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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 737 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
Personally I love the witch as that is the only class that I have played from the APG. I do think that they are balanced with other classes since their hexes are limited (for the most part).
I tried rolling up a Witch inspired by Beatrice but found that the hexes were too geared to the Baba Yaga/European-themed hedge witch kind. Cackle seemed to fit, but I just went with Bard instead.
Huh, trying to imagine what witches would look like if they resembled shounen and magical girl series...

Like shonen or magical girl hero/heroines? :P

Although a Madoka Magica witch would be bad ass...


TOZ wrote:
MrSin wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:
Shalafi2412 wrote:
Personally I love the witch as that is the only class that I have played from the APG. I do think that they are balanced with other classes since their hexes are limited (for the most part).
I tried rolling up a Witch inspired by Beatrice but found that the hexes were too geared to the Baba Yaga/European-themed hedge witch kind. Cackle seemed to fit, but I just went with Bard instead.
Huh, trying to imagine what witches would look like if they resembled shounen and magical girl series...

Like shonen or magical girl hero/heroines? :P

Although a Madoka Magica witch would be bad ass...

it's all about Homura Akemi. traveling through time to rerwrite TPKs, stopping time to steal a bunch of heavy arms from Russia, and Unstopping time to kill soul eating demons with a freaking rocket launcher.


The Summoner is the only new base class that I think shouldn't exist. It's just too good right out of the box that you really have to be a very unskilled player to not totally dominate with them.

The rest of the new classes are great.


unforgivn wrote:

The Summoner is the only new base class that I think shouldn't exist. It's just too good right out of the box that you really have to be a very unskilled player to not totally dominate with them.

The rest of the new classes are great.

Summoner has a stronger pet than the druid, but their spell list is far more limited. yes, they can cast powerful spells, but most of them come from summons or from buffs or battlefield control

plus such a powerful eidolon has to worry about fitting into the spaces it fights in after a certain point, due to the drawbacks of being a large creature and the published APs or Scenarios mostly being a bunch of dungeon crawls

The Exchange

MrSin wrote:
...Huh, trying to imagine what witches would look like if they resembled shounen and magical girl series...

Oh, that's easy. Tall, leggy, inexplicably Caucasian, eye sockets occupying about 70% of the available skull space, buxom and tending to sparkle.

As far as the topic of the thread: I really, really like the oracle. They fill a useful niche for my, as my GMing style states that clerics have to have gods, and this class gives me a way to represent folks empowered by djinn, devils, ancestral spirits or cooperative elementals. The class seems a bit lightweight by comparison with the Cleric, but then, so do most others.


Lincoln Hills wrote:
MrSin wrote:
...Huh, trying to imagine what witches would look like if they resembled shounen and magical girl series...

Oh, that's easy. Tall, leggy, inexplicably Caucasian, eye sockets occupying about 70% of the available skull space, buxom and tending to sparkle.

As far as the topic of the thread: I really, really like the oracle. They fill a useful niche for my, as my GMing style states that clerics have to have gods, and this class gives me a way to represent folks empowered by djinn, devils, ancestral spirits or cooperative elementals. The class seems a bit lightweight by comparison with the Cleric, but then, so do most others.

so a "Shinto Shrine Maiden" wouldn't work as a valid "godless" cleric concept?

the Shinto Pantheon has like 8 million pseudogods and instead of devoting their attention to one god, they devote it to one concept or portfolio that involves a fraction of the 8 million gods they worship.

Mikos also face demons, undead, and evil fey. just like a darn cleric.


I'd play as a Shinto variant cleric. I could totally dig making an alternative class for that even if I had to. Could be pretty cool.

Lincoln Hills wrote:
MrSin wrote:
...Huh, trying to imagine what witches would look like if they resembled shounen and magical girl series...
Oh, that's easy. Tall, leggy, inexplicably Caucasian, eye sockets occupying about 70% of the available skull space, buxom and tending to sparkle..

Except I'd build a magical guy... slightly different, less buxom, more dark colors. I did once try in the game, but it was a sorc.


Just on a lark, I decided to go through the class list and see which classes I would enjoy playing as a primary class (as opposed to dipping).

Bard (Archaeologist sub only)
Monk
Ranger (Spell-less sub only)
Rogue
Sorcerer
Alchemist
Gunslinger
Magus
Oracle
Ninja

Obviously, I'm not a 'power-player'. Still, half of the classes I'd play without being coerced into it are from the expanded list. So ... I'm pretty grateful for 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 personally don't hate them all. I love quite a few of them. I enjoy having choices whether they be base classes, new classes, new archetypes, new prestige classes or new races.

I disagree that it's a power leap. The most powerful characters in the game are long thought to be the higher level clerics and wizards. These are the base classes.

Sorry you feel so bitter, but there isn't anything that says YOU have to play any of the new stuff or allow them in a game you run. I don't see any reason to get bitter over things that you actually have control over.

It's not a ploy, it's a business model based on supply and demand. People demand new and innovative classes/races/adventures and Paizo has a great team in place where they supply that demand. If people didn't want this stuff then Paizo wouldn't be producing it.

Of course you have a right to your own opinion, but I don't think that many people agree with you just based on the amount of material out there that Paizo puts out and keeps putting out for those of us who do like choices and the new shiny stuff.

Now that's off MY chest.


Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

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....

Arthurian Fantasy is a bad name for what you are thinking. If you were to truly play an Arthurian Fantasy, you would have to get rid of all spell casting classes except Druid (and then highly modify the Druid Spell list), and the only other classes allowed would be Fighter, Barbarian (for those pesky invaders), Cavalier, Paladin (without some of his powers and no spells), and Expert, Aristocrat, Commoner, and Warrior, maybe Witch too. Magic items would be virtually nonexistent and worth a kingdom to have one.

I don't think describes the play of people that don't want to add the "Asian" or "Modern" classes.

Grand Lodge

MrSin wrote:

I'd play as a Shinto variant cleric. I could totally dig making an alternative class for that even if I had to. Could be pretty cool.

Lincoln Hills wrote:
MrSin wrote:
...Huh, trying to imagine what witches would look like if they resembled shounen and magical girl series...
Oh, that's easy. Tall, leggy, inexplicably Caucasian, eye sockets occupying about 70% of the available skull space, buxom and tending to sparkle..
Except I'd build a magical guy... slightly different, less buxom, more dark colors. I did once try in the game, but it was a sorc.

That's good. I would hate to see the results if you made him more buxom.


EntrerisShadow wrote:
MrSin wrote:

I'd play as a Shinto variant cleric. I could totally dig making an alternative class for that even if I had to. Could be pretty cool.

Lincoln Hills wrote:
MrSin wrote:
...Huh, trying to imagine what witches would look like if they resembled shounen and magical girl series...
Oh, that's easy. Tall, leggy, inexplicably Caucasian, eye sockets occupying about 70% of the available skull space, buxom and tending to sparkle..
Except I'd build a magical guy... slightly different, less buxom, more dark colors. I did once try in the game, but it was a sorc.
That's good. I would hate to see the results if you made him more buxom.

I dunno man. Everything is better with mo' buxom.

For those that don't get the joke: Ky Kiske/Sol Badguy.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I personally love them. Heck I hope they make more. Why not? If your running a game just limit what you dont want. If your playing then dont play something you dont like. Why is it that the simple existance of new classes offends you(And by you I am speaking generally)? Its like someone complaining there are more options then just Ford and Chevy when they go to buy a car. More options = Good. Someone actually complained that it was harder to min/max when there where so many options... well then dont go to that extreame when it comes to min/max. Just make a competent character you can have fun with.

Now my opinions on the classes...

Witch - So much flavor in this class. Some of the hexs are just full of RP value... for both players and DM NPC enemies.

Oracle - Love it. Great spontanous divine caster. Flavor and effective.

Summoner - While it is complicated and can cause issues for DM's if they aren't prepared... its a great class. It reminds me of the Malconvoker from 3.5 which I loved... in fact I made a hombrew Malconvoker archtype for the summoner just to get the feel perfect.

Magus - Its a gish in a box. It what alot of people wanted since 3rd edition. It works well and I think is right where it should be on the power scale.

Ninja - Its what the rogue should have been. Personally I give it trapfinding, allow rogue talents and call it a rogue... I just reflavor to be less ninja sounding. (Rogue luck vs Ki as an example).

Samurai - Never seen it in action, but if someone wanted to play one I would simply reflavor it so be less asian.

Inquisitor - I like it. Its a good mix between Cleric and Bard. It has great melee potential while still giving some spell casting for utility. Again the flavor is fantastic based on what deity you choose.

Gunslinger - This is the one class I dont like. First I dont do Steampunk so no firearms in my game. Second the mechanics are just wonky and hard to balance. A full BA class that uses touch attacks. Its seriously overpowered if you dont highly adjust your enemies to compensate for it.

Over all. Most the classes are full of RP value. They all have their nitch. And it provides a breath of fresh air for those of us who have played since 3.0 first came out. Sometimes you want to play something new. These classes are great additions.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Thanks for reinforcing my optimizers = anime fans idea, folks :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Vod Canockers wrote:
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

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....

Arthurian Fantasy is a bad name for what you are thinking. If you were to truly play an Arthurian Fantasy, you would have to get rid of all spell casting classes except Druid (and then highly modify the Druid Spell list), and the only other classes allowed would be Fighter, Barbarian (for those pesky invaders), Cavalier, Paladin (without some of his powers and no spells), and Expert, Aristocrat, Commoner, and Warrior, maybe Witch too. Magic items would be virtually nonexistent and worth a kingdom to have one.

I don't think describes the play of people that don't want to add the "Asian" or "Modern" classes.

. Oh my god ...really an entire series of posts and this is what you fixate on. Clearly my definition of Aurthurian not being up to your standard is the whole reason I entered this conversation.


Some people like the classic D&D 'Fauxrope' feel. Some don't. Some like to experiment with different things, some stick with the old tried-n-true.

The answer is simple; don't play it if you're a player,don't allow it if you're a DM.


Gorbacz wrote:
Thanks for reinforcing my optimizers = anime fans idea, folks :)

The fact I was raised on over the top anime and I happen to optimize my characters is purely coincidental I assure you. Its when you play a super hero type game you really have to worry. Probably for the best pathfinder doesn't offer that...


MrSin wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Thanks for reinforcing my optimizers = anime fans idea, folks :)
The fact I was raised on over the top anime and I happen to optimize my characters is purely coincidental I assure you. Its when you play a super hero type game you really have to worry. Probably for the best pathfinder doesn't offer that...

Weird. The anime fans I've met tend to be horrible optimizers.


I generally like all of their new classes, including their variant classes. I dunno. It makes for some pretty sweet world building.

I'm generally a fan of more tools I can fiddle with, though.


thejeff wrote:

Of course, 1st edition also survived about 10 years with only a handful of new classes and less new crunch than 3.x.

Similarly 2E lasted 11 years with few new base classes, though it started the splatbook explosion and introduced kits.
The vast explosion of classes and prestige classes in 3.x only kept it going for 7 years, with a reboot in the middle, allowing them to rerelease all the old material tweaked.
4th also had plenty of new classes and only lasted about 5 years.

I'm not sure the evidence shows that it's new classes (or even new mechanics) that keep editions going.

WOTC changed the market. TSR in the 70's was a mom and pop shop that took off with AD&D 1st ed. They blew up in the 80's and were lucky to survive despite the mismanagement, due to the fact that their game was "the game of the 80's", they had a TV show, and were still selling the entertainment rights to video game companies. The company of the 70's and early 80's had a novel IP that was worth money by itself, and the company didn't have to work that hard to grow until it was purchased by real business people who forced Gygax out.

This led to 2.0, 2.5 5 years later (yeah, not talked about alot, but the black and red books were an update as significant as 3.5), 10 billion settings and a truckload of splat books. What you could do with elves by the end of 2.5 was disgusting. But the model failed and a more successful corporate entity that made it's millions pimping baby japanese abominations in card form bought the company and created the rpg market that we know today. 3.0 was a rockstar and it redefined gaming. D20 was THE system of the early 2000s and even the competition got on the OGL gravy train.

You have to remember too that BECMI was FIVE boxes, plus a heap of errata, plus AD&D PH, DMG, MM and UA to what, the 8 PF rulebooks? I don't think Paizo is really doing anything different from what TSR of the 80's and 90's did. Expecting a edition in 3-5 years isn't too outlandish, unless D&D next tries to recapture the magic of the D20 OGL.


Zhayne wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Thanks for reinforcing my optimizers = anime fans idea, folks :)
The fact I was raised on over the top anime and I happen to optimize my characters is purely coincidental I assure you. Its when you play a super hero type game you really have to worry. Probably for the best pathfinder doesn't offer that...
Weird. The anime fans I've met tend to be horrible optimizers.

most anime, novel, and mythology characters have options traditionally deemed suboptimal in the D&D system.

Drizzt with his twin scimitars
Goku who fights unarmed
Ichigo Kurosaki, who wasted a feat to learn a ranged attack in a world where flight and high speed movement are both extremely common, and extremely easy to learn
Perseus, who fought with the artifacts of the gods, but was mortal himself
Beowulf whom swam for 6 days in plate armor, and fought 9 sea serpents on the 5th night
Raistlin Majere whom was a wizard that dumped constitution and couldn't function without his drugs
Miyomoto Masashi Fought with 2 Katana and even killed a guy with a boat oar
Roronoa Zorro, carries 3 katana, one in each hand, and a third between his teeth.

now. some of these characters are actually somewhat viable, but none compare to Longbow Letty or AM BARBARIAN in DPR


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Lazurin, I seem to be expressing myself poorly, for which I apologize to you. If you have the patience to bear with me, I'll address your last post in two parts, to see if I can do a better job -- and finish with an example or two that I think will be illustrative of what I'm getting at.

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
I see two tool boxes that will ultimately need more and more tools in them to get to the same result. Or to take or more apt anology to my mind I see a lot of people advocating selling bricks and a bunch of other people advocating selling walls and in the end your both are still ending up with a house.

I actually see one toolbox (multiclassing) advertised, but when you open it up, the box is empty! Because a fighter 10/wizard 10 casts only 5th level spells (CL 10th), he's noteably inferior to what the baseline (the current magus or eldritch knight) should be. Therefore, the only real opotion you have is the current model: not a toolbox at all, but a limited number of "each-sold-separately" packages, all in different places. In terms of bricks and walls, I'd like a big construction depot with a lot of bricks and usable mortar, so I can build whatever kind of wall I need. I don't have that. What we do have are a collection of premade walls that may or may not even come close to fitting what we want, but they're what the prefab wall builder people decide we "need."

Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
the existence of the Inquisitor doesn't prevent you from doing it your way, but it does facilitate doing it mine.

The existence of the Inquisitor is a testimony to the fact that my preferred method does not work at all using the current rules, and that Paizo has no interest or intention of ever enabling it to work. Say we both want a sort of rogue/cleric hybrid. You get an inquisitor, who gets 3/4 casting and a bunch of additional abilities (judgments, etc.) that scale with level. Using traditional multiclassing I get... 1/2 casting, and some abilities that don't scale meaningfully with level. In other words, we've only been given one way to viably get what we want: yours. Mine is advertised, and has a bunch of page count devoted to it, but it doesn't work, and as long as your alternative is available, no one will ever bother to fix it.

---

Now pretend we both want to play an obvious choice: a knight-troubador, sort of hybrid paladin/bard. I could multiclass the two and end up with what could quite possibly the most inept adventurer who ever lived, because even with Cha synergy, I'm diluting already-weak casting from both classes, and I'm also slowing my progression of meaningful class features (paladin mercies and smites, bardic inspiration) to a trickle that can't come close to keeping up with the scaling challenges I'm facing. For your part, maybe you look through all the splatbooks to date and find... nothing. You can't do it at all, because Paizo hasn't seen fit to publish a suitable base or prestige class for that yet. The best you can do is play an inquisitor and call it "close enough." We both lose, in this example.

See where I'm coming from? If we fixed multiclassing, Paizo could still present inquisitors and such as pre-made multiclass archetypes, for people too lazy to build them for themselves, or who were looking for ideas for new combinations. But the building blocks and usable mortar would have to actually be there to begin with, which right now they aren't.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Roronoa Zorro, carries 3 katana, one in each hand, and a third between his teeth.

I challenge this one a bit because Zoro uses a custom class that allows you to raise stats through training.

So while it would normally be subpar the fact that he has at least 50+ Str/Con and 30 something Dex lets him get away with it just fine.

Same with Goku and his unarmed fighting. Realistically finding a sword that didn't disintegrate every time he hit something with his 10k+ Str would make it more trouble than it was worth. Damn build your own races. So OP.


Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
MrSin wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Thanks for reinforcing my optimizers = anime fans idea, folks :)
The fact I was raised on over the top anime and I happen to optimize my characters is purely coincidental I assure you. Its when you play a super hero type game you really have to worry. Probably for the best pathfinder doesn't offer that...
Weird. The anime fans I've met tend to be horrible optimizers.
most anime, novel, and mythology characters have options traditionally deemed suboptimal in the D&D system.

Don't forget really big swords. I entirely blame anime for my character using any weapon in excess of 5 feet. In pathfinder there aren't many ways to use a really big sword beyond fluff.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

If you think it's just a matter of nomenclature, you're missing my entire point. My stance is that, to make a sneaky divine part-caster, I shouldn't have to pore through three chapters each in six different splatbooks in order to find the "correct" archetype, prestige class, or new base class that lets me do that. If multiclassing worked to begin with, I wouldn't need all that; I'd be able to do it using the core rules.

The more I have to shell out for supplemental references just to play the game, the less the core rules are actually worth. Even outside the $ issues (given that one could use the PRD), there's still a not-inconsiderable issue of time spent Googling "is there a combination in Pathfinder that will let me play X" -- only to sometimes find something close, sometimes find something pretty far off, and sometimes finding nothing.

Six? Try 4. And one of them has but one class, so 3. And 90% of the time a half experienced group can guide you. Or, you know, ask the forums.

And the fact is that you CAN play a character using Multiclass rules, or with the core classes, but the new classes might just do a better job at giving you a build and keeping it simple. Have you really had an issue with creating a role-playing concept within the world of pathfinder, or is it an optimization issue?

If I'm a newbie I tell a GM "I want to be like Ned Stark" and I go: Well, he's definitely a good warrior, so fighter might work, but he follows a rigid code of honour, so you might want to try paladin out. It gets some powers that are more magical than ned, but you might find them fun. Or perhaps a cavalier, who is a knight who follows a code, just like Ned. So the newbie has 3 strong choices to learn the game with. Will they be exactly like Ned Stark? Probably not, but half the fun is putting your stamp on a tried and true archetype.

You don't need 5 class dips to get a good class flavour. You need them to Min/Max.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Well, actually, dipping 5 classes is usually quite counter-intuitive to min-maxing in this game.


You don't have to flip through books in any event. There's an SRD online. I didn't even touch a book making my first PF character.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kirth Gerson wrote:
Now pretend we both want to play an obvious choice: a knight-troubador, sort of hybrid paladin/bard. I could multiclass the two and end up with what could quite possibly the most inept adventurer who ever lived, because even with Cha synergy, I'm diluting already-weak casting from both classes, and I'm also slowing my progression of meaningful class features (paladin mercies and smites, bardic inspiration) to a trickle that can't come close to keeping up with the scaling challenges I'm facing. For your part, maybe you look through all the splatbooks to date and find... nothing. You can't do it at all, because Paizo hasn't seen fit to publish a suitable base or prestige class for that yet. The best you can do is play an inquisitor and call it "close enough." We both lose, in this example.

Effective multiclassing along those lines went the way of the dodo once the game left 2nd edition and became 3rd, much less 3.5 and Pathfinder.

Currently there is no mechanic that allows players to make a hybrid between any two classes they choose that doesn't fall into one of 3 categories.

1: ineffective

2: overpowered

3: wait several levels to get into a prestige class.

Perhaps there is a 3PP that would like to take this challenge on?


Rynjin wrote:
Lumiere Dawnbringer wrote:
Roronoa Zorro, carries 3 katana, one in each hand, and a third between his teeth.

I challenge this one a bit because Zoro uses a custom class that allows you to raise stats through training.

So while it would normally be subpar the fact that he has at least 50+ Str/Con and 30 something Dex lets him get away with it just fine.

Same with Goku and his unarmed fighting. Realistically finding a sword that didn't disintegrate every time he hit something with his 10k+ Str would make it more trouble than it was worth. Damn build your own races. So OP.

the reason most anime characters that fight as warriors are so badass is not because of any superior fighting styles.

it is because they have absurdly generous stats, and the ability to stack the advanced creature template (or similar massive stat boost) through training multiple consecutive times, where penalties become insignificant.

the training for stat bumps doesn't have to be class specific, it could be a level substitution thing.

where instead of gaining a level, you get to stack the advanced creature template. which combines wonderfully with the fact anime characters are so freaking high level to begin with.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Dr. Calvin Murgunstrumm wrote:
Have you really had an issue with creating a role-playing concept within the world of pathfinder, or is it an optimization issue?

I can come up with role-playing concepts until the cows come home. What I can't do is make most of them any more effective than a Commoner, when I get to 6th level or so.

I don't believe in punishing my teammates because of my creativity. Therefore, the current system stifles creativity, because the only way to make a viable team-contributing character is, in most cases, sticking to a single class and/or prestige class. Multiclassing is a trap that seemingly allows you to filfull any number of concepts, but in a way that ensures that they meaningfully contribute less and less to the team as the challenges get tougher at higher levels -- and eventually are nothing but dead weight for the others to carry.

See the two examples I posted above.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

That depends on your definition of "viable", "dead weight", "challenges" and "contribution" are. As usual in this case, you're trying to get the entire discussion done on your parameters. Which is the easiest way to win it, I suppose.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Dr. Calvin Murgunstrumm wrote:
Have you really had an issue with creating a role-playing concept within the world of pathfinder, or is it an optimization issue?

I can come up with role-playing concepts until the cows come home. What I can't do is make most of them any more effective than a Commoner, when I get to 6th level or so.

I don't believe in punishing my teammates because of my creativity. Therefore, the current system stifles creativity, because the only way to make a viable team-contributing character is, in most cases, sticking to a single class and/or prestige class. Multiclassing is a trap that seemingly allows you to filfull any number of concepts, but in a way that ensures that they meaningfully contribute less and less to the team as the challenges get tougher at higher levels -- and eventually are nothing but dead weight for the others to carry.

See the two examples I posted above.

i hate that too.

i think the Kirthfinder add half your levels other classes to your main for class features and the like would be a good fix.

For Example a Wizard 10/Rogue 10 would have 8d6 sneak attack, 8th level spells, a B.A.B. of +12, base Fort +6, base Ref and Will of +10, 100+20xint skill points, 7 rogue talents, Trap Sense +5, Trapfinding +8. 3 bonus metamagic or item creation feats, and the class features of a 15 level rogue and 15th level wizard. but would have the base saving throws, skill points, base attack, and hit dice of a 10th level rogue 10th level wizard


Gorbacz wrote:
That depends on your definition of "viable", "dead weight", "challenges" and "contribution" are. As usual in this case, you're trying to get the entire discussion done on your parameters. Which is the easiest way to win it, I suppose.

OK, let me set things more clearly. If we pick up an AP and have 4 PCs of the appropriate level, and a DM that allows the dice to fall where they may (I'd consider that as "appropriate challenges")... then do we all die and/or pretty much auto-fail if some of us multiclass as I've outlined? If so, then it's not "viable" and we're "dead weight."

I'm not interested in whether the concept works with Story Hour, where the DM outright ignores most of the game rules and/or warps the hell out of things, pulls punches, ignores dice rolls, and/or arbitrarily lessens or adulterates the written AP simply in order to give you a sporting chance. Anyone can make anything work with that approach, including sending parties of 1st level Commoners into 10th level adventures, so it's not a meaningful baseline of comparison.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

3.5 did eventually publish a trickle of feats allowing for slightly-less-horrible hybrid multiclassing (example: the Ascetic Rogue feat allowed rogue levels and monk levels to stack for the purpose of determining unarmed strike damage).

Of course, as my example shows, this was woefully inadequate. If that feat instead, say, stacked those levels for all purposes (or at least for both unarmed strike, flurry of blows, and sneak attack), then it might serve a suitable purpose.

I've been considering some sort of mechanic allowing multiclass characters to count as a higher level in each class than they actually have, but it's far from fully thought out (Edit: The method Lumiere Dawnbringer outlined is close to what I had considered).


What I think:

Okay with:
Cavaliers/Samurai
Witch

Okay without X:
Alchemists - bombs
Inquisitors - so many swift actions
Ninjas - swift Vanish (actually, just Vanish period)
Oracle - weak curses

Go away:
Magus
Summoners
Gunslingers

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
That depends on your definition of "viable", "dead weight", "challenges" and "contribution" are. As usual in this case, you're trying to get the entire discussion done on your parameters. Which is the easiest way to win it, I suppose.

OK, let me set things more clearly. If we pick up an AP and have 4 PCs of the appropriate level, and a DM that allows the dice to fall where they may (I'd consider that as "appropriate challenges")... then do we all die and/or pretty much auto-fail if some of us multiclass as I've outlined? If so, then it's not "viable" and we're "dead weight."

I'm not interested in whether the concept works with Story Hour, where the DM outright ignores most of the game rules and/or warps the hell out of things, pulls punches, ignores dice rolls, and/or arbitrarily lessens or adulterates the written AP simply in order to give you a sporting chance.

I'm running Reign of Winter soon. I'll ask folks to try multiclass characters and see where we get with that. It will take some time for me to get there, but I will let you know how did that work out.

Also, knight-troubadour = Battle Herald PrC from APG.

I understand that multiclassing is not the most stellar part of 3.5e design, but throwing that away would bork backwards compatibility all over. And if you *did* throw that away and come up with new system, an obvious question would be why stop there and not change the game even furtheoh wait, it's now so far from 3.5 that it won't sell to anybody and end up as another FantasyCraft/Trailblazer/4E.

You're looking at the game purely from design perspective. That's neat, but a publisher must also look from business perspective. From a business perspective, with experiences of 4E and aforementioned "we'll make a better d20" games, there's little to none encouragement to move away from familiar comfort zone of 3E players.


Gorbacz wrote:


I'm running Reign of Winter soon. I'll ask folks to try multiclass characters and see where we get with that. It will take some time for me to get there, but I will let you know how did that work out.

You talkin' real life or PbP? I'd submit a PbP character for that!


Gorbacz wrote:
You're looking at the game purely from design perspective. That's neat, but a publisher must also look from business perspective.

I understand that, but don't have to like it! And, really, with a robust multiclassing system, Paizo could still publish "50 Awesome Multiclass Combinations" and make a huge profit from it -- even if the whole thing would, from a crunch standpoint, be redundant.


Battle Herald has a weird place in life. Full BAB, no bonus feats, and his only ability is to stand there yelling at people. He won't hit hard, but at least he gives you +1s. He's not likely to have good spell casting, and he lost BAB to being part bard. He also eats up actions. Prestige classes in pathfinder tend to be pretty meh I've always thought. Your lucky if you find one for the class combo you like. MCA is a nice idea, but I don't always agree with what they come up with, and its homebrew itself.

Imo, the best way to make things is flexible. Something you can customize heavily, but can add in your own content.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
You're looking at the game purely from design perspective. That's neat, but a publisher must also look from business perspective.
I understand that, but don't have to like it! And, really, with a robust multiclassing system, Paizo could still publish "50 Awesome Multiclass Combinations" and make a huge profit from it -- even if the whole thing would, from a crunch standpoint, be redundant.

Oh, I feel you. There are dozens of publisher-side things I'd love to be done my way (say, a Numeria AP right now instead of having good guys vs. demons, or maybe a bigger book on Cheliax, or perhaps NPC Codex 2 instead of Bestiary 4, yadda yadda). But overall, I've gotten so much bang for my bucks here that I can live with some things that don't float my boat. Especially if I can always mine fan-based/3PP material for solutions. And as long as I can get my players' character concepts realized, I care little if they're running a Cleric/Rogue, some 3.5 PrC, or Inquisitors. Whatever you need to get the job done. If I'm fixing my car I don't care if I'm using Producer's Official Replacement kit or WD40 and duct tape as long as it drives.

Tangentially: is there any 3PP multiclassing alternative out there?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have to say, I, for one, LIKE not needing to multiclass to fulfill a certain concept, and ENJOY having unique character classes that do what I want out of the box with different class features I can just grab going from one level to the next.

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Thanks for reinforcing my optimizers = anime fans idea, folks :)

Jamming a couple planks under the Golden Gate Bridge is 'reinforcing' too.


Kirth Gersen wrote:

Lazurin, I seem to be expressing myself poorly, for which I apologize to you. If you have the patience to bear with me, I'll address your last post in two parts, to see if I can do a better job -- and finish with an example or two that I think will be illustrative of what I'm getting at.

I'm curious. Why, given what you seem to want to do here, are you using a class based system at all? It seems like some kind of point based system would work better. Much more freedom to design the variants you want.


He probably wants to still play Pathfinder with most of the other rules, and the settings, and such, and I know (from experience) that making a freeform/point based system for Pathfinder is difficult and ultimately never going to be perfect. It can work, but it's not going to be "publishable quality".

That's assuming he even does want a point based system at all.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Pendin Fust wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:


I'm running Reign of Winter soon. I'll ask folks to try multiclass characters and see where we get with that. It will take some time for me to get there, but I will let you know how did that work out.
You talkin' real life or PbP? I'd submit a PbP character for that!

Mostly real life, but since I've never given PbP a shot I might do a parallel online game (same prep, after all). I just need to learn how you pull that off.


Lazurin Arborlon wrote:
Vod Canockers wrote:
Lazurin Arborlon wrote:

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....

Arthurian Fantasy is a bad name for what you are thinking. If you were to truly play an Arthurian Fantasy, you would have to get rid of all spell casting classes except Druid (and then highly modify the Druid Spell list), and the only other classes allowed would be Fighter, Barbarian (for those pesky invaders), Cavalier, Paladin (without some of his powers and no spells), and Expert, Aristocrat, Commoner, and Warrior, maybe Witch too. Magic items would be virtually nonexistent and worth a kingdom to have one.

I don't think describes the play of people that don't want to add the "Asian" or "Modern" classes.

. Oh my god ...really an entire series of posts and this is what you fixate on. Clearly my definition of Aurthurian not being up to your standard is the whole reason I entered this conversation.

Actually I've posted several times in this thread. I didn't fixate on your post, just pointed out that it is bad terminology.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TOZ wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Thanks for reinforcing my optimizers = anime fans idea, folks :)
Jamming a couple planks under the Golden Gate Bridge is 'reinforcing' too.

Given how many times it gets blown up in comics/movies, I AM ON TO SOMETHING!


thejeff wrote:
I'm curious. Why, given what you seem to want to do here, are you using a class based system at all? It seems like some kind of point based system would work better. Much more freedom to design the variants you want.

Honestly, I'd vastly prefer that, but two things have stopped me: (1) Making it usable with published APs without totally rewriting them; and (2) finding anytone else willing to play it. The closest I've come is to write Kirthfinder, which is modular enough that I enjoy playing it, but class-based enough that other people are willing to play it, too.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
thejeff wrote:
I'm curious. Why, given what you seem to want to do here, are you using a class based system at all? It seems like some kind of point based system would work better. Much more freedom to design the variants you want.
Honestly, I'd vastly prefer that, but two things have stopped me: (1) Making it usable with published APs without totally rewriting them; and (2) finding anytone else willing to play it. The closest I've come is to write Kirthfinder, which is modular enough that I enjoy playing it, but class-based enough that other people are willing to play it, too.

Fair enough. I figured it was something like that.

I just find the modular approach pretty much directly at odds with the class based one, so it seemed strange.


Gorbacz wrote:
Mostly real life, but since I've never given PbP a shot I might do a parallel online game (same prep, after all). I just need to learn how you pull that off.

That'd be sweet if you did...Poor GM here never gets to play the AP's as a PC :)

201 to 250 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.