|
This isn’t a “power” question. This is a more a quality question, looking at the following factors. Obviously these will be subjective, but that is why is this a discussion and not a sermon.
1. Utility: How well does this class plug in with a group, regardless of the groups make up.
Exe: Bards and Druids are A+ utility classes
2. Playability: How playable is this class. Are there a ton of complex moving parts or could you just grab a character sheet and go.
Exe: Fighters and Barbarians are an A+ Playability classes
3. Variability: How much variation of build is available within the class.
Exe: Wizards and Clerics are an A+ Variability classes
4. Flavor: How does this class fit into overall themes in the setting.
Exe: Rogues and Rangers are an A+ Flavor classes.
Alchemist
1. Alchemists are very able to plug and play with most groups. Splash damage in some builds may be problematic, but they have a number of skills and a versatile spell list. A-
2. Alchemists have a lot of moving parts that may be difficult for an inexperienced player to play without causing problems, particularly with regards to bookkeeping of Bombs, splash damage, mutagens and spells. While not the worst, this is not the strongest suit of the class. C
3. Alchemists are fairly flexible, particularly with the available archtypes. B+
4. Alchemists can be built to fit in well with the general themes in the setting, but they also have a lot of features that seem a bit forced to fit. B-
Overall B
Cavalier
1. Cavaliers really only fill one role well. While they can be a boon to a group with some of the Banner abilities, they really aren’t a utility class C
2. Cavaliers are generally fairly easy to play. The mount can cause some issues, but if you are handed a Cavalier character sheet you can pick it up and go as easily as any class. A
3. Cavaliers aren’t that versatile, relative to other classes. C.
4. Cavaliers fit very well thematically with the setting. A/
Overall B-
Inquisitor
1. Inquititors give Bards a run for their money in terms of utility. They can do pretty much everything a party may need, and will always be useful no matter what they are facing A+
2. Despite the number of options available, the class is still fairly easy to play since the most used options apply in nearly every possible combat encounter you may face. B+
3. The inquisitor isn’t inflexible, but it isn’t as flexible as other classes. I would say fairly middle of the road in this regard, due in part to the limited weapon selection. B.
4. Inquisitors fit in pretty well with the setting, most of the time. A-
Overall A-
Magus
1. Magus are built for flexibility. They can fill multiple roles well. A half step below a true utility class, but only a half step. A
2. Some of the rules with spell combat are a bit confusing and can be challenging to keep track of. Lots of moving parts make it a bit complex, but not painfully so. C
3. The Magus is on the one have very flexible, but on the other hand it is more the nature of the class that is flexible than the variety of different Magus builds that are available. B.
4. Magus have no problems thematically I can think of. A
Overall B
Oracle
1. Oracles utility lies more in the value of what it can do for the group than in the variety of things it can do. However all of those divine spells are very useful. A
2. Easier to plug and play than a cleric, as spontaneous casting is easier than picking spells. But caster classes always require a bit of experience to play well. B
3. The Oracle is very flexible, although I wish there were more options for curses. B.
4. Oracles fit very well thematically. A
Overall A-
Summoner
1. Summoners have some utility in the right set up, but they are far from a utility class. B -
2. I almost want to break this into two parts. Picking up a summoner sheet and playing wouldn’t be hard at all, but building out the summoner front scratch is clearly causing a lot of issues. C
3. The summoner is by definition an incredibly flexible class. A+
4. Summoners can fit well thematically, but they can also be a train wreck when the PC is trying to force a large eideolon through doors. C
Overall B-
Witch
1. Witches aren’t a utility class, but they are a class that can generally plug in well, if not into several roles. B
2. Full casters are always challenging to play, but this isn’t any more difficult than any other full caster. B
3. The witch has good variety and flexibilty. A
4. I am a bit on the fence. While I do think it fits in thematically very well, some of the ways it fits (feed spells to your familiar?) seem forced. B-
Overall B
Again, one persons opinion, posted to see others opinions.
I'm only going to address flavor, because that is most important to me. This is how I see them:
Easy fits: Cavalier, Magus
Not to hard to fit: Oracle, Witch, Inquisitor
Kind of weird: Summoner, Alchemist
To me the cavalier and magus are just new expressions of classic fantasy icons that have always been in the game. They fit in seamlessly.
The oracle and the witch fit pretty well, and provide some interesting new options to play different flavored spellcasters. Just not sure more spellcasting options all that necessary or that you couldn't create simialr types of characters within the traditional classes, but that's just me. The inquisitor is a bit different, and seems better fitted to campaigns that have grittier themes than mine, but also doesn't seem like a huge departure.
The summoner and the alchemist are very different, and frankly, a bit weird. They have very different abilities than other classes, and the sudden inclusion of them in an already existing campaign world is a bit jarring, in my opinion. They just don't seem to fit as neatly into my concept of a classic fantasy world.
All opinions are mine.
To me the cavalier and magus are just new expressions of classic fantasy icons that have always been in the game. They fit in seamlessly.
Agreed. Cavaliers are the typical knights. Knights in shiny armour, black knights. Haughty knights. All kinds of heroes and villains (and everything in between) can be created as cavaliers.
Magi are simply a new - and long overdue - way to create a fighting wizard. They have appeared throughout fantasy. Elric is but one of many.
The oracle and the witch fit pretty well, and provide some interesting new options to play different flavored spellcasters. Just not sure more spellcasting options all that necessary or that you couldn't create simialr types of characters within the traditional classes, but that's just me.
More agreement, sort of:
Oracles and witches both interesting. And I think they both have their place, as well: Oracles are more than just seers - they are the divine odd men out. They are chosen whether they want or not. Their dedication has nothing to do with their power. And their power comes from the concept they are chosen by (and speakers of.)
I like how witches are now their own thing, not just wizards or sorcerers. Their curses and curative abilities fit the wide selection of witch characters in history. Granny Watherwax, for one, surely approves of the fact that she is no longer lumped in with those pompous pointy-hats or the cute nepotist sorcerers. (Nepotist because they get their job because of their family ties, not their intelligence).
The inquisitor is a bit different, and seems better fitted to campaigns that have grittier themes than mine, but also doesn't seem like a huge departure.
Clerics are the divine champions, while Inquisitors are divine agents. The gods, it is said, work in mysterious ways. So should some of their followers. Plus, the gods should have priests using their brains more than their brawn.
The summoner and the alchemist are very different, and frankly, a bit weird. They have very different abilities than other classes, and the sudden inclusion of them in an already existing campaign world is a bit jarring, in my opinion. They just don't seem to fit as neatly into my concept of a classic fantasy world.
Well, not all the material will fit into everyone's concepts, unless you're open for almost everything.
Alchemists can be followers of those old ways like we had them in our world - but this time around, their ideas actually work. Alchemy really can turn lead into gold, or give you back your youth. Playing a Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde-like character is just one way you can envision the class.
I find the idea of a juicer (someone who gets all his power from potions) quite interesting.
Summoners might not be that classical, but anachronisms aren't that bad. The idea does sound a lot like Pokemon, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing - give the concept a Gritty Reboot and it can be quite interesting.
The best way to go about integrating classes like these is, I think, to ret-con them into the setting - but they'll usually play minor roles. There have always been around, but they're not well-known, since their crafts are rather uncommon, and most of the time, the uninitiated will mistake them for something else. Alchemists are probably seen as wizards or adepts or something who really like potions, and summoners and conjurers aren't that different to the layperson. It's not that different for things like wizard/sorcerer, really. Ask a peasant who was witness to a magical incident whether the spellcaster involved in it was a sorcerer or a wizard and he'll probably tell you that he didn't know the two were different things.
I noted that you didn't mention gunslingers. That's one concept that will be harder to fit in than anything else.
Dark Tower fans will disagree, of course! They are probably picturing a Ka-tet of gunslingers wandering through the ancient ruins of Augustana in the year 30472 AR, encountering Muties and sentient monorail trains in suicidal moods.
Alchemist - all around good, playability could have been better
Cavalier - Mounts are a bit of a stick in the mud and not really a natural fit for an adventuring party, the class itself bores me a bit
Inquisitor - I dislike the flavor of a few of it's abilities, bane of any kind at will destroys the flavor of bane weapon, it should be limited, also I dislike some of the spell choices as being too wizardly for an inquisitor
Oracle - Oracle pretty good, could have been a bit more consistent with the sorceror with bonus spells, though maybe the sorceror is at fault there, the curse feels a little forced in some cases
Summoner - clunky mechanics and flavor is too general and invites powergaming/optimizing to a larger than average extent. I'd have liked more restrictions in the builds for the eidolon, spell list seems a bit off, it has potential for a creative gamer.. flavorwise, eidolon tends to be a bit overpowering in not so much optimized parties
Witch - I love it for the most part, not really fond of familiars, but I like how the witch gives flavor back to arcane casters, I'd ban wizards and keep the witch any day
Magus - Solid class, fairly basic fits right in with the core classes, flavor is what you make of it, archetypes do help in this regard
* I will probably end up banning the summoner, would like to adjust the inquisitor and find the cavalier a bit boring. Magus, Witch, Alchemist and oracle are very welcome at my table.
Magus = Enough with the F/MUs, already.
The only reason we had so many of those was that none of them really worked. The magus changes that. I don't need we need more gish classes now.
Gunslingers, Ninjas, Samurai, etc. = Wait, I'm still looking at the first six! And aren't fighters, rogues and fighters, etc. close enough for gov't work?
Ninja and samurai are variant rogues and cavaliers, respectively. They are even presented as such. They were just too different from the normal versions of the classes to be archetypes.
The gunslinger is very different from the fighter.
|
|
Inquisitor - I dislike the flavor of a few of it's abilities, bane of any kind at will destroys the flavor of bane weapon, it should be limited, also I dislike some of the spell choices as being too wizardly for an inquisitor.
I thought a lot of the same thing until I saw them played. They play a lot better than they read. The rounds per day on Bane is a serious limit on it's power, same with the judgments per day. It makes it effective in combat for a 3/4 class, but not overpowered.
I feel like they hit just the right balance with the spell/fighter mix. I kind of view it like the divine magus.
|
|
Summoners might not be that classical, but anachronisms aren't that bad. The idea does sound a lot like Pokemon, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing - give the concept a Gritty Reboot and it can be quite interesting.like this?
Well played sir, well played.
Summoners might not be that classical, but anachronisms aren't that bad. The idea does sound a lot like Pokemon, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing - give the concept a Gritty Reboot and it can be quite interesting.like this?
Yes, but without the (still present) cute.
Ninja and samurai are variant rogues and cavaliers, respectively. They are even presented as such. They were just too different from the normal versions of the classes to be archetypes.
The gunslinger is very different from the fighter.
The folks at Paizo could write an "Angry Stabbing Dude" class that is different from the Barbarian class. That doesn't mean that they should make the Angry Stabbing Dude class, though.
The folks at Paizo could write an "Angry Stabbing Dude" class that is different from the Barbarian class. That doesn't mean that they should make the Angry Stabbing Dude class, though.Ninja and samurai are variant rogues and cavaliers, respectively. They are even presented as such. They were just too different from the normal versions of the classes to be archetypes.
The gunslinger is very different from the fighter.
We're lucky that they didn't make an angry stabbing dude class, then. They made the gunslinger, and I think the abilities are very appropriate and catch the theme quite well.
Summoners might not be that classical, but anachronisms aren't that bad. The idea does sound a lot like Pokemon, but that doesn't have to be a bad thing - give the concept a Gritty Reboot and it can be quite interesting.like this?
I saw picachu with a machine gun. That made my day.
Haven't played or had players play many of these classes, so I can't really grade most of them, but here's my thoughts.
Alchemist: It's the only one of these classes I've actually played and I love it. It may be my new favorite class. The fluff is good, and the crunch is solid.
Cavalier: Overall, it looks like a decent interpretation of a non-holy knight. The mount thing irks me as well, but that's a style thing. Mounts just aren't important in my games, but I'm sure that there's plenty of games out there where they are.
Inquisitor: Love the flavor, and the mechanics look pretty good. Unfortunately, I don't think I'll have a player who wants to play one any time soon.
Oracle: Really like the class overall, but it needs more curses. I was hoping that there'd be more in Ultimate Magic, but no such luck.
Summoner: It's interesting. The eidolon might be a bit overpowered, but I don't think it's game-breaking. I'll be getting to see this in play soon because my wife will be playing one when we start our new campaign.
Witch: It's kinda meh to me. Seems more like a variant wizard than a true base class. I don't hate it, but it's just kinda bland to me. But my wife likes it and I have a player in our upcoming campaign playing one as well.
Magus: I think this is great. A spellslinging fighter done right. As with the past 2 classes, getting to see this one in action soon (should be interesting...I've never had so many arcane casters in a party before).
The Ultimate Combat classes I am judging on fluff alone.
Gunslinger: I find it interesting, but I will be banning them from my games. Guns in my campaigns are either non-existent, or rare enough that there should not be an entire class based around them.
Ninja and Samurai: It was inevitable, the Asian classes would come. Don't care for them myself, but I won't ban them. The characters had just better damn well come from the relevant area.
|
I have not played the character yet, but I have a magus ready to go. I had built a barbarian specifically to multi-class into sorcerer but only because what I really wanted was a magus. Now I don't know what is to become of that character. Maybe barbarian (4) -> sorcerer (1) -> dragon disciple?
I heard someone say, "The summoner is a one-trick pony. It's a good trick, though." I saw a synthesist summer in a PFS game who pretty much outclassed everybody. He ("they") could deliver and withstand damage better than the fighter and use magic almost as well as the wizard. I think he could have shredded the module single-handed.
Flavor-wise, I really like the witch. It feels right to me to have such a class. I even like the way a witch teaches spells to his/her familiar.
I dislike the idea of firearms in Pathfinder; I am offended by the very existence of the gunslinger. But I don't much care for Dostoevsky either. It's just my personal prejudice.
I played alongside an alchemist a few weeks ago. I love mayhem! Bombs flying everywhere! Fire! Explosions! Yay! That was a great time.
I'm surprised the Summoner got a B-. To me, he deserves a lower grade for the following reasons :
A. Agreed with what the OP said.
B. Creating a summoner without making any mistakes is such a pain in the ass that getting to the "picking up the sheet and playing" part is nearly impossible without the help of an entire forum community.
C. Yes, I have to agree, it's very flexible.
D. The very idea that a wizard decides to play Spore in a fantasy world confuses me. The guy just creates a creature that looks like anything he wants and every once in a while, the creature grows a leg or an arm because its master said so. How does that even fit in the classic idea of magic that most GMs work with? And how are the town guards going to react when a twin-headed fire-breathing chocobo accompanies the party to the city gates? Still, I can work with that. However, the mere idea of having to implement summoner NPCs in a campaign gives me headaches and for this sole reason, I ban summoners from my campaign worlds. Creating high-level NPCs can take an hour or two and I have no intention of taking twice the required amount of time to create an eidolon that my players will destroy anyway. I think summoners fit some campaign worlds' flavors, but placing them in a homemade campaign is just frustrating.
D. The very idea that a wizard decides to play Spore in a fantasy world confuses me. The guy just creates a creature that looks like anything he wants and every once in a while, the creature grows a leg or an arm because its master said so. How does that even fit in the classic idea of magic that most GMs work with? And how are the town guards going to react when a twin-headed fire-breathing chocobo accompanies the party to the city gates? Still, I can work with that. However, the mere idea of having to implement summoner NPCs in a campaign gives me headaches and for this sole reason, I ban summoners from my campaign worlds. Creating high-level NPCs can take an hour or two and I have no intention of taking twice the required amount of time to create an eidolon that my players will destroy anyway. I think summoners fit some campaign worlds' flavors, but placing them in a homemade campaign is just frustrating.
It can be made to fit settings if the summoner's player is willing to work with the GM to make something appropriate. For example, I might at some point make a multi-armed synthesist multiweapon fighter styled afer Kali, in an Indian-themed setting.
Ninja and Samurai: It was inevitable, the Asian classes would come.
"East Asian", please; neither of those alternate classes has anything to do with Southeast Asia, South Asia, Central Asia, or Southwest Asia.
And no, it wasn't inevitable. It was a choice, and a fundamentally ridiculous one. This is how "samurai" (and cavalier, witch, and ninja) should have been handled.
Ninjaville and Samurai City respectively.
Ninja and Samurai: It was inevitable, the Asian classes would come. Don't care for them myself, but I won't ban them. The characters had just better damn well come from the relevant area.
if you don't like the fluff, you can easily reskin the class to a way you prefer.
most of the stuff i could think of for a ninja is quite silly, but that samurai could easily be fluffed as a night with little overall change.
Inquisitor is cool because with sin eater archetype, you heal after every combat (assuming you defeat at least one per each battle).
Closest game has to all day healing.
Ninjaville and Samurai City respectively.
Ninja and Samurai: It was inevitable, the Asian classes would come. Don't care for them myself, but I won't ban them. The characters had just better damn well come from the relevant area.if you don't like the fluff, you can easily reskin the class to a way you prefer.
most of the stuff i could think of for a ninja is quite silly, but that samurai could easily be fluffed as a night with little overall change.
I don't mind the fluff that much, as long as there's a good backstory to go with it. It just irks me when I get something like this:
Player: I wanna be a ninja.
Me: Ok, what's his backstory.
Player: He's from (insert generic city name here). He was an orphan, and grew up on the streets. He taught himself to be a ninja.
Me: *facepalm*
OR
Me: Ok, what's his backstory.
Player: He's a mysterious ninja. It's a mystery.
Me: *aneurysm*
why does the ninja have to be an east asian themed character? All it is is a slight mechanical adjustment to a more combat related Rogue. I know it has ki, but it's not like he's casting spells, so from an observer there isn't really anything more than just another extraordinary ability.
For someone looking at the Ninja he will likely see just another rogue, so all the back stories that are appropriate for a rogue are also appropriate for a ninja.
|
|
All of a sudden I'm getting a mental picture of Dostoevsky with a pair of Colt six-shooters. It's High Noon in Mother Russia. Of course instead of sand dunes you've got high snow drifts and you're hearing the rattling of teeth but that's me.ar.
I dislike the idea of firearms in Pathfinder; I am offended by the very existence of the gunslinger. But I don't much care for Dostoevsky either. It's just my personal prejudice.
Thanks for the chuckle. What is the 18th century equivalent of a Kalishnikov?
A ninja has every reason to head to a western area where they are the only ninja
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/ConservationOfNinjutsu
There doesn't HAVE to be only one... but it helps.
|
I'm surprised the Summoner got a B-. To me, he deserves a lower grade for the following reasons :
D. The very idea that a wizard decides to play Spore in a fantasy world confuses me. The guy just creates a creature that looks like anything he wants and every once in a while, the creature grows a leg or an arm because its master said so. How does that even fit in the classic idea of magic that most GMs work with? And how are the town guards going to react when a twin-headed fire-breathing chocobo accompanies the party to the city gates? Still, I can work with that. However, the mere idea of having to implement summoner NPCs in a campaign gives me headaches and for this sole reason, I ban summoners from my campaign worlds. Creating high-level NPCs can take an hour or two and I have no intention of taking twice the required amount of time to create an eidolon that my players will destroy anyway. I think summoners fit some campaign worlds' flavors, but placing them in a homemade campaign is just frustrating.
I would go the other way and give it a B+/A- mostly because of D.
I'm playing a summoner in my home game and PFS and I've seen no problems coming up with players coming up with different concepts. There is a Synthecist who that worked in the family shop (which buys and sells items adventurers want) and tripped over and broke the wrong pot and is now 'possessed' by his eidolon, my lonely half elven farm girl (and has the right combination of alt racial abilities/traits/ to make her a second line fighter/archer) who wanted a friend and adopted one of the 'chickens' (her 'feathered dinosaur' eidolon manifested in the chicken koop) to another player's 'mother' who has an 'daughter' who can rip your face off.The "very idea that a wizard decides to play Spore in a fantasy world confuses me" seems to be the problem. A wizard playing spore is one concept, but it is only one. Summoner is perhaps the most flexible concept wise of all the new base classes. Alchemist mechanically is either the mad bomber or Jekyll/Hyde. Caviler and Witch are what they are and it's hard to make them different. Summoner can be whatever you want, as can your eidolon and that's what makes the class a thing of beauty, though not one I'd recommend for beginning players.
|
|
There isn't any. the Gatling Gun itself doesn't exist before the 19th century.Thanks for the chuckle. What is the 18th century equivalent of a Kalishnikov?All of a sudden I'm getting a mental picture of Dostoevsky with a pair of Colt six-shooters. It's High Noon in Mother Russia. Of course instead of sand dunes you've got high snow drifts and you're hearing the rattling of teeth but that's me.ar.
I dislike the idea of firearms in Pathfinder; I am offended by the very existence of the gunslinger. But I don't much care for Dostoevsky either. It's just my personal prejudice.
You know that, LazarX, and I know that. It was meant as a joke, nothing more.
I have to wonder how we could use the mechanics of a ninja or a samurai without actually becoming thralls to the flavor. For starters, I could certainly see the Red Mantises counting a number of "ninja" in their ranks.
I have to wonder how we could use the mechanics of a ninja or a samurai without actually becoming thralls to the flavor. For starters, I could certainly see the Red Mantises counting a number of "ninja" in their ranks.
For the ninja think Batman or a dashing highwayman that vanishes in a puff of smoke. Sure, its completely impossible to be that good.. but they are anyway.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I have to wonder how we could use the mechanics of a ninja or a samurai without actually becoming thralls to the flavor. For starters, I could certainly see the Red Mantises counting a number of "ninja" in their ranks.
Very easily. GM says "your character concept is created by you, not the fluff in the class description"
Done.
There isn't any. the Gatling Gun itself doesn't exist before the 19th century.Thanks for the chuckle. What is the 18th century equivalent of a Kalishnikov?All of a sudden I'm getting a mental picture of Dostoevsky with a pair of Colt six-shooters. It's High Noon in Mother Russia. Of course instead of sand dunes you've got high snow drifts and you're hearing the rattling of teeth but that's me.ar.
I dislike the idea of firearms in Pathfinder; I am offended by the very existence of the gunslinger. But I don't much care for Dostoevsky either. It's just my personal prejudice.
Actually I would say the Brown Bess musket would be the analog of the AK-47. Reliable, easy to use, common as heck, and reasonably fast firing for the period.
I have to wonder how we could use the mechanics of a ninja or a samurai without actually becoming thralls to the flavor. For starters, I could certainly see the Red Mantises counting a number of "ninja" in their ranks.Very easily. GM says "your character concept is created by you, not the fluff in the class description"
Done.
Now that I think if it, it's even easier.
Your fix is as follows:
As a GM, do NOT say the following, "I'm bringing in a house rule that forces your character concept to match the fluff in the class description"
Since there is nothing in the rules to suggest that fluff is binding (thank goodness!), unless you house rule it, you can use the mechanics of the Ninja without becoming a thrall to the flavor.
In the game your characters aren't actually required to have their class name tattooed across their forehead. Their class represents the mechanics behind the abilities they have, and some fluff to help you flesh out your character, should you choose.
For example, you could make a Ranger, that happens to have the skills to fill the roguish niche in the party, and he could call himself a rogue, and think of himself as a rogue, and for all intensive purposes, he is a rogue, except he's using the mechanics of a different class to fill the role.
If we aren't metagaming, and your character refers to himself in character as a rogue, then that should mean that he is mischievous, not that he has a specific set of skills including finding and detecting traps and sneak attacking.
Also, if we aren't metagaming, if your character refers to himself as an adventurer that finds and detect traps, works well in team combat, and is sneaky, the response from other characters should not be, "So are you a Ranger or a Rogue?"
Oh, I'm not griping about the eastern flavor, by any means. I'm just looking for ways they can be tweaked from a flavor-perspective to be more versatile within the world of Golarion. You have to admit, a fighter has a lot less built-in flavor than a samurai. My question is basically "If we strip them down, make them totally vanilla, what can we then add to make them nifty?"
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Clerics are the divine champions, while Inquisitors are divine agents.
This quote got me thinking:
Paladins: Divine champions ("Go and do the right thing")Clerics: Divine servants ("Go and do my will")
Inquisitors: Divine agents ("Go and do this specific task")
Oracles: Divine playthings ("Go and dance, monkey, dance!")
.
.
.
Sometimes my mind goes off in weird directions. If you see it wandering around, please point it towards home? Thanks.