OK. Sorry for missreading you. I still think the FAQ is far from OK.The FAQ, if you do not care for it.. start using the FAQ button more then to make it better for you and what you in particular want to see for threads and individual postings that you in particular care for and enjoy.
What makes you think I haven't?
When there are 4, 5 or 10 treads dealing with a question and it's been marked, people get frustrated when there is no FAQ answer.
|
Thank you Eric, both for validating my concerns (like James earlier) and taking them seriously enough to respond. For the record I love Paizo and my biggest bummer is that Paizocon happens on my b-day almost every year and I can't afford to make the trip from FL to attend. You guys are awesome and I believe what you say. For the record, I am looking very much forward to ultimate combat, and actually would have picked it up without any new classes in it. I don't think that just because one book had classes another book in the line needs them as well. But I understand the thinking. I was just worried that that line of thought would permeate expansion books. "well, the last two books had new classes in them, people will feel jipped if we don't have one in this book." I may have titled the thread a bit bombastically, but I didn't really mean it, it was more of an attempt to get peoples attention with the thread title. I was concerned with the rate at which they are coming and like I said, you guys have done an awesome job of negating those concerns. Thank you for the welcome response, and the wonderful attitude that you guys continue to show.
OK. Sorry for missreading you. I still think the FAQ is far from OK.
Phrase your concerns as a question and I will FAQ it. =)
My critique of Paizo and Pathfinder concerns the use of "alternate" classes as a "replacement" for new base classes.
I'm not too happy about it either. Mainly because it forces the new classes to a mold they must fit.
The Ninja must follow the rogue, same skill points per level, same sneak attack, etcThe Gunslinger a fighter, the Samurai a Cavalier. Since I don't like the Cavalier the Samurai isn't my cup of tea.
I can however see the point in not letting Ninja multi class as a rogue, etc, but I'm not sure that would be a big problem.
So I guess I agree with you on this to some extent.
Still I'm happy with Eric's answer.
OK. Sorry for missreading you. I still think the FAQ is far from OK.Phrase your concerns as a question and I will FAQ it. =)
LOL.
No, I think they are aware of it, but they are busy....or something.
My critique of Paizo and Pathfinder concerns the use of "alternate" classes as a "replacement" for new base classes.I'm not too happy about it either. Mainly because it forces the new classes to a mold they must fit.
The Ninja must follow the rogue, same skill points per level, same sneak attack, etc
The Gunslinger a fighter, the Samurai a Cavalier. Since I don't like the Cavalier the Samurai isn't my cup of tea.
I can however see the point in not letting Ninja multi class as a rogue, etc, but I'm not sure that would be a big problem.
So I guess I agree with you on this to some extent.
Still I'm happy with Eric's answer.
Here is a question, and I realize that people can't truly be honest on how they will answer it because the rules haven't been finalized, but with what you are seeing now ...
If a player really wanted to multi-class in say, rogue and ninja, how many GMs would truly tell them, "No, they are the same class"? And how many GMs would say, "Sure, if you want to, it would be better to just pick one in the long term, but hey, whatever"?
I would compare it to clerics. Obviously, you wouldn't allow someone to be a cleric of deity X and then multiclass as cleric of deity Y. So it is really that close of a relationship or is it not? (again, obviously we don't know what the end product is yet, so this is all assuming what we know at this time)
|
My critique of Paizo and Pathfinder concerns the use of "alternate" classes as a "replacement" for new base classes.I'm not too happy about it either. Mainly because it forces the new classes to a mold they must fit.
The Ninja must follow the rogue, same skill points per level, same sneak attack, etc
The Gunslinger a fighter, the Samurai a Cavalier. Since I don't like the Cavalier the Samurai isn't my cup of tea.
I can however see the point in not letting Ninja multi class as a rogue, etc, but I'm not sure that would be a big problem.
So I guess I agree with you on this to some extent.
Still I'm happy with Eric's answer.Here is a question, and I realize that people can't truly be honest on how they will answer it because the rules haven't been finalized, but with what you are seeing now ...
If a player really wanted to multi-class in say, rogue and ninja, how many GMs would truly tell them, "No, they are the same class"? And how many GMs would say, "Sure, if you want to, it would be better to just pick one in the long term, but hey, whatever"?
I would compare it to clerics. Obviously, you wouldn't allow someone to be a cleric of deity X and then multiclass as cleric of deity Y. So it is really that close of a relationship or is it not? (again, obviously we don't know what the end product is yet, so this is all assuming what we know at this time)
I'd ask them why, given how similar the classes are. But I'd be inclined to say no. Would you allow someone to multiclass Fighter with Fighter (Two-handed fighter)? It's the same thing.
|
I'd ask them why, given how similar the classes are. But I'd be inclined to say no. Would you allow someone to multiclass Fighter with Fighter (Two-handed fighter)? It's the same thing.
Here is a question, and I realize that people can't truly be honest on how they will answer it because the rules haven't been finalized, but with what you are seeing now ...If a player really wanted to multi-class in say, rogue and ninja, how many GMs would truly tell them, "No, they are the same class"? And how many GMs would say, "Sure, if you want to, it would be better to just pick one in the long term, but hey, whatever"?
I would compare it to clerics. Obviously, you wouldn't allow someone to be a cleric of deity X and then multiclass as cleric of deity Y. So it is really that close of a relationship or is it not? (again, obviously we don't know what the end product is yet, so this is all assuming what we know at this time)
I absolutely would. Rogue/Ninja? Sure thing! Fighter/Fighter? Absolutely!
However, the character would not gain the benefits of first level in this case. He would not automatically get a bonus feat for his "1st level" of the second Fighter class. He would continue to progress saves as if he were a single classed Fighter. Same with the Rogue/Ninja. Levels stack for determining SA and Rogue Talent progressions, as well as saves.
I absolutely would. Rogue/Ninja? Sure thing! Fighter/Fighter? Absolutely!
Great, now we can have Ranger/Rangers wielding four bows n' arrows at once.
Joking aside, I really like the idea of alternate classes. It changes the flavor and play style of a base class, but allows you to use all of the same support as the base version. This mitigates the usual rush of feats that follows the release of new classes - you don't need any new ones for the Samurai and Ninja.
Hence why the Gunslinger shouldn't be considered an alternate class. Not only does it already have a number of feats dedicated to it, but its class features are completely different from those of its supposed progenitor. At least for the Antipaladin it was just a matter of replacing every occurrence of the word "cure" with "inflict."
|
|
I absolutely would. Rogue/Ninja? Sure thing! Fighter/Fighter? Absolutely!Great, now we can have Ranger/Rangers wielding four bows n' arrows at once.
Joking aside, I really like the idea of alternate classes. It changes the flavor and play style of a base class, but allows you to use all of the same support as the base version. This mitigates the usual rush of feats that follows the release of new classes - you don't need any new ones for the Samurai and Ninja.
Hence why the Gunslinger shouldn't be considered an alternate class. Not only does it already have a number of feats dedicated to it, but its class features are completely different from those of its supposed progenitor. At least for the Antipaladin it was just a matter of replacing every occurrence of the word "cure" with "inflict."
Forgive me but is that the case, if you have a gunslinger it automatically qualifies for all fighter feats. I figured that was the intention, but after reading the download wasn't 100% sure. So is that stated somewhere that I just missed, or a logical conclusion, or just speculation? I'm being serious, I haven't been following the playtest discussions because I currently don't have a group, so please let me know.
|
|
Forgive me but is that the case, if you have a gunslinger it automatically qualifies for all fighter feats. I figured that was the intention, but after reading the download wasn't 100% sure. So is that stated somewhere that I just missed, or a logical conclusion, or just speculation? I'm being serious, I haven't been following the playtest discussions because I currently don't have a group, so please let me know.I absolutely would. Rogue/Ninja? Sure thing! Fighter/Fighter? Absolutely!Great, now we can have Ranger/Rangers wielding four bows n' arrows at once.
Joking aside, I really like the idea of alternate classes. It changes the flavor and play style of a base class, but allows you to use all of the same support as the base version. This mitigates the usual rush of feats that follows the release of new classes - you don't need any new ones for the Samurai and Ninja.
Hence why the Gunslinger shouldn't be considered an alternate class. Not only does it already have a number of feats dedicated to it, but its class features are completely different from those of its supposed progenitor. At least for the Antipaladin it was just a matter of replacing every occurrence of the word "cure" with "inflict."
In the role section, it says the Gunslinger is an alternate class for the Fighter. Alternate classes have previously been described as 'big archetypes', so they are still the base class unless stated otherwise. Hence, the Gunslinger is, currently, a Fighter.
I'll I got to say is that if I have a valid concern Paizo is apt to address it with in days if not sooner. Paizo allows me to have valid input into the material it produces and responds to it. Paizo has Open Playtesting of its works and takes to heart my concerns....
The New classes are filling roles that folks have asked for...I will never use 2 of these classes nor allow them in my home brewed world, doesnt change the fact that I can see a need for the new class alternatives...sure I could have done the work myself, Hell I could make up my own RPG too why the hell should I pay Paizo any money at all they released their core rules for free....
Fact is I am a father with 4 kids and a full time career I dont have time to create a Gunslinger for my Steampunk campaign....
I hate the Oracle BTW....:)
Eric
|
If a player really wanted to multi-class in say, rogue and ninja, how many GMs would truly tell them, "No, they are the same class"? And how many GMs would say, "Sure, if you want to, it would be better to just pick one in the long term, but hey, whatever"?
I absolutely would. Rogue/Ninja? Sure thing! Fighter/Fighter? Absolutely!
However, the character would not gain the benefits of first level in this case. He would not automatically get a bonus feat for his "1st level" of the second Fighter class. He would continue to progress saves as if he were a single classed Fighter. Same with the Rogue/Ninja. Levels stack for determining SA and Rogue Talent progressions, as well as saves.
In a nutshell, this.
Tam
|
|
Steampunk campaign....
Tam
|
|
If a player really wanted to multi-class in say, rogue and ninja, how many GMs would truly tell them, "No, they are the same class"? And how many GMs would say, "Sure, if you want to, it would be better to just pick one in the long term, but hey, whatever"?I absolutely would. Rogue/Ninja? Sure thing! Fighter/Fighter? Absolutely!
However, the character would not gain the benefits of first level in this case. He would not automatically get a bonus feat for his "1st level" of the second Fighter class. He would continue to progress saves as if he were a single classed Fighter. Same with the Rogue/Ninja. Levels stack for determining SA and Rogue Talent progressions, as well as saves.In a nutshell, this.
Tam
Fixed to quote the original questioner rather than me
|
|
Fixed to quote the original questioner rather than meIf a player really wanted to multi-class in say, rogue and ninja, how many GMs would truly tell them, "No, they are the same class"? And how many GMs would say, "Sure, if you want to, it would be better to just pick one in the long term, but hey, whatever"?I absolutely would. Rogue/Ninja? Sure thing! Fighter/Fighter? Absolutely!
However, the character would not gain the benefits of first level in this case. He would not automatically get a bonus feat for his "1st level" of the second Fighter class. He would continue to progress saves as if he were a single classed Fighter. Same with the Rogue/Ninja. Levels stack for determining SA and Rogue Talent progressions, as well as saves.In a nutshell, this.
Tam
My bad. Thanks.
There are times I wish the bbcode tags for these messageboards were buttons and a little more convenient. But they work.
Tam
Define "way older".
I'm 13 and have my parents permission to be here...? <<; [Quietly rolls a bluff check.]
Define "way older".I'm 13 and have my parents permission to be here...? <<; [Quietly rolls a bluff check.]
Yes that's WAY older indeed...
I think you got a 4 on that bluff check kiddo...
I removed a post that called out other posters a bit too specifically.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I dont mind new classes and archetypes. It gives me what I love in game design: options!
It's not because paizo published a Samurai class (or alternate class) that I HAVE to allow players to use it. In my current campaign (with 2 distinct parties) I forbade non-human races and classes like paladin, wizard, cleric and summoner. None of the 9 players did more than say "bleh" then and immediatelly forgot about it as they began creating chars out of the thousands of other options available (especially with archetypes).
I say keep releasing classes, alternates and archetypes. As long as they make sense, they are welcome.
My only complaint currently is with the different presenting format between an alternate and an archetype. If archetypes were in fact just a bunch of choices per class (like APG's racial trait options), it would make more sense to me. The 3 alternates presented so far look like archetypes with longer explanation about them.
|
|
Awesome post from Erik.
I would have been completely happy if Paizo had released the Core Rulebook and two bestiaries and left it at that.
I was attracted to Paizo by the awesome adventures and I stick around for the awesome adventures.
The new rules can be fun and I don't completely object to them even though they've come to dominate a forum which was vastly superior before the PFRPG existed.
The thing that makes me most unhappy is when the RPG messes with the Golarion stuff. The Council of Thieves Player's Guide was probably the worst thing Paizo have released and it seems pretty clear that it was the Core Rulebook launch that ruined it.
As long as the RPG isn't interfering in the adventures then I am happy, but I am worried that more RPG products will spoil the adventures.
Steampunk campaign....** spoiler omitted **
Tam
The evil campaign Ive been running for you guys...The core of it is a Steampunk like world, mixed with High Fantasy and....ahem Spelljammer....
The Gnomes build clockwork guns, Ive tossed around building a Gun Class to fit in my world....PAIZO clearly has implanted small ninjas in my head to steal my ideas...
The 1/2 orc was something I would play in a campaign you ran.....
Awesome post from Erik.
I would have been completely happy if Paizo had released the Core Rulebook and two bestiaries and left it at that.
I was attracted to Paizo by the awesome adventures and I stick around for the awesome adventures.
The new rules can be fun and I don't completely object to them even though they've come to dominate a forum which was vastly superior before the PFRPG existed.
The thing that makes me most unhappy is when the RPG messes with the Golarion stuff. The Council of Thieves Player's Guide was probably the worst thing Paizo have released and it seems pretty clear that it was the Core Rulebook launch that ruined it.
As long as the RPG isn't interfering in the adventures then I am happy, but I am worried that more RPG products will spoil the adventures.
Um how was the CoT Players guide the worst thing paizo released exactly? And what does it have to do with the core rulebook? How exactly do rpg releases ruin adventures? I really dont follow this line of reasoning at all... I am not trying to criticize as I dont even understand your position, I just would like to understand what exactly you are actually worried about.
Chief Creative Officer, Publisher
|
Just wanted to drop a quick note to let you guys know that I fully understand our FAQ system is pooched at the moment, and that our staff has not been as rapid or responsive as we should be in clearing issues from the queue.
Quite honestly, the success of our game has taken everyone by a bit of surprise, and the constant need to reprint our rulebooks (and to fix as many errors and clarify as much as we can with every printing) has taken a huge bite out of the design team's productivity insofar as the FAQ is concerned.
It is my sincere hope (and expectation, frankly) that as soon as Ultimate Magic is off to the printer (probably next week) the design team will finally have more time to make the FAQ a more serious priority.
I unfortunately cannot snap my fingers and summon an eidolon with perfect PFRPG rules knowledge to make up for this inefficiency, but I know it is a big problem and it is very high on the list of things to fix as soon as the current emergency has been dealt with.
Thanks for your patience.
--Erik
Just wanted to drop a quick note to let you guys know that I fully understand our FAQ system is pooched at the moment, and that our staff has not been as rapid or responsive as we should be in clearing issues from the queue.
Quite honestly, the success of our game has taken everyone by a bit of surprise, and the constant need to reprint our rulebooks (and to fix as many errors and clarify as much as we can with every printing) has taken a huge bite out of the design team's productivity insofar as the FAQ is concerned.
It is my sincere hope (and expectation, frankly) that as soon as Ultimate Magic is off to the printer (probably next week) the design team will finally have more time to make the FAQ a more serious priority.
I unfortunately cannot snap my fingers and summon an eidolon with perfect PFRPG rules knowledge to make up for this inefficiency, but I know it is a big problem and it is very high on the list of things to fix as soon as the current emergency has been dealt with.
Thanks for your patience.
--Erik
Hi Erik.
Thanks for your post. I've been complaining on and of on your FAQ and I'm really happy to hear that the design team will have more time to make the FAQ a more serious priorit as soon as your done with Ultimate Magic. :-)"as soon as the current emergency has been dealt with?" Won't you always have a current emergency that needs to been dealt with? ;-)
/Kind regards Zark.
Not...a...summoner...
Got it.
:P
Define "way older".I'm 13 and have my parents permission to be here...? <<; [Quietly rolls a bluff check.]Yes that's WAY older indeed...
I think you got a 4 on that bluff check kiddo...
http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0090.html
This reemphasizes the point distinguishing WotC and Paizo. While I wasn't on the D&D boards over there, I did spend a lot of time on the MtG boards. I can confidently say that over the 3 years that I was on those boards, not once did WotC staff get involved in a conversation like this.
AFAIK, one reason for that was that aside from a few specific sub-forums, the WotC people didn't visit any of the regular subforums. This was because their lawyers didn't want to come into a situation where someone could say "Hey, that new MtG card looks exactly like one I created in <post>! Give me my money!"
And, of course, Paizo staff are awesome :)
I'd ask them why, given how similar the classes are. But I'd be inclined to say no. Would you allow someone to multiclass Fighter with Fighter (Two-handed fighter)? It's the same thing.Here is a question, and I realize that people can't truly be honest on how they will answer it because the rules haven't been finalized, but with what you are seeing now ...
If a player really wanted to multi-class in say, rogue and ninja, how many GMs would truly tell them, "No, they are the same class"? And how many GMs would say, "Sure, if you want to, it would be better to just pick one in the long term, but hey, whatever"?
I would compare it to clerics. Obviously, you wouldn't allow someone to be a cleric of deity X and then multiclass as cleric of deity Y. So it is really that close of a relationship or is it not? (again, obviously we don't know what the end product is yet, so this is all assuming what we know at this time)
So you see them that close. I wonder if everyone that says, "They are an alternative to the rogue", would natural think that if it hadn't said that.
I guess what I am asking, is if you nobody told you this was a replacement for the rogue, but instead told you that it was a brand new class, would you have said no to allowing multiclassing with the rogue based solely on the class descriptions.
I guess what I am asking, is if you nobody told you this was a replacement for the rogue, but instead told you that it was a brand new class, would you have said no to allowing multiclassing with the rogue based solely on the class descriptions.Personally, I'd be asking why would I even want to multiclass the two?
Because the player wants to.
The advanced talents for either one are better than the basic talents of the other.
And isn't worried about optimizing.
The only reason to do so is as a small level dip to get the starting features of both, a thing all the DM's I play with frown upon.
Or they feel the tricks and talents on the lower scale are better to mix by multiclassing to create the type of character they are interested in.
In the end this is just deflecting the issue. The player wants to multiclass for whatever reason. Based solely on the class descriptions, ignoring any reference to alternate classes, would the GM allow it?
Also while a ninja can select a rogue talent, I did not see any option for rogues to select ninja tricks. So a primary rogue might want a ninja trick or two to fix a character concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The topic of "class bloat" is (and has been for some time) something we've been wrestling with and talking about for a while now. Feedback from the playtests is certainly going to help us come to terms with the question, and more to the point, inform us as to whether or not we've hit the saturation point for full classes (be they called base, core, or alternate... it's all the same).
When I first heard about the Gunslinger, Samurai, and the Ninja, I was actually really excited. Unlike many people in this thread, I like new classes. I think that a successful game is where anyone can build whatever character thematically, and multiple classes and ability systems accomplish this well.
Although I was mad at the Gunslinger at first, after rereading the rules I'm a little calmed down about it; I think it still needs tweaks, but I like its new mechanics (Grit) and I think it does a fairly good job of standing up on its own as a true base class.
However, when I was still comparing Gunslinger to Samurai and Ninja, I was extremely annoyed because all those classes appear to be are Monk and Caviler in different clothing; that was a huge cop-out to me. But after learning that they were intended to be Alternate Classes, much like how the Antipaladin is an alternate class to the Paladin, well that anger subsided too.
Basically, I don't have a problem with additional base classes or alternate classes as long as they can fulfill some key aspects. First, a base class NEEDS to be different from any other base class in terms of its mechanics. Although their spellcasting lists are the same, for example, the Sorcerer and the Wizard have many mechanics and abilities that make you think "Golly, that's what a Wizard is!" or "Golly, that's what a Sorcerer is!"
If similar classes are made (Antipaladin / Ninja / Sanurai), as long as they are kept as an Alternate class much as the Antipaladin is in the Advanced Player's Guide, then it's fine to me, personally. Take that at whatever value you may.
|
|
Define "way older".Words.Not what I asked for, but with a much better result. Ah, the infinite wisdom of the Paizo Staffers (who are 99.99999% likely to be way older than me and thus more learned in PR-fu). ;D
Very close to my age ;)
Erik - Many thanks for your input on this thread. I think all of us are concerned about rules bloat, and I think you guys are well aware of this. None of us wants to see a new splat book every month, as that is way too much. As the stewards of the game, I think the game is in good hands.
I unfortunately cannot snap my fingers and summon an eidolon with perfect PFRPG rules knowledge to make up for this inefficiency, but I know it is a big problem and it is very high on the list of things to fix as soon as the current emergency has been dealt with.
Wait, you can't?!? Wow, here I thought you guys were awesome. I suppose next you are going to tell me that Lisa doesn't have a personal army of cybernetic gnomes, or that James can't manipulate the flow of time with his mind.
Crush my dreams, man, crush my dreams.
I'm mostly disappointed with how quickly the rulebooks are coming out.
I don't have a problem with the product, I have a problem with the schedule. We barely had time to really get into the Core rulebook before the APG came out. We definately have not had time to play with the APG and more classes are coming out. Ok, archetypes.
Basically, I pride myself in being extremely familiar with Pathfinder rules and such, and I can't keep up with all of the extra books and whatnot that people can use for character creation. And I have ALL of them!
I think that is perhaps a bit of a problem. I was talking with a store owner who was talking about finding a way to get rid of all his RIFTS books and replace them with something else, perhaps Pathfinder books. But if he did that, then ten years from now, there would be a row of Pathfinder books on the shelves that nobody is buying.
One the one hand, I like having a lot of stuff, especially if it is good stuff. There's some interesting stuff in the Advanced Players Guide and the Bestiary 2, for example. But on the other hand, to have a whole shelf or two of Pathfinder can be a bit intimidating because who can afford all that stuff? Do we need all of it to play the game?
Maybe the answer would be something like the Slayers Guides that Mongoose put out. There could be a Dervish Guide, for example, which has a Dervish class and all about dervishes, for about ten dollars. Then people who say "Hey! Dervishes! Neat!" can pick it up, pay their ten bucks, and everybody profits. A 40 dollar book titled "More Ways To Kill Things Using Sharp Objects" is, I think, a lot less likely to sell and put more of a pressure on GMs saying "I don't know if I can afford to run this game or not".
Off-topic now, sorry:
Faq news & generally happy post
That's good news, and thanks for posting.
In a way its good you've ended up saving up the Faq, of course - it could be a grand old doc when you do it. Though I guess the big legacy issues have to wait for something more than a faq, right?
So you see them that close. I wonder if everyone that says, "They are an alternative to the rogue", would natural think that if it hadn't said that.
I guess what I am asking, is if you nobody told you this was a replacement for the rogue, but instead told you that it was a brand new class, would you have said no to allowing multiclassing with the rogue based solely on the class descriptions.
Off the top of my head, using rogue and ninja, as a way to exploit getting something you want faster then you normally could. Lets say I want to be a fighter who likes to fight dirty with sneak attack. I take a level of Rogue and a level of ninja, then go fighter and get Sneak Attack at 2d6 in two levels rather then 3. Sure I loose out on skills and BAB but gain in the Reflex save (+4 rather then +3) and get to Fighter abilities faster. Its not the 3.0 1st level of Ranger, but its the type of cherry picking that always bothered me about 3.X.
this response is to the earlier extensive post of Eric Mona
thanks for the view behind the scenes.
As I am one of those worried about class bloat, I took comfort in what I read. My worries came mainly from the announcement "magus will be last one", and then seeing the new playtest. I completly understand that the baseclasses should be dealt with as early as possible.
A small but: you didn't know what the books after complete magic included when the magus was supposed to be the last one. I haven't seen any book titles to come after complete warrior, so I guess it's a similiar situation. But as this ain't not only "the internet" but there are people behind it who know what they are talking about, I will put my trust in your words.
A subject that has been introduced and talked about a little later here: prestige classes.
I hope you don't discard all of them. One here and there might be good. I was now a little disappointed to hear there won't be any, but somehow it comforted my initial reaction to class bloat at the same time.
Btw. I might have been one of those that took 3 Prestige classes without a real concept ... guilty
A last comment that has nothing to do with class bloat. Please overthink the concept of the gunslinger a bit and make a second playtest of him.
oh ... and good luck making a decision about katanas :)
I like new classes especially the ones that paizo has made and would love for the samurai, ninja, and gunslinger to be base classes not just alternate classes. Heck I am still waiting for something like a jungle girl/tarzan archtype/class with monk like like ac(but cha not wis) a d12 hd, full att bonus, good fort and ref, 4-6 skill points/level, no armor prof., some weapons prof., monk like unarmed strike, resistance/ immune to poison/disease, envirenmental resistances, maybe natural armor bonuses.
Off the top of my head, using rogue and ninja, as a way to exploit getting something you want faster then you normally could. Lets say I want to be a fighter who likes to fight dirty with sneak attack. I take a level of Rogue and a level of ninja, then go fighter and get Sneak Attack at 2d6 in two levels rather then 3. Sure I loose out on skills and BAB but gain in the Reflex save (+4 rather then +3) and get to Fighter abilities faster. Its not the 3.0 1st level of Ranger, but its the type of cherry picking that always bothered me about 3.X.
That is the exact reason you cannot multiclass rogue and ninja. Cherry-picking classes was the main downfall of 3.5. Multiple classes filling the same role with similar, stack-able features allowed you to increase your PC's power level faster then a standard single class. Paizo has introduced alt classes that are retooled base classes and gain extremely similar features. But to keep the power level at the same approximate level they forbid multiclassing. Because they had PFS and events where a variety of people all need to be on the same page as far as rules go. Your game, which is not governed by anyone but you and your gamers, can change whatever rules you want.
So you can get 1 level advancement on sneak attack, at the cost of your keystone ability, and 1 level delay on your other abilities. I don't think that is as unbalanced as it first appears.
Steampunk campaign....** spoiler omitted **
Tam
Or essentially this.
So you can get 1 level advancement on sneak attack, at the cost of your keystone ability, and 1 level delay on your other abilities. I don't think that is as unbalanced as it first appears.
For one thing it's the only example I can really provide as I really haven't gotten a chance to look them over to why some one might not allow there character to multiclass Rogue and Ninja. As I said it's not the 3.0 Ranger, which I don't think I ever saw go beyond 1st level in the games I played in. Still it allows a player to boost one of their abilities higher then it would normally be if they just stuck with one class. If ninja also keeps Trap Finding too then, as written and going by the description of that ability in the Core RB, then you get a +2 in two levels then a +1. So if all some one is looking for is Sneak Attack though it seems kind of silly to me to let them take the 1st level of what is essentially the same class twice.
Personally though I would allow players to do things like play a Cavalier with one of the Samurai Orders they present or let a Ninja take Rogue abilities. Still you asked for a reason why I wouldn't allow some one to multiclass a Ninja/Rogue in my game and I gave you one.
|
|
So you can get 1 level advancement on sneak attack, at the cost of your keystone ability, and 1 level delay on your other abilities. I don't think that is as unbalanced as it first appears.
In that you might stop at 4th and never have to worry about the capstone, maybe. However, as soon as you hit 3rd you're no more powerful than a 3rd level Rogue, just different. 2d6 SA is only unusual at 2nd level. At 3rd, every Rogue has that.
|
|
Awesome post from Erik.
I would have been completely happy if Paizo had released the Core Rulebook and two bestiaries and left it at that.
I was attracted to Paizo by the awesome adventures and I stick around for the awesome adventures.
The new rules can be fun and I don't completely object to them even though they've come to dominate a forum which was vastly superior before the PFRPG existed.
The thing that makes me most unhappy is when the RPG messes with the Golarion stuff. The Council of Thieves Player's Guide was probably the worst thing Paizo have released and it seems pretty clear that it was the Core Rulebook launch that ruined it.
As long as the RPG isn't interfering in the adventures then I am happy, but I am worried that more RPG products will spoil the adventures.
Um how was the CoT Players guide the worst thing paizo released exactly? And what does it have to do with the core rulebook? How exactly do RPG releases ruin adventures? I really dont follow this line of reasoning at all... I am not trying to criticize as I don't even understand your position, I just would like to understand what exactly you are actually worried about.
Council of Thieves Players Guide: The structure is poor, the writing on the Westcrown Environs section is really weak, there is a trait which, if a player takes the fluff seriously, excludes the player from the AP.
Relationship between RPG and Adventures: the CoT players guide was delayed due to the Core RPG putting pressure on release dates. My inference from staff comments and the quality change is that overworked staff juggling RPG and Adventure stuff chose to prioritise the RPG stuff, leaving us with a sub-standard Player's Guide.
Fundamentally Paizo has gone from being a company with the sole focus of producing awesome adventures, to a company with the split focus of producing awesome adventures and an awesome RPG.
|
Class bloat is a misnomer and misplaced focus. The real problem is lack of support for any new classes or mechanics introduced.
I wouldn't go so far as to say that class bloat is fully a misnomer. 3.X had 175 base classes and 782 prestige classes (yes, Cartigan, I know, some of them are redundant). That's gotta be considered bloat even if you did somehow manage to provide support to all of them.