There's always a great deal of discussion on our boards about whether this or that class is up to snuff for one reason or another opined by a member. Some of these conversations degenerate into horrible arguments, some have their civil moments, others end in delightful non sequiteur (my favorite).
I am wondering if folks are just trying to figure out changes just for their own game...?
Or do people think the criticism will spawn alternate class features...?
Or, does anyone really think that, after months and months of playtesting, Paizo will use valuable resources coming up with changes to these classes?
Which is it for you?
I really only see one thing and that's a lack in options at the moment. People really want the classes to do more than they can right now. They want them to do more than they, IMO, should be able to do right out of the box either due to idiom or balance issues.
I fully expect, as the months move on, that Paizo will be putting out great content for us to use, including new classes and feats to sate people's thirst. I think there are rumblings of other things too, but I don't want to engage in conjecture at this point.
At any rate, I hope we can guide our comments to the perspective of what we'd like to see in the future rather than ranting about a class you think is horrible just because it doesn't fit in your game or it doesn't meet your personal expectations. I promise, they do meet the expectations of many others who are not you.
There's always a great deal of discussion on our boards about whether this or that class is up to snuff for one reason or another opined by a member. Some of these conversations degenerate into horrible arguments, some have their civil moments, others end in delightful non sequiteur (my favorite).
I am wondering if folks are just trying to figure out changes just for their own game...?
Or do people think the criticism will spawn alternate class features...?
Or, does anyone really think that, after months and months of playtesting, Paizo will use valuable resources coming up with changes to these classes?
Which is it for you?
I really only see one thing and that's a lack in options at the moment. People really want the classes to do more than they can right now. They want them to do more than they, IMO, should be able to do right out of the box either due to idiom or balance issues.
I fully expect, as the months move on, that Paizo will be putting out great content for us to use, including new classes and feats to sate people's thirst. I think there are rumblings of other things too, but I don't want to engage in conjecture at this point.
At any rate, I hope we can guide our comments to the perspective of what we'd like to see in the future rather than ranting about a class you think is horrible just because it doesn't fit in your game or it doesn't meet your personal expectations. I promise, they do meet the expectations of many others who are not you.
I think it is mostly just a mental exercise.
You can't start a post and not want conjecture. Chapter 2: [u]Interweb Postings on Forums[/u], Section A, subsection 3, paragraph 3 of the Internet Bible states this as a fact. I would provide a link, but there are specific laws against that.PS: Yeah I know there is no way to underline things here.
It helps to know the strengths and limitations for each class when running a game and for when/if I decide to change some feature. It's been particularly useful for me moving to Pathfinder from 3.0 considering the amount of things that have changed.
Plus the discussions are interesting in an academic way.
I'm going to make bad argument bingo cards. MONTHS AND MONTHS OF PLAYTESTING is going with Stormwind, Oberoni, "I don't see any problem in my game," "at least it's better than last edition"...anyone want to kick in some more?
"X isn't a problem in the specific way I run my game and if you're having a problem with it in other contexts then it's not really a problem because you should be running things the way I do"
That seems to pop up a lot, although maybe it's just a self-aware version of "I don't see any problem in my game"
|
Of course they will.
I highly doubt Paizo has enough material for just the new base classes. They need to fill the book with something. I tend to think it's necessary up to a point. In some cases, it's to power up a class. In other cases, it might be to add a more specific flavor at the expense of a more general ability.
In the end, the consumers want more options, so Paizo will provide it. It's like how "everybody" says reality TV sucks, but yet somehow the ratings are always high.
|
It's like how "everybody" says reality TV sucks, but yet somehow the ratings are always high.
its because reality tv is mind control :P
looking at how the monk entry and description fail to give sufficient emphasis to what the class does well
I agree with that. Not only this, but in my interpretation, monks seem very Oriental (in the way they are designed as a class) and tend to not fit in with the more traditional adventuring party of medieval heroes. A great inclusion for a future book would be to give suggestions of how to interpret each class. For instance, list other ways monks can contribute without the "I'm from asialand" feel. Or even Paladins who aren't the shining knights (pricks) we are led to believe they are, but more of individuals who understand their call and don't argue with the fact that they're gifted from the gods to do the duty of righteousness without becomes arrogant and annoying.
I myself (and my group for that matter) don't have any major issues with the PRPG as it is, quite the opposite I think.
However, my personal suggestion for a new core class would be a redone Marshal.
I once played the Marshal (from the D&D miniatures handbook) in a highlevel campign and it was a wonder to behold. It really made for the best tactical buffer I have seen to date. I admit the character was chosen based on the combat oriented make out of the current party and I chose the marshal since the high experince level I was starting him in allowed me to compensate for the classes general lack of personal class features.
What I would suggest is a class based loosely on the marshal, taking inspiration from the tome of battle, however without becoming an actual 4E warlord (hard since the Warlord is a chessy rip-off of the marshal).
The reason for me wanting this class is that it allows to make a non-magical buffer. Compared to the bard the marshal would allow for a less boheme but more martial character. Also the class should add some actual tactical choices, as the original marshal class did; I.e. are we going to focus on defense, offense, initiative, do we make the charge now or wait another round, can I get those characters into flaking position, etc.
I do not enjoy miniature wargames a lot. I am a role-player but I have a very tactical mindset and love it to see a well thought out plan come together and turn the odds in a battle.
I often paly MBA*-fighters as they allow me to play part of this role, but often it comes down to individual initiative and willingness to see a dangerous move through that decides whether or not the tactical choice is successful. The marshal offers other players a great incentive to follow through on such plans.
*Master of Battle Administration - OotS (or intelligent fighter)
I myself (and my group for that matter) don't have any major issues with the PRPG as it is, quite the opposite I think.
However, my personal suggestion for a new core class would be a redone Marshal.
I once played the Marshal (from the D&D miniatures handbook) in a highlevel campign and it was a wonder to behold. It really made for the best tactical buffer I have seen to date. I admit the character was chosen based on the combat oriented make out of the current party and I chose the marshal since the high experince level I was starting him in allowed me to compensate for the classes general lack of personal class features.
What I would suggest is a class based loosely on the marshal, taking inspiration from the tome of battle, however without becoming an actual 4E warlord (hard since the Warlord is a chessy rip-off of the marshal).
The reason for me wanting this class is that it allows to make a non-magical buffer. Compared to the bard the marshal would allow for a less boheme but more martial character. Also the class should add some actual tactical choices, as the original marshal class did; I.e. are we going to focus on defense, offense, initiative, do we make the charge now or wait another round, can I get those characters into flaking position, etc.
I do not enjoy miniature wargames a lot. I am a role-player but I have a very tactical mindset and love it to see a well thought out plan come together and turn the odds in a battle.
I often paly MBA*-fighters as they allow me to play part of this role, but often it comes down to individual initiative and willingness to see a dangerous move through that decides whether or not the tactical choice is successful. The marshal offers other players a great incentive to follow through on such plans.*Master of Battle Administration - OotS (or intelligent fighter)
loved the martial, but powerlevel wise it felt like an npc class.
It was fairly playable with full BAB and an occasional bonus feat every 3 levels.
I'm going to make bad argument bingo cards. MONTHS AND MONTHS OF PLAYTESTING is going with Stormwind, Oberoni, "I don't see any problem in my game," "at least it's better than last edition"...anyone want to kick in some more?
My eyes glaze over when you say these things. I can't decide whether I want to rail against how wrong I think this b+~@*~## argument is or just ignore it because I fear for my heart health.
Meh.
I don't care how many time's it's been argued. I don't care if people have come up with fancy terms or whatEVER. I think what people DO with a class is every bit as important... MORE important than what other touch-holes CAN do with a class. If that's not good game design in your eyes... I guess that's a difference of opinion.
loved the martial, but powerlevel wise it felt like an npc class.It was fairly playable with full BAB and an occasional bonus feat every 3 levels.
...
It has potential if you focus on Leadership and look at the Leadership PrCs to add some abilities to it, but it takes a high level to get anything out of it.
There won't be any changes that invalidates the base book - that would be a terrible decision.
However, there will be additions to base classes. For example, it's been basically given-away that the Ranger is going to have more animal companion options in the advanced players guide.
Fighter only feats may be added. Wizards/Sorcerers may get new shiny spells. Clerics may get new domain options. Druids (of course) will get more wildshape options with every new Bestiary.
Splatbooks always bring love to the base classes - and they seldom do it equally for all classes.
Hopefully, the classes that need more love, get it.
I certainly hope so.
The poor monk and barbarian need help.
So does the Alchemist, but heck, it's not even out yet.
I dunno much about the barbarian, but the monk wouldn't be THAT difficult to fix. Give a few more monk-only feats, and an item or two that finally lets them get armor or weapon enchantments without reaming them for it. Bam, first book not invalidated, class still gets better.
Speaking for myself, I find the discussions useful in order to harvest useful insights and material for my own game. I follow The Most Important Rule and like making the game my own (a collective my that includes the people I play with).
While a lot of the discussions become heated and unproductive, there is the occasional insight that may be of value when a designer is looking to see what people like, what people don't like, and what people may be willing to consider.
I also think that people have to remember that different classes are meant to fill different niches, and recognize that what you think is the intended niche, may not be what others think is the intended niche. I've seen far too many people decrying that a dog is not a cat and a cat is not a dog respectively. I also think it's useful to approach a lot of the classes and rules from the perspective that the author is dead and work from there. One of the strengths of table top RPGs is that they are much more flexible and easily adaptable than a computer program.
Others may have different views.
I just wanted to chime in and argee that these boards are extrodinary useful. As a new developer I've found these forums the most effective guideline to making a useful product. Not only will people answer questions, but they'll go into detail with their rants, raves, requests, etc. I started out with a simple concept when I began creating my character sheet. All the great suggestions made it way better than it ever could have been without it. I found all the information given helpful, even the "unproductive stuff". The thing is, I've heard over and over in business for every person that voices an opinion, there are probably a few thinking the same thing that don't. The lurkers still utilize and learn from these threads too. Many times I won't post if what I think is already said (or something close to it), but it's still insightful.
As far as changing the core rules goes, I agree wholeheartedly with Treantmonk (+1). I can see something like Arcana Unearthed emerging when enough people get bored of the core rules, but it was a long time from the launch of 3rd edition before 3.5 was released. Paizo did say they'd have an errated printed edition out eventually IIRC, but I can't see this coming out anytime soon with all the other great stuff they're developing. Just my two copper...
I certainly hope so.
The poor monk and barbarian need help.
So does the Alchemist, but heck, it's not even out yet.
I dunno much about the barbarian, but the monk wouldn't be THAT difficult to fix. Give a few more monk-only feats, and an item or two that finally lets them get armor or weapon enchantments without reaming them for it. Bam, first book not invalidated, class still gets better.
Simple Monk fix - add Monk unarmed strike damage to Monk weapons.
What Treantmonk said, basically.
They'll keep on adding features to the classes but they won't modify or take away any existing ones. I also think that the discussions on the forums do have something to say since the Paizo staff takes an active part in them. I think criticism and discussion are very useful tools to determine what could be a valuable addition to upcoming material, which would of course need to be playtested thoroughly.
Discussion and playtesting are not mutually exclusive.
What Treantmonk said, basically.
They'll keep on adding features to the classes but they won't modify or take away any existing ones. I also think that the discussions on the forums do have something to say since the Paizo staff takes an active part in them. I think criticism and discussion are very useful tools to determine what could be a valuable addition to upcoming material, which would of course need to be playtested thoroughly.
Discussion and playtesting are not mutually exclusive.
I love how they'll pop on and clarify something if enough attention is drawn to it... :D
Lots of things to speak to here.
1> I saw elsewhere that Paizo prints errata'd versions with each new version. The second printing has pretty much sold out and they are soon going to organize a third printing. The downloadable pdf file gets updated at that point; so, you can update your copy for free (just need to go for the personalize procedure).
2> I think that Paizo will likely go the route of giving options on how a player or DM can change a class. There was quite a call to change the spell progression of the Sorcerer class for better balance. There was also a call to do something to better improve the 'favoured enemey' ability of the Ranger. Paizo chose that they wanted to keep closer to the OGL with the basic Pathfinder. They felt that was more important to establishing and keeping their customer base. I don't see them changing those base classes in the Pathfinder Core book.
I also see some of the new classes like Cavalier and Inquisitor were added for players that wanted things like a Paladin not restricted to Lawful Good or a Ranger not hampered by Favoured Enemey.
3> Things that I might like to see.
A paladin like Holy Warrior/Champion that is dedicated to a cause without being Lawful Good. The Inquisitor might be a possible choice with their selection of Domain. Jason noted in another thread that it was possible for an Inquisitor to become a Lich.
Ranger with more flexability on assigning the favoured enemey bonous and being able to 'tune' it to what they are tracking. The bonus of multiple +2's would likely need to be cut down (+1's likely to keep with the regular bonuses awarded for similar abilities) but the ability to take ten minutes of studying tracks to prepare for battle would allow them to be a better fighter.
4> One thing that I do find is that most classes are fairly generic. I personally would love to have classes that were more thematic like the Volcanist which draws their power from the heart of Volcanos.
5> If you want a good way to include Monks into a Medieval setting then I would suggest looking at the companion in the movie 'Brotherhood of the Wolf'. I felt that the Monk would be a great way to represent the fighting style of a more primitive people that were used to mixing their hands, bodies, and weapons into a seamless whole compared to western style of fighting more in set lines. Drop the monestary/monastic view but you can keep the inner religious connection to the greater native totem spirits and dedication to being a warrior.
Anyways, just some thoughts.
Good gaming!
I expect Paizo to keep the issues that arise in mind for future releases; many of the 3.5 sourcebooks were balance patches, after all, and they did manage to fix a great deal. However, they're not exactly going to be able to go back in time and fix the core rules before they're ever distributed, and errata only goes so far.
All the analysis can also be extremely useful for community rebuilds, a la Tome D&D.
I am not against a little optimization, but min-max is a little over the top for me. Hm, guess this isn't much of a disclaimer...
Optimization and min/maxing are the exact same thing. In fact, it's impossible to make any informed and tactical choice about character creation or kitting without employing min/maxing.
Even when you decide the warrior gets the magic sword and the wizard gets the magic wand, you're min/maxing; you're minimizing the impact of the warrior's lack of prowess as well as that of the wizard's squishiness, while maximizing the benefits of the warrior's combat prowess and the wizard's magical abilities.
Simple fix... yes... good fix... no. I do think something might need to be done. But remember that monk weapons can be enchanted and have all that goodness added to them.
Simple Monk fix - add Monk unarmed strike damage to Monk weapons.
That's the point.
There won't be any changes that invalidates the base book - that would be a terrible decision.
I'm not convinced that there won't be errata or "helpful clarifications" that nerf particular spells/class abilities. Like a clarification that monks can't take the Improved Natural Attack feat, for instance...
There won't be any changes that invalidates the base book - that would be a terrible decision.I'm not convinced that there won't be errata or "helpful clarifications" that nerf particular spells/class abilities. Like a clarification that monks can't take the Improved Natural Attack feat, for instance...
Yes, but that is differernt than the sweeping changes people want to see for some classes, like the Fighter.
Yes, but that is differernt than the sweeping changes people want to see for some classes, like the Fighter.There won't be any changes that invalidates the base book - that would be a terrible decision.I'm not convinced that there won't be errata or "helpful clarifications" that nerf particular spells/class abilities. Like a clarification that monks can't take the Improved Natural Attack feat, for instance...
I agree that instead of making sweeping changes to an existing class, they'd probably just create a new class instead (that incorporates those sweeping changes).
|
|
I agree that instead of making sweeping changes to an existing class, they'd probably just create a new class instead (that incorporates those sweeping changes).Yes, but that is differernt than the sweeping changes people want to see for some classes, like the Fighter.There won't be any changes that invalidates the base book - that would be a terrible decision.I'm not convinced that there won't be errata or "helpful clarifications" that nerf particular spells/class abilities. Like a clarification that monks can't take the Improved Natural Attack feat, for instance...
Sweeping changes are bad, even with a new class. That screws up the existing base class' balance. It's like the Tome of Battle problem. War blades are better in most cases than fighters. Partly because it was designed to be, but most of it just came from the fact evolution is unfavorable to the ones who came first.
Spellcasters ignore this problem because new spells keep them at a higher tier. Unless fighters got really great feats available only to them, a new class will probably just outshine a fighter. The good thing is that Paizo is showing with the new base classes that they will probably not accidently make old classes obsolete. On the other hand, summoner is still too good which shows Paizo's mistakes.
So it has to be alternate class features and fighter-only feats to keep the fighter relevant.
I'm not convinced that there won't be errata or "helpful clarifications" that nerf particular spells/class abilities. Like a clarification that monks can't take the Improved Natural Attack feat, for instance...
Or, more wisely, a clarification that they indeed [i]can[/] take Improved Natural Attack, laid clear precisely because the Monk class needs the help.
I agree that instead of making sweeping changes to an existing class, they'd probably just create a new class instead (that incorporates those sweeping changes).
Yes, absolutely, Paizo should release its own psionics and Tome of Battle. It went miles towards fixing 3.5, after all.
Sweeping changes are bad, even with a new class. That screws up the existing base class' balance. It's like the Tome of Battle problem. War blades are better in most cases than fighters. Partly because it was designed to be, but most of it just came from the fact evolution is unfavorable to the ones who came first.
<Snip>
So it has to be alternate class features and fighter-only feats to keep the fighter relevant.
I fail to see the problem. Tome of Battle was a melee replacement. A complete melee reboot, precisely because the Fighter didn't work. It fixed the Fighter by replacing it, by serving all character concepts formerly served by Fighter (pretty much save archery, which Fighter can be decent at).
Sometimes, a mistake is so fundamentally flawed that you have to wipe the slate clean.
|
|
I fail to see the problem. Tome of Battle was a melee replacement. A complete melee reboot, precisely because the Fighter didn't work. It fixed the Fighter by replacing it, by serving all character concepts formerly served by Fighter (pretty much save archery, which Fighter can be decent at).
Sometimes, a mistake is so fundamentally flawed that you have to wipe the slate clean.
I don't disagree with what you say, but implementing it is difficult. If Paizo did that, it'd be admitting their fighter still sucked, it'd be seen as a money grab by some, and worse of all, it be considered a betrayal by many that the fighter is so bad, it needs to be done away with, and oh btw, pay us another $40 to fix it.
I still believe adding fight-only feats and/or adding fighter only abilities would be a better idea.
I fail to see the problem. Tome of Battle was a melee replacement. A complete melee reboot, precisely because the Fighter didn't work. It fixed the Fighter by replacing it, by serving all character concepts formerly served by Fighter (pretty much save archery, which Fighter can be decent at).
Sometimes, a mistake is so fundamentally flawed that you have to wipe the slate clean.
I don't disagree with what you say, but implementing it is difficult. If Paizo did that, it'd be admitting their fighter still sucked, it'd be seen as a money grab by some, and worse of all, it be considered a betrayal by many that the fighter is so bad, it needs to be done away with, and oh btw, pay us another $40 to fix it.
I still believe adding fight-only feats and/or adding fighter only abilities would be a better idea.
The idea for pathfinder was to fix 3.5, so to an extent so they had to use the base classes to stay true to the system. Now that they have done that, they are free to put out better classes. As long as they did not advertise it as a fighter replacement many people would not see it as such regardless of whether it would be true or not.
|
I am wondering if folks are just trying to figure out changes just for their own game...?
Or do people think the criticism will spawn alternate class features...?
Or, does anyone really think that, after months and months of playtesting, Paizo will use valuable resources coming up with changes to these classes?
Which is it for you?
The first, if any.
I do not expect the Paizo team to bend to my will anymore than I expect any of the forum goers to. And I don't care if the discussion spawns new changes in Pathfinder because I'm already using my own rules for the most part.
I like to pontificate on theorums. I like the discussion for the discussion, not the resolution. I play games for the joy of the competition, not the victory.
I like hearing other viewpoints, even those I disagree with. Especially when it is presented with a subtle wit.
|
My eyes glaze over when you say these things. I can't decide whether I want to rail against how wrong I think this b!&!%!~# argument is or just ignore it because I fear for my heart health.Then why do you say them? Unless it's to win BS bingo, I suppose.
Stupid argument being rehashed for the 4756th time between the same people?
HOUSE!!!
Each of the current classes, as currently written, is fun to play.
|
Or, more wisely, a clarification that they indeed [i]can[/] take Improved Natural Attack, laid clear precisely because the Monk class needs the help.
For what its worth, there has been an official ruling on INA for monks, its an official NO for monks in pathfinder. The errata is going to add a line in the feat that says "Imporved Natural Attack cannot be applied to unarmed strikes". See here. However I don't think its as much a needed feat as it was in 3.5. Pathfinder monks ARE better, still need help for sure, but better than 3.5.
Simple fix... yes... good fix... no. I do think something might need to be done. But remember that monk weapons can be enchanted and have all that goodness added to them. I do think that perhaps a flat level based bonus damage might be in order. Perhaps a bonus which applies only to nonenchanted monk weapons. (I've already seen plenty of monk orders and feats which make longswords into monk weapons)
Simple Monk fix - add Monk unarmed strike damage to Monk weapons.
It's so interesting how players differ. In all the campaigns I play in Pathfinder right now, monks are universally lauded and go around flurrying here and there with nary a complaint.
Let's see. Some of these are really similar but they could go on separate bingo cards.
X is overpowered. / Y is broken.
The game designer claimed this somewhere so it's fixed!
There's some obscure errata so it's not an issue. (A 4e zinger.)
At least it's better than last edition. / Pathfinder made a relevant change so it's fixed. / Months and months of playtesting!
I'm having fun so there's no problem / In my campaign there's no problem.
Fighters can't have nice things.
A list of house rules that buffs sorcerers (or a strong option, if we want to keep this system-agnostic). / A list of house rules that nerfs melee attacks or combat maneuvers (or a weak option, similarly). / Errata that buffs an already-strong option. / Errata that nerfs a weak option.
Real roleplayers don't minmax. / Minmaxers aren't real roleplayers. / It's not a problem if you don't allow people to minmax.
The rules aren't broken because you can houserule them.
I don't understand this, but I'm posting anyway. / The OP starts with a passive-aggressive complaint.
A mod or developer posts, and people bring up unrelated issues.
Someone posts a meme from two years ago.
Let's agree to disagree!
Someone tries to derail the thread.
You didn't read what I posted! / Someone quotes him/herself. Bonus: I left lots of them vague so you can argue about whether someone got bingo!
Hahah! From now on you shall be known as A StrawMan In Black. :)
...Not only this, but in my interpretation, monks seem very Oriental (in the way they are designed as a class) and tend to not fit in with the more traditional adventuring party of medieval heroes. A great inclusion for a future book would be to give suggestions of how to interpret each class. For instance, list other ways monks can contribute without the "I'm from asialand" feel.
I've always wanted to do a Capoeira-based "monk" for the Mwangi, especially among escaped and freed slaves. Or a more kickboxing/brawler/pitfighter "monk" for gladiators (both public and underground fight clubs). Both would have notably different styles than the PFRPG monk (Tian Xia & Vudrani).
funny list
LOL - I have another one.
Followed by a list of house rules (or stingy rule interps) that nerfs Option B.
Followed by a complaint how much better Option A is than Option B.
I might as well chime in too.
1: Class/ability/spell/etc X is broken.
2: That is not how it works
1: Ok, will this one then
2: That is not how that one works either.
Pattern continues
1: This one then
2:<points to page and paragraph for a reference to show how it works>
1: <Willfully reads it the way they want to> or "well that is not how we do it in my game."
2: ...then the issue is your house rules not X
1: <gets upset, accuses other poster of personal attack> or <insist designers fix a non-issue that is only an issue due to their houserules.>
- "I didn't read all X pages of this monster, but here's my opinion on the original post..."
- Someone quotes something said on the Wizards' boards 5 years ago and everyone who remembers it smugly pats themselves on the back.
- "Mr. Fishy accepts pie"