|
On Topic:
I'd like to see a battlefield tactician that builds on the teamwork feats and uses exceptional abilities to improve the combat effectiveness of the other characters.
Other than that, I'd really like to see some fighting styles/martial arts rules. I really like how martial arts was done in 3.0 but would like to see that expanded to include fencing schools like the real-world European fencing styles as well as different fighting styles for other weapons.
Also, add a martial artist/pugilist to the list. However, I vaguely remember seeing a thread about fighters being great martial artists without the need for a new class. Maybe a new archetype would cover it?
I wouldn't hold your breath guys, Paizo staff did say that Magus is the last base class for a while. They're already afraid of base class bloat with 18 classes as it is.
i hope that inst so, beyond the fact that i really want to see a new combat class it wouldn't be fair. you cant just add a new caster and say we are done. you need to add a new combat class and a new expert as well.
that's just my opinion
Problem is, finding a fighting type that isn't already covered by what we have already.
Combat manoeuvres? You can do that with a fighter, it's all down to the feats and choosing the right weapon training.
Fighter/mage? we have the magus.
I wouldn't mind seeing a decent swashbuckler class, which hasn't been done yet to my satisfaction - a sort of base-class duelist crossed with the single-handed fighter archetype would be a good place to start.
The idea of a kind of non-magical or semi-magical 'spell sword' isn't a bad idea, but would be hard to pull off.
Total agreement. I would really like to see more fighter Archtypes. I want to see loads and loads of non magical archtypes. Fighter as a swashbuckler or a more extensive rogue archtype would be great.
i hope that inst so, beyond the fact that i really want to see a new combat class it wouldn't be fair. you cant just add a new caster and say we are done. you need to add a new combat class and a new expert as well.
that's just my opinion
What are we missing that can not be covered with archtypes? Just what? Hell a good chunk of the core classes could fit into archtypes really.
What non magical class is missing that is not a variant of a class we have now?
that's not really my point but most people don't agree with me so im not going to try to convince people to.
i just feel that for every arcane caster there should be a divine caster and an expert and a combat class.
i think that it is only fair for the game to balance material for all class types.
i dont expect anyone to agree with me its just how i feel
p.s. i think any and all base classes should be well thought out and well constructed, i don't want classes just pushed out
Gods no, that would be just awful if you ask me. A class should not exists solely because "Well we have 7 arcane casters..so we need 7 skill based classes, 7 divine casters and 7 combat classes that do not cast" just no.
A class should have a reason to be, a point and because we have 7 of that type is not a reason for anything but a crappy class.
As I said what can be covered that can not be done with the classes we have? That is the point of a base class or at lest should be.
Gods no, that would be just awful if you ask me. A class should not exists solely because "Well we have 7 arcane casters..so we need 7 skill based classes, 7 divine casters and 7 combat classes that do not cast" just no.
A class should have a reason to be, a point and because we have 7 of that type is not a reason for anything but a crappy class.
As I said what can be covered that can not be done with the classes we have? That is the point of a base class or at lest should be.
Agreed. A civilised fighter, either a base class or a variant like the 'College Trained Fighter' with more skills and a few less abilities would be a cool thing to add into the equation (the only 'skilled' combat classes are the barbarian and ranger, I think there's room for a more civilised option). Otherwise, I feel they have pretty much got most of it covered.
Honesty I never count that one as a fighter should have 4 skill points anyhow. I think however the caviler fills that role. He is the more learned and "civilized" fighter. The noble warrior class, the mounted fighter and the civilized fighter all in one. He pretty much was made for those roles.
There's plenty of types of non-caster classes that could be a full base class. Archer, guerllia warrior, and that manuever specialist are all good choices.
Yes, they could be handled via an archtype, but they could also be full classes. For example the manuever specialist could be fighter, but does he need anything beyond full BAB, and d10s?? The saves and skills could be changed easily, and none of the class features are needed, not even the feats which everybody seems to forget about.
Sure plenty of the current fighter archtypes give up armor and weapon training but most keep the bonus feats. While they are nice, one could easily replace them with more useful class feaures .
Supernatural shapechanger. Chance to create / advance PC that has inherited / gained lycanthropy or character with no link all together to lycanthropy.
Swashbuckler. It is painful to try to build full BaB dex based warrior. Fighter has good base setup, but has close to none interesting / useful class skills (missing acrobatics, escape artist, perform (dance)...) or enough skill ranks per level. Martial class with some synergy to high charisma or intelligence would be fresh.
There's plenty of types of non-caster classes that could be a full base class. Archer, guerllia warrior, and that manuever specialist are all good choices.
Yes, they could be handled via an archtype, but they could also be full classes.
Why? If an archtype works there is zero point to a base class. None. Nothing you said demands a base class and work very well as archetypes.
What is there that demands a new class? What is there that can not be covered with what we have or an archetype? Nothing not a single thing you posted.
Stop. Base. Class. Bloat. Please.
I'm not saying I never want to see another base class, but I would like to have a few "player focused" hardcover rulebooks that don't have new classes in them.
Unfortunately, I have to agree. If it can be handled with an archetype, then it should be done with an archetype. Concepts that can't be should be classes.
Swashbuckler. It is painful to try to build full BaB dex based warrior. Fighter has good base setup, but has close to none interesting / useful class skills (missing acrobatics, escape artist, perform (dance)...) or enough skill ranks per level. Martial class with some synergy to high charisma or intelligence would be fresh.
You can just about do it by going duelist, but some of the levels getting there hurt.
Honesty I never count that one as a fighter should have 4 skill points anyhow. I think however the caviler fills that role. He is the more learned and "civilized" fighter. The noble warrior class, the mounted fighter and the civilized fighter all in one. He pretty much was made for those roles.
Cavelier fills the 'knight in armour' nobleman-fighter slot, not the 'dashing fencer' nobleman-fighter slot (and those are not the only ones there are at that).
|
I don't think Paizo originally wanted to even do the Magus, but there was just such an enormous demand for it that they decided to go ahead. I'm pretty sure that the Arcane Duelist Bard archetype was supposed to satisfy the "gish" crowd, but failed them. Heck, Even the Magus isn't making some people happy. I expect that the reception to the Magus will go a long way toward determining if a new melee class is warranted for Ultimate Combat.
The concept that has demand anywhere near that of the Magus is the finesse fighter. The Duelist, Swashbuckler, and Free-Hand Fighter all try to fill this niche, and come up short to swashbuckling fans in ways similar to that of the Arcane Duelist and Eldritch Knight did for the F/MU crowd. Since I'm one of those fans, this is my hope for an Ultimate Combat class.
Ultimate Combat comes out too quickly after Ultimate Magic for the reaction to what is in the later to affect the former. I do expect a couple of subclasses in ultimate combat though.
I don't think Paizo originally wanted to even do the Magus, but there was just such an enormous demand for it that they decided to go ahead. I'm pretty sure that the Arcane Duelist Bard archetype was supposed to satisfy the "gish" crowd, but failed them. Heck, Even the Magus isn't making some people happy. I expect that the reception to the Magus will go a long way toward determining if a new melee class is warranted for Ultimate Combat.
I have to agree. There didn't seem to be much enthusiasm for a class like the Magus, so I was a bit surprised when it was announced for Ultimate Magic. I really got the feeling that it was put on the schedule by "acclaim."
There's plenty of types of non-caster classes that could be a full base class. Archer, guerllia warrior, and that manuever specialist are all good choices.
Yes, they could be handled via an archtype, but they could also be full classes.
Why? If an archtype works there is zero point to a base class. None. Nothing you said demands a base class and work very well as archetypes.
What is there that demands a new class? What is there that can not be covered with what we have or an archetype? Nothing not a single thing you posted.
Ok, let's take the Maneuver specialist. He'd need full BAB, and d10s. so that's Ranger, Paladin, and Fighter. But he should probably have Acrobatics and Bluff as class skils, which isn't on any of the those three classes skill list.
He should have good Fort and good Ref saves, so that's the same as a Ranger.
now then, as for class features, there has been plenty of suggestions posted already, including gaining bonuses to their CMB/CMD, which should probably be a little higher than the bonus gained via Weapon Training, which tops out at +4. In fact, I could see them adding their Wisdom or Int to such checks. They should also gain the Improved and Greater versions of the maneuver feats. While this can be handled via the bonus feats of a fighter, an above suggestion was made to split them up into either a quick, mobile warrior or a in your face, smash-mouthed kinda warrior which seems like a really good idea.
beyond that though, with the fighter, there are only 4 different class features to trade in(not counting Armor and Weapon Mastery, which i see as an extension of the Training features). If a designer were to attempt to implement all of these various ideas we've suggested, including advanced, non-standard options for each maneuver along with any other ideas they might have themselves, you suddenly find yourself with something that while it fights, is no longer anything close to a Fighter.
Hence, new class, not Archtype.
As to whether or not there should be one is moot. the idea here is to answer the following: IF Paizo says "Hey guys, we've decided we're going to add new combat focused class to Ultimate Combat, do you any suggestions?"
Here's a little something I've been working on. It's kind of bare-bones, so please be kind!
It's a mobile skirmisher that excells at combat maneuvers and can provide battlefield control and use melee weapons to make area attacks.
MARAUDER
BAB: +1
Good Saves: Reflex
Hit Dice: 1d10
Class Skills: Acrobatics, Bluff, Climb, Craft, Diplomacy, Escape Artist, Intimidate, Knowledge (dungeoneering), Knowledge (history), Knowledge (local), Knowledge (nature), Perception, Profession, Ride, Sense Motive, Sleight of Hand, Stealth, Survival, Swim.
Skill Ranks per level: 4 + Intelligence modifier.
Marauders are proficient in all Simple and Martial Weapons, Light Armor, and Shields (but not tower shields).
LEVEL ABILITY
1. Combat Trick, Marauder Movement
2. Combat Trick, Maneuver Mastery
3. Fast Movement +10 feet
4. Bonus Feat
5. Combat Trick
6. Teamwork Feat
7. Dodge +1
8. Bonus Feat, Combat Trick
9. Fast Movement +20 feet
10. Fighter Training
11. Combat Trick
12. Bonus Feat, Teamwork Feat
13. Dodge +2
14. Combat Trick
15. Fast Movement +30 feet
16. Bonus Feat
17. Combat Trick
18. Teamwork Feat
19. Dodge +3
20. Bonus Feat, Combat Trick
Combat Trick (Ex): At 1st level, 2nd level, and every 3 levels thereafter, the marauder learns one combat trick. Some ideas for Combat Tricks are listed at the end of this entry.
Marauder Movement (Ex): When you move 10 or more feet before you attack and tumble past your opponent using the Acrobatics skill, you add your level to your damage if you hit or add your level to your Combat Maneuver Bonus if you perform a combat maneuver. If you move 10 or more feet before you attack and tumble through your opponent’s space using the Acrobatics skill, you add double your level to your damage if you hit or your CMB if you attempt a combat maneuver.
Maneuver Mastery (Ex): You never provoke an attack of opportunity when you perform a combat maneuver. You add half your class level to your CMB and CMD.
Fast Movement (Ex): At 3rd level, and every 6 levels thereafter, your speed increases by 10 feet.
Bonus Feat. At 4th level, and every 4 levels thereafter, you gain a bonus combat feat. You must meet the requirements of the selected feat.
Teamwork Feat: At 6th level, and every 6 levels thereafter, you gain a bonus teamwork feat. You must meet the requirements of the selected feat.
Dodge (Ex): At 7th level, and every 6 levels thereafter, you gain a +1 dodge bonus to AC when you are wearing light armor or no armor and have a light load.
Fighter Training (Ex): At 10th level, you may select fighter-only feats, treating half your marauder level as your fighter level; this stacks with actual fighter levels.
Combat Tricks:
Improved Flanking (+4 when flanking)
Flawless Stride
Cone of Blades (10 foot cone)
Ring of Blades (attack all adjacent targets as full round action)
Line of Blades (move in a straight line and attack each opponent you move past once)
Path of Blades (move in a non-straight line & attack each opponent you move past once)
Arch of Blades (Strike a number of opponents equal to Dex bonus as full round action)
Swift Maneuver (if you hit, make a CMB as swift action)
Swift Movement (Move your speed as a swift action) requires swift step.
Swift Strike (Make an attack as a swift action)
Flanking Marauder (Marauding damage against flanked opponents)
Acrobatic Charge
Surprising Marauder (Marauding damage against flat-footed opponents)
Fearsome Marauder (Marauding damage against shaken opponents)
Team Leader (share Teamwork feat with allies)
Bastion (adjacent terrain treated as difficult terrain & increases Acrobatics DC)
Eye of the Storm (10 foot radius of melee attacks)
Swift Stand (stand up from prone as swift action without provoking AoOs).
Swift Step (take a 5 foot step as a swift action)
Roots of the Mighty Oak (add level to CMD vs. being bull rushed, overrun, or tripped)
Disarm Trick (gain proficiency in any weapon you gain from disarming for 1 round/Int)
Touche (confirm critical hit against the opponent’s touch AC instead of his regular AC)
A Cavalier's archetype without the mount and the code of conduct class features could easily fill the "tactical fighter" slot. Of course, a Cavalier without a mount is not a Cavalier anymore, so you need to change the name.
If there's going to be a new base class, this should be something different, at least as different as the Tome of Battle's classes were from the other classes.
And I don't think that a "fencer" class is a good idea either. If I play a Fighter, I can play a Strength-based Fighter or Dexterity-based Fighter, but if I play a "fencer", then I HAVE to be a Dexterity-based "fencer", that's called railroading and it's not a clever concept for a base class IMO.
I don't think there is much of a mechanical niche that is not already filled by applying a archetype to an existing base class. Could have some more in terms of flavor, like samurai, gladiator and viking archetypes, I guess.
So, more archetypes and instead of base classes please.
|
The only niche I think that really needs filling is a steampunk/mad scientist/inventor type character. His abilities should be NON-MAGICAL in nature. I can't stress this enough. Yeah, we have the artificer from Eberron and the one from Tome of Secrets, but they're both MAGICAL tech.
Of course, Ultimate Combat wouldn't really be the ideal place for this class. And judging from the response of various Paizo staff when I've suggested this before, it doesn't seem to be something that they're really interested in.
And I don't think that a "fencer" class is a good idea either. If I play a Fighter, I can play a Strength-based Fighter or Dexterity-based Fighter, but if I play a "fencer", then I HAVE to be a Dexterity-based "fencer", that's called railroading and it's not a clever concept for a base class IMO.
Thinking about it, you could probably build the kind of fencer I am thinking of from a Cavelier base, trading out the order abilities and mount for the fencing skills etc.
Hence you remake the 'noble fighter' into different concepts ...
Would an archetype better suite your sensibilities? :D
Ok, let's take the Maneuver specialist. He'd need full BAB, and d10s. so that's Ranger, Paladin, and Fighter. But he should probably have Acrobatics and Bluff as class skils, which isn't on any of the those three classes skill list.
He should have good Fort and good Ref saves, so that's the same as a Ranger.
now then, as for class features, there has been plenty of suggestions posted already, including gaining bonuses to their CMB/CMD, which should probably be a little higher than the bonus gained via Weapon Training, which tops out at +4. In fact, I could see them adding their Wisdom or Int to such checks. They should also gain the Improved and Greater versions of the maneuver feats. While this can be handled via the bonus feats of a fighter, an above suggestion was made to split them up into either a quick, mobile warrior or a in your face, smash-mouthed kinda warrior which seems like a really good idea.
Your are talking about a monk with full BAB and a D1O. so really this is simply a monk archtype that focus on Maneuvers. The monk already does much of this, just allow some neat abilities to replace the magical powers maybe flurry with Maneuver's or something.
I have seen nothing here to justify a new class. It is simply an archetype at best.
|
|
Thinking about it, you could probably build the kind of fencer I am thinking of from a Cavelier base, trading out the order abilities and mount for the fencing skills etc.Hence you remake the 'noble fighter' into different concepts ...
Would an archetype better suite your sensibilities? :D
Ohh, that's a tasty idea. The challenge mechanic would suit a dueling style of combat nicely. Now you've got me going back and rereading the cavalier myself. So, Order of the Fox...
Ohh, that's a tasty idea. The challenge mechanic would suit a dueling style of combat nicely. Now you've got me going back and rereading the cavalier myself. So, Order of the Fox...
Thinking about it, you could probably build the kind of fencer I am thinking of from a Cavelier base, trading out the order abilities and mount for the fencing skills etc.Hence you remake the 'noble fighter' into different concepts ...
Would an archetype better suite your sensibilities? :D
Hmm swap out the mounted abilities for fighter like armor training for light armor only and the ride skill for acrobatics maybe?
The only niche I think that really needs filling is a steampunk/mad scientist/inventor type character. His abilities should be NON-MAGICAL in nature. I can't stress this enough. Yeah, we have the artificer from Eberron and the one from Tome of Secrets, but they're both MAGICAL tech.
Of course, Ultimate Combat wouldn't really be the ideal place for this class. And judging from the response of various Paizo staff when I've suggested this before, it doesn't seem to be something that they're really interested in.
Maybe after Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat, they will have Ultimate Genius, which will have a variety of skill-based base classes, like a magic-version or mystical version (ninja?) of the rogue (like the magus is the magic-version of the tank), a non-magical inventor based on designing gear, an Int-based non-magical adventurer (MacGuyver/Sherlock Holmes), maybe a Wisdom-based psychic or meditation master or investigator a la Psych/Mentalist, and maybe a Cha-based master manipulator, like Saffron or Inara (from Firefly) or Anna (from V). Possibly even a gunsmith class, or an archetype of alchemist that uses gunpowder.
Ohh, that's a tasty idea. The challenge mechanic would suit a dueling style of combat nicely. Now you've got me going back and rereading the cavalier myself. So, Order of the Fox...
Thinking about it, you could probably build the kind of fencer I am thinking of from a Cavelier base, trading out the order abilities and mount for the fencing skills etc.Hence you remake the 'noble fighter' into different concepts ...
Would an archetype better suite your sensibilities? :D
Yes, I thought so, but re-reading the cavalier and it's orders and dedications, it's more like a paladin than I was thinking. But an actual 'nobleman' class where nobility is defined as not just title but character and education might work. It would have different specialities for different concepts, landing somewhere between the Cavalier and the Fighter in terms of concept & specialisation. So far I have thought of:
Master & Commander - for the leader of men, the ship captain, the tactician. Abilities tied into inspiration and leadership. Think of Hornblower and Sharpe as archetypes; men who have to be not just good fighters but skilled professionals and the kind who could shout "Follow me!" and know it would be done.Swordsman - the classic swashbuckler/fencer, this could also include the Japanese samurai as easily as the three musketeers or the Renaissance nobleman. He is skilled swordsman relying on skill rather than brute force and heavy armour.
Chevalier - the medieval knight concept, but focussed on personal ability and mounted combat, training rather than ideals (such as for the Cavalier and the Paladin).
Pugalist - the gentlemanly art of fisticuffs, or the dangerous martial arts of self defence, the pugalist focuses on combat manoeuvres be they armed or unarmed.
For seekerofshadowlight, Gorbacz and others that don't want, like or need new classes:
this is not a thread to talk about how the game doesn't need new classes or how the archetype builds fill all the rolls so please keep those thoughts out of this thread.
That's the first post. Everybody that has ever come anywhere near a thread like this knows your position on this subject. Must you bring your old arguments into threads that have specifically asked to keep it out? Make your own thread about how no new classes should ever be made again if you really need yo get it out of your system. The OP asked you guys not to start with these comments. I'm reminding you and asking to stop and go to another thread. After this you will just be trolling.
That having been said, I have two points.
1. I voiced my opinion regarding not wanting a new base class. It was not based on anything mentioned in that disclaimer. I don't want another new class so soon after the ones in the Advanced Player's Guide and the Magus in Ultimate Magic. Its much more of a rules bloat issue than a game theory thing with me.
Heck, I buy new class products from Super Genius Games all the time, but part of that is that its very clear that those are optional and will not be setting the baseline of how fast Paizo puts out rules and they don't set the bar for how abilities should look, with rise a bit too quickly when classes start coming out too quickly.
2. I think its a lot better to have people voice their opinions, respectfully, in one thread than to have a "New Class in UC" and "No New Class in UC" and "Maybe a new class in UC" and all the other threads that will spawn from splintering the topic, and yet will ultimately converge on the same issues anyway.
Plus, I have to admit, it feels a bit like "padding the results" to say, "post in this thread, but not if you don't want a new class," since you can generate a long thread of people that "obviously" want a new class if people follow that particular appeal.
|
|
The OP stated that he is expects UC to have a new base class. Which is a false assumption, because all signs and dev posts show that it won't.
Now, since the base assumption isn't true, the threads goes into "wishlist" mode, and since I for one am completely uninterested in new base classes (for a whole slew of reason, with keeping my players sanity intact by NOT having a million options to chose from) it's a free game.
And yes, I do belive that the "people who don't want X please stay away" is a rather dismissive attitude.
I think the purpose of this thread is to come up with new base class ideas. The OP probably asked not to make "no new base class" posts because this thread isn't about whether or not new classes should be made, but what kind of new classes should be made.
For example, if this was a thread about favorite ice cream flavors, it wouldn't be appropriate to make posts about how much you hate ice cream; how you like ice cream, but think it's unhealthy; or how much you really like cake.
Personally, I think there is a place for new base classes, new archetypes, and new PrCs. I LIKE options.
For seekerofshadowlight, Gorbacz and others that don't want, like or need new classes:
this is not a thread to talk about how the game doesn't need new classes or how the archetype builds fill all the rolls so please keep those thoughts out of this thread.That's the first post. Everybody that has ever come anywhere near a thread like this knows your position on this subject. Must you bring your old arguments into threads that have specifically asked to keep it out? Make your own thread about how no new classes should ever be made again if you really need yo get it out of your system. The OP asked you guys not to start with these comments. I'm reminding you and asking to stop and go to another thread. After this you will just be trolling.
thank you, i have actually stopped posting on my own thread because people ignored that element of my thread.
it really sucks that people need to go against the heart of the thread just to say they disagree, it truly does feel like they are trolling.
|
|
I think the purpose of this thread is to come up with new base class ideas. The OP probably asked not to make "no new base class" posts because this thread isn't about whether or not new classes should be made, but what kind of new classes should be made.
For example, if this was a thread about favorite ice cream flavors, it wouldn't be appropriate to make posts about how much you hate ice cream; how you like ice cream, but think it's unhealthy; or how much you really like cake.
Personally, I think there is a place for new base classes, new archetypes, and new PrCs. I LIKE options.
No, it's a thread about if should my favourite ice cream company devote their time and resources to making vanilla-pepperoni ice cream. Which I don't want them to, because it will:
a) divert their resources from making things I like
b) bloat the amount of base classes, which I don't want, for several reasons.
Also, the "stay away if you don't like" idea is a fallacy, because it leads to an idea that everybody wants new base classes, and the only thing left to discuss is what class it should be.
If somebody wants to play a system with freeform "DIY" class creation, well, GURPS and BRP and several others offer ample opportunities.
I'm starting to see why people are getting the feeling that these boards are getting more antagonistic.
To all of those who DO NOT desire/want/wish/etc a new base class in UC, why do you feel the need to come and crap all over somebody else's thread who does want such???
I probably visit Paizo's messageboards 4+ times a day, and I see countless threads whose subject lines do not interest me, so I don't click on them. I understand you just want to voice your opinion, which you have a right to, but this isn't exactly the right place.
If there was a thread entitled, "How would you handle firearms rules for Ultimate Combat", I would not respond to the thread, because I don't really care for firearms rules, at least not enough to discuss them.
As to IF there will be a new base class or not, one James Jacobs(I'm sure you all know who he IS), was just recently asked this question. His response, more or less was "it is far too early to make any announcements regarding UC". So maybe there will be a new class and maybe there won't.
And this thread is about the possibility, however likely or unlikely, of a new class and what it will be.
Also, the "stay away if you don't like" idea is a fallacy, because it leads to an idea that everybody wants new base classes, and the only thing left to discuss is what class it should be.
Could you not just create a thread to voice your dislike of new base classes?? I agree that we don't need nearly as many as we had in 3.5, but so far we've only had seven new classes and there has been plenty of posts by Paizo staffers saying that there WILL NOT be tons of new classes.
IF there's a new class in Ultimate Combat, and that's it for a long time, is that truly class bloat?? ESPECIALLY since the new classes are all in books that are OPTIONAL??
I mean heck, let's say Paizo creates a new class for UC. then makes APG II and creates another 6 new classes. and then does Ultimate Genius(thanx for the assist SD) and makes a new skill monkey style class. So that's 15 new classes, plus the 11 in the Core rules for a total of 26 classes.
Whose forcing you to use the non-core classes?? is Jason or James coming to your house, beating you up and saying if you don't use ALL of our classes, we're taking away all your D&D books and dice??
I'm starting to see why people are getting the feeling that these boards are getting more antagonistic.
To all of those who DO NOT desire/want/wish/etc a new base class in UC, why do you feel the need to come and crap all over somebody else's thread who does want such???
I probably visit Paizo's messageboards 4+ times a day, and I see countless threads whose subject lines do not interest me, so I don't click on them. I understand you just want to voice your opinion, which you have a right to, but this isn't exactly the right place.
If there was a thread entitled, "How would you handle firearms rules for Ultimate Combat", I would not respond to the thread, because I don't really care for firearms rules, at least not enough to discuss them.
As to IF there will be a new base class or not, one James Jacobs(I'm sure you all know who he IS), was just recently asked this question. His response, more or less was "it is far too early to make any announcements regarding UC". So maybe there will be a new class and maybe there won't.
And this thread is about the possibility, however likely or unlikely, of a new class and what it will be.
+1 thank you
|
Ok, let's take the Maneuver specialist. He'd need full BAB, and d10s. so that's Ranger, Paladin, and Fighter. But he should probably have Acrobatics and Bluff as class skils, which isn't on any of the those three classes skill list.He should have good Fort and good Ref saves, so that's the same as a Ranger.
now then, as for class features, there has been plenty of suggestions posted already, including gaining bonuses to their CMB/CMD, which should probably be a little higher than the bonus gained via Weapon Training, which tops out at +4. In fact, I could see them adding their Wisdom or Int to such checks. They should also gain the Improved and Greater versions of the maneuver feats. While this can be handled via the bonus feats of a fighter, an above suggestion was made to split them up into either a quick, mobile warrior or a in your face, smash-mouthed kinda warrior which seems like a really good idea.
beyond that though, with the fighter, there are only 4 different class features to trade in(not counting Armor and Weapon Mastery, which i see as an extension of the Training features). If a designer were to attempt to implement all of these various ideas we've suggested, including advanced, non-standard options for each maneuver along with any other ideas they might have themselves, you suddenly find yourself with something that while it fights, is no longer anything close to a Fighter....
I don't see why he'd need Bluff necessarily (Feint doesn't seem like a huge thing for a wrestler-style maneuver master) but this could be implemented via a 'pick your poison'-style special power selection.
Don't get your nose out of joint but this seems better accomplished as a monk archetype, as that class has tons of powers you could eliminate / replace to tweak to get the end result that's desired. Look at how different the zen archer is from the base monk.Keep Wis bonus to AC, dump Lawful alignment requirement, keep unarmed strike damage, keep maneuver training, keep flurry, keep stunning fist, expand list of selectable bonus feats, keep fast movement, dump still mind/ki pool/slow fall/high jump/x body/abundant step/diamond soul/quivering palm, get d10 hit die and full BAB. Basically a less-anime/wuxia-inspired monk. Ta-da.
And this thread is about the possibility, however likely or unlikely, of a new class and what it will be.
Right, and not everyone's going to agree as to whether concept x differs enough from already existing options to justify a new base class.
I'd like to see a class that emulates monster powers from the bestiary via some sort of totemic/shapeshifting mechanic - not like a druid, but more of a 'I eat the heart of my slain foe and gain its power' kinda thing. Maybe that's not for UC, though.|
|
Also, the "stay away if you don't like" idea is a fallacy, because it leads to an idea that everybody wants new base classes, and the only thing left to discuss is what class it should be.
Could you not just create a thread to voice your dislike of new base classes?? I agree that we don't need nearly as many as we had in 3.5, but so far we've only had seven new classes and there has been plenty of posts by Paizo staffers saying that there WILL NOT be tons of new classes.
IF there's a new class in Ultimate Combat, and that's it for a long time, is that truly class bloat?? ESPECIALLY since the new classes are all in books that are OPTIONAL??
I mean heck, let's say Paizo creates a new class for UC. then makes APG II and creates another 6 new classes. and then does Ultimate Genius(thanx for the assist SD) and makes a new skill monkey style class. So that's 15 new classes, plus the 11 in the Core rules for a total of 26 classes.
Whose forcing you to use the non-core classes?? is Jason or James coming to your house, beating you up and saying if you don't use ALL of our classes, we're taking away all your D&D books and dice??
No, but I remember back in the 3.5 era when my DM sent me the list of all the base classes. It's 201 pages long. No, really. And it's just the official WotC material.
Of course he could be smart and send me a list of select classes and tell "choose from that", which I would follow with "but I've heard there are more, for example the Swashbuckler" and what would follow would be either an argument over degree of DM control or over why is the 3.5 Swashbuckler a craptacular example of epic fail.
Not to mention all the time in the world he would have to waste combing thru it to select the right and good choices. In the end our campaign bombed among other due to people taking trap options (me with a Sorcerer/Clerc Mystic Theurge and a friend with some variant Paladin).
With Pathfinder I as a DM can finally hit a reset button on available source material, and I'm VERY wary of Paizo expanding it to 3.5 levels of magnitude.
With Pathfinder I as a DM can finally hit a reset button on available source material, and I'm VERY wary of Paizo expanding it to 3.5 levels of magnitude.
That's a bit of a pipe dream on your part, not to put too fine a line on it.
Not because Paizo wants to do rules bloat like WoTC did, but because Paizo wants to pay it's employees. As a business, they can't just sit on their laurels, they have to keep producing more things for people to buy. That means there is inherent rules bloat built into the system. Wanting to avoid 3.5 levels of source books is sort of pointless, if PF is successful, it will eventually reach those levels.
What I think you are wanting is steady growth, not lack of growth. Lack of growth will kill PF faster than anything else. A steady, healthy growth however keeps everyone happy.
Now, the problem with your desire is, it will never be satisfied short of Paizo closing up shop. Because, as they expand, they will be adding new rules, new source material, new prestige classes, new feats, new spells, and so on.
What I would prefer is steady growth and well thought out expansions. If those expansions include a new base class, or 15 archtypes, or 25 spells, or 50 new magic items, or all the above, then that's fine. So long as it's well designed, balanced material, I have no care how much they add. I just don't want to see the 'what can we do to top the **** we put out in the last book' that I saw in WoTC towards the end of 3.5.
In other words, I'll let Paizo put out what they want, with my input on what I'd like, and if our desires fall too far apart, I'll spend my $$$ elsewhere. If not, I'll give them my $$$.
Paizo have handled bloat very well. They have included only what their audience wants them to include, after all. We're talking about where there isn't currently a class that covers a fundamental archetype of fantasy games (at least to everyone's satisfaction). Once the gap is filled, it's filled.
Hence this thread. Is there an archetype, or more than one, not covered by existing classes? I think there are a few, but I think one class can cover it.
There are a couple of staples of fantasy I would love to see, but they could be done with archetypes.
One would be the noble savage. Not the barbarian, it's close, but not what I'm talking about. I'm having trouble remembering the books, but in several different books I've had Horse Clans, they were savages, little equipment, nomadic, living with their horses as one in nature. They had berserkers, but they were not chaotic, even the berserkers were highly focused when they berserked.
It was less like rage, and more like smite. A berserker would berserk on a specific enemy, and stay berserked on that one enemy until they were defeated, or until the berserker was. The clan had a very rigid honor system, with everyone knowing their place and acting according to tradition.
In other words, a lawful barbarian who gains the benefit of rage X times per day, but only while he's attacking a specific designated opponent. If he attacks anyone else, or if that opponent is defeated, his rage ends. No 'rage drain' at the end, just raging on one opponent. Could be an object, berserking on a stone blocking the path and pounding on it until it shatters.
The second staple is more of asian staple, but one I like, and that's the reclusive martial artist that follows no rules. He shuns laws, he obeys only his own needs and desires. He's usually a bad guy, but he doesn't have to be, there have been some good ones as well, but more neutral or evil. Basically, a chaotic monk.
In other words, a lawful barbarian who gains the benefit of rage X times per day, but only while he's attacking a specific designated opponent. If he attacks anyone else, or if that opponent is defeated, his rage ends. No 'rage drain' at the end, just raging on one opponent. Could be an object, berserking on a stone blocking the path and pounding on it until it shatters.
The second staple is more of asian staple, but one I like, and that's the reclusive martial artist that follows no rules. He shuns laws, he obeys only his own needs and desires. He's usually a bad guy, but he doesn't have to be, there have been some good ones as well, but more neutral or evil. Basically, a chaotic monk.
These can be handled through class archetypes, from what you describe, rather than by a whole new class for either, because they are variations on a theme, not whole new themes. That doesn't mean they aren't good ideas, though, far from it; just that they are not different enough from existing classes to justify new ones.
These can be handled through class archetypes, from what you describe, rather than by a whole new class for either, because they are variations on a theme, not whole new themes. That doesn't mean they aren't good ideas, though, far from it; just that they are not different enough from existing classes to justify new ones.In other words, a lawful barbarian who gains the benefit of rage X times per day, but only while he's attacking a specific designated opponent. If he attacks anyone else, or if that opponent is defeated, his rage ends. No 'rage drain' at the end, just raging on one opponent. Could be an object, berserking on a stone blocking the path and pounding on it until it shatters.
The second staple is more of asian staple, but one I like, and that's the reclusive martial artist that follows no rules. He shuns laws, he obeys only his own needs and desires. He's usually a bad guy, but he doesn't have to be, there have been some good ones as well, but more neutral or evil. Basically, a chaotic monk.
If you read the first sentence of my post, you'll see I started it off with the fact they could be done as archetypes. :)
If you read the first sentence of my post, you'll see I started it off with the fact they could be done as archetypes. :)
Bah, skim-reading: must stop, leads to embarrassment!
|
|
I Would love this
The CMB Class could have a system like the rogue or barbarian where every 2/3 levels he gets to choose from a selection of maneuver tricks and so forth.Help me champaign. We need the Reaping Mauler to go Pathfinder
I anyone else up for a shaw shank two posts a week until they give us one lol.
Reaping mauler is hands down my favorite 3.5 prestige class.