While paging through my Beginner's Box and looking at the basic four classes, I wondered at adding in some of the other classes from the full game.
Then I wondered why I would want to do that. Aren't the other classes just variations on the core four? Isn't a ranger just a fighter who chooses two-weapon fighting or archery feats? Isn't a druid just a cleric of a nature deity (or more nebulous "nature" as a concept)? Add in multi-classing, and isn't a bard just a rogue who takes wizard levels? Isn't a paladin just a fighter with some cleric?
(Of course I mean these all conceptually, not mechanically. CLEARLY there's a difference between a bard and a rogue/wizard.)
So to you all, I wonder aloud, why do you play a druid rather than a nature-worshiping cleric? Why play a barbarian rather than a fighter with a great big axe?
All the core classes are fundamentally different. Each of them can do something that the others can't.
Druids have a distinctively different chice of spells from clerics, they can turn into animals and later plants and elementals independent of the spellcasting. They can have animal companion which can fulfill a multitude of roles.
Bards ave their bardic music and very different spells from wizards, they can do a little bit of anything.
Rangers can track, have lots of skills especally suited for wilderness survival, to which neither rogue nor fighter lend themselves nearly as well.
Barbarians have their rage and rage abilities which give them temporary bonuses.
Sorcerers are closest to what you are arguing, their main feature is, like with wizards, their pellcasting and they have the same spell list, but then the way they cast them and their secondary abilities are very much different, and make the whole class feel quite different.
I could epand this over all the other classes from Advanced Player's guide, Ultimate Combat and -Magic as well.
So to you all, I wonder aloud, why do you play a druid rather than a nature-worshiping cleric? Why play a barbarian rather than a fighter with a great big axe?
For the differences in character and character sheet.
Sure, I can play a fighter with low intelligent who comes from a primitive tribe and throws himself at enemies recklessly. But by the time I'm doing that it would almost be criminal not to roll a barbarian.
And while I'm rolling that barbarian I can build my sheet around the mechanical perks of being a barbarian: I can use trips or other combat maneuvers without a surplus of feats because my rage powers let me "fake" it. I can move eight squares a turn and threaten more of the board. I can tank without relying on AC- which, let's face it, doesn't scale up as well as damage later in the game. And that HP/DR is a godsend.
As for my favorite class, I like the magus. And you want me to defend it? The thing can learn wizard spells, cast while attacking in full plate armor, transform into all sorts of nasty and do it all while flying. I think it can defend itself (;
While paging through my Beginner's Box and looking at the basic four classes, I wondered at adding in some of the other classes from the full game.
Then I wondered why I would want to do that. Aren't the other classes just variations on the core four? Isn't a ranger just a fighter who chooses two-weapon fighting or archery feats? Isn't a druid just a cleric of a nature deity (or more nebulous "nature" as a concept)? Add in multi-classing, and isn't a bard just a rogue who takes wizard levels? Isn't a paladin just a fighter with some cleric?
(Of course I mean these all conceptually, not mechanically. CLEARLY there's a difference between a bard and a rogue/wizard.)
So to you all, I wonder aloud, why do you play a druid rather than a nature-worshiping cleric? Why play a barbarian rather than a fighter with a great big axe?
Basically, its a matter of emphasis. Yes, you can at least pay lip service to any concept with a very basic set of classes. But the 'feel' of the class wont be there. You dont get the emphasis of the specialized abilities. Sure a rogue could just take perform sing, and play a 'bard'. But the concept of the inspiriing song bolstering his allies in battle, would be entirely fluff and disconnected from the mechanics of what you are doing.
You could just play a nature-deity worshiping cleric and call it a druid, but the specialized spells and the animal companion, and the wild shape add alot of emphasis to the concept that would be lacking otherwise.
The other classes dont need defending. You dont need to have them, but I WANT to have them, because they add alot to my game in terms of variety but also in terms of connecting the mechanics of the game to my characters in the game world.
Isn't a rogue just a fighter who trades out face-stabs for back-stabs?
Isn't a wizard just a rogue whose skills are magical instead of mundane?
Isn't a cleric just a wizard who trades out arcane spells for divine spells?
This is going to end in tears.
Rogues are cool and awesome.
The fact that other classes subsume their niche at medium to high levels of play is the fault of faulty system design, and not of the rogue itself.
At the very least, a wizard should need to spend non-incidental resources on outclassing the rogue. (like feats, picking a specific school or a prestige class) It shouldn't happen as a matter of course to any wizard with a non-retarded spell selection.
Of course I mean these all conceptually, not mechanically. CLEARLY there's a difference between a bard and a rogue/wizard.)
So conceptually you think "sneak-attacking stealthy thief" + "sagely arcane master" = "guy who sings to make his friends feel strong"?
Cavalier has a whole mess of bonuses which no fighter can have, as well as order abilities. It's special.
Um, it doesn't cast spells and it isn't a skill monkey, therefore it's pretty much the same as a fighter. Not mechanically, perhaps, but conceptually. Well, not conceptually, perhaps, but in the concept of its mechanics. Well, not exactly, but I'm sure you understand and agree anyhow.
I think that most of the classes can basically be boiled down to some combination of the basic 4 + special abilities.
Monk is really the major oddball of the core classes as he's kinda a fighter rogue hybrid but he's got so many special abilities that he's kinda in no-man's land.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Be right back, scrapping my Alchemist and rebuilding her as a Fighter/Rogue/Wizard hybrid who took a level in Cleric for cures.
In 1e/2e the alchemist concept could largely be simulated by a multiclassed F/T/MU character or god-forbid a dual-classed character.
Part of the problem with 3.x was that you tend to to need to use multiclass combos with special built PrCs to simulate some more outlandish character types and those often feel unsatisfying at low levels when you are only partially through the class progression.
Pathfinder's emphasis on single class progressions done through a bunch of fairly unique base classes modified by archetypes is definitely a strength. Personally I loathed having to go through a ton of classes to build a concept that would often never get there due to a game finishing at a low level.
That being said I do think there are some strengths in a 4 class approach or even adopting some of the classless progressions put forth in 3.x Unearthed Arcana and some other 3.x variants.
I know it sucks pretty bad that every caster class has the exact same spell list and mechanics.
I mean, other than that they totally don't.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Be right back, scrapping my Bard and rebuilding her as a Fighter/Rogue/Wizard hybrid who took a level in Cleric for cures.
Wow, I never realized before that Bards and Alchemists are actually exactly the same.
Wow, you guys are catty. I only meant to have a conversation about class flavor, not get into claw fights because of mechanical differences. Crimony.
Fer instance, I love cavaliers. Even knowing full well that I could make one with a fighter and some feats, I enjoy the premise of a "leader" type character and the variety of orders he can belong to.
Back away, ye fiends! I will not have this debut upstaged by rapscallions. Have at ye! (I'm totally defending this class.)
Im playing pathfinder for mechanics.
So explain to me again how the flavor of a bard inspiring people with his amazing music is pretty much the flavor of a thief who learned to cast spells.
Because from where I'm sitting, you're not getting much discussion because there's nothing to discuss. They're not similar in terms of concept at all. Nor are they similar in terms of flavor. They're similar in terms of... the general flavor of their mechanics, I suppose? Like, if two things cast spells, then if you squint they look like they're pretty much the same in every way? But at that point, you're just looking at caricatures of classes. Like the "Ranger is pretty much a fighter except you're forced to choose archery or TWF for feats" thing - sure, seems reasonable, assuming you somehow missed every single Ranger class feature that isn't Combat Style.
They're not similar mechanically because they do different things (rangers have spells FFS) and they're not similar in terms of character concept because... you do know who Aragorn is, right? So I'm not sure what sort of comparison you are trying to draw.
At best, I can kind of see "A fighter/rogue/wizard/cleric team is well-rounded and covers all the bases, therefore other classes usually overlap with them in some way because they cover different permutations of the same roles"... except again exceptions like Bards and the classes with pets show up.
tl;dr: "I said most classes were pointless, demanded people justify their existence, and did little to support my position or even clarify what my position even was. What could have gone wrong here?"
Isn't a monk just a bad unarmed fighter?
Yes I went there.
"Why would you ever play a druid instead of a nature cleric, other than that both the mechanics and the flavor are different?"
A++ discussion topic here, guaranteed to produce intellectual discourse.
My opinion is what's right. You guys are ALL wrong!
I don't like the premise of this thread.
It basically states "outside the core classes, all other classes are merely bastardizations of these core classes, and I dare you to prove me wrong".
I don't think there is much preventing heated responses.
Fair enough, let's look at it this way.
The sources of inspiration for the different classes, knights and wizards and thieves and what not, create an image in our heads for character archetypes. What makes your mind take the leap from a knight as fighter with specific feats to a paladin?
I'd assumed there was some spark which draws you to a favorite class. If you like it just because meh, I guess that's why this idea didn't take off.
In hindsight, I should've left out the backstory and asked you to promote your favorite class rather than defend it.
The thing about the classes is that every one of them has very unique and flavorful abilities that no other class can reproduce, and by only allowing wizards, rogues, fighters and clreics you massively stifle the options for players who would like to make their character as close to the way they imagine them as possible.
Also mixing and matching abilities by multiclassing when you are trying to achieve a certain style will easily leave your character underpowered, because while they can do a lot of things, they can only do them each at a power level barely above half or maybe even a third of what a regular single-class character can do, which is a ratio at which your abilities become nearly useless compared to your level.
I find cavalier to be much closer to real medieval knights than paladins. In that cavalier's are mounted martial fighter that does not rely on magic and have different codes and beliefs depending on where they were born or who their lord or king is.
Poppycock! All Medieval knights could heal wounds by laying on hands, literally see if someone is a bad person and cast magic granted to them by their gods.
I find cavalier to be much closer to real medieval knights than paladins. In that cavalier's are mounted martial fighter that does not rely on magic and have different codes and beliefs depending on where they were born or who their lord or king is.Poppycock! All Medieval knights could heal wounds by laying on hands, literally see if someone is a bad person and castmagic granted to them by their gods.
They just lost those abilities because of there non-L/G behavior:(
Isn't a monk just a bad unarmed fighter?
Yes I went there.
Can an Unarmed Fighter use 5 Styles at once and get more powerful by being a drunkard?
I rest my case.
I like the magus best because I like playing martial characters who have some supernatural special abilities/spells to get more options.
I could do that with a fighter/mage but the magus just makes both aspects work together better.
I don't like the magus because it doesn't work as a ranged class. (before 11th level thet is, which doesn't matter as we never played that long yet)
I expect this thread to be locked soon.
Likely.
Which is, I think, unfortunate. I think the basic premise could be really cool, and act as a sort of idea catalyst, showing why people enjoy certain classes that one might not otherwise consider.
Maybe we should start another thread, with a more clearly-defined setup? Less "justify your silly non-1e class to me" (which I don't think was actually the OP's intent) and more "explain why playing this class is awesome and fun."
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Defend your favorite thread concept"
The problem with the 4 base classes is that they don't remotely cover all the credible character concepts. I used to play by first coming up with an interesting character and then figuring out how to make him in the system. This works very well in other systems (like GURPS), but in D&D, you're really very limited by your class. What if I want a knight who is skilled in diplomacy and other social stuff? A Fighter doesn't have remotely enough skill points for that. What if you want to play a scholar, sage or an alchemist that's not really a standard a spell-throwing wizard?
Rogue is really the only of the core 4 that has that level of conceptual flexibility.
Of course you can multiclass. This did quite a lot to fix this problem in ways older editions couldn't. A skilled warrior could be a fighter with some Rogue levels, for example. But still, plenty of concepts don't really work very well.
Let's face it: a class is a straightjacket. Some straightjackets give you a bit more room than others, but it's still a straightjacket. If you really want choice, having more straightjackets to choose from is still an improvement.
Personally I like skills, so I'm much more likely to play a Ranger than a Fighter (though admittedly feats also offer a lot of customization options, though this is more mechanical than conceptual customization). I like Bards and Rogues (though I've found I have a hard time getting effective satisfying play out of a Rogue).
So I'd say there's plenty of reason for more classes. Maybe it'd be better to have no classes at all, so you can truly customize to your heart's content, but that would require a totally different system. And as long as we have classes, more classes to fit more diverse concepts is a good thing.
That's not to say all extra classes are automatically good. Some of them seem only mechanically different, and not conceptually. For example, what is a Summoner if not basically just some of kind Wizard? Same thing for a Sorcerer, really (though I like spontaneous casting because it makes a bit more sense to me than standard Vancian magic). I also don't like the Monk much, because it's not really a generic monk, it's a Shaolin monk. If you want a European style monk, you'll have to look at Rogue (for the skills) or Cleric (for the religious aspect). I wouldn't mind seeing an extra class to cover that kind of monk.
But I probably care a lot more about concept than most.
Me likes DPR. The more class the more me can exploit.
|
The sources of inspiration for the different classes, knights and wizards and thieves and what not, create an image in our heads for character archetypes. What makes your mind take the leap from a knight as fighter with specific feats to a paladin?
I like playing thieves but I never build Rogues. Every time I try to build a Rogue I end up with a Ranger.
That's not to say all extra classes are automatically good. Some of them seem only mechanically different, and not conceptually.
That's an interesting distinction. I vaguely recall reading some discussions a while back about possible new class ideas which may or may not have grown into things like the Magus or Summoner. At the time I wasn't so clear on the distinction people were making in the conversation.
Personally, though, I'm willing to make allowances for classes which allow for a different play experience. Fer instance, my very limited exposure to summoners hasn't revealed how they play differently than wizards with summoning spells, but I can immediately see how a sorcerer plays differently than a wizard.
Aren't the other classes just variations on the core four? Isn't a ranger just a fighter who chooses two-weapon fighting or archery feats?
{outlandish comparison}
what your saying is like saying marines are just army with some navy stuff.{/outlandish comparison}
you may be able to simulate a ranger by mixing fighter and druid but the combination will be missing important abilities and flavor that only a ranger provides (like stealth, track, favored enemy and skills for example)
What your saying is true for some classes. Ninja are basically monk/rogues with a few special options, magus is basically fighter/wizard with special rules to make the combination work, samurai are basically cavaliers and cavaliers are basically fighters etc etc.
but the core classes are all pretty good about being unique classes.
Fer instance, my very limited exposure to summoners hasn't revealed how they play differently than wizards with summoning spells
Well see there's this thing called the Eidolon