|
Over powerful is not a sign I would use to describe "well designed". If it is underpowered it is not well designed and if it is over powered it is also not well designed.It kinda makes me sad seeing people using the cleric and druid as "benchmarks" of a well balanced class.This thread is talking about how well designed a class is, not most balanced. Clerics are extremely well designed. They happen to be powerful as well.
Pray tell, let's hear about your balance then, since you want to go down that road.
Over powerful is not a sign I would use to describe "well designed". If it is underpowered it is not well designed and if it is over powered it is also not well designed.It kinda makes me sad seeing people using the cleric and druid as "benchmarks" of a well balanced class.This thread is talking about how well designed a class is, not most balanced. Clerics are extremely well designed. They happen to be powerful as well.
Taking my line of thought on the matter, Druid is well designed in a low-op game. It is poorly designed in a high-op game.
It kinda makes me sad seeing people using the cleric and druid as "benchmarks" of a well balanced class.
Well, this thread was not about balance versus other classes. That is like judging how well designed one class is based on how well designed other classes are, and that leads to madness. You can ask if the character would be appropriately able to contribute to combat in a party of ideally well designed classes however. That is decidedly different from a 1 on 1 comparison, and does not need to base the evaluation on other evaluations per say.
When it comes to balance, the question is more: Is the class balanced versus the trials it will face in the game, or does it break the game in those regards? In this respect, stereotypes say the wizard would probably fail at higher levels just as much as the rogue would; it isn't because their power relative to one and other though. Presumably, the rogue has too much trouble dealing with higher level challenges while the wizard has too little. Of course, as I said in the OP, this is relative to the type of campaign and the group of players, but I will repeat, you have to try to envision an "average" game and party, as difficult as that may sound.
(Those are just stereotypes though, and I'm not advocating that they are true necessarily. I only mean to use them as examples.)
That isn't to say that one can't use a well designed class to attempt to understand how to accomplish good design and apply these virtues when creating or judging other classes however.
Regardless this is all only a single aspect of class design, and there are others.
Pray tell, let's hear about your balance then, since you want to go down that road.Over powerful is not a sign I would use to describe "well designed". If it is underpowered it is not well designed and if it is over powered it is also not well designed.It kinda makes me sad seeing people using the cleric and druid as "benchmarks" of a well balanced class.This thread is talking about how well designed a class is, not most balanced. Clerics are extremely well designed. They happen to be powerful as well.
I gave that answer before the thread died the first time. To me Bard, ranger and witch are benchmarks of well designed classes.
What is a good design? If I can't hope to anwser for everybody, I will at least share my criterions of a well designed class.
1) It should offer versatility enough so you don't feel you are always doing the same thing with your character, and you cand mechanically build different characters from the same class.
2) It should not be a bookkeeping nightmare.
3) It should offer enough "archetypes" (or build options) so that you can cutomize it to suit your tastes / campaign needs. I'm not talking about purely mechanicals differences here (that would be number 1) but about the flexibility the class offers to support your roleplaying ideas.
4) It should mechanically and reliably be able to do its shtick without extreme optimisation.
So, I'll go with sorcerer, bard, oracle, alchemist, inquisitor, barbarian, ranger (non spellcasting archetypes) and cavalier.
I find thoses classes offer a lot of versatility, both crunchwise and fluffwise, are easy to play, and don't require for the player to be a supercomputer to get the game flow going.
The Magus class I still need to see in play. It seems ok, if too much a niche class for my taste. Also, prepared caster gets a -1, but it's a short spell list at least.
The other classes?
1) Fighter and gunslingers are not versatile enough. (Gunslinger gets a point just for at least having 4 skill points/level)
2) Prepared casters (wizard, witch, cleric and druids) and summoners are too much bookkeeping for my taste. Ok, I'll prepare my spells for the day, could we interrupt the game again for 15 minutes? Ok, I'll summon a creature, give me the bestiary please, and wait 10 minutes until I figure it out. Argh! It depends on the player, I know, but a well designed class should not depend on the player ability that much, IMO.
3)Paladins and Monks, I find they tend to pinhole you in a very specific roleplaying style and don't offer a wide enough range of options to let one paladin or monk to be very different from another one. Maybe it's because of the people I played with, or because of the code of conduct built into the classes. It's very debatable, and I'm aware of that.
4) Rogue. I love rogues - they are the most versatile mundane class there is and a lot of cool character concepts just screem rogue. But they are a nightmare to build in order to be on-par with other classes. I mean, if you have one min-maxed powerbuilded rogue in a group of not optimized but competent characters, it may work, but it should not be that way. I really hope for a "ultimate skills" book to fix this, maybe with skill tricks or something that let them be reliable.
1) It should offer versatility enough so you don't feel you are always doing the same thing with your character, and you can mechanically build different characters from the same class.
2) It should not be a bookkeeping nightmare.
3) It should offer enough "archetypes" (or build options) so that you can customize it to suit your tastes / campaign needs. I'm not talking about purely mechanicals differences here (that would be number 1) but about the flexibility the class offers to support your roleplaying ideas.
4) It should mechanically and reliably be able to do its shtick without extreme optimization.
I totally agree! #1 and #3 look similar, but I assume that #1 means you don't have to take the same action round after round, and #3 means there's more than one theme (or strategy) to build the character on.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
So, I'll go with sorcerer, bard, oracle, alchemist, inquisitor, barbarian, ranger (non spellcasting archetypes) and cavalier.
I find thoses classes offer a lot of versatility, both crunchwise and fluffwise, are easy to play, and don't require for the player to be a supercomputer to get the game flow going.
I find the cavalier to be too restrictive. It seems to violate #1 and #3. I haven't played one yet, so I could be totally wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1) Fighter and gunslingers are not versatile enough. (Gunslinger gets a point just for at least having 4 skill points/level)
I'd love to see some flavor added to the fighter class. Options could be created that cast the fighter as a hardened campaigner (Add some abilities that help with camping and traveling. I imagine things like "Forced March - your party's overland speed increases by 10 as you choose efficient routes and set the right pace." or "Fortified Camp - You are adept at choosing the right location to camp, posting sentries at the right locations, and setting/striking camp efficiently. . ."
Another flavor might be the master smith. Give bonuses on craft skills to make weapons, armor, or other fighter-type gear. Special abilities could allow field repairs, or even item customization at higher levels.
Gladiator, guard, thug, there are a lot of possibilities. Just add a couple skill points and a couple non-combat abilities, with a little description of the theme.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2) Prepared casters (wizard, witch, cleric and druids) and summoners are too much bookkeeping for my taste. Ok, I'll prepare my spells for the day, could we interrupt the game again for 15 minutes? Ok, I'll summon a creature, give me the bestiary please, and wait 10 minutes until I figure it out. Argh! It depends on the player, I know, but a well designed class should not depend on the player ability that much, IMO.
As much as I prefer playing wizards and clerics (two of my favorite classes to play) I find them to be somewhat troublesome in design. There is such a thing as having too many choices to make during an adventuring day. On the other hand, both prepared classes are more powerful than their spontaneous counterparts, and the spontaneous casters are a little too restrictive.
I'd love to see a hybrid of wiz/sorc or cleric/oracle. I don't think such a thing would be difficult to make.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
3)Paladins and Monks, I find they tend to pinhole you in a very specific roleplaying style and don't offer a wide enough range of options to let one paladin or monk to be very different from another one. Maybe it's becauseof the people I played with, or because of the code of conduct built into the classes. It's very debatable, and I'm aware of that.
I've seen other games handle this problem quite easily by offering several pre-written codes from which to choose. I'd love to see Pathfinder do that.
Some oaths and archetypes are a move in this direction.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4) Rogue. I love rogues - they are the most versatile mundane class there is and a lot of cool character concepts just screem rogue. But they are a nightmare to build in order to be on-par with other classes. I mean, if you have one min-maxed powerbuilded rogue in a group of not optimized but competent characters, it may work, but it should not be that way. I really hope for a "ultimate skills" book to fix this, maybe with skill tricks or something that let them be reliable.
Sigh. This one is tougher. I'd actually like to see a few changes that make the existing rogue better. For example, more effects that cause enemies to become flat footed, and lower entry requirements on certain combat feats. (Take "+1 BAB" out completely! It ruins a ton of builds, without really contributing to flavor or balance.)
Great stuff, thanks for posting!
|
It kinda makes me sad seeing people using the cleric and druid as "benchmarks" of a well balanced class.This thread is talking about how well designed a class is, not most balanced. Clerics are extremely well designed. They happen to be powerful as well.
I disagree about the Cleric. After first level, you can essentually autolevel to 20, and there is a distinct lack of practically anything Cleric only (or even primarily) that other classes can't take or use even better. They fill no role that someone else can't do (better?), and most options (like Archtypes) use almost the exact same features.
Lack of actual class features (and one of the only classes that doesn't have a capstone or even get anything new after leveling really), and the fact that it is pretty difficult to make the class that much different that most other Clerics, or to even focus the class towards what they are suppossed to be devoted to, all make the Cleric a terrible design in my book. I also disagree that the Cleric is overpowered, but that is off topic and completely a matter of opinion and game style.
I am so confused with that whole statement Beckett I am at a lose at how to respond.
|
|
I'm saying that the Cleric is terribly designed, in my opinion, for those listed reasons. Obviously, you and I have exact opposite views on anything even Cleric related, hence the problem.
They really have nothing to work towards, like a new class feature (with the exceptions of domain powers sometimes, and that means at best 17 dead levels).
There is not much in the way of Clericish Feats excpet the few that might as well be class features, few Archtypes, and fewer still that do not draw from the same exact features or do almost the same thing. Prestige Classes are pretty much the same deal.
It is difficult to break out of the box, or to differentiat/personalize the class (besides RP wise than anyone can do), because of all of the above, and the poor design (since 3E) means most Clerics are almost exactly the same.
There are multiple classes that are design with heavy influence of filling the Cleric role without having to carry all stuff people hate about the Cleric class, namely the Oracle <F!!! deities and stuff>, the Witch <cool, F!!! deities, and arcane prime healing>, the Inquisitor <F!!! alignment restrictions, worse spell list, and lack of cool options, and Pali while your at it, but lets jab the Cleric so I have a point of existing that doesn't in any way contradict Golarions concept of Divine Magic or the rules>, Magus <no Clerics can't take Fighter Only feats, because we want Fighters to be special, and don't want to cross over some intrinsic roles between classes, well, except if you are the Magus, in which case ignor anything we have ever said about intention or balance, or logic, etc. . .>
Oh I think its bad design as well. Different reason , I feel its to good and based upon the idea no one wants to play the heal bot unless its so awesome you'll put up with being a band aid to play one.
It only exists because pathfinder like 3.5 has a real issue with healing or lack there of. Pathfinder didn't fix that issue so they didn't fix the cleric.
Yep I know ya do not. I myself would kill it completely. Or call the inquisitor the cleric and roll the rest of the cleric things into the wizard, while fixing the lack of healing.
A walking medkit should not be required.
Great feedback
Thanks. You got the difference between #1 and #3 right.
I also wish for more flavorfull fighters. I personally give them a 2 more skill points to be spent on professions/craft/knowledge just to give them some expertise outside of combat situations, but I wish they could have "fighter talents" too.
For the rogue, well, I give them the choice to trade, on the spot, max of half their SA dices for an equivalent to hit bonus. Does not make them melee powerhouses, but allows them to reliably contribute to combat situations.
As for the cavalier class, I find it versatile enough. From the condescending drill sergeant to the noble knight or kennel master, I feel you can tailor it for a lot of military careers. I find it to be, preposterously, more versatile than the fighter for the fighter niche, if only because of the tactician class feature make them usefull for the group, not only for themselves, and can be tailored to fit their theme. (defensive, offensive, opportunist, etc.)
Oh, and by the way, I also was wizard and cleric player. But I'm proud to say I was (in most cases) able to get the game going without interrupting the flow by preparing spell lists to memorize and pre-made summons. That being said, I got tired of the bookkeeping, and went over to the spontaneous casting side, and I am happy I did.
But again, we allow, in our game, a spontaneous caster to change a spell or two in downtime (usually, you need a week to change a spell for another one) so I do not feel as restrained as a RAW spontaneous caster.
A walking medkit should not be required.I agree, but would much prefer that that aspect be divorced from the class completely (allowed as an option if people want to play it), and the holy warror/prophet of an ideal/white mage(ish)/spokesperson for the divine aspects be played up severely.
As I said roll the channel into a wizard option, kill cleric.
|
|
I gave that answer before the thread died the first time. To me Bard, ranger and witch are benchmarks of well designed classes.Pray tell, let's hear about your balance then, since you want to go down that road.Over powerful is not a sign I would use to describe "well designed". If it is underpowered it is not well designed and if it is over powered it is also not well designed.It kinda makes me sad seeing people using the cleric and druid as "benchmarks" of a well balanced class.This thread is talking about how well designed a class is, not most balanced. Clerics are extremely well designed. They happen to be powerful as well.
I was actually referring to your belief and idea of balance.
And then ignore it after I pick holes in it.
I think you're wrong and crazy. You think I'm wrong and crazy. Great. Now let's move on.
I'm saying that the Cleric is terribly designed, in my opinion, for those listed reasons. Obviously, you and I have exact opposite views on anything even Cleric related, hence the problem.
** spoiler omitted **
I have to agree. One of the few times Paizo dropped the ball was the cleric.
And I say that having played a cleric since 2nd ed. I have struggled mightly over the years to make him non-vanilla or not a walking band-aid. The class has just too few options that mechanically make it very boring.
Also the sheer number of spells they get means it takes me an hour to prep spells for the day.
The real ball drop was the domains. Instead of having more unique powers I get, oh gee....more spells...I already had a million of those.
I'd rather see the amount of spells reduced and some class options put in instead.
I'd also like to see some of the feat options for channeling be options that can be taken as class abilities. For example you could continue to strengthen channeling against undead or extend it to evil outsiders as a level option.
I have to agree. One of the few times Paizo dropped the ball was the cleric.
And I say that having played a cleric since 2nd ed. I have struggled mightly over the years to make him non-vanilla or not a walking band-aid. The class has just too few options that mechanically make it very boring.
Also the sheer number of spells they get means it takes me an hour to prep spells for the day.
The real ball drop was the domains. Instead of having more unique powers I get, oh gee....more spells...I already had a million of those.
I'd rather see the amount of spells reduced and some class options put in instead.
I'd also like to see some of the feat options for channeling be options that can be taken as class abilities. For example you could continue to strengthen channeling against undead or extend it to evil outsiders as a level option.
2nd edition actually had an excellent addition to clerics in the Forgotten Realms setting material. Each of the Forgotten Realms deities had a profile that included the same flavor elements that current deity write-ups include (Name, history, favored weapon, etc. but also listed which spheres of spells that god offered its priests - much like schools with a specialist wizard, most types of priest could not cast from all spheres. Also, there were frequently bonus weapon proficiencies or other minor powers. Then, to really spice things up, many substituted another power for Turn Undead (aka Channel Energy). I'd like to see something similar in Pathfinder.
2nd edition actually had an excellent addition to clerics in the Forgotten Realms setting material. Each of the Forgotten Realms deities had a profile that included the same flavor elements that current deity write-ups include (Name, history, favored weapon, etc. but also listed which spheres of spells that god offered its priests - much like schools with a specialist wizard, most types of priest could not cast from all spheres. Also, there were frequently bonus weapon proficiencies or other minor powers. Then, to really spice things up, many substituted another power for Turn Undead (aka Channel Energy). I'd like to see something similar in Pathfinder.I have to agree. One of the few times Paizo dropped the ball was the cleric.
And I say that having played a cleric since 2nd ed. I have struggled mightly over the years to make him non-vanilla or not a walking band-aid. The class has just too few options that mechanically make it very boring.
Also the sheer number of spells they get means it takes me an hour to prep spells for the day.
The real ball drop was the domains. Instead of having more unique powers I get, oh gee....more spells...I already had a million of those.
I'd rather see the amount of spells reduced and some class options put in instead.
I'd also like to see some of the feat options for channeling be options that can be taken as class abilities. For example you could continue to strengthen channeling against undead or extend it to evil outsiders as a level option.
Have you looked at variant channeling in ultimate magic?
Have you looked at variant channeling in ultimate magic?
Yes, but I was underwhelmed. Most of the variants for positive energy were minor bonuses that weren't worth using a standard action.
The 2nd edition ones were quite dramatically different. One I recall was for a god of luck that granted d20 rerolls instead of turning.
[
I think you're wrong and crazy. You think I'm wrong and crazy. Great. Now let's move on.
Well I never said crazy.........
Every time someone votes for the Alchemist in this thread makes my ego swell .2% larger.
BEWARE.
You designed the alchemist?!
Creative Director
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You designed the alchemist?!Every time someone votes for the Alchemist in this thread makes my ego swell .2% larger.
BEWARE.
I did.
It went through a fair amount of revision by the design team, of course, but the original design of the alchemist as it appeared in the playtest for APG was my design work.
You designed the alchemist?!Every time someone votes for the Alchemist in this thread makes my ego swell .2% larger.
BEWARE.
I did.
It went through a fair amount of revision by the design team, of course, but the original design of the alchemist as it appeared in the playtest for APG was my design work.
For some reason, this makes me far too giddy.
You designed the alchemist?!Every time someone votes for the Alchemist in this thread makes my ego swell .2% larger.
BEWARE.
I did.
It went through a fair amount of revision by the design team, of course, but the original design of the alchemist as it appeared in the playtest for APG was my design work.
That's pretty neat, I really like the alchemist. I wrote a gnome alchemist up for a campaign, bombs all the way, made him like a little Italian demo-man. Good times.
The only thing I find interesting is that they get mutagens and bombs. Did you ever consider an either/or scenario for them? Like the way rangers choose a combat style. I'm not here to argue balance or anything, just curious if they ever almost turned out this way.
You designed the alchemist?!Every time someone votes for the Alchemist in this thread makes my ego swell .2% larger.
BEWARE.
I did.
It went through a fair amount of revision by the design team, of course, but the original design of the alchemist as it appeared in the playtest for APG was my design work.
As the up-thread critic of the Alchemist, I feel like this is a good time for me to gain a deeper understanding of the mechanics I took issue with.
- Mutagen - This is a great idea for a combat buff. Unfortunately, it's either a) only usable once per day or b) requires the party to take an unprecedented one-hour break between encounters.
Also, a duration of 10 min/level is frustrating. As a GM running a campaign, it's now important to track how many minutes have passed between encounters.There are no spells in the Core book that have 10 minutes/lvel duration, and only five in the whole game.
5:
Ancestral Gift (Dwarves Of Golarion)
Aram Zey's Trap Ward (Pathfinder Society Field Guide)
Echolocation (Ultimate Magic)
Named Bullet, Greater (Ultimate Combat)
Summon Accuser (Rival Guide) - Poison - The rules for poison are troublesome in a number of ways, and here's a class written to use them. I'd feel much better about the alchemist's poison use if the APG had contained revised poison rules.
- Bombs - Actually, bombs are great! The combination of target/area, and of a to-hit roll with 3/4 BAB, filled an important gap in the available classes. The only thing I dislike about bombs is that they were made subject to TWF full attack rules, allowing a major damage nova.
...There are no spells in the Core book that have 10 minutes/lvel duration...
Objectively false :)
Also, with 10 minutes per level duration, it's more like a great combat buff for 2-4 encounters.
...There are no spells in the Core book that have 10 minutes/lvel duration...Objectively false :)
** spoiler omitted **
My mistake!
I used the spell database downloaded from the PSRD, and filtered for durations. I didn't realize that they were entered into the database with several different formats for the duration. If you include "Concentration, up to 10 min./level" there are actually 49 spells in the core book!
While I thought of several off the top of my head, I must admit that I'm surprised that there are THAT many.
|
1. Alchemist - toolbox classes are always nice, and Alch is one great toolbox at that. Cool archetypes, too!
2. Paladin - one of the most craptastic 3.5 classes makes a great comeback. Of all the countless attempts to fix Paladins over the years, this one is the best.
3. Witch - ever wanted to be able to cast heal and black testicles without having to cut your wrists by going Mystic Theurge? Well, now you can, laughing all the way along and looking at people with your Evil Eye. Classy.
...cast heal and black testicles...
Did you just say "black testicles"?
Does the black testicles spell have the evil descriptor?
I think Alchies lost their well-designed when the "cool" thing to do was to have buff spells cast at 20th levels regurgiated out. So now you get Alchies with +5 to all natural attacks, and +5 Natural AC for 4 hours, as a 2nd level spell.
That spell should cap potions at the level of the caster.
Only if your GM is silly enough to let you have those.