Leaning too much towards magic?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

Grand Lodge

I was just thinking of the weight of numbers of casters towards non casters.

In the CRB we had 5 spell casting classes and then the Paladin and ranger - what can be called 'semi casters'. This was from 11 overall classes.

Now we have the new 'base classes' and the ratio there was 2 non casting classes to 6 new casters (counting the summoner and the alchemist). Alternative classes not counted (samurai etc).

Total classes = 19, 11 of which are casters and then of course the Ranger/Paladin.

Is it because magic is needed to make it more fun for the players? More spells = more books? Martial classes already tapped out concept wise?


Magic is awesome.

Silver Crusade

Magic is magic.

Dark Archive

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.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

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 is easy. I could create 100 spells in a week and if some of them are bad, it's easy to fix.

A class is hard and if some part of it is bad, it's hard to fix.

So, from a project management perspective, it makes sense to test the junior designers on spells. So, classes which use those spells are needed.

Sovereign Court

Gorbacz wrote:
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.

Shadow Lodge

KaeYoss wrote:
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'

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Skerek wrote:
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?


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

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.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
BobChuck wrote:
Skerek wrote:
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.


Kolokotroni wrote:

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)

Dark Archive

roccojr wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
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. :)


Starbuck_II wrote:


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 Monk may be magic, but he's not a caster.

Actually, that may be a largely missing category. Classes that do (or have or are) magic, but don't cast spells. There are archetypes for some of the hybrid classes that trade off casting for other abilities, but no other base classes that have magical abilities without also casting spells.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Starbuck_II wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:

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.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dark_Mistress wrote:
roccojr wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
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. :)

The question is, is it arcane or divine magic?


Kolokotroni wrote:
Dark_Mistress wrote:
roccojr wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
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. :)
The question is, is it arcane or divine magic?

It's divine of course. ;-)

Shadow Lodge

Kolokotroni wrote:

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


roccojr wrote:


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.
Starbuck_II wrote:


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.


Dark_Mistress wrote:


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.


Skerek wrote:
Kolokotroni wrote:

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

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.

Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Leaning too much towards magic? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.