Class bloat, yup it's happening and I hate it


Product Discussion

1 to 50 of 731 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Really, with archtypes I was really hoping we would see less of the glut of base classes that 3.5 had. But nope, ultimate combat comes with 3 more classes. ultimate magic with 1, advance players guide with 6. I was excited about advanced players guide because I thought okay this book will have new base classes and that'll be it at least for a while, but no, in the two years you've been making rulebooks we see the release of 10 new base classes. Well, I can say I'm dissapointed. 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 think the problem is in the presentation mostly. You could do the same thing for all the APG archetypes as was done in the UC preview. Would they feel less like new base classes if it was just the class abilites table?

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Two of the UC classes are variants, not new classes per se. Also, they're tied to a specific genre and setting style.

The WotC bloat was bad because the level of design was inconsistent. You had the Core Wizard and To9s Warblade sharing one porch with OK stuff (eg. Duskblade, Beguiler, Factotum), so-so stuff (eg. Hexblade, Spellthief) and OMG can I claw my eyes out right now because it hurts stuff (CW Samurai, Swashbucket, Truenamer, Soulknife). And all of those were supposed to be, you know, relevant (to avoid using the v-word).

Paizo's design is much more consistent.


lastknightleft wrote:
Really, with archtypes I was really hoping we would see less of the glut of base classes that 3.5 had. But nope, ultimate combat comes with 3 more classes. ultimate magic with 1, advance players guide with 6. I was excited about advanced players guide because I thought okay this book will have new base classes and that'll be it at least for a while, but no, in the two years you've been making rulebooks we see the release of 10 new base classes. Well, I can say I'm dissapointed. 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

They are really archtypes that take up a lot of pages.


You do realize that the gunslinger, ninja, and samurai are just fighters, rogue and cavaliers with alternate features like the paladin/anti-paladin right?

I can understand feeling that new alternate classes don't really provide you a good return on your investment but it seems that alternate classes are relatively warmly received.

In comparison to the 3.x PrC glut I'd say that they've been remarkable constrained in their development.

The simple fact of the matter is that in order to generate page count for game rules you basically have to stick to the following (classes, spells, feats). Considering that spells aren't going to be a big focus on a combat book that means either new classes or even more feats than we could possibly need.

For me class bloat is sooo much easier to deal with than feat bloat.

Sovereign Court

That's just it though, I don't think they should be base classes, at least not the samurai and ninja, they should be archtypes, samurai of the cavalier and ninja of the rogue. Instead we're starting to see the same thing we saw in 3.5 were something that could be used with slight alteration to represent the concept is instead just given a whole new base class. I'm sorry, when the APG was released they talked about how the classes represented niches that you just couldn't cover with the regular base classes. I don't see that with the ninja or the samurai. they don't have a concept niche that just doesn't work. They're just base classes for base classes sake.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

But they aren't base classes. You can't make a Rogue/Ninja or a Cavalier/Samurai.

Grand Lodge

I have to agree with the OP.

When I got the e-mail about the new book coming in August I shook my head and thought, Wow, something that just sounds like utter crap, something I would never buy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The problem is really ... us. Perhaps not you personally, but we as gamers demand new product and support it with our hard-earned dollars.
New classes are always popular and that is why gaming companies will always create them if they want their games to succeed over the long haul.

I personally don't have a problem with new classes, so long as 1) they are properly playtested and balanced against the originals, limiting power creep; and 2) they all come with big caveats indicating any DM has the right to allow them in his game or not. Paizo seems to be doing a very good job of #1, but I'd like to see more of #2. Although I don't find them at all unbalancing, classes like the inquisitor, the witch, the ninja and the samurai just don't fit well in every setting, and I think stronger deference to the right of DMs to rule any of these new clases (or feats or seplls, etc.) in or out of their worlds is needed. While some of us take that DM power for granted, many others do not and will shrilly insist that their DM has to use everything printed.

And before the inevitable chorus about control freak DMs, I believe that this should be done in consultation with players. DM should consider their desires, but in the end, it should be his call.


I think that all of the classes fill an important roll in the game, the 3 new ones are just Archetypes. but the rolls that they fill are pretty big ones. so they kind of deserve lots of attention.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
W E Ray wrote:

I have to agree with the OP.

When I got the e-mail about the new book coming in August I shook my head and thought, Wow, something that just sounds like utter crap, something I would never buy.

Talk about judging a book by its cover. *sigh*

Sovereign Court

Gorbacz wrote:
But they aren't base classes. You can't make a Rogue/Ninja or a Cavalier/Samurai.

I'm seeing the difference now, between an alternate class and a base class, and why their so similar to existing classes. I still don't like it. alternate class is still a base class, just one that is eerily similar to another class. I still say they should just make them archtypes instead of full 20 level progression "alternates"


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I happen to like new classes, as do others who buy paizo products. If you dont want them there is a very simple solution. Dont use them. There your game is not bloated. Please try hard to realize there are people who want different things then you out of the game and it is reasonable for paizo to try and find a middle ground to serve everyone instead of only you. I and I am sure others would greatly appreciate it.


*sits calmly waiting for the new Ninja being destroyed/changed by nerdrage*


Gorbacz wrote:
But they aren't base classes. You can't make a Rogue/Ninja or a Cavalier/Samurai.

Basically, they are everything but a duck.


Paizo Charter Superscriber; Pathfinder Companion, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber
lastknightleft wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
But they aren't base classes. You can't make a Rogue/Ninja or a Cavalier/Samurai.
I'm seeing the difference now, between an alternate class and a base class, and why their so similar to existing classes. I still don't like it. alternate class is still a base class, just one that is eerily similar to another class. I still say they should just make them archtypes instead of full 20 level progression "alternates"

You do realize, I hope, that you could easily present every single archetype in exactly the same way as these alternate classes with "full 20 level progression", right?


They sure don't look like base classes to me.

Just things swapped around a bit on the base class they are alternate to.

Like the Gun Slinger they limited weapon training severely, got rid of armor training, and greatly reduced the bonus feats. In exchange they gave the class Grit and boosted bravery to include Fort saves. Then they swapped the good save in fortitude to Reflex giving it boost of 1 to 13 at the max. Still a fighter and qualifies for anything a fighter would like weapon specialization and other fighter feats.

At quick glance the Samuria looks like just another order for the Cavalier. The Ninja I haven't looked at all yet.

Scarab Sages

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!


voska66 wrote:

They sure don't look like base classes to me.

Just things swapped around a bit on the base class they are alternate to.

Like the Gun Slinger they limited weapon training severely, got rid of armor training, and greatly reduced the bonus feats. In exchange they gave the class Grit and boosted bravery to include Fort saves. Then they swapped the good save in fortitude to Reflex giving it boost of 1 to 13 at the max. Still a fighter and qualifies for anything a fighter would like weapon specialization and other fighter feats.

But would you have said "Wow, this is a Fighter" if no one told you it was?

Grand Lodge

W E Ray wrote:
When I got the e-mail about the new book coming in August I shook my head and thought, Wow, something that just sounds like utter crap, something I would never buy.
Gorbacz wrote:
Talk about judging a book by its cover. *sigh*

Not that it's any big deal but it's not judging the book by it's cover.

I read the e-mail and saw the various new Forums when I opened the Boards, today. I know what this book is gonna have.

I'm just not at all happy about it.

That's my prerogative as a gamer and customer.

I'm still a charter subscriber, still subscribe to the Mods and Tales, still buy the occassional Chronicle and bunches of Society Scenarios -- but this one just seems like crap -- cuz it seems like glut. Heck, cuz it IS glut. No other way I can view it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Game saturation (I'm not partial to the term "bloat") is inevitable I'm afraid. With 1e it was base classes and spells, in 2e it was "kits", in 3e and 3.5 it was PrC's and feats...any way you slice it, a gaming company has to put out new product or profits fall - and if profits fall, people lose jobs.

Paizo, just like WotC is a company, and they have a requirement to keep bringing in sales. That means that a game system will inevitably continue to expand and expand until demand wanes at which point you get a new edition.

When a company stops following this mantra - they pull a TSR and die.

If history tells us anything, RPG's aren't something where you buy one set of rulebooks and then play the same game forever (because when you do that, you cease to be a consumer, and therefore are no longer of relevance to anyone in the business).

Instead we crave new and exciting systems, worlds, rules, and campaigns - and when we begin to grow tired of the current, then we demand the new.

Naturally, we complain the whole time, claiming we didn't want new after all. I remember claiming I would never switch to advanced D&D when I had perfectly good Basic/Expert rulebooks.

I then claimed I would never switch to 2e - it was clearly just a money-grab by TSR afterall.

Then I claimed that 2e worked just fine, so why would I switch to 3e?

With 3.5 I really screamed murder - after all - this wasn't even a new game!

Let's not even get into the various other game systems...

In the end though - I must admit, the amount of money I spend vs. the amount of entertainment I get makes RPG's a very good investment.

Grand Lodge

It's an interesting question -- is glut/ bloat innevitable? -- but I don't really understand how.

It makes no sense to me why a company (Paizo, WotC A-Holes, whatever) HAS TO PUBLISH 100000000000000000 things every month or be dooooooomed to fail.

It's stupid, isn't it?

An AP every month . . . .
A Chronicle OR a Companion every quarter . . . .
A couple Scenarios every month . . . .
A Hardback every year.

What's wrong with that?

It's far less a burden to your consumers who want to buy your products.
It's far less a burden on your designers who have less creative torpor and more time to really develop the products.

I don't get it.


I'm waiting for my Dwarven-foppish-dandy-gladiator-mobster.


Cartigan wrote:
voska66 wrote:

They sure don't look like base classes to me.

Just things swapped around a bit on the base class they are alternate to.

Like the Gun Slinger they limited weapon training severely, got rid of armor training, and greatly reduced the bonus feats. In exchange they gave the class Grit and boosted bravery to include Fort saves. Then they swapped the good save in fortitude to Reflex giving it boost of 1 to 13 at the max. Still a fighter and qualifies for anything a fighter would like weapon specialization and other fighter feats.

But would you have said "Wow, this is a Fighter" if no one told you it was?

Yes actually. I looked at the abilities and pretty much saw it was a fighter, same with the Samurai. I saw bonus feat, weapon training, and bravery bonus. Pretty signaled fighter to me then I read about Grit/Deeds.

The Samuria I saw orders and looked like Cavalier variant to me.


Treantmonk wrote:

Game saturation (I'm not partial to the term "bloat") is inevitable I'm afraid. With 1e it was base classes and spells, in 2e it was "kits", in 3e and 3.5 it was PrC's and feats...any way you slice it, a gaming company has to put out new product or profits fall - and if profits fall, people lose jobs.

You didn't mention the unsupported base classes in 3.5 that were common: hexblade, Knight, etc.

I never had a issue with all the material but it made me sad that they created stuff like Wu jen and never gave them much (Complete Mage did though).

I wouldn't call it Bloat. I mean, Core was still the strongest (all the casters in core at least) so all the classes were weaker. ToB and Incarnum helped though as they are multiclass friendly: adding boost to Core non-casters.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
W E Ray wrote:

It's an interesting question -- is glut/ bloat innevitable? -- but I don't really understand how.

It makes no sense to me why a company (Paizo, WotC A-Holes, whatever) HAS TO PUBLISH 100000000000000000 things every month or be dooooooomed to fail.

It's stupid, isn't it?

An AP every month . . . .
A Chronicle OR a Companion every quarter . . . .
A couple Scenarios every month . . . .
A Hardback every year.

What's wrong with that?

It's far less a burden to your consumers who want to buy your products.
It's far less a burden on your designers who have less creative torpor and more time to really develop the products.

I don't get it.

This is RPG industry. You have to swim to survive. If you want to have a profitable company that employs full time staff (and pays them humane salaries, and on time) and goes head-to-head with the 600lb. Gorilla Industry Leader, you can't just stroke your belly and release 2 PDFs per quarter. You can do that if you employ 2 people and the whole enterprise is your secondary source of income. But not if you're at the verge of taking the market leader position, oh no.

Paizo Employee Creative Director

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).

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Brian Bachman wrote:

The problem is really ... us. Perhaps not you personally, but we as gamers demand new product and support it with our hard-earned dollars.

New classes are always popular and that is why gaming companies will always create them if they want their games to succeed over the long haul.

This is a big part of it. I don't have much interest in new classes (even the reskinned core classes that the UC classes are), for my particular purposes, and seldom buy supplements unless I know I will use the majority of it (which is very rare). However, for every person like me, there are probably at least five people saying, "OMG WHEN R U GOIN 2 MAKE A NINJA CLASS!" And those five people are waving money in Paizo's face--and I am not because I'm sitting here saying, "Nope, perfectly happy with what I've got, thanks," so Paizo is going to be listening to people like them and not people like me. It's business.

I had some hope that Paizo wasn't going to add a billion new base classes and PRCs and variants, just a few quality good ones, as they had said early on when PFRPG came out. I know their bread and butter are APs and it in fact makes more work for them if they are asked/expected to add splat material into APs (although I know they resist doing so, I think...?). But maybe that's also changing and they're getting enough profit from stuff like this, so more and more rulebooks with more and more classes will become the norm. If that's the case, I will do what I did with 3.5: buy the books I want and ignore the vast majority of the rest. In fact, I'm pretty sure I won't be buying any of the Ultimate books anyway, so there we are.

Deidre Tiriel wrote:

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 agree on this too--I had barely absorbed the GMG when the APG came out. The Ultimate books seem fast on their heels. And I also kind of feel like the wrong bits are being playtested. The APG, as good as it is, would have benefited tremendously from having the archetypes and PrCs (gawd, those bloody awful PrCs) playtested. But there would be no time to do it all, not on that schedule.... ah well, cake or eating it is the issue, I guess.

It's also frustrating as a GM because I may not want to use the Ultimate books, but I know at some point a player will be coming to me with big puppy dog eyes saying, "But can't I PLEASE play a Gunslinger in your world where you have very explicitly said Gunpowder doesn't exist in any form whatsoever?" (Or what have you; this is an example and if someone nitpicks it, I will find them and beat them to a bloody pulp.) And things go from focusing on the world and the story to figuring out what works and what doesn't and making sure everything balances and being in a constant state of negotiation... and if and when that happens, I'll stop running (at least with those kind of hypothetical players), because the fun of GMing will be overshadowed by all the pain in the assery of it.

Okay, going into tangential ranting. I've said my piece.


The continued creation of classes is going to hit class bloat. Even if you call them "alternative" classes since that really doesn't address the problem with class bloat - a ton of classes without interchangeable class abilities so in order to support them you have to create a ton x a ton of content. Though I suppose you could vary from book to book in who is getting supported like what 4e is doing with the X Power books.


Deidre Tiriel wrote:

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!

We had an entire year with the core book, most of came from 3.5 so we did not have to relearn everything. For the others it will probably take 2 or more years, but the company can't take that long or it loses a lot of money.

The Exchange

As a DM, class bloat is much easier to deal with than feat bloat.


As the game grows and evolves there will be more options for players. A stagnant game will not last IMO. The APG did add some new classes and the Magus is also new. These are fairly good things overall and add options to the game.

I think they should stick with the name of archetypes just to keep consistency. Alternate and archetype are the exact same thing flavored a little different... you are still a fighter, their, or whatever but with a different toolset... some have larger tool changes then others and that is fine.

The fact that they are out there for our review and feedback is great and we should not scream bloody murder every time they come out with new product proposals... and they will and should come out with new stuff.

They are still following the 2~3 hard back books a year they promised. Right now we have the CRB ,B1 & GMG in the first year. Year two has brought the APG, B2 and Ultimate Magic. Year three will start off with Ultimate Combat. That is what they promised at the start and I am glad they are keeping their word on supporting the game.

Here is the LINK for those that missed it the first time.


As the game grows and evolves there will be more options for players. A stagnant game will not last IMO. The APG did add some new classes and the Magus is also new. These are fairly good things overall and add options to the game.

I think they should stick with the name of archetypes just to keep consistency. Alternate and archetype are the exact same thing flavored a little different... you are still a fighter, thief, or whatever but with a different toolset... some have larger tool changes then others and that is fine.

The fact that they are out there for our review and feedback is great and we should not scream bloody murder every time they come out with new product proposals... and they will and should come out with new stuff.

They are still following the 2~3 hard back books a year they promised. Right now we have the CRB ,B1 & GMG in the first year. Year two has brought the APG, B2 and Ultimate Magic. Year three will start off with Ultimate Combat. That is what they promised at the start and I am glad they are keeping their word on supporting the game.

Here is the LINK for those that missed it the first time.


I like the ideas behind these classes, and the mechanics are really cool concepts. The sketch art for the iconics is awesome (except the samurai has his katana scabbard upside down ;) ) but seriously this is no where near class bloat.
That having been said, I think a few new classes a year would be a good pace, as long as the mechanics evolve along with the new classes. The mechanics remaining static, or left "done" then releasing boat-loads of classes defines class bloat better than simply cranking out classes.
I'd rather see books that gradualy evolve the mechanics throughout the year ( or whatever time period is appropriate) and buy that kind fo content (similar to the new magic ideas in UM) than just class books over and over. I'd also rather this happen then wake up one day and learn Pathfinder 2.0 is coming out in a few months and see I have new books to buy...I think slow gradual change or looks at the mechanics will keep new fresh material coming out at a steady enough pace to keep money coming in and keep fans/customers happy. If a few new classes end up in the mix to display new mechanics or changed mechanics, then so be it.
That way it will always be Pathfinder.


Treantmonk wrote:
Game saturation (I'm not partial to the term "bloat") is inevitable I'm afraid.

"Paizo would never kick¹ my puppy like WotC did."

Gamers and rose colored glasses.

¹In my opinion, adding more classes is not equivalent to kicking puppies…but then I do not think 4e is equivalent to kicking puppies either. My perspective is obviously skewed.

Sovereign Court

James Jacobs wrote:
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).

Thank you, that's what I wanted to hear, I'm a faithful paizo supporter and I understand that my tastes don't run the same as others. I don't even have a problem with new base classes per se, but it's the speed at which they are coming at this point that is bothering me. Like I said, a unique class that can't be easily represented with the current rules every once in a while I'm fine with. I just wanted to point out an issue I'm seeing that I as a customer don't want. I thought it would be great if ultimate combat had more archetypes for the existing marshal classes and if you notice I was silent on the gunslinger because I think a gunsliger can be one of those niche classes. I also want to see cavalier archtypes. But like I said to me these "alternate classes" are different enough that they stray into the base class model. I appreciate that you aren't dismissive of my post as some posters are because I did say I intend to vote with my dollars and understand that not everyone feels the same way. I come here and post to make my feelings known. Because if I just stop spending cash here, there could be a million reasons I did so, but if I explain my issues with a post and then don't purchase the product, you know what it is that is driving away my dollars.

As it is, I still think I'll get the ultimate magic even though it has the magus in it. But as is right now, I'm leaning towards not picking up ultimate combat, even though I tend to favor marshal characters.

Sovereign Court

Cartigan wrote:
The continued creation of classes is going to hit class bloat. Even if you call them "alternative" classes since that really doesn't address the problem with class bloat - a ton of classes without interchangeable class abilities so in order to support them you have to create a ton x a ton of content. Though I suppose you could vary from book to book in who is getting supported like what 4e is doing with the X Power books.

Wow cartigan and me on the same side of an argument, I must be slipping to the dark side (just messing cartigan, even though we tend to butt heads I still value your opinions on these boards)


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

For my tuppence worth, I don't have too much of a problem with proliferation of classes (as I understand the issues of revenue stream, and that many people want them), as long as they're incorporated into the game world (ie, they appear subsequently in Pathfinder / Golarion products). If not, it's kinda like 'well, you can use them in your world, but we're not using them in ours' and I find it hard to believe in them as 'real'. If anything annoyed me about 3/3.5, it was cool concepts appearing in new splatbooks that were never heard from again. If anything says 'hey suckers, give us your money', that does. That's why - so far - I have to give Paizo a big thumbs up (well, amongst other reasons).

Also, I may not ever use the classes, but I love owning the books because the production values are so awesome. And, as a last point, I've never been interested in Oriental / Asian flavoured campaigns of any kind, from the original AD&D to Kara Tur, to whatever, so I'm not likely to have a use for anything Tian-Xia flavoured, but lots of people do so good luck to Paizo for covering those bases.


lastknightleft wrote:
I appreciate that you aren't dismissive of my post as some posters…

It is not that I am dismissive of your post. You are just wrong. And being this is the interweb, it is my duty to inform you of just how wrong you are. :)


I also can also throw my lot in with those who are glad to see them. I appreciate James mentioning little difference between, base, sub, archetypes because in the end each 1, regardless of type, gives more options.

After I read the APG I felt they greatly increased the casting options, with a much lesser increase in martial options. Then the Magus was announced which still added more casting/martial option. I feel these classes are great for giving martial players more options and especially like the grit feature. I almost wish it were the base fighter feature.

Dark Archive

Well, from my point of view, Paizo is giving me what my game needs. My home game really needs a gunmage and gunslinger. Magus as well. I have nothing against new base classes - I just want them to be well designed. In fact, this thing with alternate classes is a bit silly to me. Just do them as base classes, and that's it.


I have to say I'm in the "no" crowd and its a bit surprising. Up til now I've loved everything paizo has put out and bought it, either in book form, pdf form, or both. This is the first book that i've looked at an thought "Do I really want this at my table?" "is this a product I want to invest in?" With the previous books its never been "do i want this" its been "Oooo...cool, now how soon can I afford to pick this up?"

I'm probably not your market obviously. I hate rules and class bloat, If it can be done with the base classes and a few feats and a bit of imagination I don't think it needs a new class. I would have rather seen the firearms rules folded into a one page or so entry in the campaign setting and the oriental stuff folded into the Tan Xia book when it comes out then this. As it is, you've got a product that is a bit hit or miss with both the target demographics. Those who want guns and those who want oriental flavored items. Its trying to appeal to both, and I think it'll fail to appeal to either.

I was initially interested in it for the gunslinger, I like a bit of firearms in my RPG, but this is going to be a product that I'll have to pass on, and will likely not be allowed at my table.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I think that some people are missing the fact that the three new classes are going to be something like 20% of the book, with the rest being material for existing classes.


Yeah I am seeing the bloat and it really is something I do not like. One of he classes has interesting things that may be, just maybe justified.

The other two are mere archetypes made into something more then they should be for no reason other then to make them better then other archetypes.

Either way, kinda sad paizo has decided more class and class bloat for the sake of class bloat in a game with already near 20 classes is the way to go.

Scarab Sages

I know this is going to sound utterly revolutionary, and thus will be immensely "pooh-poohed" by the vast majority here, but....

If you don't want to buy a product...don't.

If as GM/DM you don't want a particular class in your game...don't.

If as a player, you REALLY REALLY REALLY want to play that new whateveritis all nice and shiny and new, but your DM/GM wont allow it...find a new game or change your mind until next time.

Griefing the interweb to whine about something we as consumers are given the power to regulate and control anyhow is kind of silly.

Now, using your time to say...make suggestions on how to modify something...that is a much better thing.

Of course, its my 2cp.


I ask: some APG rogue has not trapfinding. Does it makes it less a rogue?

Is difficult to define a class sometimes. Sometimes rogue and ranger blend, sometimes paladin and cavalier blend. But these classes have flavour and mechanics which are original and fun.

Is the Rogue called Ninja more different? Maybe. But.. I would look for different things judging it. Does it work? Is it able to bring to life the archetype behind him? I think It does, and very well.

I think that this is what we should care for. Sometimes an Archetype is enough to obtain an effect, sometimes you have to play with it slightly more. But the priority is the creation of something useful and beautiful.

These "classes" have new mechanics and flavour. IMHO, one is very well made, another is good but can be expanded, and another one need work. The playtest is for this.

But don't blame the game for expand and being diverse. Wasn't it a reason to stck with it instead of play with other ones?

I don't want - to be clear - advocate an uncontrolled proliferation of classes. But we should differentiate when something really new and diverse is bringed in. IMHO, with the notes above, this is the case.

As a final note, people asked for brand new classes, other said "you can build a ninja with a rogue". Paizo tried, maybe, a compromise. Is not an easy terrain - think about it. Options in book are not only for one gamer - different people have different tastes and expectations.

and @ Bomanz: well said.


Gorbacz wrote:
W E Ray wrote:

I have to agree with the OP.

When I got the e-mail about the new book coming in August I shook my head and thought, Wow, something that just sounds like utter crap, something I would never buy.

Talk about judging a book by its cover. *sigh*

Yes, I learned that lesson after dismissing Savage Species because it had an orc on it and likewise with Rumathar Battlemage PrC.


James Jacobs wrote:
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).

Here's some feedback:

The oracle filled a mechanical gap, the magus (with an overly-complicated pool mechanic) patches a gap. The antipaladin squeaks through due to gaming tradition. The alchemist is at least its own niche. The cavalier, inquisitor, summoner, and witch base classes are pure bloat and should never have been published, and there is no need whatsoever for gunslinger, ninja, or samurai (the last being bloat upon bloat).

So stop already.


see wrote:
James Jacobs wrote:
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).

Here's some feedback:

The oracle filled a mechanical gap, the magus (with an overly-complicated pool mechanic) patches a gap. The antipaladin squeaks through due to gaming tradition. The alchemist is at least its own niche. The cavalier, inquisitor, summoner, and witch base classes are pure bloat and should never have been published, and there is no need whatsoever for gunslinger, ninja, or samurai (the last being bloat upon bloat).

So stop already.

+1

1 to 50 of 731 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Paizo Products / Product Discussion / Class bloat, yup it's happening and I hate it All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.