Personally, I would say that if you have something new to bring to the table, then it can be a new class. If it is a variation on an existing class, use an archetype. There are plenty of things that have not yet been done and can fit into those niches.
|
I think that some of the most popular archetypes could get some more love and become full base classes. Perhaps there is some room for several new base classes, along the lines of warlock, shaman and binder - but I doubt that we'll see them.
At some future time, if Paizo does "mind magic", we will see several classes designed for this new magic system - but before that, I seriously doubt it.
|
I want ONE more class, and one only: a tech-based, steampunk, mad-scientist type of character.
Not NOT NOT magic with different fluff.
All abilities should be (Ex)...ie not affected by dead magic zones, dispel attempts, etc.
For god's sakes, not everything that's cool and flashy HAS to be g+@*!&n magic.
We could use the Summoner Eidolon rules as a base for a robot companion. Maybe have Craft: Clockwork/Steamwork Devices as a class skill.
I have to disagree. Everything cool SHOULD be magic. Was it Asimov who said, "Technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."? Magic IS the technology of Golarion. YMMV, but I'm personally appalled by the logic of having tech in a magic using society. Why would you need to invent the steam engine when you can cast a spell and travel 600 mph with no (non-renewable) resources expended?
I could support a tech-heavy class in perhaps some supplemental work that used Pathfinder core rules, but blech to the idea of mixing the futuristic sci-fi with the high fantasy.
|
I want ONE more class, and one only: a tech-based, steampunk, mad-scientist type of character.
Not NOT NOT magic with different fluff.
All abilities should be (Ex)...ie not affected by dead magic zones, dispel attempts, etc.
For god's sakes, not everything that's cool and flashy HAS to be g+@*!&n magic.
We could use the Summoner Eidolon rules as a base for a robot companion. Maybe have Craft: Clockwork/Steamwork Devices as a class skill.
I have to disagree. Everything cool SHOULD be magic. Was it Asimov who said, "Technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."? Magic IS the technology of Golarion. YMMV, but I'm personally appalled by the logic of having tech in a magic using society. Why would you need to invent the steam engine when you can cast a spell and travel 600 mph with no (non-renewable) resources expended?
I could support a tech-heavy class in perhaps some supplemental work that used Pathfinder core rules, but blech to the idea of mixing the futuristic sci-fi with the high fantasy.
Forgetting about the magic dead kingdom in Golarion? From whence Gunslingers come? And technology?
I am still not seeing just why something like a "tinker" or "craft master" can't be an archetype. They would simply use an alt "casting" system.
An easy one would be take an Alchemist, replace his "extractions" with inventions or replace them with a "craft work servant" using the Edilon rules.
Actually, the gunslinger is what a lot of people claim to have been wanting from the fighter. Less feats, more class specific abilities. I can think of several posters who would be overjoyed to see a melee character using something similar to the grit mechanic in order to get cool things no other class can get.
See this is not a new class, it is a fighter archetype that has an alt system built in. What they should have done was made it an archetype that switched some BF's for deeds or take deeds or BF. We have seen a Monk archetype that has done this much.
The Grit mechanic could have easily been in the optional rules section to be blunt.
Was it Asimov who said, "Technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."?
It was Clarke, btw.
Personally, I would love a classless system using a point buy method to fully customize a character. A less-broken Skills and Powers set of rules.
I can dream....
Was it Asimov who said, "Technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."?It was Clarke, btw.
Personally, I would love a classless system using a point buy method to fully customize a character. A less-broken Skills and Powers set of rules.
I can dream....
Plenty of such systems out there
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Was it Asimov who said, "Technology, sufficiently advanced, is indistinguishable from magic."?It was Clarke, btw.
Personally, I would love a classless system using a point buy method to fully customize a character. A less-broken Skills and Powers set of rules.
I can dream....
Ah, thank you. My anti-sci fi bias shines again lol.
Actually, I've never quite understood the mixing and close association of fantasy and sci-fi. I've always detested "hard" sci-fi and loved fantasy. Go figure.
Stealth rules should be fixed and you should be able to sneak attack everything. Of course maybe the game would become cat and mouse.
I could do with more prestige classes that enable interesting multiclasses that don't otherwise work. And I don't mean like the sorry lump that is the Mystic Theurge.
Prestige classes are already dead. Just keep going with archetypes.
Prestige classes are already dead. Just keep going with archetypes.
I'm starting to dislike archetype bloat quite strongly.
|
I think we have 11 base classes in the Core Rule book and 6 Base Classes in the Advanced Players Handbook and One more Base class in the Ultimate Magic, and Finally one more Base Class in the Ultimate Combat. We also have 3 more Altertante classes, One in the APG, and the other two in the UC.
This would mean that there are 22 classes to choose from.
Do we need any more classes? Do we have too many? Do we have too few? What do you think?
Thanks
The answer is irrelevant. Paizo will make one if they think it's an appropriate part of a new book, and of course the homebrew and 3PP folks will keep churning them out no matter how many threads like this are created.
Well from my rough count
4 people thought that there were too many base classes
6 people thought that there were just the right amount of base classes
7 people thought there should be more base classes
8 people asked for a specific prestige or type of base class
Lazerx while the answers of course will be subjective, I don't think the answers are irrelevant. These boards are a place for people to express their opinions. The Paizo staff regularly looks at these boards to see what the community's mood is. They also used these boards as a means to play test new materiel they are thinking of introducing so we can help them knock some design kinks out of what they are making. One example I can think of is the Oracle. in one of the first versions released, the Cure spells were not part of what the Oracle automatically knew. Allot of people commented on this on the boards, and the final printed version of the Oracle knew cure spells automatically. So Lazerx I think these threads are worth while, because it gives people both a chance to ask questions, others to express their opinions, and the Paizo staff from time to time takes a look to see what their customers are talking about.
Well... whole 25 oppinions... not much to use as a guidance.
I Think we have a good number of base classes available an don't need more unless there is some theme that can't covered by some lesser variant, be it archetype, prestige class or a variant class.
I wouldn't mind more variant classes, like the Ninja, if they worked as fixes to classes that are somehow not working entirely as intended.
I personally like base classes, I like more choices. Give me more classes, and archetypes for my games it allows me more options and keeps all my players characters looking the same.
My two cents.
Base classes: there are enough (even more than enough, if I think of Gunslinger, Ninja and Samurai). If a good idea for something really unique comes, then a new base class will be welcome, but otherwise better make it an archetype. (Psionics? No, thanks, for me.)
Archetypes: there are almost enough. I can think of few concepts that can't yet be covered by an existing archetype, so the "compilation" of archetypes is nearly to its limit, as I see it.
Prestige classes: make new ones only if they have a reason to exist. Red Mantis Assassin and Hellknight are two awesome examples of what a prestige class should be, but most others are pointless and would have been far more suitable as archetypes.
In short, the "orchestra" of base classes, archetypes and prestige classes is almost complete for me. Players have options to do nearly every kind of character they can imagine (I'm thinking of some things in particular that aren't included in that "nearly", but this is not the place and time to speak of that). Unless good ideas sparkle up, it's time to concentrate on something else.
The Generic Classes from Unearthed Arcana. Then slap an archetype on it. Now that I think about it, I kinda want to play around with this, lol. Especially if you use Super Genius Games' The Genius Guide to Archetypes books.
My two cents.
Base classes: there are enough (even more than enough, if I think of Gunslinger, Ninja and Samurai). If a good idea for something really unique comes, then a new base class will be welcome, but otherwise better make it an archetype. (Psionics? No, thanks, for me.)
...
A slight correction - Ninja and Samurai are NOT base classes - they are variants, which means extensive archetypes, for Rogue and Cavalier respectively.
Gunslinger actually brings a new mechanic. Gaining resources from daring deeds and defeating enemies, which i cool on it's own, althoutgh I'd love to see his deeds to be more broad and not focused on firearms exclusively. This class could be a cool dashing hero even without smoking gun in his hands. I'm not sure if we had anything like that elsewhere...
|
I am still not seeing just why something like a "tinker" or "craft master" can't be an archetype. They would simply use an alt "casting" system.
An easy one would be take an Alchemist, replace his "extractions" with inventions or replace them with a "craft work servant" using the Edilon rules.
Because the Alchemist is an arcane caster with a some differences in fluff.
|
|
Archetypes were a relatively late addition to the game.
Cavalier, Barbarian, Samurai, Paladin, and Monk could have been done using fighter archetypes.
Inquisitor could have been a Ranger archetype.
Witch could have been a Wizard archetype.
Cleric could have just been a feat chain available to any class.
Ninja could have been a Rogue archetype.
Psion could be a Sorcerer archetype.
But, there's no way to build an Artificer or Shaman (although an Alchemist could have been an Artificer archetype).
So, yes, there are too many base classes and the wrong base classes exist.
I'd like if if they took this idea and ran with in in Pathfinder 2E. Maybe have as base classes:
Warrior
Rogue
Priest
Mage
Psion
Tech
All the different varieties of the current classes could then be archtypes of those base classes.
|
|
I want ONE more class, and one only: a tech-based, steampunk, mad-scientist type of character.
There's the one in KQ. Clockwork something... I cant remember if it was a 10 level prc or a base class though.
So, yes, there are too many base classes and the wrong base classes exist.
Hmm. I can maybe see that, but as you mentioned, Archetypes didnt come about until the APG.
Personally: I'd like to see them raise the power on the classes that suck: Rogue and Monk.
I'm still not satisfied with the firearm rules (too expensive and crappy), and I don't see myself ever allowing gunslinger (seems like a class designed to patch how bad firearms are). But hey, if other people like them, good for them.
I wish Archetypes were more mix and match. Smaller Archetypes, so it's easier to apply more than one.
Additionally, Have more archetypes that cut down on the need to multiclass.
Warrior
Rogue
Priest
Mage
Psion
TechAll the different varieties of the current classes could then be archtypes of those base classes.
I say drop priest, and make it an archetype.
Warrior
Rogue
Mage
Psion
Tech
And since I usually play games without psionics and 1600s tech, I just need Warrior, Rogue and Mage (though I recognize the need for a tech class in scifi or steampunk games, and some people like PCs with psionics).
IMHO clases like Psion and Warlock could be nice adds since their mechanics are different from the existing ones. Shaman could be an archetype of the Druid.
The Clockwork Adept PrC is in Kobold Quarterly 16.
IMHO clases like Psion and Warlock could be nice adds since their mechanics are different from the existing ones. Shaman could be an archetype of the Druid.There IS a shaman Archetype of Druid. PEople are saying theyre not satisfied with it, that it's not shamany enough.
I think we lack the definition of "Shamany enough" :)
...
Personally: I'd like to see them raise the power on the classes that suck: Rogue and Monk.
I think there were some attempts in Ninja and Quiggong (and martial styles)
I'm still not satisfied with the firearm rules (too expensive and crappy), and I don't see myself ever allowing gunslinger (seems like a class designed to patch how bad firearms are). But hey, if other people like them, good for them.
...
Well, firearms were just that and I think that current rules are menant to catch that flavour. A dangerous explosive thing, that allows even lowly mooks to touch the armoured elite (touch attacks in first increment, misfires on 1) and often misfires (18th century weapons often did have trouble in one shot out of twenty in the average). The guns in Golarion are a thing imported from exotic locales and made using uncommon materials and have as such their prices terribly inflated. I can imagine them being much cheaper in Alkenstar, but their price for the remainder of the world would be about as much as asking to buy a persian carpet in 16th century America. It's mostly a thing of practically useable luxury.
I've found some study concerning old firearms here. Page 108 contains some findings about misfires.
I think there are enough base/alternate classes (not archetypes). Maybe a couple too many (samurai, ninja, cavalier) even.
I don't get the priest/cleric hate. Clerics are a pretty decent class, although they need more offensive options, particularly at low to mid levels. 3d8 at 6th level JUST isn't keeping up.
I like the witch a lot. The summoner is alright I suppose, wizards and sorcs are fine (sorcs need to be able to use meta's better though imo -- they suffer enough from the drastically reduced spells known, they don't need the meta restriction also). Fighters need a couple more level-dependant abilities particularly against casters -- some things like the barb got in UC would be good, but everyone knows they're still leaps and bounds better than in 3.5. Barbs seem fine, and monks seem pretty decent to me. They need good ability scores yes...but I don't come from a school that says every character need start with an 18 or 20 in their Prime Requisites either.
Rogues...rogues need some help, and that help would come with facing imo. And maybe a couple more anti-caster abilities.
PrC's, I never want to see one again. They were great in theory...but horrible in implementation. Sometimes that happens, though.
Cavalier fanclub - sign up here!
Because the Alchemist is an arcane caster with a some differences in fluff.I am still not seeing just why something like a "tinker" or "craft master" can't be an archetype. They would simply use an alt "casting" system.
An easy one would be take an Alchemist, replace his "extractions" with inventions or replace them with a "craft work servant" using the Edilon rules.
And yet if you replace the spells per day with inventions known it works pretty well. To be honest "technology and inventions" could be a whole new alt system with archetypes for the tinker alchemist and the gearmaster summoner.