!
I tend to think the more base classes and prestige classes the better. It means more options for players and a lot less redundancy at the table.
Hopefully Pathfinder doesn't fall into the trap of "must make these PrC's more powerful than the ones in the last book so we can sell more copies", as that doesn't really add variety - instead it just creates a power-creep.
I think that the Pathfinder base classes are playable right to 20th level (no JUMP SHIP AS SOON AS POSSIBLE classes in Pathfinder, like the 3.5 Sorcerer) is a big deal though. As much as I like the idea of Prestige Classes for creating interesting characters, I think 20 levels in a base class should not be a bad optimization option.
I agree though, if things get silly in terms of power creep or sheer volumes of extra PrC's, Spells and classes - then when you DM, allow what you like, don't allow what you don't. No problem.
I like more classes, base or prestige, on the condition that it does something original. Some concepts are better of as a chain of feats, or a new group of rogue talents. Some things are iconic in concept, if not in support, that would warrant a new class. I like reading new classes, then deciding if they should be allowed in. This could be as is, or modified for my setting, or even stripped to a feat chain & given to another class.
I'd also vote for quality over quantity. Additional classes are fine as long as they bring something new. In 3.5 nobody would say a thing against the inclusion of psionics in a new class, but who needed the CW Samurai? This class could easily be represented by a fighter with a correct selection of feats. Quite a few other classes could work as multiclass characters, possibly with alternative class features IMO.
Certainly, with Adventuring Classes: A Fistful of Denarii, the intention was not to bloat the system. I would not expect all eleven classes to be used in one campaign. The idea is to provide options, which is why I decided to bundle the classes together for one low price rather than sell them as a series of individual downloads. Every new option does provide the potential for imbalance. However, if new options are not provided, then over time the balances in the original core rules will simply become more apparent. In writing new classes, I focused on making easy what would otherwise be difficult, and although the new classes are strong, I feel they have been carefully balanced againt the other core classes.
I like the metaphor of a blank slate. The purpose of a clean slate, however, is to be written upon. To me, Pathfinder means the opportunity to take a set of rules and continue to evolve it. There is a balance between striking out in a new direction (slaughtering sacred cows, probably introducing new problems) versus refining the tried-and-true (wrestling with legacy issues, limiting options that can be considered). I think the Pathfinder rules did a great job of evolving the system, but the work does not stop there.
|
|
I never noticed this thread before. But since someone else preformed threadomancy on it to bring it back from the dead I will comment.
I honestly don't get why anyone cares what 3pp people do. To a point I get people fearing Paizo releasing a ton of classes and PrC's etc. Even then I only kinda get it.
I mean it's your game allow what you want and ignore the rest. I personally love new base classes and PrC's. I would love to see a lot more as long as they stay balanced with the existing Core Classes from the main Pathfinder core rule book. That way i can pick and choose what I want in my games and add some variety if I want to.
Plus I would rather have to many options than not enough, since the more options the more likely there will be things made I like. Same with others, the more options the more likely they get what they want. So we all get what we want to add to our games and we are all happy.
Weather that means adding it all in, banning all non core stuff or picking and choosing what fits out games. I never got the mentality of people wanting to limit options cause they don't like that. Thats like saying, I don't like this. I know you might and you might find it fun but since I don't like it. I don't think you should be allowed to play with it either. I just don't get that.
I am for options even options I personally don't care for.