I see that Paizo seems to be hooked on this idea of introducing alternate classes. I apologize for the bluntness, but I think the idea is total crap. And here's why.
We already have archetypes, base classes, and prestige classes. Why do we have to muddle things up with this Alternate Class thing? What is so wrong with a Base Class, or just making it a Prestige Class? These Alternate Classes are what I like to call "Half-Ass Classes", because it feels like they're kind of a class and still kind of not and their existence leaves things very underwhelming.
My other problem is support. I have yet to see support for the Antipaladin class, so why should I believe the Ninja, Samurai, and (maybe) Gunslinger will get continual support like the other classes? A class remains interesting in a game if the players can see it is being supported just like the others. If the Fighters, Wizards, Cavaliers, Summoners, etc. keep getting new toys, the Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai, and Antipaladin should receive the same treatment.
I also do not understand why NONE of these are base classes. We have Ultimate Magic coming out and it has one new base class. We have Ultimate Combat and we have ZERO base classes? Why do the martial types get hosed and the spellcasting classes receive, yet, ANOTHER new member to the family? Is it so bad to create more martial classes? These could be made into base classes and receive their own archetypes, as well.
I hope Paizo reconsiders what I believe is a completely contrived system to introduce and to just please stick with the base class/prestige class/archetype rules.
They all do count as their respective base classes for qualifying for feats and using class-specific magic items.
*Brings an armful of wood and some lighter fluid*
"I think some people are gonna need this soon, so I thought I'd help out. I woulda brought a flame thrower, but I thought that it might just be too easy." :)
Is it dinner time yet?
and "Lisa Rocks."
Thank you for posting this, but please put posts like this in the discussion threads. I would like to keep this board for playtest discussion and results as much as possible.
Don't worry, we are reading those board posts as well. We hear your concerns on this matter loud and clear.
I see that Paizo seems to be hooked on this idea of introducing alternate classes. I apologize for the bluntness, but I think the idea is total crap. And here's why.
We already have archetypes, base classes, and prestige classes. Why do we have to muddle things up with this Alternate Class thing? What is so wrong with a Base Class, or just making it a Prestige Class? These Alternate Classes are what I like to call "Half-Ass Classes", because it feels like they're kind of a class and still kind of not and their existence leaves things very underwhelming.
My other problem is support. I have yet to see support for the Antipaladin class, so why should I believe the Ninja, Samurai, and (maybe) Gunslinger will get continual support like the other classes? A class remains interesting in a game if the players can see it is being supported just like the others. If the Fighters, Wizards, Cavaliers, Summoners, etc. keep getting new toys, the Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai, and Antipaladin should receive the same treatment.
I also do not understand why NONE of these are base classes. We have Ultimate Magic coming out and it has one new base class. We have Ultimate Combat and we have ZERO base classes? Why do the martial types get hosed and the spellcasting classes receive, yet, ANOTHER new member to the family? Is it so bad to create more martial classes? These could be made into base classes and receive their own archetypes, as well.
I hope Paizo reconsiders what I believe is a completely contrived system to introduce and to just please stick with the base class/prestige class/archetype rules.
I agree completely. The first few classes in the APG were fun, because they trampled some virgin grass with a few mechanical twists. However, this "series" of class books with "new" classes is already tiresome; in particular, the Ninja and Samurai are just a Rogue and a Cavalier (of all things)....again. I was disappointed when I saw the class names Ninja and Samurai because those archtypes have great potential in the pre-existing classes. Then, I was shocked at the lame copy/paste that the Samurai in particular seems to be. And well, all Rogues are Ninjas.
Thanks for the positive feedback Stephen!
i agree to the extent that it has always felt to me that dnd (3.0 3.5 and even now pathfinder) doesn't give the same attention to the combat martial classes as they do to the spellcasters, and we have the Ultimate magic book with a brand new full fledged base class and the Ultimate combat with 3 subclasses, why couldn't we have gotten a single fully built base class given the same attention as the Magus is getting.
i don't hate the subclasses introduced but it just feels like "hay we got a brand new spellcaster oh and by the way here are 3 subclasses"
i do love the gunslinger though, i just thought it i should mention that
I think that instead of worrying about what is a class, an archetype or a subclass, we should focus on making things work.
I prefer see if samurai can have the option of a heirloom weapon intead of a mount (keep the mount! I said option) or the fact that the Ronin challenge needs work before worrying if it should be called Samurai, Cavalier, Frank or whatever.
Until a player can play any concept they want to play we need more. I am still waiting for my dagger thrower. <cracks whip>
Honestly, I copypasted the Ninja, removed the progress table, added "this replaces rogue ability ..." and the end of every new ability, and it's just a big archetype (5 pages).
Yep.
If it was presented like that, we had less nerdrage.
Apparently, people prefer that we don't have inspiring PC art and Wayne Reynolds should have another job.
Infinite sadness.
I agree with the OP, though I would add that I don't have much appetite for new classes at all.
I am mightily gladdened by what Paizo have done with Pathfinder. It's a considerable achievement - it has been successful beyond the expectations of almost everyone involved with d&d, and the improvements Pathfinder has made over 3.5 are thoughtful and generally good.
New classes, though...well, I guess I've seen them before. Seen them come and go, too. Don't get me wrong, I think they're fun - and more fun for a new player than for older Pathfinder converts like me. They'll always be a market for good new classes - I get that, and I know it's important that Paizo bake up new hot cakes for the market at regular intervals.
But new classes aren't what I want from the game. I don't have the enthusiasm to applaud them, or to buy them.
What I would applaud would be more of the courage Paizo showed in taking on special combat maneuvers, polymorph and divine caster power levels. That's what I'd really love to see - the old, rooty game issues dealt with by capable, expert game designers.
Solve all the issues there are with Stealth and hiding, and invisibility! Or finish the job that's been well begun with special combat maneuvers (grapple and grab, you ain't done yet)! Give me an elegant reduction in the Xmas Tree Effect! Sort out the piecemeal aggregation of action types - and do all these things without losing the feel of the game!
These are the things I'd really applaud - and pay for, too, with great pleasure; and recommend to my friends. Paizo has the chance to make d&d better than it has ever been. But these things need to wait until Pathfinder Edition 2, and so still a year or two. These real changes have to wait, if they're to make income, and of course, Paizo needs that.
So, all in all, I think the new class books are fine. They're not really for me, but I hope they do well for Paizo, and allow them to get on with (and don't distract them from) a gleaming new edition that keeps all that's good in the game, while slaying the old bugbears.
I agree with the OP.
I am mightily gladdened by what Paizo have done with Pathfinder. It's a considerable achievement - it has been successful beyond the expectations of almost everyone involved with d&d, and the improvements Pathfinder has made over 3.5 are thoughtful and generally good.
New classes, though...well, I guess I've seen them before. Seen them come and go, too. Don't get me wrong, I think they're fun - and more fun for a new player than for older Pathfinder converts like me. They'll always be a market for good new classes - I get that, and I know it's important that Paizo bake up new hot cakes for the market at regular intervals.
But new classes aren't what I want from the game. I don't have the enthusiasm to applaud them, or to buy them.
What I would applaud would be more of the courage Paizo showed in taking on special combat maneuvers, polymorph and divine caster power levels. That's what I'd really love to see - the old, rooty game issues dealt with by capable, expert game designers.
Solve all the issues there are with Stealth and hiding, and invisibility! Or finish the job that's been well begun with special combat maneuvers (grapple and grab, you ain't done yet)! Give me an elegant reduction in the Xmas Tree Effect! Sort out the piecemeal aggregation of action types - and do all these things without losing the feel of the game!
These are the things I'd really applaud - and pay for, too, with great pleasure; and recommend to my friends. Paizo has the chance to make d&d better than it has ever been. But these things need to wait until Pathfinder Edition 2, and so still a year or two. These real changes have to wait, if they're to make income, and of course, Paizo needs that.
So, all in all, I think the new class books are fine. They're not really for me, but I hope they do well for Paizo, and allow them to get on with (and don't distract them from) a gleaming new edition that keeps all that's good in the game, while slaying the old bugbears.
What is wrong with grapple/grab? The other stuff is just playstyle stuff(i.e. xmas tree effect) so I don't want to get into that.
Grapple/grab: what's wrong is that maintaining is a standard action, a move action at best, and thus monsters with good multiple attacks are generally best served by...not grappling. This is not neat.
Stealth, invisibility, and action conundrums are not playstyle issues - they're issues that arise from old, old aggregations of rules, some of them badly written, many badly cobbled together and contradictory. The Xmas Tree Effect is part playstyle, part-game-slower; at high levels, the effect it has is more than a playstyle issue.
To rewrite everything that touches these issues would be a major undertaking, and no doubt there are others I've missed. I think these things are best left to a new edition - which is good, because then Paizo can make an income from them. I believe there's plenty of room for PF2.
My other problem is support. I have yet to see support for the Antipaladin class, so why should I believe the Ninja, Samurai, and (maybe) Gunslinger will get continual support like the other classes? A class remains interesting in a game if the players can see it is being supported just like the others. If the Fighters, Wizards, Cavaliers, Summoners, etc. keep getting new toys, the Gunslinger, Ninja, Samurai, and Antipaladin should receive the same treatment.
I also do not understand why NONE of these are base classes.
So they don't have to support them and they can make a new multiclass wall after saying that using class alignment requisites is dumb.
"Alternate" classes are far worse solution to having to support new classes than prestige class proliferation. Alternate classes introduce new mechanics and represent character lifetime choices meaning they should be supported like base classes, but I won't hold my breath.
Give me an elegant reduction in the Xmas Tree Effect!
Give your players a +1 inherent bonus every X levels.
I don't know if I can completely agree with the OP.
The Antipaladin is by all means the complete opposite of the Paladin; every single one of his abilities is literally just the Paladin version with "cure" replaced by "inflict." So for him it makes sense to be an alternate class - he can already use just about any feat that the regular Paladin can take, so I don't see what the problem with support is. It could be argued that he is pretty damn strong as is.
The Samurai, again, is essentially a copypasta of the Cavalier, with the exception of having a few weapons and Orders that are exclusive to it. Its abilities have enough similarities to those of a Cavalier to make them relative, but it is unique enough to stand on its own. It can't really be called an archetype, because no core abilities are being swapped out.
The Ninja is where I start to draw the line. The Ninja's Ki Pool alone sets it apart drastically from the Rogue, and while I have not looked too deeply into its write-up, the Ninja Tricks are far more mystical in nature than those of a Rogue. I'd say the Ninja should be a base class - using the other archetypes as precedent, it shouldn't take more than one page to describe it.
The Gunslinger is the big doozy here - this one is nothing like the Fighter. Calling it an alternate class seemed to be a subtle way to qualify it for Fighter feats, but it wasn't really necessary, especially given the multitude of feats they are releasing to support it. No other alternate class has gotten specific feat support, so that is another place to draw the line
Grapple/grab: what's wrong is that maintaining is a standard action, a move action at best, and thus monsters with good multiple attacks are generally best served by...not grappling. This is not neat.
Stealth, invisibility, and action conundrums are not playstyle issues - they're issues that arise from old, old aggregations of rules, some of them badly written, many badly cobbled together and contradictory. The Xmas Tree Effect is part playstyle, part-game-slower; at high levels, the effect it has is more than a playstyle issue.
To rewrite everything that touches these issues would be a major undertaking, and no doubt there are others I've missed. I think these things are best left to a new edition - which is good, because then Paizo can make an income from them. I believe there's plenty of room for PF2.
The point of a grab attack is to setup a pin. Once you get someone pinned you own them. This is really a topic that needs its own thread though, but there was one recently that discussed the value of pinning.
Grapple/grab: what's wrong is that maintaining is a standard action, a move action at best, and thus monsters with good multiple attacks are generally best served by...not grappling. This is not neat.
Especially since the grappler is limited to one attack per turn, while the one being grappled (despite being as hindered as the grappler) gets to bust out a full attack on their attacker (or anyone near them).
Silly. I am considering going back to the WotC grappling rules. They made more sense and were more deadly for the one being grappled, not for the grappler.
But I discussed that on another thread I started...which I need to find.
"Alternate" classes are far worse solution to having to support new classes than prestige class proliferation. Alternate classes introduce new mechanics and represent character lifetime choices meaning they should be supported like base classes, but I won't hold my breath.
My main issue with alternate classes. If they want to make them, fine. But don't make players go levels 1-20 with them and not be able to change it up or do something different with them other than what's available. No one will want to play Alternate Classes after seeing a book released giving Fighters, Wizards, and whatever else pages of new options for them, but barely any, or zero, stuff to play with themselves.
Will the Ninja have a broader option of Ninja Tricks in the future? Will it have class feats designed to enhance its class abilities? Will it have prestige classes for itself beyond Ultimate Combat in future products? If the answer is no, then it needs to be an archetype. Or maybe Alternate Classes are just that, glorified archetypes in disguise as classes. If so, that's very misleading of Paizo, hence why I see them as unnecessary.
Alternative classes seem to be a solution to prevent prestige class bloat.
They are 20 level classes with unique flavour, so they are enticing to people who want to play a different concept, but who like that concept presented in more detail than just the few lines an archetype gets.
And since you cannot cross-over them with their base class, cherry-picking abilities is prevented. I like the concept. Although the Ninja benefits greatly from two levels of Monk, so cherry-picking is still possible.
|
"Alternate" classes are far worse solution to having to support new classes than prestige class proliferation. Alternate classes introduce new mechanics and represent character lifetime choices meaning they should be supported like base classes, but I won't hold my breath.
My main issue with alternate classes. If they want to make them, fine. But don't make players go levels 1-20 with them and not be able to change it up or do something different with them other than what's available. No one will want to play Alternate Classes after seeing a book released giving Fighters, Wizards, and whatever else pages of new options for them, but barely any, or zero, stuff to play with themselves.
Will the Ninja have a broader option of Ninja Tricks in the future? Will it have class feats designed to enhance its class abilities? Will it have prestige classes for itself beyond Ultimate Combat in future products? If the answer is no, then it needs to be an archetype. Or maybe Alternate Classes are just that, glorified archetypes in disguise as classes. If so, that's very misleading of Paizo, hence why I see them as unnecessary.
Emphasis added.
It's not misleading if Paizo have said, as they have, that Alternate Classes, are just Archetypes presented with all the class informatin rather than just as swap outs. To jump from "I don't like Alterate Classes" to "Paizo are deceiving me by ths presentation of their stuff" is such a leap that you havd to be a 4th level Monk or 2nd level Ninja to even attempt it.
I wanted to open a thread like this myself, good that you opened it.
I think that alternate classes (the 3 from the playtest) should get a little more from their baseclass to show where they are coming from.
The gunslinger for example can get warrior feats, that should be important at some level, tough that importance isn't shown enough.
The ninja should get rogue tricks, perhaps only 2 , but that to show that it is necessary to base im on the rogue.
Alternate classes are only needed if they can pick from something that the baseclass can pick from.
I have nothing against alternate classes, however there should be a reason. The best reason would be with alternate mages, so that spells descriptions dont need more wiz1/sorc1/drd1/...
The issue is these are archetypes being called something else just because the name they have. It muddies the water for no real reason. You do not need to support an archetype but it's mother class as anything it gets the archetype gets. You could even stack archetypes and they give you new ways of looking at future archetypes with new combos.
There is simply no reason two of these are not just archetypes. You can make a point for the gunslinger, but not the ninja and samurai who are smaller in both size and word count then some APG archetypes.