Also more classes gives the gm more options for npcs to build. Also new abilities can stop the game from getting repetitive. If you are a gm that makes a lot of npcs. I don't have to make the 5th orc barbarian bbeg. I can instead make an orc witch.
Also more classes gives the gm more options for npcs to build. Also new abilities can stop the game from getting repetitive. If you are a gm that makes a lot of npcs. I don't have to make the 5th orc barbarian bbeg. I can instead make an orc witch.
+1,000. Options: the GMs friend.
(@Azaelas: Yup, that prior post was meant as sarcasm. Sorry if it was a bit heavy-handed. ;)
But I did agree with Abraham S. on a basic level. There is a lot of folks focusing their discussions on mechanical optimization on these threads. And I don't have a problem with that. I was merely pointing out that there is more than just mechanical optimization and critique, and that some effort toward optimization could be found in theme, concept and flavor.
I was also opining that focusing on optimization doesn't necessitate more splatbooks.
Though interestingly enough, I am enjoying other posts regarding new content being refreshing and offering much appreciated options. I guess one hobgoblin's splatbook is another medusa's new content. And that's ok.)
Or the 15th Human(or Elf) Sorcerer Lich BBEG.
I tend to look at optimization as "How can I make this Concept pull their own weight?" rather than "How can I deal the most Damage? Or hinder my enemy the most?"...
Now if you will excuse me I will get back to building my Roman Legionary based Hobgoblin Army using the ARG alternate trait for Natural Armour.
My two cents. If anybody cares...
Yes more option are awesome. I want more. I accept the fact that there will be some that just does not work for my playstyle, but I also understand I am not the only one in the world Pazio is selling books to. And I rather not deny them of their chance to enjoy the game also.
More specificaly points raised.
1) WotC 3.5 failed not because of splat books overload...it failed because the creators have given up on 3.5 3 years before the started publishing 4th ed. So they put out 3 years worth of secret playtest for 4th ed ideas and poorly thought out options. Quite frankly they quited on 3.5 and it showed. Or maybe they just burned out on it(though I kinda see that is hard to do with their turn over rate).
Pazio on the other hand has kept the number of splat books small(to what 1 or two a year). Which should give even the most causel gamer time to read the new options and learn them. Also it should keep designer burnout to a minimal.
2) Dealing with player entitlemernt. I am generally a GM that allows most options without a problem. So I don't deal with it as when I ban something it is not a common thing. But might I suggest just be straight forward in what is not allowed and tell the player before they go into character gen.
3) Can't we do x class with y class with archtypes or just reskin it. Personaly my veiw is that it is the character background and personalty that makes then unique. But the mechanics does play a very important role. What expresses that you are playing a witch more...you saying that you are witch and do everything that a wizard does pretty much...or you placing a hex on a person? Sure I can do it without the witch class...but why can't I have both?
4) More option means more complications for the GM/writters. First writters get paid to do what they do....if they can't keep up they should proably find another proffession. Like any trade I know of you have to continue your education.
As a GM....I don't see how it is so? Things basicaly work the same. There are a few twist on things but they are not radically different. Also as a GM you should be preparing for what is in your group...not a random combination of classes. When you create a adventure keep what your players are in mind.
Now I'll admit there is one problem people might have to deal with. And that is running a module or AP from before the option became published. But again you have been running for this group of characters since 1st level...you should be able to adapt on the fly.
Anyway there is one new class I do have issues with and that is the Summoner. It is not the eidolon. It the summoning spelling. It is a problem I have with conjurers as well. Sitting in a combat as a GM where a player is controling more creatures than I do....is a very big problem. Not because it is overpowering...but because it is boring for pretty much everyone else at the table. But this problem stems from the Core book...the summoner is just a conjurer without the diversity not to use a tactic that bores everyone else.
Also more classes gives the gm more options for npcs to build. Also new abilities can stop the game from getting repetitive. If you are a gm that makes a lot of npcs. I don't have to make the 5th orc barbarian bbeg. I can instead make an orc witch.
This is also a great point. I never looked at new options as belonging to the players. Options are in my opinion better tools for GMs to make interesting adversary than yet another book filled with a hundred species of monsters to already fit in a world that is very crowded.
I think what helps Pathfinder is that Paizo has their Pathfinder RPG, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Player Companion, Adventure Path, Adventure Module, etc Lines of products which means they can put out options through multiple sources.
As an aside, I wonder what concepts cannot be easily built with the current classes/archetypes/feats present in Pathfinder (I'm thinking RPG line only).
For these concepts, if any, what would it take to fix these issues?
Issues I am aware of:
Being able to effectively from level 1 build a Dex-based skirmisher type warrior, where the focus is on agility AND damage dealing. While you can fudge it with combinations of fighter, rogue, ranger, and the duelist PrC, there's been a lot of dissatisfaction expressed for how well these characters perform, or in particular how long it takes to get the concept to work the way it's intended because of building up feats. My understanding is the main issue is particularly at low levels not enough damage is dealt and at high levels the character's AC cannot get high enough. My understanding is for the most part people wanting to play a character like this would be willing to sacrifice skills and other class features of existing classes. I think the closest gotten is maybe the mobile fighter archetype, or optimized melee rogues or fighter/rogues (who only get there after a few levels).
I Agree with you and magnuskn, we need a Swashbucker base/core class.
Some issues of caster-warrior or caster-skillmonkey multiclass. While we have "half-caster classes" -- paladin, ranger, bard, magus, inquisitor, alchemist -- those don't seem to satisfy certain concepts of dual caster-something else characters. What concepts are these? I know caster level is an issue here. What could be done about it? Do half-caster prestige classes help? Can you design an archetype that would modify caster level progression in some way -- I don't know if I've seen one that does that but would it be possible/doable? Say for example, if a wizard sacrificed school abilities for the ability to advance spell progression when multiclassing within a certain limit, would that work or would it be broken?
What else?
My bold.
Paladins and Rangers aren’t half casters. They are full BAB classes with some spells. The other classes all have full caster level.We got the Magus. It’s a rock solid class or even too good. The other classes are also good but the Core bard starts lagging past level 7 or 8. I don’t know much about the inquisitor and alchemist, but the alchemist seems to be a class that can easily abused too, just like the magus. Both the Magus and Inquisitor get toys that improves their skills with weapons past level 7 to compensate for the slow spell progression, but the Core Bard doesn’t.
As for multiclass problems, here are two quotes from 2 February 2010 where JJ commented on multiclassing and the fighter/wizard type of character.
My take: Multiclassing becomes less and less desirable the more players you have in a game. In a one-player, one GM situation, multiclassing is a good option because it helps your one PC be more versatile. But in a group of five or so... multiclassing is less of a good option, mostly because chances are very good that there's already someone in the group who's not multiclassed and will be a constant reminder of how much better they are at what they do, compared to the multiclassed character's stuff.
My theory: Multiclassing should rarely, if ever, be a route taken by players seeking to make powerful characters. It should be a route taken by players seeking to make unusual characters who are a challenge to play.
So my guess, no change in Multiclass rules.
I, for one, DON'T think that a fighter 1/wizard 5/eldritch knight 10 or however that pans out is a second rate character. That's the "best" way to do a fighter/wizard multiclass, I think... but another good option is to ONLY take 2 or 4 levels of fighter and do the rest in wizard. An even split between a spellcasting class and a non spellcasting class is where the problems show up.But it's worth looking at a character concept and examining the hopes of the player. If a player wants to do a multiclass character for reasons that essentially boil down to "I want to be as good a fighter as Charlie's character AND as good a spellcaster as Lucy's character," then it's not fair to Charlie or Lucy if a third player basically wants to be able to upstage them both at once. Now, if that player said, "I want to play a fighter who augments his swordfighting with magic spells," fighter/wizard isn't the only option. Play a bard. Play a cleric of Nethys. OR play a multiclass character with whatever split between levels (and prestige classes) works best.
We WILL be focusing more on giving the bard some more "buff the weaponplay" type spells, I believe, so that might end up being a stronger option as well, since the bard's already a pretty strong contender for a fighter/wizard who uses his magic to augment his fighting. (He's not as good at being a melee fighter who relies on magic for ranged attacks... your best bet there is probably still an eldritch knight type thing).
My bold. And then 2011 they created the Magus.
But people who talk about d20 games mostly talk about optimization. With a game where you are ready to go and have fun without spending a much thought on builds, there isn't much to talk about the system. Only about adventures and settings.I would agree that the less-mechanical approach necessarily finds players focusing more on story and ideas than the rules. But to say that most d20 fans are focusing on optimization via a mechanic fetish is not at all my experience.
I didn't say they completely focus on it. But that's all people in online forums are talking about. ;)
You don't find threads about coming up with character backstories and decorating the PCs strongholds.
Full-Caster: Level 9 Spells.
Half-Caster: Level 6 Spells.
Psuedo-Casters: Level 4 Spells.
@Yora: I actually was going to post up a Thread on Fleshing out Backstories for people to post Ideas and then people could add to them to flesh them out. And I am planning a Stronghold for an upcoming campaign that I was going to make a thread on what would be necessary for it.
|
Zark, I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim a Magus is as good of a fighter as a Fighter and as good of a caster as a spellcaster as a Full Caster. Maybe on paper, but I've never seen a Magus completely replace an arcane spellcaster OR a pure martial class.
I will agree that it's a great class, but one would hope that after two years of building classes, APs and such things, Paizo'd have gotten better at it. ;)
But people who talk about d20 games mostly talk about optimization. With a game where you are ready to go and have fun without spending a much thought on builds, there isn't much to talk about the system. Only about adventures and settings.I would agree that the less-mechanical approach necessarily finds players focusing more on story and ideas than the rules. But to say that most d20 fans are focusing on optimization via a mechanic fetish is not at all my experience.I didn't say they completely focus on it. But that's all people in online forums are talking about. ;)
You don't find threads about coming up with character backstories and decorating the PCs strongholds.
Um... I've seen people ask for help with backgrounds before, but usually they do seem to have their background and personality in mind already when they come here for help on the mechanical bits.
I would suggest this is because developing background and personality is generally easier than developing a mechanically strong character that matches the concept desired.
However I think (and hope) that with the up coming ultimate campaigns we'll have more stuff about building organizations and strongholds and be able to discuss such in more detail.
Right now such things are so highly subjective that it's really hard to offer concrete advice on them.
If Pathfinder only classes where the "basic 4 Rogue/ Fighter/ Wizard/ Cleric", it would be really bland. Myself, and surely many other people, will surely be playing other things. But for me it's in part because Cleric, Rogue and Fighter on Pathfinder are some of my least favorites and boring classes.
Mechanics, specially if there are few options, limit the possibilities. And saying that people who like the new / more classes lack imagination, can be seen as pretty ofensive.
Half that list under no circumstances are fighters. Some, like Don Quijote and King Arthur are basically Cavaliers. Some like Leonidas or Ripley are credible fighters, Ok. Some are "no way in hell" fighters, like Batman or Indiana Jones. Absolutely impossible to make as Fighters in Pathfinder with the crappy skill points/ skills selections that Fighters have. Rogue? Maybe. Fighter? Big NO.
A number of those figures capitalize on having a powerful intellect or charisma, which the Fighter core class cannot take advantage of.
I don't see a purpose to arguing against having more classes/archetypes/options. In tabletop games, if you don't like the option, you don't have to use it or let your players use it. It's not like a video game where you're stuck dealing with all of them (I remember in the Warhammer MMO, they launched with 24 classes and added 4 more over the course of a year. Half of them were without problems.)