That's just a Warrior archetype that trades combat for skills.There should only be two classes. The Warrior and the Mage.Why no Expert?See I am not sure about this, but in all truth in comes down to frames.
We have No caster
We have Half caster
We have full casterThat to me is the biggest divide. So we end up with
d10, Full Bab, No spells
d8,Med BAB, Half caster
d6,Poor BAB, Full CasterDo we really need a class that can not fight as well as warriors. Who can not cast spells, but still bring something to the table that can not be done by rolling it into one of the three listed above?
I mean what could say a rogue or a monk do that could not be done on a fighter frame?
Something I've been wondering:
If you had full casting and full BAB, would you really waste your time with mundane attacks? Maybe once you ran out of spells. The casters would still cast as their optimal action, and even when they run out of spells their mundane attacks will be inferior due to lack of physical stat bonuses. Anyone trying to fill the "striker" role needs full BAB anyway (sadly rogues are the only ones who can't have it, even situationally). So what I wonder is, what is the point of different BAB progressions?
|
Depends on what your spell list looked like. If all you had was utility stuff like knock and fly, without offensive spells you'd have to use mundane attacks to win. Look at the Duskblade. It may not be perfect, but it's a good example of full BAB and spells to augment, not replace, attacks. Or the Ranger, if the Duskblade is too much for you.
...My point is:
1. Crappy attack rate means the overall damage is too weak, even if the damage for a single hit is nice, and the AC is lower.
2. The gold price for the guns and ammo are ridiculous for the effectiveness (or lack thereof) that they provide. With the fire rate they have, they need to be priced as disposables, because you're going to need to use them like disposables to get reasonable damage. You need a bunch of the things, and if you don't want to burn out after a round or two, you need to have a crack team of hirelings to stay back with prepared actions to keep reloading your guns and tossing them back to you. The idea is a tad ridiculous, but unless the damage on the weapon is spectacular, you need to have lots of them (and a way to avoid reloading them yourself)to keep up. (in the end you need 4 hirelings with rapid reload).
Additionally, with the default ammo cost, it can cost more to fire the gun than youre going to find as treasure.
3. The feat cost is too high for such weak weapons.The "Guns Everywhere" option cuts down on the outrageous gold cost, but IIRC it still takes too many feats to make it worth the effort, and it's still a fairly expensive semi-consumeable.
Many of the pitfalls of the gun rules are dealt with as class features in the gunsligner, from the...
Well, for a ship of caribbean-style pirates you only need one or two guys who can craft the ammo and repair weapons (Gunsmith feat). A valuable professional, may even be an alchemist or wizard with required feat and train your crew just to be able to shoot (proficiency). Gunslinger is a firearm expert user AND serviceman in one package, but I can imagine all manner of nongunslinger people that use firearms as a team. A ship crew would be a nice example. For level 5 crew an investment of one feat per piate to spread the proficiency might me viable and maintenance with your own gunsmith can be brought to reasonable cost levels (especially since you have a lot of time to rearm between battles - pirates rarely want to go from one boarding to another).
Another thing is that reloading wasn't done too much in regular pistol fights back in the times when reloading lasted that long. The guns were valuable, but pistoleers still carried 3+ guns on them to whip up and fire as needed. reloading was done after the fight mostly unless there were groups of people that could support themselves (multiple rows of soldiers firing in salvos on rotating pattern) OR had people to reload for the others. And the guns still weren't better than bows, just easier to use without years of training which is the only point wrong with PFRPG guns IMO. Firearms should be simple weapons, but reloading, clearing and other such things should require a feat, or induce a high chance of failure and another feat chained to it that would actually be the Gunsmith feat (creation of guns and ammo).
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
People looking for new classes?
A rules-lite Warlock-esque class?
A tech-based engineer who utilizes super-science?
And a Gunslinger with firearms that actually work?
SHIPPOW!!!
and
THOK!!!
respectively.
Paizo People, you have just been served justice. Sweet orangey justice spread across the bare toast of your prayers.
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
Paladin's are about good and justice.....yet we see an "alt class that is not.Paladins are all about being divine warriors. By the way, the anti-paladin is a class, not an archetype.
Clearly, not all magical tech is alchemy. Therefore, Alchemist is not the base class.
That's distinction without difference. The alchemist's base concept is used of a class that 'does tech' and the precise 'tech' is what is changed. A 'tech' class would be an archetype of alchemist in the same way that the ninja is an archetype of rogue.
One thing that bothers me about archetype design is that many archetypes pick up abilities that I think should be universally available and not limited to one very narrow choice.
I agree. Many class abilities would be better represented as feats, perhaps.
I mean what could say a rogue or a monk do that could not be done on a fighter frame?
It isn't just what you do, it's the way that you do it. A monk is very different to the fighter, and so is a rogue, and both bring those differences with them because unlike the fighter, they do more than fight.
Arcchetypes are specialized variants of the base class. So, if alchemist is to be the base class and tinker is to be the archetype, then show me how tinker is a specialized variant of alchemist
No, archetypes are variations on base classes. Variation includes specialisation, but is not limited to that - a ninja is not more specialised than a rogue, he's just different.
Arcchetypes are specialized variants of the base class. So, if alchemist is to be the base class and tinker is to be the archetype, then show me how tinker is a specialized variant of alchemistNo, archetypes are variations on base classes. Variation includes specialisation, but is not limited to that - a ninja is not more specialised than a rogue, he's just different.Ninja is not a Rogue archetype. Its a class.
Rogue archetypes are things like Bandit, Burglar, and Cutpurse. All of these are specialized variants of the base class (exactly what I said archetypes are).
Ninja is a Rogue variant class, which is an extensive archetype (and perhaps an attempt to fix the rogue for combat). Just like the Antipaladin is a Paladin variant class.
Prestige classes are already dead. Just keep going with archetypes.I'm starting to dislike archetype bloat quite strongly.
Play vanilla then.
A variant class is not an archetype.
Ninja is a Rogue variant class
This is incorrect as has been started more then once by paizo dev's. They classify it as just a bigger archetype.
Although to be honest "bigger" is not true, it is based off the name more then the number or level of the changes. The last two we have are small changes , not as large or far reaching as some of the archetypes.
So, yes they are archetypes. You can in fact use more archetypes from the main class with them as long as they do not swap out things that have already been swapped out. ( Sorry anti-paladin is screwed here)
People looking for new classes?
A rules-lite Warlock-esque class?
First you made it weaker by treating it as blocked by Shield.
You also don't describe the duration of many powers (at least 24 hours should be written) for stuff like Deflection Shield.Otherwise, it isn't bad but the weakening of Eldritch blast (renamed Arcane bolt whatever) is worrying.
I'd have to see it in a game to fully tell.
A tech-based engineer who utilizes super-science?
Seem to be a Archetyped Magus:
Artificer pool? Thematic fine at least.Omni tool (sounds like Dr. Who item, like a Sonic Screwdriver)
Otherwise seem fine. I'd have to see it in a game to fully tell.
And a Gunslinger with firearms that actually work?
Grit 1/2 class + Wis: so you added more Grit. A nice change.
And the ability to focus for 1 Grit is nice.Gun training at 1st lv but only 1/2 Dex? The reduction to misfire coming earlier is nice though.
Combat Styles like Ranger?
But you don't give a firearm for free so hard to buyable (remember ammo and firearms cost money).
Dragoon is a nice archetype.
Legend is interesting, free mstk gun.
Really, the ability for anyone to undamage a misfired gun is nice change.
Not big on exploding dice idea.
People looking for new classes?
A rules-lite Warlock-esque class?
First you made it weaker by treating it as blocked by Shield.
You also don't describe the duration of many powers (at least 24 hours should be written) for stuff like Deflection Shield.
Otherwise, it isn't bad but the weakening of Eldritch blast (renamed Arcane bolt whatever) is worrying.I'd have to see it in a game to fully tell.
Didn't quote the rest because this is the only part wherein I felt I had to explain anything.
1) I threw in the "blocked by shield" bit because it is force damage, an energy type that no creature, thus far, has resistance to. It also deals full damage to incorporeal creatures.
2) The powers that don't state a duration are, on the whole, constant, I believe. You gave the example of deflection shield, which is just a permanent deflection bonus to your AC, not something you turn on and off or activate.
3) Weakening the blast was necessary in my playtests thus far (seriously). Force damage is really strong on its own (no resistances and it totally f!@#s up incorporeal creatures), and adding charisma to damage makes it really good.
On top of that, it's an all-day ability. It's not limited-use like alchemist bombs or situational like sneak attack. The avatar can keep hurling bolts 'til he's blue in the face.
The big problem during playtesting (and thus the reason damage dropped from 1d6/odd level to monk unarmed damage) actually came up when my player decided to make a strength-and-charisma-based avatar with a two-handed sword and the Eldritch Strike mystic art. At level 5, he was doling out ridiculous amounts of damage per round with a single attack.
Hope that clears things up. If not, please, I always accept constructive criticism.
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
EDIT: I did have one thing to say regarding the Gunslinger. It's intended to be used with my firearm rules, thus no free gun at first level (except with the Legend archetype).
Archetypes are specialized variants. To call variant classes "bigger archetypes" would just mean that variant classes are just variant. It doesn't really mean anything - especially when you realize that fighters are just variant wizards (for a sufficiently generous definition of 'variant').This is incorrect as has been started more then once by paizo dev's. They classify it as just a bigger archetype.
They are indeed just a variant, the designers said so. So far all that makes an alt class not an archetype seem to be the name used. Of the three we have two are in fact smaller then archetypes and have nothing to make them different or more distinct then the name "alt class"
At this point I could not tell you why they are called anything other then archetypes and the people in charge have said alt classes are archetypes.
If you had full casting and full BAB, would you really waste your time with mundane attacks? Maybe once you ran out of spells. The casters would still cast as their optimal action, and even when they run out of spells their mundane attacks will be inferior due to lack of physical stat bonuses. Anyone trying to fill the "striker" role needs full BAB anyway (sadly rogues are the only ones who can't have it, even situationally). So what I wonder is, what is the point of different BAB progressions?
Depends on what your spell list looked like. If all you had was utility stuff like knock and fly, without offensive spells you'd have to use mundane attacks to win. Look at the Duskblade. It may not be perfect, but it's a good example of full BAB and spells to augment, not replace, attacks. Or the Ranger, if the Duskblade is too much for you.
So full BAB and crappy spells is kosher. Of course the Ranger focuses on physical stats and only a smidge of widsom.
Would a wizard or sorcerer be kosher with full BAB? Provided they have to invest the same amount of focus into casting stats as they do now (meaning they have little if anything left over for physical stats)?
As an example, consider the WoW Druid. With one spec and gear set, you can be a pure caster; with another, a pure striker. Is that level of versatility within one class kosher in the D&D genre?
I know the designers would call that heresy, but what really is the problem?
|
LilithsThrall,
Thank you for taking the time to answer my question….so when you say Shaman, you are referring to something like the Binder class in the 3.5 Tome of magic book.
When I hear the word shaman, I think of someone who tends to the spiritual needs of a tribal people who survive by hunting and gathering.
Hudax, thank you for taking the time to answer my question about shamans. While I am aware that the powers and abilities and mechanics of a Wow Druid, and a Wow Shaman are quite different, thematically “Fluff wise” they seem like pretty much the same thing.
Perhaps I have missed something.
Seeker For Shadow Light,
I also like this division, as we have talked about on other threads.
D10 Full Bab Paladin spell progression
D8 Med Bab bard spell progression
D6 Poor BaB Full caster
Oops….you aren’t talking about casters.
Hmm it seems like this thread continues….I wonder where it is leading?
I am not in favor of just adding more classes in general. HOWEVER, there are a few specific holes that I want to see filled, either by archetypes or new base classes:
1 - Spontaneous casting off of the Druid spell list.
2 - Grit mechanics available for all weapons.
3 - A way to play a generic Ranger without focusing on specific enemies and terrains.
LilithsThrall,
Seeker For Shadow Light,
I also like this division, as we have talked about on other threads.
D10 Full Bab Paladin spell progression
D8 Med Bab bard spell progression
D6 Poor BaB Full casterOops….you aren’t talking about casters.
In all honestly I find it harder and harder to justify the 1/3rd caster. This to me seems to be more an archetype thing then something that should be built into a base class.
Well, if you build a class with a budget, you can give it 1/3 casting for X points, or X amount of Other Stuff. Paladins and Rangers are ok with 1/3 casting because theoretically they have less Other Stuff than Barbarians and Fighters.
What I find harder and harder to justify is adhering to the BAB/spell formula at all. It seems to me, casting is worth a considerable amount, while BAB is worth very little. In other words, increasing casting increases class power a lot, while increasing BAB increases class power only slightly. Unless I'm way off.
Didn't quote the rest because this is the only part wherein I felt I had to explain anything.1) I threw in the "blocked by shield" bit because it is force damage, an energy type that no creature, thus far, has resistance to. It also deals full damage to incorporeal creatures.
3) Weakening the blast was necessary in my playtests thus far (seriously). Force damage is really strong on its own (no resistances and it totally f!@#s up incorporeal creatures), and adding charisma to damage makes it really good.
On top of that, it's an all-day ability. It's not limited-use like alchemist bombs or situational like sneak attack. The avatar can keep hurling bolts 'til he's blue in the face.The big problem during playtesting (and thus the reason damage dropped from 1d6/odd level to monk unarmed damage) actually came up when my player decided to make a strength-and-charisma-based avatar with a two-handed sword and the Eldritch Strike mystic art. At level 5, he was doling out ridiculous amounts of damage per round with a single attack.
Hope that clears things up. If not, please, I always accept constructive criticism.
...Catch Phrase,...
Didn't notice adding Cha.
But remember, the Warlock wasn't too powerful and it was at will. It dealt 1/2 damage to objects though.Warlocks by lv 6 (when every melee warriors have 2 attacks from BAB) deal 3d6 (average damage 10.5, so 1/2 time 10 and 1/2 the time 11).
Yours deals 1d8+ Cha (assuming 16 since you dude had good str) = 7.5.
Hmm, wouldn't that be a better to change the Eldrith Strike mystic than just changing the blasts? just limit it to no Cha boost when using that.
Plus, it is one melee attack/rd. How bad can it be?
Now, let us assume great sword: (weapon proficiency by lv 3 or an 1/2 Elf) 2d6 + 3 Str + 3 Cha + 1d8= 17.5, max 26
Warlocks can do that too: Hideous Blow (standard action)
2d6 + 3d6 + Str (less say 16) = 20.5, Max 33
And still no one thought they were great.
Although, that could be because Hideouds Blow required a concentration check to avoid attack of opportunity.
A slight correction - Ninja and Samurai are NOT base classes - they are variants, which means extensive archetypes, for Rogue and Cavalier respectively.
A variant class is, in the end, a base class, whatever strictly-technical name one might want to give it.
And I don't see as a good thing that what could have perfectly been an archetype has been made in a base (or variant, if you prefer) class.The Antipaladin had a reason to be a variant rather than an archetype, since every single class feature had to be changed in some way, but Ninja and Samurai... really?
Gunslinger actually brings a new mechanic.
If that's all that's needed to build a new base class, then we could have billions, each with its own unique mechanics. But new classes are not a matter of creating new mechanics; they are a matter of covering a character concept. With new mechanics if the existing ones aren't enough, but the new mechanic mustn't be the base and excuse to make a new class.
A firearm-using archetype for Fighter would have done it good, and no one would have complained about things like that "firearm-users should get bonuses from movie-style deeds".Or, to turn the coin upside up, take any archetype you wish and make it into a base class with its own mechanics. Will you then say: "oh, this really needed to be a base class"?
A slight correction - Ninja and Samurai are NOT base classes - they are variants, which means extensive archetypes, for Rogue and Cavalier respectively.A variant class is, in the end, a base class, whatever strictly-technical name one might want to give it.
And I don't see as a good thing that what could have perfectly been an archetype has been made in a base (or variant, if you prefer) class.
The Antipaladin had a reason to be a variant rather than an archetype, since every single class feature had to be changed in some way, but Ninja and Samurai... really?
Gunslinger actually brings a new mechanic.If that's all that's needed to build a new base class, then we could have billions, each with its own unique mechanics. But new classes are not a matter of creating new mechanics; they are a matter of covering a character concept. With new mechanics if the existing ones aren't enough, but the new mechanic mustn't be the base and excuse to make a new class.
A firearm-using archetype for Fighter would have done it good, and no one would have complained about things like that "firearm-users should get bonuses from movie-style deeds".
Or, to turn the coin upside up, take any archetype you wish and make it into a base class with its own mechanics. Will you then say: "oh, this really needed to be a base class"?
A Ninja and Rogue for example share the same pool of tricks/talents, uncanny dodge and sneak attack. They however differ in about one page of other abilities that could or could not get confusing. Perhaps the authors were tired of ceasles writing of "this ability replaces X" and wanted to place a table that clearly shows it all. You also can't multiclass between Rogue and Ninja, which would be another page taking Ninja archetype exclusively as I can't see the rogue being able to access master tricks (while the Ninja can acces Advanced talents). So if the Ninja was in the archetype format it would take two pages anyway, so it received a full class treatment via alternate class instead. I think we would find similar extension of changes between the Cavalier and Samurai as well.
With th Gunslinger we have a new mechanic AND bunch of abilities that rely on it rolled to one class thematic class. Other classes don't have guns as their shtick, but they have archetypes done to bring in some of that flavour that do point to those abilities. We could have had about three pages of alternate rules for gun daredevils instead and a jumble of "what replaces what" paragraphs, but it would seem rather unwieldy unless it was everything rolled in feats which I'm not sure would be all viable by themselves. I think that the Gunslinger IS a about fine class on it's own, you don't, but unless some serious survey among players is made it's just a few people squabbling on the board over like/dislike of a thing.
So if the Ninja was in the archetype format it would take two pages anyway,
This is incorrect, "Ninja tricks" are just rogue talents given another name, same are cut and past rogue talents. You place them in the rogue talent section then you are left with poison use, ki pool, no trace and light steps. All told far smaller then archetypes we had and some in the very book the ninja was printed in.
|
Well, for a ship of caribbean-style pirates you only need one or two guys who can craft the ammo and repair weapons (Gunsmith feat). A valuable professional, may even be an alchemist or wizard with required feat and train your crew just to be able to shoot (proficiency). Gunslinger is a firearm expert user AND serviceman in one package, but I can imagine all manner of nongunslinger people that use firearms as a team. A ship crew would be a nice example. For level 5 crew an investment of one feat per piate to spread the proficiency might me viable and maintenance with your own gunsmith can be brought to reasonable cost levels (especially since you have a lot of time to rearm between battles - pirates rarely want to go from one boarding to another).
Another thing is that reloading wasn't done too much in regular pistol fights back in the times when reloading lasted that long. The guns were valuable, but pistoleers still carried 3+ guns on them to whip up and fire as needed. reloading was done after the fight mostly unless there were groups of people that could support themselves (multiple rows of soldiers firing in salvos on rotating pattern) OR had people to reload for the others. And the guns still weren't better than bows, just easier to use without years of training which is the only point wrong with PFRPG guns IMO. Firearms should be simple weapons, but reloading, clearing and other such things should require a feat, or induce a high chance of failure and another feat chained to it that would actually be the Gunsmith feat (creation of guns and ammo).
I understand that historically the guns weren't reloaded mid-combat. I'm saying that if you're going to replace all of a character's full attacks with standard attacks, you kill their damage output. To get *reasonable* round-by-round damage output using solely guns, you need to be able to quick draw a different gun for every action, and toss them behind you to the team that reloads your guns by next round, who all have prepared actions to catch the 4 guns you throw to them, and then spend an action to load, and another to slip them back into your belt so you can quick draw again next round. Its a little silly. It also means you will never have any reasonable way to put magic enhancements on your weapons.
The gun mechanics, as presented, would make decent backup weapons, or weapons to use when closing into combat, if they were simple weapons with the "guns everywhere" pricing, and maybe ammo that's cheaper still. Particularly with a feat that lets you get off a gunshot before a charge, and still get the attack at the end of the charge. But that's not decent RAW, that's "lets houserule this into something we can actually use." It means while guns may not suck in my game, in other GMs games, they're likely the s&+%ty RAW version, so I won't get to use the concept that needed guns, and if the GM uses the paizo gun rules, my fun in his campaign will weaken; and possibly die.
--------------
People looking for new classes?
A rules-lite Warlock-esque class?
A tech-based engineer who utilizes super-science?
And a Gunslinger with firearms that actually work?
SHIPPOW!!!
and
THOK!!!
respectively.Paizo People, you have just been served justice. Sweet orangey justice spread across the bare toast of your prayers.
...Catch Phrase,
-Chris
I assume this is some kind of advertising, but I'm not familiar with your product. Though I now have this urge to go read my comic books.
[Edit]OH! The comic-book text were links! (I'm overtired)
------------------
A variant class is, in the end, a base class, whatever strictly-technical name one might want to give it.
And I don't see as a good thing that what could have perfectly been an archetype has been made in a base (or variant, if you prefer) class.
The Antipaladin had a reason to be a variant rather than an archetype, since every single class feature had to be changed in some way, but Ninja and Samurai... really?
A variant class at the end of the day is an archetype with a full page description. Ninja and Samurai could have been plain archetypes, but they made them variants for people who run oriental campaigns, so they can say the default assumption is that ninja and samurai are the default. It's an archetype that takes more space, and has a pretty picture.
You can't make a Samurai/Cavalier, and you can't make a Ninja/Rogue, because they are the same classes.Gunslinger actually brings a new mechanic.If that's all that's needed to build a new base class, then we could have billions, each with its own unique mechanics. But new classes are not a matter of creating new mechanics; they are a matter of covering a character concept. With new mechanics if the existing ones aren't enough, but the new mechanic mustn't be the base and excuse to make a new class.
A firearm-using archetype for Fighter would have done it good, and no one would have complained about things like that "firearm-users should get bonuses from movie-style deeds".
I would have preferred a firearm ranger. Combat style. You could have one for pistols and one for rifles. But a fighter one would have sufficed. Not with these gun prices and feat taxes though. They needed special class mechanics to make the guns be anything more than a useless piece of equipment to piss on and sell for ridiculous prices. I mean come on: Rogue builds with level 1 gunslinger to sell the free gun and start with far better equipment, a free fighter feat, and a boost to bab and saves (and then just ignore your gunslinger class feature like you never had it). The fact that this crap is a viable build that gives you an unfair edge at level 2 illustrates some of the many problems with the class and weapon.
Or, to turn the coin upside up, take any archetype you wish and make it into a base class with its own mechanics. Will you then say: "oh, this really needed to be a base class"?
Well I wouldn't, but as I mentioned, you only need the 5 classes, and everything else would be better off as an archetype or variant class. But then, allowing for some redundant base classes lets you get combinations of abilities you cant get through archetypes alone.
So if the Ninja was in the archetype format it would take two pages anyway,
This is incorrect, "Ninja tricks" are just rogue talents given another name, same are cut and past rogue talents. You place them in the rogue talent section then you are left with poison use, ki pool, no trace and light steps. All told far smaller then archetypes we had and some in the very book the ninja was printed in.
I counted only master tricks that rogue can't access and thus are Ninja exclusive.
...I understand that historically the guns weren't reloaded mid-combat. I'm saying that if you're going to replace all of a character's full attacks with standard attacks, you kill their damage output. To get *reasonable* round-by-round damage output using solely guns, you need to be able to quick draw a different gun for every action, and toss them behind you to the team that reloads your guns by next round, who all have prepared actions to catch the 4 guns you throw to them, and then spend an action to load, and another to slip them back into your belt so you can quick draw again next round. Its a little silly. It also means you will never have any reasonable way to put magic enhancements on your weapons.
The gun mechanics, as presented, would make decent backup weapons, or weapons to use when closing into combat, if they were simple weapons with the "guns everywhere" pricing, and maybe ammo that's cheaper still. Particularly with a feat that lets you get off a gunshot before a charge, and still get the attack at the end of the charge. But that's not decent RAW, that's "lets houserule this into something we can actually use." It means while guns may not suck in my game, in other GMs games, they're likely the s&+#ty RAW version, so I won't get to use the concept that needed guns, and if the GM uses the paizo gun rules, my fun in his campaign will weaken; and possibly die.
Slow reloading guns are about as useful as heavy crossbows that also require long reloading.
Firearms and heavy crossbows are good for mooks. Lobies that mostly rely on single attacks and can go around without iteratives mostly. guns even more so because they allow lowbies to touch otherwise heavily armoured people via touch attacks, but they start to lag behind as soon as iteratives start to count in. Guns are deadly, but they are still inferior to übertrained archers when it would come to sheer volume of fire. Guna are a tool an army would like to have to defeat a dragon. Bow is a tool a group of heroes would want to defeat an army.
Firearms are IMO good for a different fighting styles (again history inspiration). Hit and run tactics of angaging and fading (to reload and possibly sneak attack again) or to shoot in the middle of everything when you need to reach out for someone while moving to position (normally you'd throw a dagger or something) to fight. Standard pistols and musketes are indeed illsuited to full attack routines, but I don't mind that. Reloading a musket thrice in six seconds would be indeed sillier than anything else. The damage would need to scale, not rate of fire IMO (unless we take repeating guns into account), but that is a problem of the iterative attacks in general. The more you get, the crappier the guns get.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I counted only master tricks that rogue can't access and thus are Ninja exclusive.
Same thing, those would simply be master talents. The wall was needy kept as some kind of justification so something named "the ninja" would be something more then an archetype. And honestly, it is not.
On the firearms thing, fast loading black powder is really no sillier then putting 6-8 long bow shots in the air in six seconds.
I counted only master tricks that rogue can't access and thus are Ninja exclusive.
Same thing, those would simply be master talents. The wall was needy kept as some kind of justification so something named "the ninja" would be something more then an archetype. And honestly, it is not.
On the firearms thing, fast loading black powder is really no sillier then putting 6-8 long bow shots in the air in six seconds.
If they wanted the rogue to have ninja's master tricks, then i'd call it a fair game for an archetype, but it got it's own pic and table. Aside from that they still call it extensive archetype.
Firing six arrows without much precision is somewhat doable. I can't see the same thing with musket though.
From what I can tell, the way Paizo has classified archetypes, alternate classes, and base classes is:
Archetypes- keep many/most of the class characteristics and mechanics the same, but switch out some specific features for others based on a theme.
Alternate classes- a more comprehensive modification, altering almost all of the class features (antipaladin) or adding some different mechanics (ninja ki, samurai Resolve).
Base classes- fundamentally alter BAB, saves, spell lists/progression, and/or include different/unique mechanics (alchemist bombs, extracts, and mutagens; cavalier challenges, mount, and orders; gunslinger grit and deeds; etc.).
Some "signature" class features/mechanics may be available in more limited form by other classes, either as part of the base class or through archetypes, alternate classes, or feats.
The gunslinger shifted from an alternate class to a new base class because 1) the saves changed, and 2) the grit/deeds mechanic became central to the class instead of "alternate bonus feats." To weigh in on a possible PFRPG artificer, IMO it would probably be a new base class; the mechanics and spell list would just be too different from an alchemist to be an archetype or even an alternate class.
|
There should only be two classes. The Warrior and the Mage.Why not go a step further and say that there shouldn't be any classes, just rules for leveling up and creating whatever kind of character you want? ;)
There are plenty of games that do the including but not limited to:
GURPS
Mutants & Masterminds
FUDGE
Hero
As for Forgboy's comment. If you add Expert you have True 20. :)
|
I think we are good on character base classes. I think the archetype system is really the best approach. Though as long as it's just stuff that builds on current materials, not excludes it.
I wouldn't mind seeing a few Variants, and by variant I mean like a Hexblade style Variant of Paladin...which would work in Razamiran.
There should only be two classes. The Warrior and the Mage.
I agree that we don't need 50 more variants on "guy who swings a sword" or "guy who casts spells", but I think there are some ideas that don't quite fit into those two slots. For instance, a non-spellcasting shapeshifter.
For instance, a non-spellcasting shapeshifter.Does it win by fighting or casting spells?
By spells, obviously. How else does anything win?
|
|
There should only be two classes. The Warrior and the Mage.I agree that we don't need 50 more variants on "guy who swings a sword" or "guy who casts spells", but I think there are some ideas that don't quite fit into those two slots. For instance, a non-spellcasting shapeshifter.
There is one more variant...the Skilled Variant who uses tricks, talking, and indirect methods to achieve success.
For instance, a non-spellcasting shapeshifter.Does it win by fighting or casting spells?
How are those mutually exclusive?
I can haz full BAB and spellcasting?How are those mutually exclusive?For instance, a non-spellcasting shapeshifter.Does it win by fighting or casting spells?
Suppose Mr. Warrior shoots an arrow at a monster and Mr. Mage shoots a magic arrow at a monster and Mr. Shapeshifter turns into a manticore and shoots spikes at a monster.
Who is "fighting" and who isn't? Are you saying the answer is "it depends on the character's BAB"?
LOL at archtype bloat.
I don't care how many base classes or archtypes there are, jsut as long as they are all supported until the day of PF 2.0.
Are you saying that you can have full BAB and full spellcasting, because it's all fighting?
That's what I'm saying, if you scroll up. I'm interested in your opinion.
But not for that reason. Because BAB simply isn't worth that much.
There should only be two classes. The Warrior and the Mage.I agree that we don't need 50 more variants on "guy who swings a sword" or "guy who casts spells", but I think there are some ideas that don't quite fit into those two slots. For instance, a non-spellcasting shapeshifter.
They had that in 3.5, the Ranger archetype (in the d20SRD)
Wild shape-RangerA ranger might forgo training in weapon combat in exchange for the ability to take animal form and move swiftly through the woodlands.
Gain Wild shape (as druid; Small or Medium animals only), fast movement (as barbarian).
Lose Combat style, improved combat style, combat style mastery.
You can also trade out spells for spell-less Ranger ability.
Thus, you are now a spell-less Shapeshifter (at 1st lv)
There is one more variant...the Skilled Variant who uses tricks, talking, and indirect methods to achieve success.
That is just skills.
Just increase number of skill points of Mage and Warrior and everyone can choose to specilize like that. There is no need to add a class.
My mistake--I thought you were kidding about the Hero.
I think we need a different term for the Hero than "class" however. If there's only one, there's no need to "classify" it. It just Is.
Are you saying that you can have full BAB and full spellcasting, because it's all fighting?
I don't think so. Let me check:
Who is "fighting" and who isn't? Are you saying the answer is "it depends on the character's BAB"?
Nope, it still sounds like I was asking a question, not asserting anything.
Er, I'm not sure how much was kidding myself.
Kinda got carried away. Too many threads at once.
Lol, not a problem. Carry on.