While I enjoy all the talk and rancor surrounding all the new ideas for class and class features, ever since the APG came out, I have gotten the feeling that some of the classes were...overwritten.
To me it seems like the druid got taken out by the summoner and oracle, the paladin by the cavalier and the inquisitor seemed like a super powered fighter with spell ability. The Magus comes across like a 1st level Eldritch Knight.
Now we're talking about samurai, ninjas and gunslingers. Not a fan of guns in fantasy, either. These could very well be Prestige Classes, builds or archetypes, not necessarily classes. Just seems like all the new classes are drowning out the classic classes.
Thoughts?
|
While I enjoy all the talk and rancor surrounding all the new ideas for class and class features, ever since the APG came out, I have gotten the feeling that some of the classes were...overwritten.
To me it seems like the druid got taken out by the summoner and oracle, the paladin by the cavalier and the inquisitor seemed like a super powered fighter with spell ability. The Magus comes across like a 1st level Eldritch Knight.
Now we're talking about samurai, ninjas and gunslingers. Not a fan of guns in fantasy, either. These could very well be Prestige Classes, builds or archetypes, not necessarily classes. Just seems like all the new classes are drowning out the classic classes.
Thoughts?
Well, the ninja and samurai are alternate classes (archetypes with everything figured in for you), so 2/3 of the new classes are exactly what you're asking them to be.
|
While I enjoy all the talk and rancor surrounding all the new ideas for class and class features, ever since the APG came out, I have gotten the feeling that some of the classes were...overwritten.
To me it seems like the druid got taken out by the summoner and oracle, the paladin by the cavalier and the inquisitor seemed like a super powered fighter with spell ability. The Magus comes across like a 1st level Eldritch Knight.
Now we're talking about samurai, ninjas and gunslingers. Not a fan of guns in fantasy, either. These could very well be Prestige Classes, builds or archetypes, not necessarily classes. Just seems like all the new classes are drowning out the classic classes.
Thoughts?
Did the Druid's animal companion get taken out by the Summoner's eidolon? Yes. Of course. That was the point, to have an *actual* pet class where virtually all of the emphasis was on the pet. Does the Summoner as a whole hose the Druid as a whole out of relevance? Not even remotely. There are *numerous* things a Druid can do that a Summoner cannot and if you care much about optimization (which I don't) the Druid stacks up to the Summoner.
I don't see how a Cavalier could ever, *ever* outshine a Paladin other than in straight mounted combat, but then he outshines everyone and he should. It's what he does. Other than that, it's a flavorful class for people who want to be a "knight" but not a paladin.
The Inquisitor IS very good at fighting. He is not, by any means, better at fighting than a fighter. Better at adapting to the more specific needs of a battle on a battle by battle basis? Yes. He's essentially almost a perfect mirror of the Bard. The Bard is an arcane caster that (generally) focuses on support and making the whole party more effective. The Inquisitor is a divine caster that focuses on direct combat and making himself more effective.
The Gunslinger is a nieche class, yes. One I fully agree is not generally nescessary in setting-neutral RPG worlds. However, while the Pathinder rules are designed setting-neutral, they do support Paizo's proprietary setting which, lets face it, none of this would be here without. It makes sense for them to include "universal" rules for something that appears in their campaign setting. I am not going to use firearm technology in most, if any, of my homebrews. But I also run games in Golarion which firearms are a part of, and for that I definately want firearm rules and firearm-centric game elements (like a 20 level class) to support those elements.
As for Ninja and Samurai, similar points. Blending eastern elements into western-setting RPGs is virtually ubiquitous. Virtually every previous incarnation of the game we're playing has touched on, fully included, or had alternate settings based on these elements. It stands to reason, then, that many consumers of Paizo's product will want similar things. Should there be rules for 20 level classes of iconic character archetypes of the eastern fantasy setting? Yes.
I am getting exasperated by the people looking at Ultimate Combat (and to a lesser extent Ultimate Magic) and claiming the sky is falling for Pathfinder. I don't know how well some of you actually remember 3.5, but this is not even a drop in the bucket compared to those days. I'm not saying Pathfinder will never suffer that fate as I cannot divine the future from some mystical aether, but these two books + the APG are *hardly* solid evidence it will.
With all of the griping that's been happening on these boards lately (and some of it being unsettlingly vitriolic) I'm starting to wonder if I'm the ONLY person on here who is generally happy with what Paizo does and has faith in the direction it's taking. Also, it occaisnially feels like I'm one of the very few who has no problem taking what I like from their supplemental books and happily ignoring the rest without getting my pants in a bunch because they *dare* include something optional that I don't want in *my* game and don't have the stones to to tell my players "no" to some things and don't have players mature and reasonable enough to accept that not every game includes everything plus the kitchen sink.
Whoa... Sorry. I didn't exactly intend for that rant to come out, Raging Hobbit, and I'm not nescessarily accusing you of all of those afforementioned beefs. I was initially just going to respond to your class overshadow concerns and somewhere along the lines it touched off some fester bad moods I've been having about the vibes on these boards. I sorta feel like I need to leave it here, though, now that I've got it out of my system.
Again, sorry dude. You can really just ignore everything after my paragraph about the Ninja and Samurai. :/
|
+1 Orannis.
You said it better than I could. You are very right about the tone of the broads recently. There seems to be a hysterical minority running around screaming bloody murder because there something in a book that they don't personally approve of. That minority could use a time out and maybe a nappy.
I'm not directing that at you Raging Hobbit. You have your opinion and you're asking for input and there is nothing wrong with that.
On topic:
I've always felt constrained by the core classes. I've been playing since the mid-80's and I've played just about every flavor of any class that I'm going to play. I've simply run out of way to shoehorn my character concept into the core classes. I look forward to the chance to play something new and different.
As a DM I have no problem with any of the new classes and have plans to include several more. I also have no problem saying "NO!" when necessary.
I don't think the new classes/rules/whatever dilute or lessen the game; as a matter of fact, I think they enrich the game by bringing in new OPTIONS for a jaded player like me.
SM
While I enjoy all the talk and rancor surrounding all the new ideas for class and class features, ever since the APG came out, I have gotten the feeling that some of the classes were...overwritten.
Now we're talking about samurai, ninjas and gunslingers. Not a fan of guns in fantasy, either. These could very well be Prestige Classes, builds or archetypes, not necessarily classes. Just seems like all the new classes are drowning out the classic classes.
Thoughts?
I agree. Since the Design Diarrhea that began with the APG, I have decided that PF is heading far and away from where I want my game to be. I have since reverted back to core 3.5, and have decided to adopt some things I liked from PF; 3.5 (core) feels like PF basic,is easy to manage on its own, and is easy to customize. PF, on the other hand is overly complicated and at times sporadic. Everyone gets everything, and this eats-up alot of niche space and interesting mechanics that could have been saved for future classes. Instead... diarrhea.
Pathfinder has a book every few months. 3.5 had a book just about every month. It is not even close, and they do fix things faster than WotC did also.
The Cavalier got healing, spells, charisma to saves, and channel energy?
Since when :D?
Notheing else to say. Orannis already said everything.
And, read the post above mine. It says something about how paizo handles books.
To me it seems like the druid got taken out by the summoner and oracle
As someone running a game with a summoner, a druid, and an oracle as PCs, I really disagree with you. Those classes play very differently.
|
|
Did the Druid's animal companion get taken out by the Summoner's eidolon? Yes. Of course. That was the point, to have an *actual* pet class where virtually all of the emphasis was on the pet. Does the Summoner as a whole hose the Druid as a whole out of relevance? Not even remotely. There are *numerous* things a Druid can do that a Summoner cannot and if you care much about optimization (which I don't) the Druid stacks up to the Summoner.
...More Brilliance...
Whoa... Sorry. I didn't exactly intend for that rant to come out, Raging Hobbit, and I'm not nescessarily accusing you of all of those afforementioned beefs. I was initially just going to respond to your class overshadow concerns and somewhere along the lines it touched off some fester bad moods I've been having about the vibes on these boards. I sorta feel like I need to leave it here, though, now that I've got it out of my system.
Again, sorry dude. You can really just ignore everything after my paragraph about the Ninja and Samurai. :/
+1
I really could not say it any better than you have. I don't think you were unfair in your appraisal of what some people are saying. Frankly, if I had tried to post a similar statement I would have managed to insult a lot of people. So congrats on a good point, stated well, and presented fairly.
Graywulfe
Could you please clarify this statement for me? In what way does "everyone get everything"?Everyone gets everything,
I apologize for making such a blanket general statement. What I mean is that PF went to great lengths to make classes more versatile and to discourage multiclassing, but unfortunately these suites of flashy abilities and bonus spells, and whatnot only serve to complicate things, and in a way it sometimes takes away from the unique niche of the original class. Sure, this is not necessarily all bad, but certain changes effect parts of the game in odd ways. Now, I have great respect for Paizo's writing abilities, but when it comes to mechanics I'm not overly impressed.
It's the "powers", the bonus spells, added class skills, the bonus feats, the insane amount of options gained from class features, lackluster archetypes, alternate favored class bonuses, and sometimes poorly executed or odd feats, that all bury the original classes in a weird mess. Playing a multiclass character is a big headache when you have all of these things to track from each class.
A lot of useful mechanics where wasted by being tacked on to the core classes. Where one or two cool abilities would suffice (and better retain B.C.), they just went hog wild with it. This is what I mean by "design diarrhea", if all of these (often) great ideas were held more in check, used with more moderation, it would have left a lot of room for cool base classes, alternate classes or Archetypes, even prestige classes and feats.
I don't agree. I think having more options makes the system better because it allows for a wider range of concepts to be more easily represented mechanically.
|
|
I apologize for making such a blanket general statement. What I mean is that PF went to great lengths to make classes more versatile and to discourage multiclassing, but unfortunately these suites of flashy abilities and bonus spells, and whatnot only serve to complicate things, and in a way it sometimes takes away from the unique niche of the original class. Sure, this is not necessarily all bad, but certain changes effect parts of the game in odd ways. Now, I have great respect for Paizo's writing abilities, but when it comes to mechanics I'm not overly impressed.It's the "powers", the bonus spells, added class skills, the bonus feats, the insane amount of options gained from class features, lackluster archetypes, alternate favored class bonuses, and sometimes poorly executed or odd feats, that all bury the original classes in a weird mess. Playing a multiclass character is a big headache when you have all of these things to track from each class.
A lot of useful mechanics where wasted by being tacked on to the core classes. Where one or two cool abilities would suffice (and better retain B.C.), they just went hog wild with it. This is what I mean by "design diarrhea", if all of these (often) great ideas were held more in check, used with more moderation, it would have left a lot of room for cool base classes, alternate classes or Archetypes, even prestige classes and feats.
Thank you for that well-reasoned response. I disagree with you, but this is more an issue of you and I having differences in what I consider two equally valuable preferences. I actually understand your argument quite well, and it has been touched upon in light debate between myself and one of my players. Ultimately, we decided that while each system option (3.5 and Pathfinder) has various merits and downsides (many of which were touched upon in your response), Pathfinder gives us more of what we want. I have not gotten rid of a single one of my 3.5 books, not because they are "backwards compatible" with Pathfinder but because I will likely want to play that version of d20 again someday.
Again, thank you for a well presented, mature response to my admittedly rather curt request for more information. This whole topic has had my blood boiling a bit and my usual attempts at "reasonable discourse" have been shaky.
Thank you for that well-reasoned response. I disagree with you, but this is more an issue of you and I having differences in what I consider two equally valuable preferences. I actually understand your argument quite well, and it has been touched upon in light debate between myself and one of my players. Ultimately, we decided that while each system option (3.5 and Pathfinder) has various merits and downsides (many of which were touched upon in your response), Pathfinder gives us more of what we want. I have not gotten rid of a single one of my 3.5 books, not because...
I appreciate Pathfinder for what it is, and if I were to run an AP written with PF rules, I would probably just play PF to save myself some hassle. But, seeing as though I am currently playing Shackled City, then moving on to Legacy of Fire (thank you AP bundles!), it is easier to use the rule set they were originally written for.
Another problem I have is that I tend to play in a small group (1-3 players)and we often play more than one character each (even the GM), and the added complexity (and HPs) of PF makes combat take longer than normal. In 3.5 I can play 2 DMPCs while DMing with no problem (I only have one player in my Shackled City campaign), while in PF with all those new features it gets crazy fast.
There seems to be a hysterical minority running around screaming bloody murder because there something in a book that they don't personally approve of. That minority could use a time out and maybe a nappy.
That minority comprises 400+ posts since yesterday in this thread.
I read this thread after I posted not knowing that someone else had thought the same thing and had a huge response.
While I like the idea of being able to branch out into new ideas and builds, those should be constrained by the rules that are already written. I guess I was not familiar enough with the rules of the new archetypes as I had not encountered one in play yet. Or tried to create one. I was just reacting to the gunslinger i guess. Guns...geez. Enter Vampire the Masquerade characters. Takes something away from the game for me.
Thank you for that well-reasoned response. I disagree with you, but this is more an issue of you and I having differences in what I consider two equally valuable preferences. I actually understand your argument quite well, and it has been touched upon in light debate between myself and one of my players. Ultimately, we decided that while each system option (3.5 and Pathfinder) has various merits and downsides (many of which were touched upon in your response), Pathfinder gives us more of what we want. I have not gotten rid of a single one of my 3.5 books, not because...I appreciate Pathfinder for what it is, and if I were to run an AP written with PF rules, I would probably just play PF to save myself some hassle. But, seeing as though I am currently playing Shackled City, then moving on to Legacy of Fire (thank you AP bundles!), it is easier to use the rule set they were originally written for.
Another problem I have is that I tend to play in a small group (1-3 players)and we often play more than one character each (even the GM), and the added complexity (and HPs) of PF makes combat take longer than normal. In 3.5 I can play 2 DMPCs while DMing with no problem (I only have one player in my Shackled City campaign), while in PF with all those new features it gets crazy fast.
It is actually less complex as a whole. Now if you are new to pathfinder and trying to learn the difference between 3.5 and pathfinder core rules + all the new stuff it sill seem that way because you are trying to learn all of it at once instead of having the chance to learn it over a time span of 2 years like the rest of us.
There seems to be a hysterical minority running around screaming bloody murder because there something in a book that they don't personally approve of. That minority could use a time out and maybe a nappy.That minority comprises 400+ posts since yesterday in this thread.
I read this thread after I posted not knowing that someone else had thought the same thing and had a huge response.
While I like the idea of being able to branch out into new ideas and builds, those should be constrained by the rules that are already written. I guess I was not familiar enough with the rules of the new archetypes as I had not encountered one in play yet. Or tried to create one. I was just reacting to the gunslinger i guess. Guns...geez. Enter Vampire the Masquerade characters. Takes something away from the game for me.
Guns are not new to pathfinder. The class which uses them is bringing them to the forefront though so many people that don't use Golarion are seeing them for the first time.
I was just reacting to the gunslinger i guess. Guns...geez. Enter Vampire the Masquerade characters. Takes something away from the game for me.
This is a nice summery of a post on the Gunslinger forums:
D&D has always - always - been a mashup of nerd culture references shoved and stuck together. It's always been a very broad game. Medieval knights in ren-era armor worshipping greek pantheons and following a modern pastiche of morality fight against squid-headed space invaders from the future.
Guns have been in D&D in on form or the other since the beginning in one form or the other. One of the most prominent uses I saw them in was Spelljammers. My gaming group added them to Eberron as they seemed a very natural fit. We're currently running in a homebrew setting that has guns with PFRPG.
It all depends on what you want your setting to be like, which is why I also have no problem additional classes to. If it doesn't fit, I won't use it but if I have a niche I want in my setting, it's nice to have rules for them.
+1 Orannis. That is all.
|
With all of the griping that's been happening on these boards lately (and some of it being unsettlingly vitriolic) I'm starting to wonder if I'm the ONLY person on here who is generally happy with what Paizo does and has faith in the direction it's taking. Also, it occaisnially feels like I'm one of the very few who has no problem taking what I like from their supplemental books and happily ignoring the rest without getting my pants in a bunch because they *dare* include something optional that I don't want in *my* game and don't have the stones to to tell my players "no" to some things and don't have players mature and reasonable enough to accept that not every game includes everything plus the kitchen sink.Happy people generally don't post. They're too busy planning the next game.
+1. Next game in Savage Worlds Sundered Skies! :-)