Well, one thing they're very aware of is putting new material in adventures, etc., and from what I can see they work pretty hard to make sure that if they do put something like an APG character in a module, they cover the new stuff so that the GM isn't scratching their head wondering what the heck is going on.
So +1 to that, and keep it up!
I really don't mind new classes. I'm sure I'm in the minority, but new classes present new options IMHO that a class system can't always accomplish. Take the base classes as an example. During the time of 3.X, my group struggled with fitting their characters into a class at points. How does one make the explorer work over being either a ranger or rogue? It can be done, but not in the eyes of every player. In that instance, we actually used Power Classes: Explorer to help flesh out the character and the player was satisfied. With Pathfinder, this could be emulated using an archetype, sure. But in the case of the classes presented beyond the core, I welcome them and think that the game can grow with them. Do we need a ton of other classes? Not really, but I'm sure there are some that people would like to see. I know people have asked about Warlocks with curses in the past, as well as some of the classes we now have (or soon will).
Personally, I'd like to see variant spell casters like Wild Mages and True Name Mages, but these could be accomplished again with archetypes or a variant magic system.
As has been said, by the Paizo staff no less, is that they are releasing all these classes, base, core or archetype, is because they want to have them available for support in future releases. So they can properly support them with alternate builds, feats, spells, etc. Yeah, Pathfinder is a little front heavy right now on the class front. Would anyone rather a class come out in 2-3 years with a slew of backwards-compatibility issues or no support?
How about 30 prestige classes in every book we do?
Or 3 hardcovers a month?
Plenty of options for us to go forward! :)
Man, people are going to take you seriously on this :p
How about 30 prestige classes in every book we do?
Or 3 hardcovers a month?
Plenty of options for us to go forward! :)
I know you're sarcastic, but I still got chills.
I would like to see something like:
Book of PrCs - book only about PrCs, possibly for different themes (divine, arcane, etc.). This would be a lot like the Complete series, but making them more as focused builds, a rogue (scout-build) tracker or fighter (mobility-build) skirmisher. Or less then a dozen PrCs in any single book, each with full support (aka - any alternate abilities/feats/rules supported fully by the book). Otherwise I don't really want to see many PrCs.
Alternative Rules Compendium - unearthed arcana, but a book that has all the alt rule systems for a given period (2 years?) in one place. Not necessarily all the feats or spells that go along with it, but a little soft cover book with hero points, new maneuvers, called shots, ac as dr, all the things in the various supplements that you can add to your game in one spot so you can easily reference it in your game.
Theme Books - horror, low-magic, steam-punk, plane-hopping, etc. Books not just on the fluff of such games, but alt builds and rules specifically for tailoring your game to the theme.
Now these books were all in 3.5, but I honestly think the concepts for them are good, WotC just couldn't do them right.
Actually, as long as all of those 30 prestige classes and 3 hardcovers per month were as good as the books you produce now, I'd be all for it. Experience says it won't be that good though :)
What I LOVE about Pathfinder is the move of the focus away from Prestige Classes. I LOVE the idea of Archetypes, and using that system you could come up with pretty much any theme of fantasy character. It's the theme that I like.
It dissuades players from dipping into half a dozen Prestige Classes just for some cool abilities, and as a GM I approve of anything that moves players towards thematic roleplaying and away from ability-grabbing-just-for-the-sake-of-it.
Hurrah!
Death to PrCs, long live the archetypes!
Well, death to "just cuz" PrCs.
+1
Well, death to "just cuz" PrCs.+1. Please don't kill prestige classes entirely. I still like them, when it's appropriate to the concept for it to be a PrC.
Agreed, Presitge Classes should be, I don't know...prestiges.
Agreed, Presitge Classes should be, I don't know...prestiges.Well, death to "just cuz" PrCs.+1. Please don't kill prestige classes entirely. I still like them, when it's appropriate to the concept for it to be a PrC.
I think it would be nice if they made you take prestige classes to the very end as it is a prestige, rather then it be a few level pit stop to get the abilities you want.
I really liked the versatility of prestige classes for customizing monstrous NPCs; especially since they'd often qualify without taking any other class levels first. Ahh, good times :)
For customizing PCs and regular NPCs, the archetype options Paizo has created are probably superior though.
Death to PrCs, long live the archetypes!Well, death to "just cuz" PrCs.
+1
I like the PrCs. Perhaps additional material released could be more focused on running longer campaigns (level 20+)
Follow me on this tree analogy. Instead of focusing on adding or expanding the trunk (base, core classes, archetypes) of Pathfinder, future additional releases can be focused on the branches (PrCs, expanded campaigns).
Just a thought.
Odds are I will not be picking up ultimate combat, or ultimate magic (which bugs me because I liked words of power) because I just can't bring myself to support this kind of class bloat, which is the exact kind of thing that started wearing on me in 3.5
I just have never understood this viewpoint. More options are BAD?
As long as all the classes are balanced in comparison with the primary in the core rules how can having more choices be a bad thing?
In an absolutelt worst case scenario you simply do not use the classes that you don't like / use only the classes you do.
I just don't get it.
I just have never understood this viewpoint. More options are BAD?
You know how it is. One chicken starts yelling "the sky is falling"...
I just have never understood this viewpoint. More options are BAD?
As long as all the classes are balanced in comparison with the primary in the core rules how can having more choices be a bad thing?
In an absolutelt worst case scenario you simply do not use the classes that you don't like / use only the classes you do.
I just don't get it.
It's like making apple juice from concentrate. If you keep adding water, it gets so diluted that the flavor just dissipates.
As I said in another thread, we don't need Paizo to tell us how to make ninjas and samurai. Add guns to the equipment list and let the gamers sort it out and build characters themselves.
It's like making apple juice from concentrate. If you keep adding water, it gets so diluted that the flavor just dissipates.
As I said in another thread, we don't need Paizo to tell us how to make ninjas and samurai. Add guns to the equipment list and let the gamers sort it out and build characters themselves.
I was on that thread that you popped on, it was in the Homebrew thread were the OP was designing his own Gladiator class, not asking Paizo for it. Gladiator Thread.
It's like making apple juice from concentrate. If you keep adding water, it gets so diluted that the flavor just dissipates.As I said in another thread, we don't need Paizo to tell us how to make ninjas and samurai. Add guns to the equipment list and let the gamers sort it out and build characters themselves.
Your analogy is flawed.
Assumption A) Everyone has the same preference for the amount of water.
Assumption B) Everyone likes Apple Juice from Concentrate.
Assumption C) There is a finite amount of Concentrate.
All three of these assumptions is invalid. Everyone has different tastes. Not everyone likes Apple Juice (Golarion for example, as a game setting, or even PathFinder as a game system). There is no finite amount of Pathfinder (or RPGs in general). If that were true, we'd still be back on 1st Edition D&D.
A better analogy would be Computers. The core system is like a brand new AMD Quad Core Phenom with 32 GB of memory and a pair of 2TB harddrives.
You can put Windows 7 on it (4th Edition), or you can put XP on it (Pathfinder) or you can put Linux on it (GURPS), or you can put MAC OS on it (Whitewolf).
Once you've got the OS on it, you can put any software you want on it (Splat books, supplements), any desktop theme (Golarion, World of Darkness, Homebrew world), and as many datafiles as you want to create (house rules). If you begin to run out of storage space, you go buy more. If you start running low on memory, you upgrade the CPU and memory (go to a new edition of the game, 3.5 to 4th or PF).
If you don't like splatbooks A, B, and C, then don't install them on your computer (IE: Don't use them!). Everyone's computer is both similar and distinct, since the combinations of OS, Apps, and Datafiles are infinite.
It's like making apple juice from concentrate. If you keep adding water, it gets so diluted that the flavor just dissipates.
As I said in another thread, we don't need Paizo to tell us how to make ninjas and samurai. Add guns to the equipment list and let the gamers sort it out and build characters themselves.
I was on that thread that you popped on, it was in the Homebrew thread were the OP was designing his own Gladiator class, not asking Paizo for it. Gladiator Thread.
Yep, I provided my build suggestion on the thread. Then, there was a lot of speak about making Gladiator an archetype, alternate, base, core, extra or supplemental class.
I stand by my comment.
If you don't like splatbooks A, B, and C, then don't install them on your computer (IE: Don't use them!). Everyone's computer is both similar and distinct, since the combinations of OS, Apps, and Datafiles are infinite.
To continue with your analogy, my company has installed splatbooks A, B, and C. It's preventing me from running all of my programs and causing the black screen of death.
From the way you are speaking, I think you are a programmer and not an operator.
If you don't like splatbooks A, B, and C, then don't install them on your computer (IE: Don't use them!). Everyone's computer is both similar and distinct, since the combinations of OS, Apps, and Datafiles are infinite.To continue with your analogy, my company has installed splatbooks A, B, and C. It's preventing me from running all of my programs and causing the black screen of death.
From the way you are speaking, I think you are a programmer and not an operator.
Your analogy is flawed yet again. For your analogy to work, someone would have to be forcing you to install the splatbooks. No one is forcing you to use the content, so therefore your analogy is again flawed. It's basically the same flaw as in your original analogy.
Until you understand that all splatbook and expansion books are optional you will be unable to make a valid analogy.
If we put your analogy into the RPG setting, it would be the equivalent of someone paying you to play RPGs and giving you a list of what you can or cannot use.
Even there, you have a choice. You can quit and go find another job. Unless, of course, you wish to state that someone is pointing a gun at your head as we type and telling you you will use every Paizo splatbook that comes out or they'll blow your brains out. At that point, I might be willing to give your analogies a second look. But since I sincerely doubt there's a barrel against your temple, it looks more to me as if you are simply very bad at making analogies. Primarily because your root argument is too sandy to make a good foundation.
Your analogy is flawed yet again. For your analogy to work, someone would have to be forcing you to install the splatbooks.
I'm going to drop the analogy because your understanding of it is flawed.
My DM added the classes. As a player, I did not like the idea of guns and shooting at dragons and goblins.
Made it a little less fun.
Point is players can have the things that they don't like thrust upon them by DMs.
Part of gaming, I know.
You sound like a DM, not so much like a player.
|
Point is players can have the things that they don't like thrust upon them by DMs.Part of gaming, I know.
No, DMs can put things players don't like into their games. The players are in no way forced to play in those games, so nothing is 'thrust' on them.
Paizo is not responsible for your group harmony. You are.
And if you are saying you want Paizo to cease and desist publishing any rule because you do not want your DM to include it in his game, you are asking them to take responsibility for your gaming group harmony.
Your analogy is flawed yet again. For your analogy to work, someone would have to be forcing you to install the splatbooks.I'm going to drop the analogy because your understanding of it is flawed.
My DM added the classes. As a player, I did not like the idea of guns and shooting at dragons and goblins.
Made it a little less fun.
Point is players can have the things that they don't like thrust upon them by DMs.
Part of gaming, I know.
You sound like a DM, not so much like a player.
You sound like a player, and a rather selfish one at that.
Yes, your DM may do things you don't like. Again though, you have an option. Go find a different game.
I am both a GM and a Player. I've been both over the years. I've walked out of games because I don't like what the GM has. Other times, I've had players walk out because they don't like what I'm doing.
Your desires, how ever much they are important to you, are not the begin and end all of RPGdom.
Yep, I provided my build suggestion on the thread. Then, there was a lot of speak about making Gladiator an archetype, alternate, base, core, extra or supplemental class.
I stand by my comment.
Along with the comment about Paizo shouldn't tell us how to make a class, in the homebrew section. The OP wanted a Gladiator that didn't fit in within the current rules set and decided work on making a version that fit that view. So apparently a homebrew class, alt, archetype, or PrC is enough to threaten rules bloat enough that it has to be shouted down?
I'm sorry but this is a big pet peve of mine on the homebrew threads. People want something in their game but, not only are they not allowed to get official rules support for it, they can't make it for themselves? Come on now, I refuse to believe that there are people holding guns to your heads making you play everything that is released, official or otherwise.
EDIT: NINJA'D!
And you sound like someone stuck with a group that you're just not happy with. Not Paizo's problem, not our problem.
There is no "dilution" going on from an objective standpoint. The plain and simple fact is that all of the rules are optional. No one likes everything, but everybody likes something. Those people who want katanas and six-shooters are going to get them because Paizo can sell them.
As a DM, I know better than to introduce new elements to the game without making sure my players will enjoy it, or at least seeing if they're game to try the new rules. If they're not, I scrap it. The game is about having fun. Sorry your DM tossed you out on that one, but Paizo didn't force it down his throat or pay him to use those rules.
DMs do what DMs do. The company won't change their product line-up based on the DM to player ratio because that demographic fluctuates. In the case of my group, all but one of the five have DMed at some point in time. We all have opinions on how games should be run, how stats should be rolled, etc.
And we all love when new rules come out. Especially for Pathfinder because since we started playing PF, our 3.5 peripherals are collecting dust. We don't even use them. We like Paizo's material better, and since we made the switch, we don't look back; just forward. (How profound of me. 9_9;)
I am just coming out of a group that imploded because the DM tried to force us into something we, the players, didn't want to do (switch off pathfinder).
Just projecting.
I was only trying to convey and support the idea of the OP.
Relax ya'll. You are acting like I ran over your dog. It's a game.
Having 5 different kinds of classes offers up more rules and points of ambiguity that may confuse players. (core, base, alternate, prestige, archetypes; each set up a different way and classifed differently)
How clear are the Magic Item Creation Rules? Hundreds of thread and questions surround that topic.
The different kinds of classes could make it more difficult for a DM to operate.
Why do we have to have 5 different types when the game could operate off of 2?
The current framework is growing when it doesn't have to. Ninja, samurai, gunslinger, magus can all be archtpyes. Are the base? Are they alternate? We won't know for a while.
And, btw, offering an opinion does not make me selfish. I have played through it. Saying I don't like something in the game makes me a bad guy? No. Maybe I'm not the only one projecting.
Relax and don't be quick to point fingers.
Your analogy is flawed yet again. For your analogy to work, someone would have to be forcing you to install the splatbooks.I'm going to drop the analogy because your understanding of it is flawed.
My DM added the classes. As a player, I did not like the idea of guns and shooting at dragons and goblins.
Made it a little less fun.
Point is players can have the things that they don't like thrust upon them by DMs.
Part of gaming, I know.
You sound like a DM, not so much like a player.
Have you ever DMed before? I suggest trying it if you haven't, you'll get exactly the game you want and get control over the content.
And, btw, offering an opinion does not make me selfish.
You offered your "opinion" with such a matter of fact tone it was hard to tell.
Now you're saying you disagree with Paizo's design for the class setup. Core and Base classes really are the same thing. You can ignore the difference in the names because I have yet to see anything that differentiates the two. Archetypes are not a difficult concept to grasp, either, so I don't see the problem.
Alternate classes are simply written up with full progressions to help with understanding the role and overall changes to the class. I don't think the number of changes has anything to do with it (even though that's what the staffers cite as the reasoning). Showing the changes to the class in relation to the things that remain the same for the purposes of understanding the niche role seems to be the best explanation I can come up with.
PrCs are still PrCs.
Explain to me how this bogs your gaming experience down.
[Along with the comment about Paizo shouldn't tell us how to make a class, in the homebrew section. The OP wanted a Gladiator that didn't fit in within the current rules set and decided work on making a version that fit that view. So apparently a homebrew class, alt, archetype, or PrC is enough to threaten rules bloat enough that it has to be shouted down?
No one is shouting. THIS IS SHOUTING.
I'm sorry but this is a big pet peve of mine on the homebrew threads. People want something in their game but, not only are they not allowed to get official rules support for it, they can't make it for themselves?
They can't? I didn't say he couldn't. And by the way, do you own these threads? People can't offer their own opinions and experiences on them without your approval? And we're not on the homebrew thread. And it's pet peEve.
Come on now, I refuse to believe that there are people holding guns to your heads making you play everything that is released, official or otherwise.
*YAWN* I'm tired of trying to explain what the OP said. Go read it. Abstract thought has been lost in this post.
No one is shouting. THIS IS SHOUTING.
They can't? And by the way, do you own these threads? People can't offer thier own opinions and experiences on them without your approval? And we're not on the homebrew thread.
*YAWN* I'm tired of trying to explain what the OP said. Go read it. Abstract thought has been lost in this post.
I'm sorry, as I said it's very annoying to me when some one goes on the Homebrew threads and responds to some one's ideas with by posting comments that aren't constructive. You'll have to excuse me but your comments appeared to me as if you had not read the thread and were merely using it voice your opinions from threads like this one. I mean the OP is discussing how to create a class that the OP didn't find in the core book, not how to make one with the core book.
Obviously people can have their own opinions but I get to have my own too. I have the opinion is that if you don't like some one's homebrew stuff and can't offer anything constructive then don't comment on it. Also, I was using shouted down as a figure of speech, I probably shouldhave used the more proper internet term trolling.
Totally disagree with the OP. Samurai and Ninja have very different qualities from fighter and rogue, that need to be reflected by at least a slightly different mechanic. When you start incorporating myth from a totally different culture, you quickly realize you can't build an accurate archetype from a single class, and I'd rather not create a mess by multiclassing to try to get the fluffiest aspects of the mechanic of a build right, to match the myth/history of the type. There are certain character types that need to be more pure than that.
I agree with anybody who says that 3.5 suffered from class glut. It wasn't just the classes, but the interminable, endless line of niche prestige classes - those were the worst. But I agree with the other posters saying that Paizo is handling this much cleaner and better than WoTC ever did. I like having a clean format to work from, and that is what straight-up classes allow. And Pathfinder's selection covers good ground with good flavor, and gives us good options without the mess. Alternate classes just serve to cement that flavor.
If I could recommend anything, it would be to consider the quality - consider it honestly, without outrage - before worrying so much about the quantity. We all make bad decisions when we're feeling upset about something, and are more apt to argue just to be right.
It's like making apple juice from concentrate. If you keep adding water, it gets so diluted that the flavor just dissipates.As I said in another thread, we don't need Paizo to tell us how to make ninjas and samurai. Add guns to the equipment list and let the gamers sort it out and build characters themselves.
Your analogy is flawed.
Assumption A) Everyone has the same preference for the amount of water.
Assumption B) Everyone likes Apple Juice from Concentrate.
Assumption C) There is a finite amount of Concentrate.All three of these assumptions is invalid. Everyone has different tastes. Not everyone likes Apple Juice (Golarion for example, as a game setting, or even PathFinder as a game system). There is no finite amount of Pathfinder (or RPGs in general). If that were true, we'd still be back on 1st Edition D&D.
A better analogy would be Computers. The core system is like a brand new AMD Quad Core Phenom with 32 GB of memory and a pair of 2TB harddrives.
You can put Windows 7 on it (4th Edition), or you can put XP on it (Pathfinder) or you can put Linux on it (GURPS), or you can put MAC OS on it (Whitewolf).
Once you've got the OS on it, you can put any software you want on it (Splat books, supplements), any desktop theme (Golarion, World of Darkness, Homebrew world), and as many datafiles as you want to create (house rules). If you begin to run out of storage space, you go buy more. If you start running low on memory, you upgrade the CPU and memory (go to a new edition of the game, 3.5 to 4th or PF).
If you don't like splatbooks A, B, and C, then don't install them on your computer (IE: Don't use them!). Everyone's computer is both similar and distinct, since the combinations of OS, Apps, and Datafiles are infinite.
When you come up with a way of replacing and/or enhancing the processing and memory power of a human mind maybe this analogy would make sense.
When you come up with a way of replacing and/or enhancing the processing and memory power of a human mind maybe this analogy would make sense.
I like apple juice.
When you come up with a way of replacing and/or enhancing the processing and memory power of a human mind maybe this analogy would make sense.
You're misconstruing the analogy. The computer is not the human brain. The computer is an RPG game. An RPG game, by its very definition, is infinite.
On the other hand, if you are referring to the players ability to keep track of those rules, then you do have some point. I'll point to Starfleet Battles as the ultimate example of rules bloat.
And yet, the game is still played by many groups. Why? How? They enjoy it. And, they simply pick the subset of rules they like.
Therefore, your objection, as stated above, is flawed. Primarily, you picked the wrong thing to equate to the computer. If you reread my original analogy, you'll see that the computer was never a human brain, it was an RPG game (which is made up of humans, but not a single human). The entire process of the analogy was that the humans involved in the game picked the subset of all rules, expansions, and house rules that they wanted to play with. All without screaming at everyone else to stop making more ideas. Telling people to stop being creative is the sign of a small and closed mind.
All without screaming at everyone else to stop making more ideas.
Newsflash: No one is screaming, dude. Just disagreeing that you interpret as screaming.
Telling people to stop being creative is the sign of a small and closed mind.
Who is more creative, the player who creates a ninja from a rogue/monk in the current framework, or a player who has to wait for rules to come out to create a ninja? These new classes that everyone is discussing could be created by choosing the right feats and skills.
As implied in the OP, it seems like classes are being created for the sake of creating classes. What role does the ninja fill that is not already filled by the monk/rogue? What role does the samurai fill that is not already filled by the fighter/cavalier? Why do guns need their own class? Why is the PrC Eldritch Knight all of a sudden a base class (not exactly the same as the Magus but fills the same role)?
"I want to make a character that works like a rogue, but has some monk abilities and wears a black mask."
"OK let's make a new class"
There are a number of potential classes that would be flavorful, but don't fill a special purpose, IMHO. Let's make a new class called Priest. What role does it fill that is not already filled by the cleric. Others that can be fashioned in the current framework...beastmaster, abbot, pirate, gladiator, scholar.
A lot of these concerns were alleviated by the developers earlier in this post. Some of us who saw 4e explode are just a little concerned.
I love this game and I would hate to see it go down the same road.
No screaming, shouting or personal attacks. :)
|
I always enjoy the OS analogy, but comparing GURPS to Linux always makes me double-take, because d20 is open source like Linux is, and GURPS is very much not.
Though I might be biased, as I find Ubuntu and Debian to be more user-friendly than Windows.
Who is more creative, the player who creates a ninja from a rogue/monk in the current framework, or a player who has to wait for rules to come out to create a ninja? These new classes that everyone is discussing could be created by choosing the right feats and skills.
In my experience, most people are dissatisfied with having to hack together a non-optimal build of classes, feats, and abilities in order to meet the flavor they want. Insisting that people choose flavor *over* optimization and flavor over metagame decisions reinforces the fallacy that storytelling and optimized game-playing cannot coexist.
On the other hand, creating more unique game elements makes a player feel that they're never playing the same game twice - not even close. If I were to make two characters - a western assassin and a ninja - I would be playing very similar characters if I used just the core - Rogues. Maybe the Ninja might multiclass with Monk before hitting up the Assassin PRC, and the Rogue would multiclass with Fighter or just go directly into Assassin, the "best tools for the job" would usually be the same sort of feats, skills, and magic items. If I'm just trying to tell a story, that's fine, but if it's someone like me that enjoys playing a strategy game against my GM, I'd be kinda bored.
However, when any task has a specific game element to accomplish it at optimal effectiveness, then I never have to tell a player "Yes, you could create a Ninja by multiclassing into Monk, but that's a really bad idea because..." (geekspeak follows) "...so you might as well play a straight-up Rogue. Single-classing is more effective in PF anyway."
I know I'm going to get back something like "..but what makes a Ninja different from a Rogue? What about Bob who is already playing a Han Solo type scoundrel Rogue, won't I be too similar? How do I have mystical powers and martial arts without making my character weak?"
I'd rather just be able to tell the player, "Okay, you want to play a Ninja, well I have just the book for you, look at all of these wonderful pages of Ninja goodness..."
...and as long as the class is balanced, everyone walks away happy: I am a happy player because my group is happy with their characters, the players of the Rogue and Ninja are happy because they have two mechanically distinct characters, and the company that put so much hard work into making this game is happy, because I am happily giving them my money for doing such a great job.
...and if keeping up with new game mechanics ever becomes too much, I'll either ban the new material at my own table until I have time to review it or stop playing this game and switch to a game with a more sparse release schedule. Or an out-of-print game.
EDIT: Sorry, the end of that sounded way more rude than I meant it to be. I play CCGs as well as Computer and Tabletop RPGs, and me and my group get bored easily if we do not get additional game pieces, whether they be new "Magic: The Gathering" cards or new classes and feats and spells. Most of my players will not play the same Core/Base class twice, and welcome new Base classes because it means new approaches to tactical combat. Creating new game pieces keeps the "game" part of Role Playing Game fresh, and makes Paizo more money. I find myself unable to complain.
Base classes are a very, very convenient way to keep all characters distinct and create an easily understood shorthand for describing a character when we just want the "Reader's Digest" version of what someone is playing.
I always find it strange when people think, "If I build a 'class' myself it will be inferior in representing a concept, than if I use a class created by someone else for the concept."
The PF ninja will do a good job representing what the PF folks think a ninja is, but it could possibly do an incredibly crappy job at representing what someone else thinks a ninja should be. Assuming that just because an official class is created, that it will do a better job than a progression designed by an individual player at representing a concept is silly. But that's just my crazy view.
I always enjoy the OS analogy, but comparing GURPS to Linux always makes me double-take, because d20 is open source like Linux is, and GURPS is very much not.
Though I might be biased, as I find Ubuntu and Debian to be more user-friendly than Windows.
At work I use Win 7 and MS office. At home I have a laptop with Win 7 on it, and a desktop that dual boots XP and Mint Linux (An ubuntu derivative).
The reason I used GURPS for Linux was that GURPS is a very complex system that can do anything you want, but it requires a lot more fiddling with it. While it's not 'open' like d20 is, mechanically, it's a much closer fit for Linux. Linux can do just about anything you want, but it requires more fiddling with it to get there.
I always find it strange when people think, "If I build a 'class' myself it will be inferior in representing a concept, than if I use a class created by someone else for the concept."
The PF ninja will do a good job representing what the PF folks think a ninja is, but it could possibly do an incredibly crappy job at representing what someone else thinks a ninja should be. Assuming that just because an official class is created, that it will do a better job than a progression designed by an individual player at representing a concept is silly. But that's just my crazy view.
I would venture so far as to say that most players are not comfortable with building their own 20 level classes. That's a pretty big undertaking. Once the player has sat down and gotten all of that together and hopefully taken the time to balance it against other classes, he has to pitch it to the DM. The DM should go over it with a fine-toothed comb. That takes a lot of time, and as a general rule (though I know all groups are different) I think it would just be easier to have a pre-printed class that comes from a trusted source. Not to say that a player would TRY to create something broken, but not all players understand the game as thoroughly.
The DM should never do the leg-work of creating a 20-level class unless it's something s/he just wants to do to offer more options to players. The player is less likely to get what s/he wants out of the class, and the DM is using time s/he could probably spend working on the next session's material.
Some groups just don't operate outside of the printed material, and that's fine. That's why Paizo is publishing these classes.
I always find it strange when people think, "If I build a 'class' myself it will be inferior in representing a concept, than if I use a class created by someone else for the concept."
The PF ninja will do a good job representing what the PF folks think a ninja is, but it could possibly do an incredibly crappy job at representing what someone else thinks a ninja should be. Assuming that just because an official class is created, that it will do a better job than a progression designed by an individual player at representing a concept is silly. But that's just my crazy view.
I've played in games that were home made or heavily modified published games. I've found that a lot of people aren't interested playtesting games. For example, my brother decided to run an Arthurian Legends type of game. He came up with a world that was really popular with all the players but the rules went through several changes due to playtesting(We went from it based on DnD and eventually switched to a d20 Modern base for instance). Eventually some of the players started to threaten to "get a rope" every time he changed it to balance out issues. This was a joke, but they were tired of having to relearn different elements.
I think a lot of times people don't want go go through the work of having to playtest homemade things and rather allow some one else to do it, hence the resistance to homebrew additions.
I always find it strange when people think, "If I build a 'class' myself it will be inferior in representing a concept, than if I use a class created by someone else for the concept."
The PF ninja will do a good job representing what the PF folks think a ninja is, but it could possibly do an incredibly crappy job at representing what someone else thinks a ninja should be. Assuming that just because an official class is created, that it will do a better job than a progression designed by an individual player at representing a concept is silly. But that's just my crazy view.
I've played in games that were home made or heavily modified published games. I've found that a lot of people aren't interested playtesting games. For example, my brother decided to run an Arthurian Legends type of game. He came up with a world that was really popular with all the players but the rules went through several changes due to playtesting(We went from it based on DnD and eventually switched to a d20 Modern base for instance). Eventually some of the players started to threaten to "get a rope" every time he changed it to balance out issues. This was a joke, but they were tired of having to relearn different elements.
I think a lot of times people don't want go go through the work of having to playtest homemade things and rather allow some one else to do it, hence the resistance to homebrew additions.
I was talking more of "builds" using existing material. I don't quite understand the hatred many have for "builds from level 1 to level 20" (which often use multiple base classes and/or PrC), but then say that a published base class is great, when a base class is just somebody else's idea of a build that is codified. Just because somebody published something doesn't automatically qualify it as fitting a particular concept better, except in the minds of the publishers/designers.
I was talking more of "builds" using existing material. I don't quite understand the hatred many have for "builds from level 1 to level 20" (which often use multiple base classes and/or PrC), but then say that a published base class is great, when a base class is just somebody else's idea of a build that is codified. Just because somebody published something doesn't automatically qualify it as fitting a particular concept better, except in the minds of the publishers/designers.
Perhaps it's an issue of convenience? When you stop at a convenience store, would you rather grab a can of soda from the shelf or go to the "fill your own 20oz from the fountain?"
I was talking more of "builds" using existing material. I don't quite understand the hatred many have for "builds from level 1 to level 20" (which often use multiple base classes and/or PrC), but then say that a published base class is great, when a base class is just somebody else's idea of a build that is codified. Just because somebody published something doesn't automatically qualify it as fitting a particular concept better, except in the minds of the publishers/designers.
Well, I get what your saying, pres man. We don't need more rules and 'bloat' to build a ninja/samurai/magus. We can build them already with the classes and rules we already have.
I get also that some people want others (the developer's) to build it for them to ensure balance, adding additional rules, features and stats, with the risk of bloat.
I understand both positions but tend to agree with the former. It takes more creativity and thought, IMHO.
PS can we get apple juice flavor shots?
Depends on if they have those awesome flavor shots. Vanilla + Root Beer = Root Beer Float.
Only for preferred customers. ;D