Number of Base Classes in the game: Too many? need more?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>

TriOmegaZero wrote:
The fact that I can no longer have a class with a small HD and a high BAB.

I honestly find this a good thing. I just wish they had tied casting progression to HD as well.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The fact that I can no longer have a class with a small HD and a high BAB.

But why would you want to? What would be the idea of a front line meleer or prime ranged combatant without the HD of staying power?

If it's combined melee and magic, why doesn't the magus do it for you?

And note that you never could, not even in 3.5, was there a full HD base class with only d4 hit dice.

Grand Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I honestly find this a good thing. I just wish they had tied casting progression to HD as well.

As I said, I no longer do.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
VM mercenario wrote:
Not temathically it doesn't.
see we agree then.

What. How did you...? That's not...

I said that the engineer theme doesn't fit as an archetype of the alchemist, so he should have his own class. Are you agreeing with that?

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I am not skipping your second point but a new class should be made, If and only if you can not in any way make it work in another class first. And nothing here has got to that point

No. Another class should be made if it's better thematically and it's possible to make a new mechanic... And why am I still arguing this? You're firm on the camp that doesn't want more stuff, I'm firm on the camp that thinks we can't have too much. This discussion is pointless, I'm removing my dot from this.


LazarX wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
The fact that I can no longer have a class with a small HD and a high BAB.

But why would you want to? What would be the idea of a front line meleer or prime ranged combatant without the HD of staying power?

If it's combined melee and magic, why doesn't the magus do it for you?

And note that you never could, not even in 3.5, was there a full HD base class with only d4 hit dice.

Clerics were too combatant oriented. They can cast spells to buff themself to do alright, but their real job is to get up into combat and heal, not hit things. So if I wanted to make clerics more oriented to do this I would do the following.

Diversity is an issue. IMHO if I were to re-design the cleric I would have given the poor BaB but a D8 hit die with full armor and shield proficiency, including tower.

P.S. While it isn't a D4 there is a D6.
Swiftblade

Grand Lodge

He specifically mentioned base classes, but prestige classes were more what I was referring to. The cleric is a good base class example though. Knocking them to half BAB instead of removing heavy armor probably would have been better. But PF can't do that. *shrugs* One more reason for me to stick with 3.5.


I made them poor BAB/d6 but allow them to use a give up a channel use to the highest cure spell they know upon one target within 30'. They lost spontaneous casting and now have a few less spells but cure spells powered by channel uses, better skills, bardic knowledge and a few other things. I found it a fair trade.

My cleric rebuild


seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I made them poor BAB/d6 but allow them to use a give up a channel use to the highest cure spell they know upon one target within 30'. They lost spontaneous casting and now have a few less spells but cure spells powered by channel uses, better skills, bardic knowledge and a few other things. I found it a fair trade.

My cleric rebuild

Having a cleric that is as smooshy hp wise as a wizard is a bad idea.

Grand Lodge

Depends on what you want a cleric for.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Depends on what you want a cleric for.

Standard I would say no. Variant that is alright.


Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


Having a cleric that is as smooshy hp wise as a wizard is a bad idea.

Why? It heals at rang as a standard action that does not use up a spell slot. So, just why does it need them any more then the wizard?

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Captain Sir Hexen Ineptus wrote:


Having a cleric that is as smooshy hp wise as a wizard is a bad idea.

Why? It heals at rang as a standard action that does not use up a spell slot. So, just why does it need them any more then the wizard?

Clerics are a lot less mobile than a wizard. The standard channel energy has a range of 30 feet; that's a move action (or charge action!) for most monsters. Also, clerics with medium or heavier armor have a speed of 20 feet, so they can't run away as well as a wizard in robes. So it makes sense for clerics to be a bit beefier than wizardy types. They occasionally have to trade blows when they're not healing or casting.


I am still gonna disagree, I see no need for any full caster to have a better HD then another full caster. Also my clerics do not wear armor at all {another silly restriction for one caster but not others)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

It might have more to do with balancing the roles of the classes than the mechanics of the classes. There are a lot of different roles out there: tank, buffer, battlefield controler, blaster, striker, skill monkey, face, utility, etc. etc. Each class usually fills several of these roles, and other classes fill out different roles, and ideally, a party of different characters will be a well rounded unit.

The different spell lists of the different classes fill different roles. Additionally, there are some "sacred cows" or character archetypes that the different classes fill. There is some fluff that influences crunch, and vice versa.

Hopefully, there are several different classes out there (or a few versatile classes) so that everyone can make a character that is fun for them to play.

If one player only wants to play a sword and board fighter for every single one of their characters, great. If another player chooses a radically different character concept every time they play, also great. Hopefully they are both having fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well the cleric pre 3e was a half caster. He did not have full 9 levels of spells. He was capped at 7th and even then far more limited in spells then 3e.

So the clerics need full casting and med BAb is not a "scared cow" its something 3e goofed on and lead us to overpowered classes.

I have asked why do divine casters need More HP or BAb then arcane casters. They are truly no less mobile, some might be but it is not a giving a wizard will have more mobility. Some spells will allow this, but it is not a fact all wizards will have such spell, and those that do will not always have them up and ready.

As for roles, What about the "healer" demands more HP and BAB? I have been told, it is so they can heal in combat, but I give them ranged healing and I am still told they are "too squishy". So it has nothing to do with them being healers, Healers do not demand better BAB and HD then any other caster.

And I'll say this as I just know someone will bring it up. The cleric spell list is not weaker then a wizards list. It is merely different.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I am still gonna disagree, I see no need for any full caster to have a better HD then another full caster. Also my clerics do not wear armor at all {another silly restriction for one caster but not others)

The PF cleric spell list is weaker than the PF wizard spell list except in divination, and healing.


As I stated in the last post. It.Is.Not .weaker. It is merely different.

Grand Lodge

Different in that it cannot handle as much, and thus weaker.

I feel the difference when I start a cleric versus starting a wizard. And it is decidedly weaker in offense.


What about defense? Buffing? One list is aimed at one thing, and one to another. It is not weaker, it simply covers different area's. The wizard list does not buff as well nor can it heal..so it must be weak right?

Different does not mean weaker.

And Any full casting that Knows every spell on the list and can prepare any of them does not get to whine about being "weaker"

It should be noted however, I feel the lists need taken out back and beat into a new shape. Most of the power issues can be handled by fixing, removing or moving spells. And I am not a huge fan of different spell lists anyhow.

I am strongly thinking of reworking them all. Just two spell lists, full and half. With things like domains and "schools" providing some spells that belong only to that domain/school.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

In general, divine spells target fewer creatures than arcane spells of the same level. Also, their damage caps are lower. For example, Scorching Ray is a 2nd level arcane spell that does 4d6 points of damage, Searing Ray is a 3rd level divine spell that does 2d8 points of damage at the minimum caster level. Compare Fireball and Flame Strike. Fireball is available sooner and affects a much larger area of effect and has a longer range. Charm Person lasts a day per level, Command lasts 1 round.

Clerics and Wizards are pretty equal at divinations and summoning. Clerics have a slight edge with some necromancy.

But arcane casters tend to have better abjurations, enchantments, evocations, illusions, and transmutations. They have access to more powerful spells of these schools at lower levels.

Clerics are far superior healers, of course.

Dark Archive

Hmm. I'm also in the camp that thinks The Cleric structure is crappy.

Granted: Blasting spells are better in arcane lists than in divine lists. Either way though, blasting spells aren't that good anyways.

Divine has nearly all healing access.
Arcane has better battlefield control.
Both get roughly equivalent summons.

I'm not convinced the cleric list is worse, and there's alot to be said for avoiding the treasure tax the Wizard pays for the variety of spells he gets, which the cleric and druid get for free.

cleric vs wizard:
wizard:
> More versatile list. better damage on the damage spells (though still to crappy to focus on).
> Can only count on 2 each level. Other spell availability subject to whether the GM lets you find it as treasure or in a shop.
cleric:
> Any spell you want, from any splat the GM allows.
> Doesn't lose 50-75% of WBL to acquiring spells and maintaining spellbooks.
> Cant lose all of your spells permanently because someone steals/destroys a single item you carry.
>no ASF
> more hp, decent bab, armor proficient.
> Channel Energy: Very powerful ability. Better than blasting spells (and I dont think Wiz gets anything really to compensate for it) - Familiar, once you have Improved Familiar, is likely as good, but you had to take a feat to get that. Bonded Item, well that makes you pretty vulnerable.

Finally, even if the cleric list is marginally worse overall, I don't think it should be, and don't think the structure of the cleric class is good. I haven't liked it (from a GM side, not from a munchkinning player side, there it can be okay) since 3e came out. In my opinion, the cleric should be more based on being a priest of a god.

Either put the weight of the lists should come from domains, with a very minimal 'common' list, or even make it feat-based. Feats to get access to domains. If you already cast spells, you have more things you can fill your slots with. If you are a spontaneous caster, spontaneous domain spells. If you're a martial character, you pick a class, and you use its levels as your caster level. You only get domain spells in that case.

Now: If you're a DM that just handwaives asf, wizard spell acquisition and a spellbook isn't something that can be destroyed in your game, then maybe the wizard will be marginally better. Maybe. But those are houserules that are not the base assumption.


I would say the cleric spell-list is weaker, myself. However the problem seems to be one of poor design.

The problem has been that healing, while necessary, isn't much fun. So on top of healing spells clerics were given moderate combat ability and some other spells. This made clerics OK at a number of things but not really 'awesome' - a lot of groups pre-3e had the eternal question of: "Who's going to play the cleric?" They had their fans but essentially the cleric was a 'so-sp' class.

Third edition gave them a lot more spells, spontaneous healing spells, and this made them very good and much more attractive to play. Problem was with ever-expanding spell-lists they got too good.

Pathfinder put in the fix that 3e should have: it made healing separate from casting. Backward compatibility meant that it retained many spells, although armour use was toned back. What they could have done was tone back spells by introducing a 'prayer book' like a wizard's spellbook that would have placed clerics on the same par as wizards. Backward compatibility means that clerics with 1/2 BAB and d6 hit dice wasn't going to happen, except as archetypes.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
There should only be two classes. The Warrior and the Mage.

Good ol' Second Edition.

Except there were 3 Classes in the Customizable Classes book... And Priests were OP as heck.


Lazarx wrote:
there is no way to balance full BAB and full spellcasting in one class.

Why?

I would think ability scores and MAD would make it self-balancing.

@seeker: what about a single master spell list with full or half progression?

Grand Lodge

People around here don't seem to believe that spell lists matter when balancing classes. They see Full BAB and 9th level spellcasting and scream broken without even considering what actual spells can be cast. While 9th level spells are pretty game-breaking, a list can be limited enough to avoid insanity.

Shadow Lodge

KaptainKrunch wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
There should only be two classes. The Warrior and the Mage.

Good ol' Second Edition.

Except there were 3 Classes in the Customizable Classes book... And Priests were OP as heck.

I dunno what Second Edition you're thinking off, but 2E had Fighter, Paladin, Ranger, Mage, Clerics, Druid, Thief, and Bard; as well as the specialist wizards and priests of specific gods.

You might be thinking about 0E, where the classes were Fighting-Man, Magic-User, and Cleric, but that number shot up quite a bit as the supplements came out.

Sovereign Court

TriOmegaZero wrote:
People around here don't seem to believe that spell lists matter when balancing classes. They see Full BAB and 9th level spellcasting and scream broken without even considering what actual spells can be cast. While 9th level spells are pretty game-breaking, a list can be limited enough to avoid insanity.

Yeah, I played a Duskblade and saw at least a dozen other Duskblades being played back in 3.5 and never saw them as over powered in the least. The most consistent argument given against them was that they were not the "fighter fix" that was hoped for. The spell list was lacking. They got to tier 3 in their performance, and people wanted them to get up to tier 2 at least.

The only slightly compelling argument that I can see is that a full-BAB spellcaster done right would leave the fighter crying in a cloud of dust as the new class races past. Not that I'm very sympathetic to it, because the martial/caster disparity goes without saying and requires its own particular invasive surgery to fix.

If you took the Fighter and pasted on nine levels of selective spells with x amount of casting per day, the only thing that would happen is that it would be a huge leap towards solving the disparity. If you reskin the spellcasting as supernatural "mythic and legendary acts" and acknowledge that the game's vision and scope changes over 20 levels then that takes care of the fluff.

Grand Lodge

Mok wrote:
Reasonable statements.

*waits for the firestorm*

Honestly, the biggest problem I have with seeker's proposal is it bans things like the Dragon Magazine Savant class from ever appearing.

Dark Archive

Yep. I'l aware they couldnt really hit the cleric with a nerf stick or complete redesign too much given that they wanted backwards compatibility.

I dont feel complete backwards compatibility in terms of base classes is needed though, but that's just me. I'd have removed the dedicated healer entirely, and given everyone some method of healing, and tried to make classes a bit more self-sufficient.

Edit:
As for the firestorm? I could maybe see 2/3 caster with full bab, but not if it did much else.

Hmm.

I think your idea would put them as more powerful than wizards, sorcs, clerics, and druids, but it likely wouldn't be too much higher due to MAD. Perhaps if we all used 15 Point Buy. bwahahahaha

I could go for a more drastic overhaul of 3.x. I've been realizing that more and more the past couple months. Do away with vancian casting and x/day abilities entirely, and either go with a recharge roll, or some sort of fatigue mechanic, or something.


Eleven was a little much to my mind - but for my play style I don't like PrCs either - Archetypes are all we need with the base classes that exist.. I think with the multiclassing and feats we have in our toolbox from the core book alone are enough to get the same (general) idea as any new base class or PrC, or indeed even classes like paladin or ranger can be emulated by multiclassing and the like.

So from a 'roleplaying' standpoint, I don't see the need for many classes at all, let alone 11 - from a 'rollplaying' standpoint and taking out all the work, we have a good number now.


Darkholme wrote:

Yep. I'l aware they couldnt really hit the cleric with a nerf stick or complete redesign too much given that they wanted backwards compatibility.

I dont feel complete backwards compatibility in terms of base classes is needed though, but that's just me. I'd have removed the dedicated healer entirely, and given everyone some method of healing, and tried to make classes a bit more self-sufficient.

Edit:
As for the firestorm? I could maybe see 2/3 caster with full bab, but not if it did much else.

Hmm.

I think your idea would put them as more powerful than wizards, sorcs, clerics, and druids, but it likely wouldn't be too much higher due to MAD. Perhaps if we all used 15 Point Buy. bwahahahaha

I could go for a more drastic overhaul of 3.x. I've been realizing that more and more the past couple months. Do away with vancian casting and x/day abilities entirely, and either go with a recharge roll, or some sort of fatigue mechanic, or something.

I think activation rolls along with critical fumbles would be perfect.


Zmar wrote:


That's why I wrote in one of my previous posts that firearms should be simple weapons as far asshooting is concerned, but should have a high chance of failure upon reloading by someone who doesn't know what to do exactly.

Reloading is quite a bit of alchemy - you need to know how much powder, how to stuff in everything just right (not too much - deformed bullet probably misses or may even get stuck in the barrel, not too little - loose bullet can fall out or go wild amiss), clearing the barrel properly to prevent it from getting clogged. You also need to be able to perform everything under stress and rather quick. I think that this all got rolled under the exotic weapon proficiency (at least all firearms are rolled under the same feat). Exotic was probably chosen so that all the classes don't get them along with martial and simple weapon proficiencies and it doesn't get confusing. Gunsmithing gets you cheap ammo and guns. The amount of knowledge to create black powder and bullets in times of nonstandardized manufacturing techniques and with less than perfect equipment Would also be great. The more I think about it the more it seems to me that compared to what was probably known to educated people the amount of knowledge needed to operate the guns was quite high.

If the guns were instead simple weapons, I'd probably make reloading a skill check with DC a 1st level person could make at low levels as a full round, accelerating the reloading with higher DCs and imposing penalties upon failure. That could actually work IMO.

While I understand your rationale I think the complexity of firearms use is better left in the simple-martial-exotic range rather than involving another roll / skill. The game can be kind of "roll" heavy as it is and I can see people, especially if they are unfamiliar with the complexity of black powder weapons, whining that other missile weapons don't have an extra reload requirement. It also serves to make the users a special breed with a unique, dangerous skill.


R_Chance wrote:

...

While I understand your rationale I think the complexity of firearms use is better left in the simple-martial-exotic range rather than involving another roll / skill. The game can be kind of "roll" heavy as it is and I can see people, especially if they are unfamiliar with the complexity of black powder weapons, whining that other missile weapons don't have an extra reload requirement. It also serves to make the users a special breed with a unique, dangerous skill.

Well, you can opt to take ten perhaps. It was meant more like an alternative for those who want their full attacks with guns somehow done or protest to the fact that shooting the gun alone is rather easy and don't like the feat tax. If it was craft (alchemy) or craft (weaponsmithing) to reload, it could somewhat ease the burden.

Liberty's Edge

I'd like the retraining rule from 3.5 PHB2: once per level, you can retrain one feat (or trait in Pathfinder) or shift 4 skill ranks. Living Greyhawk adopted this, and it permitted players to escape trap/nerf builds.


Christopher Delvo wrote:

A tech-based engineer who utilizes super-science?

KAZOOM!!!

Just to let you know, I embedded this PDF into my Spelljammer conversion site.


Hudax wrote:
Lazarx wrote:
there is no way to balance full BAB and full spellcasting in one class.

Why?

I would think ability scores and MAD would make it self-balancing.

@seeker: what about a single master spell list with full or half progression?

Remarks like that have always baffled me as well..

Spell=/=better


TriOmegaZero wrote:
People around here don't seem to believe that spell lists matter when balancing classes. They see Full BAB and 9th level spellcasting and scream broken without even considering what actual spells can be cast. While 9th level spells are pretty game-breaking, a list can be limited enough to avoid insanity.

Yeah 9th levels spells could be possible, just very hard to do.

Now getting full caster level with bard type spell progression is very reasonable.

You also need to remember that spells can be re-leveled for a new class so while a spell might be 3rd for a normal caster it would be 2nd for this bard caster which means it is gained at a later level and has a weaker save due to the spell level and a greater demand from MAD.


Hudax wrote:

@seeker: what about a single master spell list with full or half progression?

I am in the process of reworking spell lists. There will be no more Arcane/divine. No more witch list, wizard list, bard list..and so on.

I will have two spell lists. One for a full caster and one for a half caster. All full caster class will pick from a single list and all half caster classes will pick from a single list.

This means they will all use a book( or something of the like) or spells known.

Dark Archive

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

I am in the process of reworking spell lists. There will be no more Arcane/divine. No more witch list, wizard list, bard list..and so on.

I will have two spell lists. One for a full caster and one for a half caster. All full caster class will pick from a single list and all half caster classes will pick from a single list.

This means they will all use a book( or something of the like) or spells known.

Interesting. I'd like to see that when its done. I'm not certain it would work well, but I'm still interested in seeing it.

As for What ToZ said, PF has many classes balanced by shitty spell lists. I dont like this design decision. It's unintuitive to classify how good a spell list is that way. I agree its been done, but I dont think it should have been.

One 9th level spell list should be equivalent to another in power.

Everyone is going to assume that to be the case, since in theory, one 9th level spell is as powerful as another. It also makes it harder to make a class different by giving it a different spell list.


Well I never said I wasn't tinkering with the classes and/or casting system.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am always open to the idea of new classes. The motto and strength of Paizo has been giving the players diversity so why stop now???

Now what sorts of classes can they make? I dont know the answer to that but I am completely enjoying some of the creative stuff they have come out with like Gunslingers and Alchemist.

If you look at some of the 3rd party material from Super Genius Games and Rite Publishing you'll see how they have made some really interesting new classes for the game. Ive not had the chance to really play them but they just ooze flavour.

More is better.

:)

Sovereign Court

Mok wrote:
Yeah, I played a Duskblade and saw at least a dozen other Duskblades being played back in 3.5 and never saw them as over powered in the least. The most consistent argument given against them was that they were not the "fighter fix" that was hoped for. The spell list was lacking. They got to tier 3 in their performance, and people wanted them to get up to tier 2 at least.

I want my arcane paladin. :)

Liberty's Edge

Jess Door wrote:
Mok wrote:
Yeah, I played a Duskblade and saw at least a dozen other Duskblades being played back in 3.5 and never saw them as over powered in the least. The most consistent argument given against them was that they were not the "fighter fix" that was hoped for. The spell list was lacking. They got to tier 3 in their performance, and people wanted them to get up to tier 2 at least.
I want my arcane paladin. :)

I mentioned this in another thread, but might I suggest that those looking for such a class take a look at the Battle Scion I did in the most recent issue of Wayfinder (Wayfinder 5) - this is exactly what I had in mind when I created it. It's a free download, so how can you go wrong? :)

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I would think creating new classes also is a good business model for Paizo, since it's something new to sell. I know I usually play in homebrew campaigns, so the various Golarian-specific products and adventure paths aren't going to be something for me, but I like the general material, like the Advanced Players Guide and various Ultimates.

Also, I like lots of neat classes that act differently mechanically. I think the generic class system leaves a lot to be desired because it doesn't allow for neat and unique mechanics.


Jess Door wrote:
Mok wrote:
Yeah, I played a Duskblade and saw at least a dozen other Duskblades being played back in 3.5 and never saw them as over powered in the least. The most consistent argument given against them was that they were not the "fighter fix" that was hoped for. The spell list was lacking. They got to tier 3 in their performance, and people wanted them to get up to tier 2 at least.
I want my arcane paladin. :)

3.5 had a Hexblade (aka arcane Paladin): they goofed the spell list though, it lacked many hexes/curses it should get, but was otherwise functionable.

It got Cha to saves/Mettle (Fort/Will save, success means no affect instead of partial or 1/2).

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Starbuck_II wrote:
Jess Door wrote:
Mok wrote:
Yeah, I played a Duskblade and saw at least a dozen other Duskblades being played back in 3.5 and never saw them as over powered in the least. The most consistent argument given against them was that they were not the "fighter fix" that was hoped for. The spell list was lacking. They got to tier 3 in their performance, and people wanted them to get up to tier 2 at least.
I want my arcane paladin. :)

3.5 had a Hexblade (aka arcane Paladin): they goofed the spell list though, it lacked many hexes/curses it should get, but was otherwise functionable.

It got Cha to saves/Mettle (Fort/Will save, success means no affect instead of partial or 1/2).

The hexblade should have been a much better de-buffer. I think WotC was pretty tentative with the early Complete series, but later on hit their stride. Complete Warrior was pretty weak, Complete Arcane had the warlock and warmage, which are both fun classes, and the Complete Adventurer was had the ninja, scout, and spellthief, which are all fun. The Complete Divine was kind eh....the Spirit Shaman spell mechanics were neat, but kind of underwhelming.


SmiloDan wrote:
The hexblade should have been a much better de-buffer. I think WotC was pretty tentative with the early Complete series, but later on hit their stride. Complete Warrior was pretty weak, Complete Arcane had the warlock and warmage, which are both fun classes, and the Complete Adventurer was had the ninja, scout, and spellthief, which are all fun. The Complete Divine was kind eh....the Spirit Shaman spell mechanics were neat, but kind of underwhelming.

Problem was most of those classes seemed to be 'filler' material or else deliberately gimped. I think the big advantage of the APG was that it took the best of these concepts and rolled them up into a simple and easy system of archetypes that demanded few new actual classes.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

Dabbler wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:
The hexblade should have been a much better de-buffer. I think WotC was pretty tentative with the early Complete series, but later on hit their stride. Complete Warrior was pretty weak, Complete Arcane had the warlock and warmage, which are both fun classes, and the Complete Adventurer was had the ninja, scout, and spellthief, which are all fun. The Complete Divine was kind eh....the Spirit Shaman spell mechanics were neat, but kind of underwhelming.
Problem was most of those classes seemed to be 'filler' material or else deliberately gimped. I think the big advantage of the APG was that it took the best of these concepts and rolled them up into a simple and easy system of archetypes that demanded few new actual classes.

My point exactly. Well, I really like the warlock and the Complete Adventurer classes. And I like the idea of the warmage: a spontaneous caster with a pre-selected list of tightly thematic spells. It's a nice pre-cursor to the beguiler and dread necromancer, and presumably would have eventually lead to some specialty casters based on abjuration (exorcist/de-buffer/counterspeller), conjuration (summoner/transporter/creator), divination (sage/savant/seer), and transmutation (buffer/shapeshifter/transmogrifer).

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Christopher Delvo wrote:


Excuse me, Gentlemen (or Ladies, I don't pretend to know). But may I interrupt this discussion to pimp my own Engineer base class for the second time in this thread?...

I really like that engineer write up. It is exactly what I had in mind for a class that reconstructs the super science of vanished civilizations. I don't know how balanced they are or any of that, but I like the idea and the execution. I would not call them engineers though. Its too modern. Artificer is better (though it does harken to the Eberron artifiers that are not as cool). The name 'Techno-Philospher' is also kind of groovy, as would be 'Techno-Savant'.

Dark Archive

ElyasRavenwood wrote:

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

Too many. Three core (melee, caster, expert), with archetypes and alternative classes to fill in the niches would be perfect.

251 to 300 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Number of Base Classes in the game: Too many? need more? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.