|
With 3rd party support, Pathfinder might be approaching the numbers of *official* WotC classes for 3rd edition? Eh. It didn't seem to be a problem before, and, being third-party, it's even less of an issue, since most DMs seem to feel even more empowered to say 'no' to a 3rd party class / feat / whatever than they already are to say 'no' to a base class like the Swordsage or Psion.
45 20-level WotC base classes for 3rd edition.
PHB - Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard
CArcane - Warlock, Warmage, Wu Jen
CDivine - Favored Soul, Shugenja, Spirit Shaman
CWarrior - Hexblade, Samurai, Swashbuckler
CAdventurer - Ninja, Scout, Spellthief
PHB2 - Beguiler, Dragon Shaman, Duskblade, Knight
Heroes of Horror - Archivist, Dread Necromancer
Tome of Magic - Binder, Shadowcaster, Truenamer
Tome of Battle - Crusader, Swordsage, Warblade
Expanded Psionics - Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soulblade, Wilder
CPsionics - Erudite, Adent, Divine Mind, Lurk
Dungeonscape - Factotum
Oriental Adventures - Shaman, Sohei
Magic of Incarnum - Incarnate, Soulborn, Totemist
So, 3rd edition had forty-five *official* classes, from Wizards itself, as well as who knows how many other options from 3rd party sources, and I'm not counting stuff like the two classes introduced in Ghostwalk, since they are even more setting-specific than the Oriental Adventures classes.
Good classes are always welcome. The only problem are the crappy ones, the rush jobs, the variant classes sold as brand new classes and the ones we don't really need.
People get it in their heads that you can turn anything into a class (and then into profit, I guess) and put it in a book.
So that class here is the Knife Fighter. It basically just fights with knifes. But instead of just using the fighter (maybe with a string of feats for fighting with knives), it has to be its own base class, because then you can say "here, I have a new base class".
If the class is well thought out and does something that the existing classes really aren't equipped to handle (and feats or prestige classes won't do the job, either), I'll welcome the class with open arms.
|
|
I don't know how many people here remember the original Oriental Adventures; but that's where I started having problems with added classes. Many of their classes worked perfectly fine, but there was one class (Bushi I think) which was designed to replace fighters.
The original Unearthed Arcana had this problem as well, with it's Paladin - Cavaliers.
Creative Director
|
As far as official new base classes... I suspect we won't be adding many more actual "new" classes. It's far more likely you'll see us start tinkering with the existing 11 core and 6 additional base classes in the future—sort of like what we've got planned for the antipaladin and the templar. Both of those will be 20 level classes, but they'll basically just be variants of an existing class (the paladin).
We put far too much work into the core classes to want to "replace" them. We'll do plenty of variants, though!
|
|
Am I the only one starting to begin to see a problem with Pathfinder...
I don't see this as an issue with Pathfinder but a general one for most role-playing games, especially if they're class-based. Basically, players (and probably GMs) are asking for said options! Thus, they are the problem, not the systems (and the companies trying to make money -- any money -- from them)! ^_^
|
As for myself, I'm mostly in favor of pure Paizo-branded Pathfinder. That being said, the following things would always have a place in my game:
Monster Compilations, either 3.5 or PFRPG. You can never have too many monsters. Hell, even multiple variations on the same monster are good. Keep 'em coming. Same applies to compilations of spells and feats.
I haven't really read it too much, but Trailblazer has some interesting concepts from what I have read. I'm looking at it as sort of a Pathfinder Arcana Unearthed for now.
Apparently Dreamscared is developing a Psionics supplement for Pathfinder. In the absence of a Paizo-branded Psionics book, this will do.
|
Creative Director
|
Still so tempted to consolidate them all into two classes.
The Warrior and the Mage.
Maybe some lazy weekend I will.
That's certainly an option. But it takes the game FAR from its roots and starts to look and feel and play like an entirely different game. That might be to some folks' preference... not mine though. I like having several PC classes to choose from... not only because it helps to define class roles and powers, but because it makes it easier to present NPCs and manage them as a GM.
|
Creative Director
|
I'd love to argue class roles with you James, but this certainly isn't the place for it. :)
I wouldn't call it a demotion at all, actually. It's more an adjustment to reflect what I really do at Paizo... which is far more than an Editor-in-Chief of one line of products does.
And why does a discussion of what class roles are have to be an argument? Just because it's gaming related and it's impossible for two gamers on the internet to agree ? :-)
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)
**lists a lot of classes**
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?
So? I just read your op and I don't see a problem. I'm sure other people have mentioned this upthread but it's up to the DM to allow or not allow any base (or core or prestige) class into their game. If you are the DM exercise some control. I know some people think everything a player wants has to be allowed in... that *is* chaos. But it only happens if the DM lets it. I don't have all the core classes in my game. I have a couple of homebrews. I'm planning on using most of the APG classes. Everything fits a niche in my campaign world. If it doesn't, it doesn't get in. Simple. No problem there.
*edit* That's me from "So?" on down. For some reason my comment was included in the quote...
Geez: damned if you do, damned if you don't.
|
In response to the people who can't see a problem with allowing any and all splatbook classes to be available here is my take on it:
The biggest problem with the (potential) bloat of classes is that players feel that they have the _right_ to choose whatever they want and damn the GMs background.
While it is perfectly fine to have that 1/2 dragon/ black dragon blooded kobold sorcerer/theif arcane trickster in "stand alone" adventures or adventure paths, if the GM has spent weeks or months in putting together a vibrant consistent world in which Kobolds, 1/2 dragons or even sorceors don't exist then the game will already suffer from the perceived GM Fiat Monster.
If there is a class that can do better than a paladin with none of teh restrictions why even have paladins?
I remember back in 1st and 2nd ed where a 3rd party magazine published the rules for characters and classes from the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Straight away they made monks and wizards, druids and clerics redundant. While those mythos based classes worked well in their milleau they were radically unbalanced (read over powered) in a 'normal' game.
In response to the people who can't see a problem with allowing any and all splatbook classes to be available here is my take on it:
The biggest problem with the (potential) bloat of classes is that players feel that they have the _right_ to choose whatever they want and damn the GMs background.
While it is perfectly fine to have that 1/2 dragon/ black dragon blooded kobold sorcerer/theif arcane trickster in "stand alone" adventures or adventure paths, if the GM has spent weeks or months in putting together a vibrant consistent world in which Kobolds, 1/2 dragons or even sorceors don't exist then the game will already suffer from the perceived GM Fiat Monster.
If there is a class that can do better than a paladin with none of teh restrictions why even have paladins?
I remember back in 1st and 2nd ed where a 3rd party magazine published the rules for characters and classes from the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Straight away they made monks and wizards, druids and clerics redundant. While those mythos based classes worked well in their milleau they were radically unbalanced (read over powered) in a 'normal' game.
Player's have a right to play... they don't have a right to tell the GM what to allow and disallow.
A GM can say no. He has the power -- he may lack the will, but that's not something that a publisher can fix. However if the publisher doesn't present new options, new ideas, and new "stuff" he quickly runs out of things to publish... that's not so hot for the money making you know?
AND if the options are published then those that do want to use them can't... since they don't exist.
It's a matter of what gives the most options to everyone:
Publish them and have some GM's say no?
Or don't publish them, and then no one gets to have the new toys?
It smacks of, "I don't want it so you can't have it!"
For me, more base classes is a good thing.
Books can be banned from a given campaign, and classes can be admitted selectively.
Prestige classes have always had a negative effect on my campaigns. Meeting pre-requisites and pidgeonholing a PC to get a single power or group of powers is something I dislike intensely. I would much rather have my players pick a unique class from the outset.
The only concern is that some players might abuse interactions between the powers of classes. That kind of thing doesn't play at my table.
Lovingly pats his +5 Holy Banhammer
|
Creative Director
|
It's a player's nature to want more than the GM will allow, unfortunately. It's the GM's duty to decide what does and doesn't fly in his/her game, and it's the player's duty to be mature about the GM's decisions and accept those rulings. If a player wants something that a GM doesn't want, I would hope that player would speak with his/her GM in a calm and reasoned manner and that the GM would take it under advisement and perhaps change things to accommodate the player... but a player who throws a tantrum or otherwise becomes obstinate about a GM's decisions should probably find a different game, or maybe a different hobby.
That's certainly an option. But it takes the game FAR from its roots and starts to look and feel and play like an entirely different game. That might be to some folks' preference... not mine though. I like having several PC classes to choose from... not only because it helps to define class roles and powers, but because it makes it easier to present NPCs and manage them as a GM.Still so tempted to consolidate them all into two classes.
The Warrior and the Mage.
Maybe some lazy weekend I will.
Depends which roots you're referring to :)
Original D&D only had Fighting Man, Magic User, and Cleric.
For the record, I agree that, as long as the base classes are well made and don't overlap (too much), I'm all for new base classes. I don't need 10 different classes that could all be covered under the Fighter feature set, but "Fighting Man, Mage, and Cleric" is just a wee bit too limited to my liking.
Having had bookcases' worth of rulebooks in my younger days and having since sold them, quit playing for 10 years, moved to Thailand, got back into playing and then moved to New Zealand, I can say two things; number one: this is probably the longest run-on sentence I've ever written, and two: I enjoy the prospect of having my entire hobby encapsulated in two or three (maybe four) books, a binder, a dicebag, and a laptop.
Zo
I wish this was pasted in the books somewhere. Oh wait, it is! It's rule 0. The thing is, though, some people have argued on these boards that using rule 0 is against RAW.
Go figure
Not even the slightest bit true, and monstrously off-topic. If you want to complain about the way someone plays the game, it's at least polite to do it in a thread about playing the game.
In response to the people who can't see a problem with allowing any and all splatbook classes to be available here is my take on it:
Sorry, have to take exception to this. Nobody has said 'You have to allow them in', what they've said is 'it's not a bad thing they exist'.
The biggest problem with the (potential) bloat of classes is that players feel that they have the _right_ to choose whatever they want and damn the GMs background.While it is perfectly fine to have that 1/2 dragon/ black dragon blooded kobold sorcerer/theif arcane trickster in "stand alone" adventures or adventure paths, if the GM has spent weeks or months in putting together a vibrant consistent world in which Kobolds, 1/2 dragons or even sorceors don't exist then the game will already suffer from the perceived GM Fiat Monster.
If there is a class that can do better than a paladin with none of teh restrictions why even have paladins?
I remember back in 1st and 2nd ed where a 3rd party magazine published the rules for characters and classes from the Chronicles of Thomas Covenant. Straight away they made monks and wizards, druids and clerics redundant. While those mythos based classes worked well in their milleau they were radically unbalanced (read over powered) in a 'normal' game.
Couple of points (not trying to be a jerk about it, but these are points that need to be made).
A) You can't put the genie back in the bottle, the system is OGL, anyone has a right to publish anything they want. If I want, I can take a couple of the homebrew classes and spells and equipment I have and put it in a PDF and sell it, so long as I follow the OGL license requirements.
B) The GM is the final arbiter. I run a game, and I keep house rules in a notepad and hand them out to the players. One of those rules is '3pp stuff is on an approved use only'. The GM should be the final arbiter of what is or is not allowed in the game. He has to balance it all out, so he's got the right to say 'This makes my job too hard'.
Not even the slightest bit true, and monstrously off-topic. If you want to complain about the way someone plays the game, it's at least polite to do it in a thread about playing the game.I wish this was pasted in the books somewhere. Oh wait, it is! It's rule 0. The thing is, though, some people have argued on these boards that using rule 0 is against RAW.
Go figure
Somebody touch a nerve? He was referencing the book about it being up to the DM (and players, with the DM being the ultimte arbiter). I have read people assailing the basic idea of the DM controlling the game with a call for player's rights to realize their character without interference from the DM. Entirely pertinent to a discussion about there being too many classes I'd say. There isn't a "right way" to play, but ultimately the DM makes the choices (with player input) for his group. What's the problem with that?
I have read people assailing the basic idea of the DM controlling the game with a call for player's rights to realize their character without interference from the DM.
Which is entirely different from his statement. He claims that there are people who, and I quote, "Have argued that using Rule 0 is against the Rules As Written". I defy anyone to provide a link to a post where anyone on these boards has said "Rule 0 is against RAW". No such post exists. Thus, his statement is false.
What he, and you, are implying is that Rule 0 makes DMs the absolute monarch of the D&D world. This is also false. Rule 0 does not state "The DM controls the game". Rule 0 explicitly states that the DM shouldn't arbitrarily control things. Here's the actual text of Rule 0, for the record, since people seem to have forgotten it:
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
That pretty clearly states that players have a say in everything.
I have read people assailing the basic idea of the DM controlling the game with a call for player's rights to realize their character without interference from the DM.Which is entirely different from his statement. He claims that there are people who, and I quote, "Have argued that using Rule 0 is against the Rules As Written". I defy anyone to provide a link to a post where anyone on these boards has said "Rule 0 is against RAW". No such post exists. Thus, his statement is false.
What he, and you, are implying is that Rule 0 makes DMs the absolute monarch of the D&D world. This is also false. Rule 0 does not state "The DM controls the game". Rule 0 explicitly states that the DM shouldn't arbitrarily control things. Here's the actual text of Rule 0, for the record, since people seem to have forgotten it:
That pretty clearly states that players have a say in everything.
The rules in this book are here to help you breathe life into your characters and the world they explore. While they are designed to make your game easy and exciting, you might find that some of them do not suit the style of play that your gaming group enjoys. Remember that these rules are yours. You can change them to fit your needs. Most Game Masters have a number of “house rules” that they use in their games. The Game Master and players should always discuss any rules changes to make sure that everyone understands how the game will be played. Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules, the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience, and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
Yes it does. And if you read what I posted you would have noticed I said they do. I also said, as the "rule" does indicate that the DM is the ultimate arbiter. Where is the argument?
Where is the argument?
If you can't see that, there's no point in me trying to explain it. Read my post. Read LT's post.
It's a player's nature to want more than the GM will allow, unfortunately. It's the GM's duty to decide what does and doesn't fly in his/her game, and it's the player's duty to be mature about the GM's decisions and accept those rulings. If a player wants something that a GM doesn't want, I would hope that player would speak with his/her GM in a calm and reasoned manner and that the GM would take it under advisement and perhaps change things to accommodate the player... but a player who throws a tantrum or otherwise becomes obstinate about a GM's decisions should probably find a different game, or maybe a different hobby.I wish this was pasted in the books somewhere. Oh wait, it is! It's rule 0. The thing is, though, some people have argued on these boards that using rule 0 is against RAW.
Go figure
Incorrect:
People have argued that RAW doesn't mean everything is balanced. They haven't argued that Rule 0 isn't RAW.
|
|
Ok maybe I worded my posting badly. I was not directing personal attacks at specific peoples posts and I apologize if it seemed that I was.
What I was trying to do was explain why I feel a proliferation of core (or even prestige) classes is a bad thing.
Let me reiterate _My_ point of view.
I am of the school that the GM has the final say in what is to be allowed in his campaign.
I am also of the school that found a lot of the 3pp stuff was either unbalanced, unnecessary or just plain out of place.
Players that _I_ have met in general in the past want to play all the shiny OP toys (based on maturity and power/metagaming personalities).
(Thankfully this is NOT the case in my current campaign)
Said players are often also the types that will cry out "GM Fiat!! GM Fiat!! I'm being oppressed" whenever the GM rules against their beloved Over Powered (and often totally out of place) Character concept based on 17 different splat books (1/2 of which appear to be written in crayon by the self same players - or their brothers).
It may seem to you all that its a sore point here for me and yes I have to admit I speak from experience.
I have played in parties where the Fighter wanted to be a Wemic and who was warned that if he went this way he would not be able to do much dungeoning - net result when the campaign progression required us to go underground we didn't because we would have no Fighter. The player complained and moaned that the DM had it in for him.
Same player different campaign - where the great evil was an empire of dragons he wanted to play a Black dragon blooded sorcerer Kobold/Dragon Disciple who was warned would be immediately viewed as evil by the general population of oppressed humans - subsequently was outraged that he was lynched and left for dead by the first village we entered. Again it was all the DM's fault.
Next camapaign this player wanted to be a CN Wild elf Bladesinger - and all the players lynched him - just because ...
Uhm ok maybe that last one wasnt a good example.
Yes the DM made sure we knew what the general worlds would be like and allowed us to take whatever classes we wanted in his campaigns with the understanding that we would be responsible for whatever repercussions occurred due to those choices.
This in my mind can be viewed as either a strong or weak minded DM depending on your point of view.
But I still feel that a lot of the 3pp core or prestige classes were (and probably still are) just an excuse to sell the splat book - just full of chunky OP goodness.
Of course the Caveat here is that _I_ feel it is so. Your mileage may vary (and most certainly does)
|
Incorrect:
People have argued that RAW doesn't mean everything is balanced. They haven't argued that Rule 0 isn't RAW.
Cold Napalm, Professor Cirno, and TriOmegaZero have -all- argued that Rule 0 nullifies RAW.
If Rule 0 is RAW, then using it doesn't nullify RAW.
It is a very fine line from that. The use of Rule 0 renders your rules non-RAW. Rule 0 is part of RAW, but using it makes the rules you are using not RAW. Therefore it is not a helpful statement in a discussion of RAW.
Rule 0 is changing the rules. Changing the rules means you are no longer using RAW. Therefore, the use of Rule 0 is not RAW, although Rule 0 is RAW.
But bringing up our argument here is rather rude, so we should leave.
It is a very fine line from that. The use of Rule 0 renders your rules non-RAW. Rule 0 is part of RAW, but using it makes the rules you are using not RAW. Therefore it is not a helpful statement in a discussion of RAW.
Rule 0 is changing the rules. Changing the rules means you are no longer using RAW. Therefore, the use of Rule 0 is not RAW, although Rule 0 is RAW.
But bringing up our argument here is rather rude, so we should leave.
Ok so off topic but, I am gonna have to back TOZ here. Once you invoke rule zero you can change anything. Items you changed are not RAW but houserules. So yes rule zero handy and part of the rules, once used it is no longer RAW.
I hate it when people publish things for games I like too
I like it when they just come out with, say, an incomplete base game, maybe covering only levels 1-3, and just a hint of a setting and then go out of business and never make anything else
That's pretty boss
More content is 4 the weak
|
|
I think where you're getting confused is that Rule 0 takes precedence over every other rule. By invoking Rule 0, the GM is still abiding by RAW even though those other rules are being ignored -because- Rule 0 takes precedence over those other rules.
On the other hand, if you do not allow Rule 0 to take precedence over those other rules, then you are explicitly ignoring RAW (namely, Rule 0 which -is- RAW) and by ignoring RAW you can't be said to be playing by RAW any longer.
Yes, you are legally using the rules by changing them, because of Rule 0. However, when discussing RAW, Rule 0 is unhelpful because discussing RAW requires using the Rules As Written. Using Rule 0 to change a rule, while allowed by the rules, means that the rest of the rules you are using are no longer RAW. And when discussing RAW with other players you have no guarantee they are using that specific use of Rule 0 and it muddies the waters.
Basically, saying the rules aren't broken because you can fix them with Rule 0 is not a valid argument.
And my thanks to Seeker for the support.
|
|
That pretty clearly states that players have a say in everything.It pretty clearly states that the GM is the final arbiter of the rules.
Although the Game Master is the final arbiter of the rules,
LT is RIGHT!
and all of the players should contribute their thoughts when the rules are in doubt.
Zurai is RIGHT!
OH SNAP! YOU'RE BOTH RIGHT!
LT, I don't think we're going to agree anywhere here. I'm putting down the pen.
the Pathfinder RPG is a shared experience,
The DM and the Player are equal. That is all.
On the other hand, if you do not allow Rule 0 to take precedence over those other rules, then you are explicitly ignoring RAW
Good thing no one has taken that position, then, isn't it?
Where is the argument?If you can't see that, there's no point in me trying to explain it. Read my post. Read LT's post.
I can see you, and apparently LT, are on opposite sides of a long standing arguement. Sorry I stepped into the minefield. I remember going round and round on this with VV until I figured it was a simple waste of time. I can even see the two extremes of this arguement; the DM is absolute master and the players must kow-tow vs. the players must have total choice and must always be accomodated. I suspect that most people here, including myself, you, and LT, fall into the middle somewhere. It's too easy to let text posted online create a divide that doesn't exist or widen a gap that isn't all that big in actual game practices. Positions on RAW, among other things, can be stated, but I've never seen anyone convinced by them. A rule that is RAW but has a conditional allowing the change of RAW is a waste of time in terms of arguements. All rule 0 states is, to paraphrase it, that what works for the group, with player input and DM arbitration, is good. You can call those changes, if any, anything you want. At which point, who cares if it's RAW, RAI, or houserules. My 2 cp, your coinage may differ :)
This thread has turned into a great weapon against androids and killbots that require logic to function. Show them this thread and POW! Dead robot! :-)
Well. it's good to know it has some useful function...
It burns
This thread has turned into a great weapon against androids and killbots that require logic to function. Show them this thread and POW! Dead robot! :-)I approve of this message.
You would.
|
|
This thread has turned into a great weapon against androids and killbots that require logic to function. Show them this thread and POW! Dead robot! :-)
Oh come on, we all know killbots have a pre-set killing limit. Just sends thousands of troops at them until BOOM, they overload once they reach that limit.