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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 303 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade

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

Dark Archive

No more classes please. More archetypes. Especially more archetypes that are roleplay-light, so that we just have new mechanics to work with and can fit a back-story to them.

Especially more archetypes that can be used with other archetypes.

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber
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

Hmm. Elyas, you ask a very good question (or series of questions). And while I can certainly understand that some folks might feel PFRPG has too many base classes, I like the number of classes ("core", "base", and "alternate") that we have now. I can't honestly think of any niches or roles that aren't covered in some form or another. The archetypes really seem to be the new "darling" of PFRPG. And I like these as well.

I guess I'd say we have just enough.

But, that's just my opinion. :)

~Dean

Scarab Sages

I don't think there are going to be vary much arch types/ new classes for awhile.
I think i seen Jason, the creative director, smurf that in his thread somewhere.
But I am happy with what we have now, I would enjoy seeing the world flushed out more tho.

Liberty's Edge

Unless Paizo developers think of something really super, I think we have more than enough classes for now. How about concentrating on more Pathfinder Society adventures, more modules, or a completely separate voluntary tiered player vs. player catagory in which factionally aligned players would have to complete possibly conflicting factional quests and which would allow PvP combat, subterfuge etc. Within PFS, I would also like to see, even if on a reduced basis, a system similar to that previously used in "Living Greyhawk" in which there were some specialized adventures for different real world geographical regions. Or, PFS adventures playable for groups comprised of a single factios.


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

This could seriously work,and all the classes would just be archetypes of these two.


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

They could do more, or not. As it is, I don't use them all. Of course, ymmv.


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.

Dark Archive

*cough*psionics*cough*


I feel a couple more would be fine as long as they're something specific, like a Psion. But I also think the Psion and psionics could be done as an archetype and skill based casting system.

I love archetypes, I would like to see more prestige classes that blend multiclasses with a capstone. Something like 5 Alchemist/5 Cleric/10 level PrC with a 20th level capstone.


Artificer and Shaman are two classes which we still need. Other than that, we've got everything (Binder and Sha'ir could both be archetypes of the Shaman).

As long as the majority of Psion lovers insist that Psions have the same powers and limitations that spell casters have, psions can be a sorcery archetype.


We have past the limit. The gunslinger was totally uneeded as were the two alt classes. There is nothing left to do that can not and should not be archetypes of other classes.

If you want to be blunt, a number of classes could be folded into archtypes of other classes.


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

As long as the base class is unique and can't be done with an archtype I say add it.


I agree withe sentiment of Archtypes over more base classes.

I like all the Base classes, but I also like that the last few books have had few new additions (really only 1 each in UM and UC)

I REALLY disliked the Prestige Class explosion of 3.X and hope Pathfinder doesn't really support PrC's. I got annoyed that anything even SLIGHTLY different requires a whole new class. Archtypes works so much better in my opinion. Stick with one (maybe 2) classes, swap out iconic abilities for other iconic abilities to customize. BAM.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Prost wrote:

I agree withe sentiment of Archtypes over more base classes.

I like all the Base classes, but I also like that the last few books have had few new additions (really only 1 each in UM and UC)

I REALLY disliked the Prestige Class explosion of 3.X and hope Pathfinder doesn't really support PrC's. I got annoyed that anything even SLIGHTLY different requires a whole new class. Archtypes works so much better in my opinion. Stick with one (maybe 2) classes, swap out iconic abilities for other iconic abilities to customize. BAM.

not to mention archetypes don't have requirements in order to be taken!


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I, for one, would love as many classes as they care to pass out our way. 1-2 per major release is fine with me. I don't see an issue and enjoy the variety.

Keep up the archetypes.

Start introducing more Prestige Classes.

I would like a lot more racial options as well (not necessarily more races, but racial options). Guess this one may be answered with an upcoming release.

Sean Mahoney


Umbral Reaver wrote:
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.

This is exactly how i feel i want a prestige that has a capstone to make me feel like it is worth losing half of my class features at best.


Talonhawke wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
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.
This is exactly how i feel i want a prestige that has a capstone to make me feel like it is worth losing half of my class features at best.

I believe this is precisely the reason that that's not being done. The game is designed to encourage single-classing to level 20, with all other options being sub-par by comparison. Designing capstones for other-than-single-classed characters is stepping on the toes of the primary thing that makes playing from 1-20 in a single class worth the while. Accordingly, I doubt it's something we'll see.

PrC's in Pathfinder are mean't to fill flavor-niches, rather than provide an equivalent tier of power.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

I would like there to be an "official" version of the warlock. A fire-and-don't-forget magic-user. Really simple, so rules-lite players can enjoy playing a magic-user without having to learn tons of different spells.

I just did a one-shot with one of my versions of the warlock for a rules-lite player, and she really liked it. She liked the lack of record keeping and book keeping, and she liked having options, but not TOO many options. She usually plays an archer, she always has to make decisions about melee or ranged, or many-shot or vital strike or rapid shot, and with the eldritch blast (with the eldritch glaive invocation), she just had to worry about melee or ranged, one attack per round, but a pretty hard hit that didn't out-shine the other PCs (a switch-hitter inquisitor and a half-ogre barbarian smasher).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
SmiloDan wrote:
I would like there to be an "official" version of the warlock. A fire-and-don't-forget magic-user. Really simple, so rules-lite players can enjoy playing a magic-user without having to learn tons of different spells.

Play a witch who focuses more on hexes than spells. Pick up Arcane Blast at 10th level.

Shadow Lodge

SmiloDan wrote:

I would like there to be an "official" version of the warlock. A fire-and-don't-forget magic-user. Really simple, so rules-lite players can enjoy playing a magic-user without having to learn tons of different spells.

I just did a one-shot with one of my versions of the warlock for a rules-lite player, and she really liked it. She liked the lack of record keeping and book keeping, and she liked having options, but not TOO many options. She usually plays an archer, she always has to make decisions about melee or ranged, or many-shot or vital strike or rapid shot, and with the eldritch blast (with the eldritch glaive invocation), she just had to worry about melee or ranged, one attack per round, but a pretty hard hit that didn't out-shine the other PCs (a switch-hitter inquisitor and a half-ogre barbarian smasher).

personally i would love to see a witch archetype "Hexblade" and let them make a warlock as a base class.

Dark Archive

Kthulhu wrote:
Play a witch who focuses more on hexes than spells. Pick up Arcane Blast at 10th level.

That isn't a no bookwork magic-feeling class, that is a: I can't even play my concept till 10th level, please oh god why haven't we leveled in four months 2nd level sucks witch, who still casts spells.

I don't care what it is called, or how it is flavored, but a magical flavored class with minimal bookwork (no spells) right at level one would be fantastic.

A no spells ranger and a no spells paladin archetype is desperately needed. I have far too many players who play either rangers or paladins and just plain forget they even cast spells, and want something more than the meager options listed in Complete Warrior. And if this already exists, I beg you, tell me which book!


Well for warlock there is always the Tome of secrets warlock which works fairly well for offical. And i don't know the specific archetypes but i know ranger has some with no spells and i believe paladin has at least one.


Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:

A no spells ranger and a no spells paladin archetype is desperately needed. I have far too many players who play either rangers or paladins and just plain forget they even cast spells, and want something more than the meager options listed in Complete Warrior. And if this already exists, I beg you, tell me which book!

The spell less ranger Archetype is in the APG, a "warlock" can easily be an archetype of one of the many spellcasters we have ( I would go maguse myself)

I have yet to see a single thing in this thread that can not be done with archetypes on one of the many classes we currently have. New class that could be archetypes or alt rules of current classes (looks at the ones in UM ) are frankly a waste of space and time.

Edit: Found the names Paladin (warrior of holy light) and Ranger (Skirmisher) are both spell less and in the APG

Shadow Lodge

Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Play a witch who focuses more on hexes than spells. Pick up Arcane Blast at 10th level.

That isn't a no bookwork magic-feeling class, that is a: I can't even play my concept till 10th level, please oh god why haven't we leveled in four months 2nd level sucks witch, who still casts spells.

I don't care what it is called, or how it is flavored, but a magical flavored class with minimal bookwork (no spells) right at level one would be fantastic.

A no spells ranger and a no spells paladin archetype is desperately needed. I have far too many players who play either rangers or paladins and just plain forget they even cast spells, and want something more than the meager options listed in Complete Warrior. And if this already exists, I beg you, tell me which book!

i think you're looking for a fighter heavy multi class. smite evil will be crappy compared to a level 20, but you will make up for that with feats and static damage increases. not to mention unless you're playing a PFS game you can very easily say " hey dm can i play this variant of a paladin from PHB2?"

but i honestly think that a pally who cant cast a scroll of atonement is a gimp character waiting to fail.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I want ONE more class, and one only: a tech-based, steampunk, mad-scientist type of character.

Not NOT 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.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
We have past the limit. The gunslinger was totally uneeded as were the two alt classes. There is nothing left to do that can not and should not be archetypes of other classes.

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. My group hasn't tried a gunslinger in an actual AP, but it is sure to come up eventually. Probably the upcoming pirate AP, since to most of us, visions of pirates always include pistols, not crossbows. But that is just me.

But as far as a new class, one thing I would like to see would be a focused shapechanger. Not a full spellcaster/limited shapechanger like the druid, but a primary shapechanger/limited (or no) spelllcasting type character.


It's not a problem, if you don't like a class, don't play it or don't allow if you'r a GM.
PF matherials has many times useful stuffs than old D&D books in the same number of pages.
I prefer archetype, but a new class would not bother me.


Yeah, I'm still waiting for the shaman class. I loved the spirit shaman from 3.5, and I think paizo could do it thirty times better. I mean, just compare favored soul to the oracle.

Liberty's Edge

Goblins Eighty-Five wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:
Play a witch who focuses more on hexes than spells. Pick up Arcane Blast at 10th level.

That isn't a no bookwork magic-feeling class, that is a: I can't even play my concept till 10th level, please oh god why haven't we leveled in four months 2nd level sucks witch, who still casts spells.

I don't care what it is called, or how it is flavored, but a magical flavored class with minimal bookwork (no spells) right at level one would be fantastic.

A no spells ranger and a no spells paladin archetype is desperately needed. I have far too many players who play either rangers or paladins and just plain forget they even cast spells, and want something more than the meager options listed in Complete Warrior. And if this already exists, I beg you, tell me which book!

Have you checked out the Spell-less Ranger from Kobold Quarterly #11? it has proven to be quite popular! In fact, keep your eyes out over the next few months - an update and expanded version will be coming out as a stand-alone release :)


This could be an archetype.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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

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.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Sean FitzSimon wrote:
Yeah, I'm still waiting for the shaman class. I loved the spirit shaman from 3.5, and I think paizo could do it thirty times better. I mean, just compare favored soul to the oracle.

Paizo's already given you all the Shaman you're going to get from them in the form of druid archetypes. So you'll need to look at 3pp, or possibly adapt the Green Ronin book.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
There should only be two classes. The Warrior and the Mage.

Yes the Mage is God and his purpose is to toss out lines like this to the Warrior.

"Here I am, being absolutely clever, and no one is standing around being impressed! Why do I have you lot along for anyway?"

Extra credit if you can figure where I drew that from.


TheSideKick wrote:
SmiloDan wrote:

I would like there to be an "official" version of the warlock. A fire-and-don't-forget magic-user. Really simple, so rules-lite players can enjoy playing a magic-user without having to learn tons of different spells.

I just did a one-shot with one of my versions of the warlock for a rules-lite player, and she really liked it. She liked the lack of record keeping and book keeping, and she liked having options, but not TOO many options. She usually plays an archer, she always has to make decisions about melee or ranged, or many-shot or vital strike or rapid shot, and with the eldritch blast (with the eldritch glaive invocation), she just had to worry about melee or ranged, one attack per round, but a pretty hard hit that didn't out-shine the other PCs (a switch-hitter inquisitor and a half-ogre barbarian smasher).

personally i would love to see a witch archetype "Hexblade" and let them make a warlock as a base class.

Actually, the "Hexblade" archtype is under the Magus, called the Hexcrafter


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

Yes the Mage is God and his purpose is to toss out lines like this to the Warrior.

"Here I am, being absolutely clever, and no one is standing around being impressed! Why do I have you lot along for anyway?"

Extra credit if you can figure where I drew that from.

A Dr. Who reference in a roomful of nerds and you expect us to miss it? You sir, forget your demographic.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Never could get into Dr. Who. I think the daleks scared me as a young child when my mother watched it, giving me an aversion.


TriOmegaZero wrote:
Never could get into Dr. Who. I think the daleks scared me as a young child when my mother watched it, giving me an aversion.

Damn shame, never watched the old ones, but I'm a ravenous fan of the new series. David Tennant and Matt Smith are such perfect characters, not to mention some of the companions. Big fan.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I did enjoy Waters of Mar and The End of Time, so I may need to get into it now that I'm old enough to not be completely terrified of the monsters. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
seekerofshadowlight wrote:

We have past the limit. The gunslinger was totally uneeded as were the two alt classes. There is nothing left to do that can not and should not be archetypes of other classes.

If you want to be blunt, a number of classes could be folded into archtypes of other classes.

I agree. We are at or perhaps even past the limit. Perhaps when new major game systems are added, such as psionics, it could justify new base classes, but otherwise they would be superfluous.

Silver Crusade

Im just trying to keep things focused on these questions: Do we need more Base classes? Have we hit the "goldilocks" Number of classes in other words we have the right amount of classes? Do we have too many base classes?

Thank you for all of your opinions and thoughts. I will come on a little later to see what i can tell the majority of people think.

Please keep your thoughts coming

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
TriOmegaZero wrote:
I did enjoy Waters of Mar and The End of Time, so I may need to get into it now that I'm old enough to not be completely terrified of the monsters. :)

Don't worry Moffet will have you hiding under the bed again in short notice. (try to avoid shadowy areas though :) His particular schtick seems to be revisiting classic phobias in new ways.

BBCAmerica just reran the Tennant episode that introduced the Weeping Angels. If you want a monster that ratchets up the paranoia angle this would be it. The Silents would top that if it wasn't for their "other" property. :)

Sovereign Court

F. Wesley Schneider mentioned in the Secrets of Galorian forum at Gen Con that they would like to keep the number of base classes at the current leveland currently have no plans for expansion. One, Paizo believes in supporting their base classes in all their products and 2 he said they are difficult to do.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ElyasRavenwood wrote:

Im just trying to keep things focused on these questions: Do we need more Base classes? Have we hit the "goldilocks" Number of classes in other words we have the right amount of classes? Do we have too many base classes?

There's no definitive answer for what's the right number. Some folks will say that the game got too large when they went beyond the basic four plus dwarf, elf, and halfling. (in the old old version the races were classes onto themselves) Others will say there's still something that's not covered by class and archetype.

In other words, it's a subjective call. When every new class that Paizo cranks out continues to make enjoyable reading even if I don't play them, it's hard to argue that they're making "too many."

Dark Archive

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
Edit: Found the names Paladin (warrior of holy light) and Ranger (Skirmisher) are both spell less and in the APG

Hey thanks! These are much better than what was in the Complete Warrior!

I find myself thinking that a magic archtype for Wizard, Sorcerer or Witch that completely removes spells from the equation won't be coming around anytime soon. Or ever.

I'm still hoping for a Steampunk Book, with a tinker class in it. Come on Paizo, my steampunk conventions would eat that up!

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Sean FitzSimon wrote:
Yeah, I'm still waiting for the shaman class. I loved the spirit shaman from 3.5, and I think paizo could do it thirty times better. I mean, just compare favored soul to the oracle.
Paizo's already given you all the Shaman you're going to get from them in the form of druid archetypes. So you'll need to look at 3pp, or possibly adapt the Green Ronin book.

You also might want to check out the Winter issue of Kobold Quarterly when it comes out if you are looking for a true Shaman base class!


TriOmegaZero wrote:
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? ;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Frogboy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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? ;)

Because then we'd either go into the D20 Modern forum, or say just screw classes altogether and start playing HERO or GURPS.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Frogboy wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
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? ;)

Well, that just wouldn't be D&D.

1 to 50 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.