How do people feel about Paizo's "new" base classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 737 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

They are all okay for me except for the cavalier. Charging mounted builds could be done well enough without the cavalier, and this is shoehorned into doing that. It would have been better as something similar to the knight class from 3.5. I did not like that one either, but I did like the idea behind it.

edit:It makes sense now.


Zhayne wrote:
The Oracle curse is kind of a pain, yes. I would probably let a character go without a curse (both the drawbacks and benefits). I'd probably go for it, though, considering how much I hate prep-casters.

I like prep casters and I know a lot of people that like them. Instead I allow people or ask to use my homebrew alternative class. I have many DMs who would allow me to go without the curse mechanic at all. I've also met people who think its a mechanic that is supposed to make life hard on oracles because they're OP, and others who only use PFS or core, in which case its not an option.


Zhayne wrote:
The Oracle curse is kind of a pain, yes. I would probably let a character go without a curse (both the drawbacks and benefits). I'd probably go for it, though, considering how much I hate prep-casters.

considering how big the curse boons are. i'd give an oracle who made that sacrifice an bonus general feat at 1st, 5th, 10th, and 15th oracle levels.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Every class I don't like is horribly overpowered, terribly designed and the people who like them are inferior....this is known.

Lol


Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

Every class I don't like is horribly overpowered, terribly designed and the people who like them are inferior....this is known.

Lol

Except for those that are uselessly weak.

The rest remains the same though.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
The Oracle curse is kind of a pain, yes. I would probably let a character go without a curse (both the drawbacks and benefits). I'd probably go for it, though, considering how much I hate prep-casters.
considering how big the curse boons are. i'd give an oracle who made that sacrifice an bonus general feat at 1st, 5th, 10th, and 15th oracle levels.

The curses really vary with how great of a boon they give. Some of them are great boons, such as not being fatigued or slowed in armor, and carrying your maximum capacity without any loss. Others such as consumed, think a good trade for taking 50% more damage from all sources is that you can survive a long time without food or water. Legalistic has almost no downside and gives great bonuses, but being deaf or blind can make role play awkward and doesn't give much in return I feel. Being blind just makes you less blind. Another one of my complaints is that they are all over the place, and there aren't a lot to choose from.


wraithstrike wrote:
They are all okay for me except for the cavalier. Charging mounted builds could be done well enough without the, and this glass is shoehorned into doing that. It would have been better as something similar to the knight class from 3.5. I did not like that one either, but I did like the idea behind it.

Yeah. It's sorta boring.

I forgot- I really like the Inquisitor. Perfect for those that want to play a Combat divine caster, but not a paladin.

So, I'd rank:
Oracle
Inquisitor
Witch
Magus
Alchemist
Cavalier (boring)
Summoner (broken)

And Gunslinger is fine if you have that tech. Personally, I prefer my Fantasy games a little bit more "pure", but different strokes for different folks, ymmv.

Liberty's Edge

DrDeth wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:
I thought AD&D was 2E with Basic being 1E. Then you had I think it was the chainmail box set that was 0E

No, the Original 3 Vol Set is called "OD&D", this includes the original Greyhawk & Blackmoor books*. It lasted maybe 3 years. It was fairly feeble, but spawned greatness.

Then there's AD&D, which is 1st & 2nd ed. Basic is slightly dumbed down AD&D, or if you prefer simpler. You might consider Hackmaster a AD&D game. There is really little difference between 1st & 2nd ed, about that or maybe less than 3.0 to 3.5.

D20 is 3.0 & 3.5. It could include Pathfinder.

4th ed has "Essentials" which is sorta like AD&D to Basic.

I have heard PF "Beginner box' bears somewhat the same relationship AD&D and Basic has.

* and if you want to be very nice, my little supplement, and maybe Arduin.

Your little supplement? Color me curious...I know of just about everything from back then...it's not like there was much. What did you write? :)


Question wrote:
Oracle curses are cool, but blatantly unbalanced...deaf (spell failure) vs haunted (no real drawback + free spells) is pretty much a no contest.

You forgot to mention that the benefit of the deaf curse removes the spell failure.

Being deaf only causes spell failure for spells with verbal components, while the level 1 benefit of the deaf curse makes all spells you cast silenced (i.e. have no verbal component).


The new classes are a mixed bag, just like the core classes. Surprise!

Alchemist: Could really do with not being shackled to the spells/day mess, but then again so could everyone else. It's often a poor thematic fit, but it's a mechanically workable and distinct class. I call it a win even if I'm not personally fond of it.

Cavalier: It's a bad mash up, but it's not terrible. I'd rather ditch the mount and mounted combat stuff for better unmounted combat or more generalship stuff, but it's still better than monk.

Inquisitor: The class appears to work. It excites me even less than the Alchemist, but I can see how others would like it so I'm going to say this is probably a good class.

Oracle: In many ways the sorcerer as it should be, but I think the curse is a bad mechanic. There's also the issue that the cleric list suffers more than any other list from "in case of emergency" spells that you can really suffer from the spontaneous caster availability delay and spells known limits with. There's a reason clerics know all their spells and wizards don't and it's not just for thematic reasons. I'm going to call this a broken class. It's supposed to be a spontaneous cleric and with delayed and limited spell access it doesn't do the job.

Summoner: Completely broken. Bad design with seemingly arbitrary exceptions to the UMR, excessive customization with inadequate balance, excessive early entry spell access, and broken action economy. The synthesist trades the broken action economy for 3.5 style broken polymorph and even more rules confusion. Just say no.

Witch: Another class that appears to work but doesn't excite me. Probably a good class.

Magus: Hello broken action economy. Hello obligatory crit fishing. It's not the summoner, but I still consider it a bad class.

Gunslinger: I don't like the firearm rules. I don't like the creation of a class designed to mitigate horrible flaws they shouldn't have had in the first place. At the same time grit is a good mechanic, the class has a good balance of in and out of combat capability for a martial, and really the guns are the only problem. With better (read nothing special) firearm rules and less obligation to hyperfocus on them this could be a great class. But it isn't. It makes me sad.

Antipaladin: Hate it too much thematically to analyze it with any objectivity. It'd be a lot more tolerable if it were lawful and focused against chaos. Less antimatter more antipope.

Ninja: Redundant and still has too many of the rogue's flaws. It doesn't even have the excuse of being important for retro-trap-fests. A poor class.

Samurai: Mount is bad. Resolve is good. At least there's an archetype that ditches the mount this time.

Shadow Lodge

To have a problem with these classes would be to similarly have a problem between fighter vs barbarian and sorcerer vs wizard.

These critiques are a pretty good read, but it's hard to say outright they are all just silly and shouldn't exist.


mikeawmids wrote:
Nobody has mentioned the roleplaying opportunities presented by the new character classes!

So in order to role play a concept you need to have a special class creatd for it first?

I don't begrudge people who want something special. We all love to feel special. But I don't buy the idea a new class is needed for role playing reasons.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Upon further rational review, I realized I actually kind of like the Cavalier. 4 skill point pseudo-Fighter with with bluff and diplomacy and a mount for gravy.

My original post was written in the grip of nerd-rage. I'm alright now. ^_^

My opinions are more or less represented by my original post, though should be stated with significantly less venom.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Assuming_Control wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I believe that 1E with it's 4 classes and lack of modern game design might be right up your alley.
It is. Seriously. however 2nd ed AD&D is my first choice. Unfortunately I'm basically stuck with a choice of PF or 4th edition in my area. while I'm not all that happy with what Paizo has done, 4th ed is just...*shudders*

LOL - That's like saying you prefer tag and hide-and-go-seek because football and basketball have too much 'power creep' in them... each to his own, but wow.

Project Manager

Removed some sniping. Keep it civil.


Wiggz wrote:
Assuming_Control wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I believe that 1E with it's 4 classes and lack of modern game design might be right up your alley.
It is. Seriously. however 2nd ed AD&D is my first choice. Unfortunately I'm basically stuck with a choice of PF or 4th edition in my area. while I'm not all that happy with what Paizo has done, 4th ed is just...*shudders*
LOL - That's like saying you prefer tag and hide-and-go-seek because football and basketball have too much 'power creep' in them... each to his own, but wow.

Wut? My power creep complaint is about an "internal" pathfinder problem. It has nothing to do with my preference for AD&D.


Assuming_Control wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Assuming_Control wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I believe that 1E with it's 4 classes and lack of modern game design might be right up your alley.
It is. Seriously. however 2nd ed AD&D is my first choice. Unfortunately I'm basically stuck with a choice of PF or 4th edition in my area. while I'm not all that happy with what Paizo has done, 4th ed is just...*shudders*
LOL - That's like saying you prefer tag and hide-and-go-seek because football and basketball have too much 'power creep' in them... each to his own, but wow.
Wut? My power creep complaint is about an "internal" pathfinder problem. It has nothing to do with my preference for AD&D.

AD&D doesn't even require power creep, it is all within the core book.

demihumans in general
psionics rules
the ranger and paladin
the assassin
and (attemptedly) the druid, bard, illusionist, and monk


Meh I don't even find them to be the most powerful classes (though Magus and Summoner are certainly up there) Strongest in my opinion are the Barbarian (what with rage cycling and god like saves), Paladin (who can easily get enough smites to smite every foe in an average work day about 16 a day), and wizard for obvious reasons. Druids might be up there too.

Not exactly a fan of gun slinger or cavelier but thats because I simply have no urge to play them.

Honestly, more classes never hurts my feelings.


EldonG wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


No, the Original 3 Vol Set is called "OD&D", this includes the original Greyhawk & Blackmoor books*. It lasted maybe 3 years. It was fairly feeble, but spawned greatness.

Then there's AD&D, which is 1st & 2nd ed. Basic is slightly dumbed down AD&D, or if you prefer simpler. You might consider Hackmaster a AD&D game. There is really little difference between 1st & 2nd ed, about that or maybe less than 3.0 to 3.5.

D20 is 3.0 & 3.5. It could include Pathfinder.

4th ed has "Essentials" which is sorta like AD&D to Basic.

I have heard PF "Beginner box' bears somewhat the same relationship AD&D and Basic has.

* and if you want to be very nice, my little supplement, and maybe Arduin.

Your little supplement? Color me curious...I know of just about everything from back then...it's not like there was much. What did you write? :)

The Manual of Aurania. Notable only in that it was the first privately published "D&D" supplement. 1977. Pretty bad, really, but did do some ground breaking.


Wiggz wrote:
Assuming_Control wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I believe that 1E with it's 4 classes and lack of modern game design might be right up your alley.
It is. Seriously. however 2nd ed AD&D is my first choice. Unfortunately I'm basically stuck with a choice of PF or 4th edition in my area. while I'm not all that happy with what Paizo has done, 4th ed is just...*shudders*
.

1E had more classes. Gorbacz is thinking OD&D, which had only 4 character classes, unless you want to count "elf" etc as a class.

AD&D, esp 2nd ed is a great game for roleplaying, Tactically- not so much.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:


AD&D doesn't even require power creep, it is all within the core book.

demihumans in general
psionics rules
the ranger and paladin
the assassin
and (attemptedly) the druid, bard, illusionist, and monk

True, especially Psionics which were super powerful and broken. Remember Psionics got 10 "turns' to everyones one!

RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32

DrDeth wrote:
AD&D, esp 2nd ed is a great game for roleplaying, Tactically- not so much.

That is one of the Best things I have heard said about AD&D Second Edition. :)

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DrDeth wrote:
EldonG wrote:
DrDeth wrote:


No, the Original 3 Vol Set is called "OD&D", this includes the original Greyhawk & Blackmoor books*. It lasted maybe 3 years. It was fairly feeble, but spawned greatness.

Then there's AD&D, which is 1st & 2nd ed. Basic is slightly dumbed down AD&D, or if you prefer simpler. You might consider Hackmaster a AD&D game. There is really little difference between 1st & 2nd ed, about that or maybe less than 3.0 to 3.5.

D20 is 3.0 & 3.5. It could include Pathfinder.

4th ed has "Essentials" which is sorta like AD&D to Basic.

I have heard PF "Beginner box' bears somewhat the same relationship AD&D and Basic has.

* and if you want to be very nice, my little supplement, and maybe Arduin.

Your little supplement? Color me curious...I know of just about everything from back then...it's not like there was much. What did you write? :)
The Manual of Aurania. Notable only in that it was the first privately published "D&D" supplement. 1977. Pretty bad, really, but did do some ground breaking.

VERY cool. I think I saw the second edition, out at Enterprise 1701 in Orlando, back in '79.


I like Basic because it has other functions for charisma (actual tactical leadership) and if you choose to can roleplay and speak to people in 1E.

Now if you have a negative charisma your party pretty much denies you speaking to people for fear you're gonna fail that bad and set something off.


I don't mind them, but I would never play any of them. Don't like the feel of them.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Assuming_Control wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Assuming_Control wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I believe that 1E with it's 4 classes and lack of modern game design might be right up your alley.
It is. Seriously. however 2nd ed AD&D is my first choice. Unfortunately I'm basically stuck with a choice of PF or 4th edition in my area. while I'm not all that happy with what Paizo has done, 4th ed is just...*shudders*
LOL - That's like saying you prefer tag and hide-and-go-seek because football and basketball have too much 'power creep' in them... each to his own, but wow.
Wut? My power creep complaint is about an "internal" pathfinder problem. It has nothing to do with my preference for AD&D.

AD&D doesn't even require power creep, it is all within the core book.

demihumans in general
psionics rules
the ranger and paladin
the assassin
and (attemptedly) the druid, bard, illusionist, and monk

Again, I don't see how any of this is relevant. I never implied that AD&D is balanced mechanically. Old school design was a whole different ball-game. For example, the Thief was probably even less useful than the PF Rogue in combat, but at the same time it was also a more valuable party member (traps mattered, niche protection etc.).


That's not a problem with "modern game design" that's a problem with trying to meld old school game design (hyper specialized classes most notably) WITH modern game design (classes balanced on their own merits rather than static roles that they MUST fill).

Liberty's Edge

Assuming_Control wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Assuming_Control wrote:
Wiggz wrote:
Assuming_Control wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
I believe that 1E with it's 4 classes and lack of modern game design might be right up your alley.
It is. Seriously. however 2nd ed AD&D is my first choice. Unfortunately I'm basically stuck with a choice of PF or 4th edition in my area. while I'm not all that happy with what Paizo has done, 4th ed is just...*shudders*
LOL - That's like saying you prefer tag and hide-and-go-seek because football and basketball have too much 'power creep' in them... each to his own, but wow.
Wut? My power creep complaint is about an "internal" pathfinder problem. It has nothing to do with my preference for AD&D.

AD&D doesn't even require power creep, it is all within the core book.

demihumans in general
psionics rules
the ranger and paladin
the assassin
and (attemptedly) the druid, bard, illusionist, and monk

Again, I don't see how any of this is relevant. I never implied that AD&D is balanced mechanically. Old school design was a whole different ball-game. For example, the Thief was probably even less useful than the PF Rogue in combat, but at the same time it was also a more valuable party member (traps mattered, niche protection etc.).

The first character I ever actually rolled up was a Half-orc Thief. Made it to 3rd level before the party wizard turned on me, put me in some sort of stasis, and stole everything I had. :p


I'll only touch on a few of the more contentious.

Summoner, is a trap for most beginners and most of it's overpowered-ness comes from it being built poorly imo. It's eidolon is more powerful than a druid A.C., but they give up a lot of casting power for it. Goofy, but not game breaking.

Magus are the best thing ever. I've played Duskblades before, and they just don't hold a candle to the Magus, full BAB or not. Might be a bit biased, but they're just very efficient and I respect that.

Samurai & Ninja are called out by the devs as just big archetypes. Not sure they were worth the book space they each got, but appreciated none the less.

Cavaliers do the best impression of a Paladin in the game without the morality issues. They are very cool imo.

Gunslinger, I like, even with touch AC. The only thing is I don't think they need to be full BAB. If they were just 3/4 or 1/2, but otherwise the same, I don't think anyone would have a problem with them.


I don't see how the Witch is at all gratuitous, personally. It adds a very much missing element that none of the other classes were able to do effectively: the arcane (or at least unarmored) healer. Truthfully, that's the part I care most about as regards it. I want my life mage, basically, and 'just don't use your class features' as a cleric doesn't cut it.


Assuming_Control wrote:

Personally, I hate, loath and despise them all (Don't mod me bro, it's just my opinion).

The APG classes weren't so much power creep as they were a power leap imo. Not only that, but they are completely gratuitous. We really didn't need a summoner when there are already conjurers and sorcerers. They are all like that too. The witch is the worst offender here. Whenever I hear about parties of magi, summoners and alchemists I get a little more bitter.

To me, those classes just seem like a cynical ploy, like pay to win in F2P MMOs. Buy our book! Drive your party's Monk to drink and despair!

I hate modern game design in general.

Just wanted to get that off my chest.

I am in agreement with you and Eryx_UK.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
I believe that 1E with it's 4 classes and lack of modern game design might be right up your alley.

There is real merit in trying the basics, or a simple system, again. Evade the crunch, the arguments, the optimisation and the powergaming and actually get some gaming done.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Classes are a slippery slope. Either you have a core handful of classes (Martial, Magic, Expert) and you let people multi-class, building a myriad of character archetypes from there.

Or you have a class for every broad archetype you can imagine. This of course makes all martial classes redundant after the fighter, because he is a truly blank slate, but the rogue is not the quintessential expert and the wizard and cleric are not quintessential magic-users.

So without a generic class called Expert that gets a d6 or d8 and lots of skill points and feats to do what bards, inquisitors, etc. do, or a Magic-user with one spell list that you get to pick from to define your caster type and role, you are compelled to have lots of classes, because fantasy archetypes abound.

Gygax and Arneson didn't start with the elemental 4 types of fantasy characters, they just picked 4 to suit the kinds of games THEY liked to play and a mold was set. Why are healers also kind of knights? Why are all experts criminals? Why are wizards so damned aggresive with their magic? The original build is flawed, though the concept of 3 core types of character is an excellent basis for game design, which is why it's still the most dominant force in RPGs.

Some mechanics may be broken, some may be fine tuned, but adding more classes to a game with 11 already isn't really that outlandish.

As for the pros and cons of the new classes, I'm pretty bullish:

my two cents on the new classes:
I've gotta say first and foremost I love the gunslinger class: it's mechanically well built and while grit is ki is powerpoints is mp is whatever, it's a good way to look at the "magic" of a sharpshooter.

But mostly I love it because it lets you play a Dark Tower campaign without much trouble, and Dark Tower is right up there with the Wheel of Time, Song of Ice and Fire and the Fionovar Tapestry as a major fantasy cycle in my books. Roland isn't a fighter/bard or whatever, he's a gunslinger. THE Gunslinger.

I respect that some might feel this doesn't belong in a medieval fantasy game, and they're entitled to that house rule, but steampunk owes much to D&D, and the Gunslinger should almost replace the fighter in a steampunk setting.

On that note, this justifies the Alchemist for me as well, in addition to the fact that Wizards with Brew Potion and Craft: Alchemy never really felt like Alchemy DEFINED them, even when you tried. The Alchemist does this. And mad scientist grenadiers are a MUST in a steam punk setting.

As are the Samurai and Ninja in an asian flavoured game. Full respect for people who don't want them in southern france circa 1323, but I've always felt the monk falls in this boat too. Again, house rules and roleplaying are cool, but having the OPTION for asian flavoured classes which are slightly different from their Paladin and Rogue and Cleric cousins is a good thing. If they don't belong side by side, make it one or the other.

Anti-paladin is legit, though I still prefer the notion of alignment champions as opposed to just LG or CE. Why crusaders in heavy armour only have 2 alignments that give them powers has always baffled me. Give me 9 paladin sub-types, or at least 4 if the neutrals are neutered and show me a universe with champions for causes. (Monte Cook's arcana unearthed did this variant pretty well, IMHO)

Magus is a Gish. Pathfinder needed one. Multiclassing and Prestiging should not have to be the answer to fitting an archetype. A class should represent a reasonable broad archetype. The Gish is one of those archetypes.

Oracle is the divine Sorc. Inquisitor is the divine ranger. If those core classes exist, why not these? They certainly aren't classic clerics.

The witch does "being a witch" better than a wizard does, and arguably better than a sorceror does. If you had to choose a class for baba yaga, morgana le fay or the wicked witch of the west, which class would it be? Alternatives to Vancian magic are nice.

As for the summoner, I don't know what this does that a conjurer with a familiar doesn't in non-mechanical terms. At best they are "An arcane Druid", but this doesn't hold water for me. I suppose familiars don't quite fill the void of "I am a wizard defended by a shiny tiger-stag-thing" and the class definitely caters to the Pokemon and it's subsidiaries crowd, but I don't know why a feat chain for improving familiars wouldn't do the trick. Or some familiar specific spells.


"Devil's Advocate" wrote:
Paizo went out of their way to nerf casters so they couldn't make the martials second class citizens

They did? When and with which Errata did they? If you're talking about the core book as printed the statement is just plain wrong.

The true, non caster martials are very much second class to the casters.
And nothing in the magus makes him stronger than a full caster except at levels 1 and two. And then not even all of them. Depending on the bloodline/school powers chosen even a level 1 caster can be as strong as the magus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Just like core they range from really powerful(full casters) to badly designed(monk rogue) or a good idea, but bad execution(I'm gonna catch flack for this, but the base fighter).

cavalier at best kinda meh. the challenge mechanic is cool, but that damn animal companion sucks(unless your character is small) and it got saddled with teamwork feats for no reason other than someone though teamwork feats were a good idea.

Alchemist suffers from really weird execution. They're kind of all over the place what with mutagen, bombs, and extracts that take a standard action. IMO the mutagen should be more of a class feature, sort of like rage, that the alchemist can invoke at anytime for a certain number of times/day. To me it feels like they took 2 1/2 classes and jammed them together.

inquisitor if alchemists are weirdly executed then inquisitors are just strange. Its a divine skill monkey with class features that feel like thy were literally pulled out of a hat AND they suffer from teamwork feat although a much lighter case.

witch great class, but more needs to be done with the patrons and the hexes need a serious overhaul. If you want to play debuff or save or suck they're great(maybe even to great) but the rest blow

oracle amazing class with great execution, except for curses. It honestly feels like the curse design teams were in seperate rooms when they were developed and no one could decide how much of a drawback and benefit each should give. As it stands there are a couple of no brainers and a list of things to avoid like the plague.

Gunslinger. extemely poorly designed. A full BAB class that shoots a weapon that targets touch AC sucks until about 5th level then quickly steals the show especially if you allow alchemical cartridges. But then again this class could suffer because I hate the PF firearm rules. Touch AC why?

Magus great class, but kinda locked into a couple of builds that revolve around either shocking grasp or that natural attack frost spell that escapes me right now. Needs a little more breadth in its attack spells(something that isnt elemental) and has 3 amazing archtypes that make it even stronger: black blade, kensai, and hexcrafter

Samurai. Another class that's kind of all over the place the best thing I can say about it is that its better than a base cavalier, but what does that mean.Primarily its not stuck with teamwork feats You're still stuck with a suck animal companion(once again its a great class for the horizontally challenged)

Ninja. close to what a rogue should be. If you gave them evasion and trap sense itd almost fix the rogue class. Almost

Summoner The worst of the bunch. Great idea horrible exectuion. A class that needs a character audit every level and you have to really familiar with its incredible fiddely and unique rules or it turns into godzilla. No just no


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Note the Samurai has a cool archetype that gets rid of the Mount and replaces it with some neat, though horribly ineffective sword based abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dr. Calvin Murgunstrumm wrote:

Classes are a slippery slope. Either you have a core handful of classes (Martial, Magic, Expert) and you let people multi-class, building a myriad of character archetypes from there.

Or you have a class for every broad archetype you can imagine. This of course makes all martial classes redundant after the fighter, because he is a truly blank slate, but the rogue is not the quintessential expert and the wizard and cleric are not quintessential magic-users.

So without a generic class called Expert that gets a d6 or d8 and lots of skill points and feats to do what bards, inquisitors, etc. do, or a Magic-user with one spell list that you get to pick from to define your caster type and role, you are compelled to have lots of classes, because fantasy archetypes abound.

Gygax and Arneson didn't start with the elemental 4 types of fantasy characters, they just picked 4 to suit the kinds of games THEY liked to play and a mold was set. Why are healers also kind of knights? Why are all experts criminals? Why are wizards so damned aggresive with their magic? The original build is flawed, though the concept of 3 core types of character is an excellent basis for game design, which is why it's still the most dominant force in RPGs.

Some mechanics may be broken, some may be fine tuned, but adding more classes to a game with 11 already isn't really that outlandish.

As for the pros and cons of the new classes, I'm pretty bullish:

** spoiler omitted **...

Frankish ninjas!

Frank guardsman is walking along, stares down at his hand, feels the ki power. Shouts "Je suis un ninja!"

Leaps over a wall and starts hunting English.


proftobe wrote:

Just like core they range from really powerful(full casters) to badly designed(monk rogue) or a good idea, but bad execution(I'm gonna catch flack for this, but the base fighter).

cavalier at best kinda meh. the challenge mechanic is cool, but that damn animal companion sucks(unless your character is small) and it got saddled with teamwork feats for no reason other than someone though teamwork feats were a good idea.

Alchemist suffers from really weird execution. They're kind of all over the place what with mutagen, bombs, and extracts that take a standard action. IMO the mutagen should be more of a class feature, sort of like rage, that the alchemist can invoke at anytime for a certain number of times/day. To me it feels like they took 2 1/2 classes and jammed them together.

inquisitor if alchemists are weirdly executed then inquisitors are just strange. Its a divine skill monkey with class features that feel like thy were literally pulled out of a hat AND they suffer from teamwork feat although a much lighter case.

witch great class, but more needs to be done with the patrons and the hexes need a serious overhaul. If you want to play debuff or save or suck they're great(maybe even to great) but the rest blow

oracle amazing class with great execution, except for curses. It honestly feels like the curse design teams were in seperate rooms when they were developed and no one could decide how much of a drawback and benefit each should give. As it stands there are a couple of no brainers and a list of things to avoid like the plague.

Gunslinger. extemely poorly designed. A full BAB class that shoots a weapon that targets touch AC sucks until about 5th level then quickly steals the show especially if you allow alchemical cartridges. But then again this class could suffer because I hate the PF firearm rules. Touch AC why?

Magus great class, but kinda locked into a couple of builds that revolve around either shocking grasp or that natural attack frost spell that escapes me right...

I like this post of yours a lot.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My opinion on the new base classes is colored by the ones that are useful in my game setting. I'm using the Cavalier, Inquisitor, Witch, Oracle and Magus. The Alchemist got cut because I have a system of alchemy, didn't need a new one. The Summoner got cut because... well, for a lot of reasons. *cough* Digimon *cough* And I didn't feel like shoehorning them in. The Gunslinger, well no guns or gunpowder = no Gunslinger. Samurai and Ninja hit the cutting room floor because I already have the Rogue and Cavalier and I don't have an eastern section or a desire to have variants of classes that already have enough archtypes / variations. Oh, no Monks either btw. You say "monk" in my game and they're looking around for some western medieval looking guy in robes.

As for my personal "do I like this class" opinion, I'm fine with most of them. I can miss the Alchemist and the Summoner though. No use for those two. They mess with too many things that came before. Gunslinger, I'm not sure about. The touch armor class thing makes me wonder why anybody would bother with all that heavy stuff with guns laying around.

As always, ymmv on these things.

Ahem... as for editions...

0E or OE is a reference to the original game plus supplements. I've seen 0E+ used to refer to the original box plus it's supplements. The original box included only three classes, the Fighting Man, Magic User and Cleric. Three of the supplements, Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and Eldritch Wizardry introduced additional classes. Greyhawk added the Thief and Paladin. Blackmoor added the Assassin and Monk. Eldritch Wizardry added the Druid and psionics. Gods, Demigods and Heroes added deities from various past religions and works of fiction. Swords and Spells was a replacement (for Chainmail) mass combat system. Plenty of other classes were proposed in magazines. The Strategic Review (predecessor of The Dragon / Dragon Magazine) added the Ranger in it's short run for example. There were many others but few were later canonized by inclusion in later editions of the game like the Ranger (starting with 1E).

The original Basic D&D game (1977), the "Holmes Basic set" as it's known, was a three level introduction to the game based on 0E / supplements with changes and a push towards AD&D in it. The basic D&D sets are usually referred to as just "Basic D&D", or Holmes Basic, Moldvay Basic and BECMI (see below).

AD&D, referred to typically as 1E, crept out with the Monster Manual in 1977. You had to wait for the Player's handbook (1978) before you could really be said to be playing AD&D. The Dungeon Masters Guide came out in 1979 iirc. Other books followed of course. There were 11 classes in AD&D until Unearthed Arcana (? year) which added, as was mentioned above, three more classes / subclasses and made the Paladin a subclass of the new Cavalier class. AD&D hung on until 1989.

The Basic D&D set most people remember came out in 1981, edited by Tom Moldvay (? spelling). I'm not sure if Moldvay edited the "Expert" book which came out a bit later, but I don't think so. Basic = Blue book, Expert = Red book. Anyway a different game from AD&D, based on the original D&D but with changes, racial classes etc.

The next "basic" D&D iteration was the BECMI version in 5 volumes beginning a couple of years after the last Moldvay basic edition. The volumes were Basic, Expert, Companion, Master and Immortal. Later they put it all into a large hard back called the Rules Cyclopedia. I'm not positive of the exact editors / writers / years on these. I'm not getting any younger :) Oh, and purists whine about some changes made to the original volumes in the Cyclopedia version. Today, we call that errata...

2E usually references Second Edition Advanced Dungeons and Dragons (1989). The rules lost a class or two (the Assassin) came up with some fairly absurd names for Demons and Devils and, more usefully, cleaned up and condensed the rules. Until they expanded it out again.

And 3E came in 2000. I don't think I need to do this one.


Digimon forever!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Assuming_Control wrote:
Nerdrage Ooze wrote:
Except for Cavalier (which isn't poor design, but just a bit ... meh) all the APG classes are neat and fill much needed niches (divine skill monkey? arcane-divine caster that doesn't require the pains of Mystic Theurge? Alchemist trope? Spontaneous divine caster? Pokemon trainer?).

I don't agree that they fill needed niches. As far as I'm concerned they are just new crunch for the sake of new crunch. The fluff is thoroughly covered by other classes.

Then again I think the Barbarian shouldn't exist either (I you want to play an angry uncivilized Fighter then do so). So my opinions are probably unpopular.

The APG gave us lots of options which is a good thing. Dislike gunslingers? No problem, they don't have to exist in your game. Likewise barbarians don't have to exist but I feel you'd be missing out there. Barbarians are common in fantasy literature and they are distinct from fighters. You could make a pretty good facsimile of The Bloody Nine or Conan or perhaps even Karsa Orlong in pathfinder which is a good thing :)


I like all the classes, APG, UC and UM alike. I think they all add cool options for players. If there is a power problem, I think you're probably playing the game wrong. Nobody "wins" for having a more powerful class.

Witches are cool because they combine a little bit of wizard with a little bit of cleric, both to a lesser extent, but not as crippled as sacrificing 3 caster levels with mystic theurge. Also they have a less academic feel about them. Perfect for anyone wanting to do something like a voodoo priest, medicine man, or, well the archetypical witch.

Inquisitors are not only divine skill monkeys but also add flavor as the monster slayer (Van Helsing or the Witcher come to mind).

Cavalier is the valiant knight, who fights more with "honor" rather than the fighter's dedication to training or the barbarian's reckless rage. But unlike the paladin, he does not tap into divine powers to do it.

Alchemists? Mix up substances for explosive or other effects on the fly? Cool!

Oracles are simply the sorcerers to the cleric's wizard. Still a nice niche to fill I think.

Summoners are my favourite class, not because they are powerful, but because they give a creative mind an excellent outlet in character creation, I can design my own creature completely freely and just tell it to sic monsters. That's awesome. I love designing beasties.

Gunslingers: people say guns are not handled very well in PF. I honestly don't know what they mean, then again, i dont understand a lot about weapons and also it seems that weapons and combat in general are not very realistic in this game, so who cares? If you don't like guns in your setting, that's fine, in such a case a gunslinger is not part of your game. But for settings that do have them, gunslingers are absolutely cool. They're made after the old west movie type gunslingers and still i find they integrate well into a medieval era type setting.

Magus: Again a niche that was completely missing, and I never found could be adequately filled by the eldritch knight. I like the concept of melee mages and the magus delivers.

Samurai and Ninja: These are just japanese flavored versions of cavalier and rogue. I'm not a fan of linking such a specific flavor so closely to a class to be honest, but the two can still be used for non-eastern flavor characters, if you just know how. There can be a skilled infiltrator with supernatural abilities from any nation, in a fantasy world. And before you start with the katana and wakizashi proficiency: these can also be easily reflavored to a non-japanese weapon that just has similar properties. (after all the katana is little more than a bastard sword version of a scimitar in this game)

Antipaladin is a Paladin, but for bat guys. Nothing wrong with that.

Sure the classes might not all be balanced, but they are cool and as long as people don't just play to outdo each other but rather like to build their characters for flavor, this imbalance will not affect anyone's ability to have fun.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:
Digimon forever!

Not to be confused with Pokemon 4Ever.


R_Chance wrote:

My opinion on the new base classes is colored by the ones that are useful in my game setting. I'm using the Cavalier, Inquisitor, Witch, Oracle and Magus. The Alchemist got cut because I have a system of alchemy, didn't need a new one. The Summoner got cut because... well, for a lot of reasons. *cough* Digimon *cough* And I didn't feel like shoehorning them in. The Gunslinger, well no guns or gunpowder = no Gunslinger. Samurai and Ninja hit the cutting room floor because I already have the Rogue and Cavalier and I don't have an eastern section or a desire to have variants of classes that already have enough archtypes / variations. Oh, no Monks either btw. You say "monk" in my game and they're looking around for some western medieval looking guy in robes.

As for my personal "do I like this class" opinion, I'm fine with most of them. I can miss the Alchemist and the Summoner though. No use for those two. They mess with too many things that came before. Gunslinger, I'm not sure about. The touch armor class thing makes me wonder why anybody would bother with all that heavy stuff with guns laying around.

As always, ymmv on these things.

Ahem... as for editions...

0E or OE is a reference to the original game plus supplements. I've seen 0E+ used to refer to the original box plus it's supplements. The original box included only three classes, the Fighting Man, Magic User and Cleric. Three of the supplements, Greyhawk, Blackmoor, and Eldritch Wizardry introduced additional classes. Greyhawk added the Thief and Paladin. Blackmoor added the Assassin and Monk. Eldritch Wizardry added the Druid and psionics. Gods, Demigods and Heroes added deities from various past religions and works of fiction. Swords and Spells was a replacement (for Chainmail) mass combat system. Plenty of other classes were proposed in magazines. The Strategic Review (predecessor of The Dragon / Dragon Magazine) added the Ranger in it's short run for example. There were many others but few were later canonized by inclusion in later...

Got some high knowledge: the game going there buddy.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
3.5 Loyalist wrote:


Got some high knowledge: the game going there buddy.

It pretty much absorbed my life from 1974 until the early 80s. Then graduate school and real life started pushing in, and further in... *sigh*. It's a constant struggle to find the time for gaming between work and family (and it does take a distant third place there). When I retire in about 8 years though... game on! :D


FangDragon wrote:
Assuming_Control wrote:
Nerdrage Ooze wrote:
Except for Cavalier (which isn't poor design, but just a bit ... meh) all the APG classes are neat and fill much needed niches (divine skill monkey? arcane-divine caster that doesn't require the pains of Mystic Theurge? Alchemist trope? Spontaneous divine caster? Pokemon trainer?).

I don't agree that they fill needed niches. As far as I'm concerned they are just new crunch for the sake of new crunch. The fluff is thoroughly covered by other classes.

Then again I think the Barbarian shouldn't exist either (I you want to play an angry uncivilized Fighter then do so). So my opinions are probably unpopular.

The APG gave us lots of options which is a good thing. Dislike gunslingers? No problem, they don't have to exist in your game. Likewise barbarians don't have to exist but I feel you'd be missing out there. Barbarians are common in fantasy literature and they are distinct from fighters. You could make a pretty good facsimile of The Bloody Nine or Conan or perhaps even Karsa Orlong in pathfinder which is a good thing :)

Barbarians and raging berserkers are common in fantasy fiction. The big difference is that raging berserkers usually can't control when they go berserk and often attack both friend and foe. That is not what is portrayed by the game mechanics.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Morain wrote:
I don't mind them, but I would never play any of them. Don't like the feel of them.

<rubs eyes> What, there is something about RAW Pathfinder you don't like? I must be dreaming. :p


Vod Canockers wrote:
Barbarians and raging berserkers are common in fantasy fiction. The big difference is that raging berserkers usually can't control when they go berserk and often attack both friend and foe. That is not what is portrayed by the game mechanics.

Not always. Regnak, the Earl of Bronze never attacked any allies while baersark.

In addition, an ability that transforms a character into a near-unstoppable engine of death that turns on his party is probably an incredibly stupid idea for a game based on teamwork, so it got toned down. Both in how powerful it was (the uncontrollable beserker tended to hit like a seige engine once he got wound up) and in the uncontrollable aspect.


Grey Lensman wrote:
(the uncontrollable beserker tended to hit like a seige engine once he got wound up)

What ever happened to the Frenzied Berserker anyway?

The will save or frenzy whenever you took damage turned me off it, but I can't deny that +10 strength and effectively doubling the damage for to hit ratio of power attack was appealing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Just curious, of the objectors there seems to be a great many that don't like a class because it doesn't fit their desired setting of Arthurian Fantasy. There is a lot of gunslingers and alchemists are too modern, or ninja are to Asian in bent. My question is why the vitriol against these options existing?

Just because your whole campaign exists in a certain time period in England, shouldn't it be ok for people to play other things and have their tastes catered too a bit as well? I hear a lot of argument that you should " just play a fighter" if you want a samurai, well a person going for an Asian bent could say the same thing in reverse.

I guess I just rankle a bit against anyone who says options are bad. Anytime you have more choices to me it's a good thing, variety is the spice of life as they say. You can always turn things down on a case by case basis, but dismissing a class entirely and portraying Paizo as villains for printing it smacks of forcing everyone to play your Vision of what fun " should" be.

Then again I also do not comprehend the complaint that a class should be an archetype, or the like...it's just semantics....

101 to 150 of 737 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / How do people feel about Paizo's "new" base classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.