Magic is awesome.
|
I think that is because with the advent of the Archetype that most melee types are similar enough that with just a Archetype change you can make a whole host of different types of sneaky/scout characters with the rogue and same for fighting types with the fighter. While spell casters tend to be tied a lot more closely to how they do magic and different spell lists. Which makes it harder to accomplish with just archetypes and capture some feels.
Just my personal take on it.
|
Magic sells. That would perhaps mean that it's popular. Contrast the amount of pure magic splats of 3.5 era (SC, ToM, Dragon Magic, Magic of Incarnum, 2x arcane class splats) as opposed to pure martial splats (erm, Tome of Battle and Complete Warrior, and even some would argue that ToB is more a magic book ;-P).
I'd say that the magic-less concepts are mostly covered. Between tons of feats and a few really versatile non-magical classes with tons of archetypes, most of the concepts that don't have any magic are covered.
|
Magic sells. That would perhaps mean that it's popular. Contrast the amount of pure magic splats of 3.5 era (SC, ToM, Dragon Magic, Magic of Incarnum, 2x arcane class splats) as opposed to pure martial splats (erm, Tome of Battle and Complete Warrior, and even some would argue that ToB is more a magic book ;-P).
Magic sells. Sex sells. Therefor magic is sex.
If there are any flaws in this postulate, I refuse to look for them.
|
I'd say that the magic-less concepts are mostly covered. Between tons of feats and a few really versatile non-magical classes with tons of archetypes, most of the concepts that don't have any magic are covered.
+1
we have;
Monk: guy that beats stuff up with his hands
Caviler: mounted melee
Samurai: mounted archery
Barbarain: guy that gets angry and smashes stuff
Rouge: sneaky guy
Gunslinger: guy with a gun
Fighter: can cover pretty much anything else
In fact the only thing i can think of that can't be properly covered by a fighter is a decent thrower, you have to optimize the crap out of them just to get them performing 'average'
Um, actually not the breakdown is very even if you realize there are actually 3 categories. Full Caster, Non-caster, and hybrid caster/noncaster
Non-Caster:
Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Cavalier, Gunslinger (6)
Caster:
Sorceror, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Oracle (6)
Hybrid:
Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Inquisitor, Summoner, Magus, Alchemist (7)
The split is actually very even.
In fact the only thing i can think of that can't be properly covered by a fighter is a decent thrower, you have to optimize the crap out of them just to get them performing 'average'In other news: Paizo, can we have this please?
The super genius shadow assassin makes an awesome shuriken thrower (though that is a specific kind of thrower ofcourse) but in case you really want to hurl bits of metal at people AND be effective, this is a good choice. Very little optimization needed beyond take basic ranged feats and the shuriken style of the class.
Um, actually not the breakdown is very even if you realize there are actually 3 categories. Full Caster, Non-caster, and hybrid caster/noncaster
Non-Caster:
Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Cavalier, Gunslinger (6)
Caster:
Sorceror, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Oracle (6)
Hybrid:
Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Inquisitor, Summoner, Magus, Alchemist (7)The split is actually very even.
Not even that. Monk is clearly magic. He talks to squirrels at higher levels and dimension doors. Therefore, he is a hybrid.
Noncaster:
Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Cavalier, Gunslinger (5)
Caster:
Sorceror, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Oracle (6)
Hybrid:
Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Monk, Inquisitor, Summoner, Magus, Alchemist (8)
|
|
Magic sells. That would perhaps mean that it's popular. Contrast the amount of pure magic splats of 3.5 era (SC, ToM, Dragon Magic, Magic of Incarnum, 2x arcane class splats) as opposed to pure martial splats (erm, Tome of Battle and Complete Warrior, and even some would argue that ToB is more a magic book ;-P).Magic sells. Sex sells. Therefor magic is sex.
If there are any flaws in this postulate, I refuse to look for them.
Not to mention sex can be magical if done right. :)
Um, actually not the breakdown is very even if you realize there are actually 3 categories. Full Caster, Non-caster, and hybrid caster/noncaster
Non-Caster:
Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Cavalier, Gunslinger (6)
Caster:
Sorceror, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Oracle (6)
Hybrid:
Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Inquisitor, Summoner, Magus, Alchemist (7)The split is actually very even.
Not even that. Monk is clearly magic. He talks to squirrels at higher levels and dimension doors. Therefore, he is a hybrid.
Noncaster:
Fighter, Rogue, Barbarian, Cavalier, Gunslinger (5)
Caster:
Sorceror, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Oracle (6)
Hybrid:
Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Monk, Inquisitor, Summoner, Magus, Alchemist (8)
The OP asked about caster vs non-caster not magic vs non-magic. Every character in the game has a reliance on or uses magic in some fashion in order to function (magic items). That would keep the monk in non-caster in my book, though he is certainly mystical, I dont think having spell like abilities makes you a caster, it just makes you part of a fantasy setting.
Not to mention sex can be magical if done right. :)Magic sells. That would perhaps mean that it's popular. Contrast the amount of pure magic splats of 3.5 era (SC, ToM, Dragon Magic, Magic of Incarnum, 2x arcane class splats) as opposed to pure martial splats (erm, Tome of Battle and Complete Warrior, and even some would argue that ToB is more a magic book ;-P).Magic sells. Sex sells. Therefor magic is sex.
If there are any flaws in this postulate, I refuse to look for them.
The question is, is it arcane or divine magic?
The question is, is it arcane or divine magic?Not to mention sex can be magical if done right. :)Magic sells. That would perhaps mean that it's popular. Contrast the amount of pure magic splats of 3.5 era (SC, ToM, Dragon Magic, Magic of Incarnum, 2x arcane class splats) as opposed to pure martial splats (erm, Tome of Battle and Complete Warrior, and even some would argue that ToB is more a magic book ;-P).Magic sells. Sex sells. Therefor magic is sex.
If there are any flaws in this postulate, I refuse to look for them.
It's divine of course. ;-)
|
|
Um, actually not the breakdown is very even if you realize there are actually 3 categories. Full Caster, Non-caster, and hybrid caster/noncaster
Non-Caster:
Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Cavalier, Gunslinger (6)
Caster:
Sorceror, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Oracle (6)
Hybrid:
Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Inquisitor, Summoner, Magus, Alchemist (7)The split is actually very even.
but the Cleric, Druid and Oracle can be played as a caster or a hybrid
Magic sells. Sex sells. Therefor magic is sex.If there are any flaws in this postulate, I refuse to look for them.
Oooh, Penguin Logic!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not even that. Monk is clearly magic. He talks to squirrels at higher levels
Lots of people talk to squirrels. I wouldn't call them magic.
Not to mention sex can be magical if done right. :)
This explains the "Warlocks can do their magic all day" T-Shirt I saw the other day.
but the Cleric, Druid and Oracle can be played as a caster or a hybridUm, actually not the breakdown is very even if you realize there are actually 3 categories. Full Caster, Non-caster, and hybrid caster/noncaster
Non-Caster:
Fighter, Rogue, Monk, Barbarian, Cavalier, Gunslinger (6)
Caster:
Sorceror, Wizard, Cleric, Druid, Witch, Oracle (6)
Hybrid:
Paladin, Ranger, Bard, Inquisitor, Summoner, Magus, Alchemist (7)The split is actually very even.
That does not change what they are. They are classified as full casters even if someone could choose to play them differently, just like rangers can play as scout, but they are good for putting out good damage in combat instead of using their skill points to scout ahead.
Another example is that the paladin can ignore his spells to just play a melee only character, but that does not mean he can't cast spells so he is not a hybrid or caster at all.