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


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 737 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Gorbacz wrote:
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.

If I manage it I will be sure to give you some pointers.


Gorbacz wrote:
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?

@Gorbacz: MCP (Multiclass Productions) have developed more than 100 multiclass archetypes for your perusal and enjoyment:

Multiclass Archetypes

Stay tuned for an exciting product to showcase these in the next month or so...

There is also this from Super Genius Games: The Genius Guide to Feats of Multiclassing

Liberty's Edge

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*

Sign up to the WotC D&DN playtest - might be what you are after and people might be willing to play it - 'cos it is new and therefore better...'. I too have found that 2e D&D was a pinnacle of D&D-like RPGs even now in the sea of modern games. But also like you PF is really the only game in town - while way better than I found 3.5e, 2e is still my one true love...


MrSin wrote:

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.

What about a fighter 1 (Proficiencies)/ evangelist cleric?


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

You mistake otaku for sperg. :D

Less jestingly, the majority of the min-max optimization I see comes from fans less of anime, in general, and more of specific anime-flavored bullet hell games that fixate on loli characters with a hat fetish to rival the Team Fortress 2 fandom.

Given said genre is full of GodModders (in both fandom and in-universe), it stands to reason that such a corresponding complex would carry over to the games.

A more fair characterization would be that there's a strange proclivity towards the extremes in the general anime fandom - massive min-maxers and people who absolutely refuse to do so, with little middle ground.

Note, more fair, not simply fair.

The Exchange

I don't have to remember0D&D - I own the original in the cheesy false woodgrain cardboard box and still have a sealed pack of the original polyhedral dice that you had to send away for to play the game.
Along the way to the present:
Barbarian - You had to hide any magic device from them. They had sort of a vow to destroy anything magical - Very Conan
Bard - Early prestige class - had to first be a thief for 5-8 levels, then a druid for 5-8 levels, high stats in almost everything was a prerequisite. Our group got an Instrument of the Bards and wanted me to create one so they could use it. That was my first Bard and I've played them every since. From Druid, the Bard could shapechange and from Thief, he could steal, traps etc.
Cavalier ADD2 - best single act of roll playing - Hard messy battle - We are all on the ground moaning Medic Medic for a clerical healing except our Cavalier - "Tailor Tailor" ADD2 Cavalier was like that - more of a fashionable highway man.
Would not mind seeing classes for either the old Bard or Cavalier again.

Contributor

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.

My thoughts:

Alchemist: Very cool idea, but bombs are too strong. They're not unbalanced, but they're too important to Alchemist damage while being limited. Alchemists are very awesome against large groups, which is nifty.

Cavalier: Very cool class, but I personally think that Orders should not have been bound to character level. Should have been like Oracle curses, where their benefits still improve as you multiclass (abet more slowly). Cavalier's niches (Teamwork and Mounts) might be too specific, and its a shame that they don't get Solo Tactics like the Inquisitor.

Gunslinger: Sort of a "meh" class to me. Gunslingers don't get much opportunity to be unique from one another because Deeds are auto-learned instead of being talent-based like a rogue. The touch AC mechanic reminds me a lot of what happened when Sonic damage was introduced into the game back in 3.5 edition; few things have sonic resistance, and because of that they really had to scale back Sonic-based attacks. Except they didn't do much to allow monsters / NPCs to counter the gunslinger well. I am akeptical as to whether or not targeting touch AC was a good call, but I like the playstyle idea of having to trade accuracy for damage.

Inquisitor: Sort of like the nega-bard. Very skill focused, but also focused on damage and hurting enemies compared to the bard's ally buffing. This gives it a bad rep among some players, who see anything that isn't DPR as a sin against roleplaying. Very odd choice to have a Charisma-prepared spellcaster (Paladin) and a Wisdom spontaneous spellcaster (Inquisitor) but change can be good.

Magus: Absolutely adore the class. Very good idea, but several of its archetypes are very poorly handled. Its usually the ones that trade out Spellstrike or Spell Combat that end up being terrible. Hexcrafter and Blackblade are up with the Qinggong Monk for most useful archetypes ever for the class they are designed for.

Oracle: This class's design makes my sorcerer jealous. I absolutely love getting to pick my goodies, and I which this idea was around for the Sorcerer. I personally think it and Magus are the best of Paizo's new classes.

Summoner: And this one is the worst. Build-a-pet is not a bad idea. However, it is too easily gamed for most GMs to stomach. You have to really police a player in order to get this to work; I wish the summoner templates from UM were mandatory and you have to pick a template and buy your abilities from a decently balanced list.

Witch: Pretty cool, but I think this class suffers from the, "NO ONE CAN BEAT THE CLERIC SPELL LIST IN HEALING EVER!" syndrome that the Druid also suffers from. Trading spells known for some awesome Hexes is a great idea, but I wish there was a hex you could take that allowed you to add Wizard spells to your list in place of a hex. The Arcane Bond witch archetype being half-elf only is pretty lame.


EDIT:

Saluzi wrote:

I don't have to remember0D&D - I own the original in the cheesy false woodgrain cardboard box and still have a sealed pack of the original polyhedral dice that you had to send away for to play the game.

Along the way to the present:
Barbarian - You had to hide any magic device from them. They had sort of a vow to destroy anything magical - Very Conan
Bard - Early prestige class - had to first be a thief for 5-8 levels, then a druid for 5-8 levels, high stats in almost everything was a prerequisite. Our group got an Instrument of the Bards and wanted me to create one so they could use it. That was my first Bard and I've played them every since. From Druid, the Bard could shapechange and from Thief, he could steal, traps etc.
Cavalier ADD2 - best single act of roll playing - Hard messy battle - We are all on the ground moaning Medic Medic for a clerical healing except our Cavalier - "Tailor Tailor" ADD2 Cavalier was like that - more of a fashionable highway man.
Would not mind seeing classes for either the old Bard or Cavalier again.

While it doesn't perfectly cover the 0 D&D bard, the Animal Speaker and Archaeologist prestige classes kind of cover that basic idea, though they don't actually work together (I suppose it could if you ruled it, but the archaeologist replaces bardic performance, while the animal speaker alters but maintains that ability), and it doesn't specifically grant shape-shifting.

Another alternate, however (though still not perfect), is the Fochlucan Lyrist prestige from the 3.5 book Complete Adventurer. Add one level of rogue, and you basically get the same gist.

EDIT: to be clear who I'm talking to and about what, though it's probably pretty obvious. :)

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

@TOZ and Gorbacz:
PbP's are not that difficult, with most of the work being done early on. I do them on the boards here, which has it's one dice roller, and use the ooc, bold, and italics to differentiate out of character comments, dialogue, and stating my actions, respectively. If you download a free program called FoxIt PDF, it will allow you to select maps and pictures from Paizo products without revealing the different layers, (which usually includes secret doors, location of traps/monsters, and all the stuff you do not want players to see. Simply copy/paste it over to Paint, and resize as desired, and then save as a JPEG.

Next, (I use) Google Docs. It requires an account, but it's free. Simply sign on, then find the option for "Drive". Once there create a new "Drawing", and simply upload your maps, pick. Much like Paint and other simple art programs, you have the options to cover up areas that the party can not see, and you can also add in icons for all the monsters, npc's, and players, (basically using the same process as above with the map). Because Google Drawings already uses a basic grid, if you size the map to the same size as the underlying frame, and then size the other icons to the squares on the map, it works very well.

From there, simply save the Drawing, and make sure to make it so the "Anyone with the Link", "May Edit", which will allow the players to be able to move their characters for themselves, similar to a table top game with mini's. Make sure you save the Link. Next, go to the Paizo Boards, and scroll down to Play-by-Posts or Play-By-post Discussions. Simply create your own thread, and using the [/url] code, post a link to the map for your players either at the top, or what I prefer, under your DM alias's Race or class section, so that it will always appear with your posts. I also heavily suggest that my players put most of the relevant info for their characters there as well, for easy viewing, so that you do not need to open their character any time there is a combat. (HP, Init, Perception (additional senses), AC/FF/T/CMB, F/R/W, Alignment, Race, Class, Level. Feel free to hit me up if you would like some more advice or have questions. I sort of learned as I went, and have plenty of tips.

There are also other styles, for example Skype/video gaming, and a few sites that are focused on it. Roll 20 is a big one, though I haven't tried it. Aside from the rather terrible Dice Roller, Paizo's boards work very well for me. HERE is a link to one of my old game maps, as an example. You should be able to click on any of the player mini's and move them about, (click, and then click and drag).


+1 to Beckett's post. I've played in 2 of his PbP's and he does a phenomenal job.


R_Chance wrote:
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

Some dice are going to get rolled. Stay mentally sharp and healthy buddy.


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.

Well, the Gish has been covered by the Eldritch Knight and the Magus, so there is no roleplaying need to split your levels between fighter and wizard, barring a complete change of character concept i.e. I was a soldier, but now I'm a student of magic. Paizo has clearly identified the problem you see with the fighter-wizard and has given you two options to negate the dead weight issue. A fighter 1/wizard 5 isn't really that much of a party drain before becoming an eldritch knight.

So you want to be a troubadour-crusader? Great concept! Why do you have to split your levels 50-50?

Dip into bard and focus on the crusader part or dip into paladin and focus on the troubadour part? What do you want this troubadour to do? You'll probably be able to do this with a Paladin 5/ Bard 1 or vice versa.

And this is a strong argument for MORE classes, because a crusading troubadour class from 1-20 probably works better than a paladin 10/bard 10. The marshal from 3.5 could probably be cited as an excellent example of this kind of character class, just reskin it to be songs instead of orders. Why Paizo HASN'T done a class like this actually surprises me, though the cavalier's teamwork feats are closer to it.

I'll agree, optimization isn't necessarily served by half and half multi classing, but a one or two level dip to strenghen a concept (like troubadour paladin) doesn't really hamstring your party.


Beckett wrote:
** spoiler omitted **...

I've gamed with skype, dming for a group while one player is on screen. Skype gets a bit flaky sometimes, so when it drops you have to take a break. When it runs smooth it can really work, everyone has to talk a bit louder though, especially the dm. No mumbling!

If the skype player is patient, joy can be had.


Dr. Calvin Murgunstrumm wrote:
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.

Well, the Gish has been covered by the Eldritch Knight and the Magus, so there is no roleplaying need to split your levels between fighter and wizard, barring a complete change of character concept i.e. I was a soldier, but now I'm a student of magic. Paizo has clearly identified the problem you see with the fighter-wizard and has given you two options to negate the dead weight issue. A fighter 1/wizard 5 isn't really that much of a party drain before becoming an eldritch knight.

So you want to be a troubadour-crusader? Great concept! Why do you have to split your levels 50-50?

Dip into bard and focus on the crusader part or dip into paladin and focus on the troubadour part? What do you want this troubadour to do? You'll probably be able to do this with a Paladin 5/ Bard 1 or vice versa.

And this is a strong argument for MORE classes, because a crusading troubadour class from 1-20 probably works better than a paladin 10/bard 10. The marshal from 3.5 could probably be cited as an excellent example of this kind of character class, just reskin it to be songs...

The marshal and the knight were some of my favourite classes from 3.5. The knight with that nice challenge, d12 hit die, full bab, slight bonus to shield ac and anti-rogue abilities can still rock hard in pathfinder with absolutely no changes. I sent one through the first few books of Second Darkness and he minced those drow skirmishers.

The marshal buffs well, and they can fill the role of tanks (high con, toughness, max enchantments on that heavy armour and shield, take the soaking buffs).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
R_Chance wrote:
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

Gives secret Grognard handshake.

Not many of us around anymore, my friend....

Liberty's Edge

DrDeth wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
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

Gives secret Grognard handshake.

Not many of us around anymore, my friend....

Geez...it's enough to make me feel like a noob. I started 3 years late. :p


all my older friends just introduce me to the old games.

I've asked to play next
Old WOD
Call of Cthulu
Chainmail Boxset

Played
Torg
Earthdawn.
All versions of D&D and AD&D
Traveler
runequest 2 (but not one yet)
A custom Dwarf Fortress built for table top.

Liberty's Edge

Thomas Long 175 wrote:

all my older friends just introduce me to the old games.

I've asked to play next
Old WOD
Call of Cthulu
Chainmail Boxset

Played
Torg
Earthdawn.
All versions of D&D and AD&D
Traveler
runequest 2 (but not one yet)
A custom Dwarf Fortress built for table top.

The difference between RQ 1 and RQ 2 is minimal...it's corrected and smoothed out a hair, and expanded a little. You probably wouldn't notice the difference. :)


Thomas Long 175 wrote:

all my older friends just introduce me to the old games.

I've asked to play next
Old WOD
Call of Cthulu
Chainmail Boxset

Played
Torg
Earthdawn.
All versions of D&D and AD&D
Traveler
runequest 2 (but not one yet)
A custom Dwarf Fortress built for table top.

I loved TORG, but I could never get anyone else to play it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
proftobe wrote:
Thomas Long 175 wrote:

all my older friends just introduce me to the old games.

I've asked to play next
Old WOD
Call of Cthulu
Chainmail Boxset

Played
Torg
Earthdawn.
All versions of D&D and AD&D
Traveler
runequest 2 (but not one yet)
A custom Dwarf Fortress built for table top.

I loved TORG, but I could never get anyone else to play it.

I'm running a giant Knight from the land of Ayle, attempting to fight my racial tendencies towards evil as we strive to save the land from an evil cult that's trying to bridge the gap between worlds and allow hordes of undead and monsters over from the horror world (forgot the name)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
MrSin wrote:

Huh, are we talking about alternative classes here too? I guess I need more rant then.

** spoiler omitted **

One thing that really gets me however, is when people say classes are Asian and there fore should be banned. Classes are not Asian. They are as Asian as you make them out to be. I'll say it 100 times, ninjas don't wear PJs. The fact its called a ninja or the samurai is called a samurai is about the only Asian thing about it. If I called the ki pool a guile pool would it suddenly be not Asian? If I call my samurai a knight does he lose all his samurai class features? If I call my fighter a samurai do I gain resolute and 4+ skill points per level?

I'm all for people playing Samurai and Ninja, I'm just against the Samurai and Ninja classes. Want to play a Samurai? Fighter. Ninja? That's a Rogue (or even wizard, If you want to go with a more culturally authentic version).

Heck, I've been waiting to make a Tian Fighter/Duelist based on Boxer Rebellion lore and chinese secret societies whose "rapier" is actually a jian.

I actually think the outcry over "Asian" themes is a sort of low key racism. Racism and cultural prejudice against east asian people and cultures seems to almost universally be given a free pass for some reason.


Yeah but the Rogue sucks donkey testicles. At least the Ninja is slightly better.

And Samurai and Fighters are completely different mechanically, so you cannot, in fact, play a Samurai (the class) as a Fighter.


Rynjin wrote:

Yeah but the Rogue sucks donkey testicles. At least the Ninja is slightly better.

And Samurai and Fighters are completely different mechanically, so you cannot, in fact, play a Samurai (the class) as a Fighter.

I know the rogue sucks, but the solution should be fixing the rogue, not releasing the vivisectionist or publishing bard archetypes that trample all over an existing class that represents an extremely resonant archetype in the human experience.

I said "I'm all for people playing Samurai and Ninja, I'm just against the Samurai and Ninja classes", Read that again.

Samurai the concept, is a Fighter. Samurai the PF class is a joke. In no way does samurai the PF class actually have anything to do with Samurai historically or even as presented in popular culture (see Sanjuro, The Seven Samurai etc.).

It can be more difficult than it should be to do certain things with the Fighter class, However, Samurai is one concept that the Fighter class fits to a tee.


Question wrote:

My main complaints are that most of the base classes do not appear to be as well designed as the core classes. A lot seem to have "cool, but rather useless in practice" abilities tacked on, or are only really useful when made as antagonists for the party to fight.

Inquisitor teamwork feats are pointless, considering that they are melee focused for a class built for a ranged playstyle.

I don't see anything in the Inquisitor class that makes it a ranged class.

I suppose you can do archery but I don't recall any real bonuses for ranged versus melee...

Question wrote:

Witches being able to mess with crops is pointless when you are adventuring in dungeons and saving the world.

There are a few curses that are unlikely to be taken in standard campaigns, however they do give the GM options for enemy witches (or allied witches if you're interested in moral issues)

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 really might want to read the descriptions. Deafened means you're casting all of your spells as Silent without taking more time, boosting the spell level or costing a feat.

Haunted gives you problems in terms of using potions, wands, bows (loading arrows) etc. Scent and Tremorsense aren't exactly minor benefits for a character...

While there are definitely curses I'd take ahead of others there are also archetypes I'd take ahead of others, school specialisations, bloodlines etc.

Question wrote:

Infact, no attempt seems to have been made to balance oracle curses. Summoner eidlons are clearly geared towards the "mass as many natural attacks as possible" route and it is incredibly sub optimal to try and make a eidlon that can use weapons/armor.

And of course, many of the arche types are cool ideas with bad mechanics.

The witch is probably my biggest gripe, really cool idea, just badly executed with the 30 ft range limitation, poor spell selection, patron powers being watered down sorcerer bloodlines, and a familiar cum spellbook that you pretty much can't take out of the backpack for fear of getting it killed. It's like a combination wizard/sorc, with the worst of both and some cool hexes tacked on.

Except that it has a lot of things wizards and sorcerers can't do (healing for a start)

Question wrote:


Samurai vs fighter is another example of class full of gimmick abilities vs one that is well designed and made to work.

How do you feel about Paladins then?


Assuming_Control wrote:

I said "I'm all for people playing Samurai and Ninja, I'm just against the Samurai and Ninja classes", Read that again.

Samurai the concept, is a Fighter. Samurai the PF class is a joke. In no way does samurai the PF class actually have anything to do with Samurai historically or even as presented in popular culture (see Sanjuro, The Seven Samurai etc.).

Read the Samurai class and th Cavalier class side by side and you'll see that all the Samurai happens to be is a dressed up Cavalier. It's not a class, it's an archetype that changes a little more than usual.


Grey Lensman wrote:
Assuming_Control wrote:

I said "I'm all for people playing Samurai and Ninja, I'm just against the Samurai and Ninja classes", Read that again.

Samurai the concept, is a Fighter. Samurai the PF class is a joke. In no way does samurai the PF class actually have anything to do with Samurai historically or even as presented in popular culture (see Sanjuro, The Seven Samurai etc.).

Read the Samurai class and th Cavalier class side by side and you'll see that all the Samurai happens to be is a dressed up Cavalier. It's not a class, it's an archetype that changes a little more than usual.

I already know that. And no it's not an archetype, It's an alternate class.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Scythia wrote:

I like them. Then again, I like options and choices.

Also, just wanted to point out that there's no "pay to win" going on, since all of the base classes are available, along with most PF content, for free on the SRD.

I also disagree that the base classes are "power leap" or even power creep. Then again, I'm a total heretic that doesn't believe that is a bad thing.

Same'd.

I like the character concepts that the new classes enable.

Some concepts are realized better with these new classes than they would with any of hte core.

Some concepts are downright impossible to make work without the new classes.

I'd far rather have them than not, all the way from the Alchemist to the Summoner. And yes, that includes the Synthesist(yeah it could use some balancing, but it doesn't need to be struck out).

Grand Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

Yeah but the Rogue sucks donkey testicles. At least the Ninja is slightly better.

And Samurai and Fighters are completely different mechanically, so you cannot, in fact, play a Samurai (the class) as a Fighter.

So we're back to bashing the Pathfinder rogue because its a thief and not a stabby machine from Azeroth. The only difference between a Fighter and Samurai is the dogmatic code the Bushi paid lip service to. Sure, in Pathfinder they can be "magical karate warriors" if you want them to be, but in actuality you're talking about an asian themed fighter with ranks in poetry, banzai pruning, and bullying the peasantry.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Maccabee wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Yeah but the Rogue sucks donkey testicles. At least the Ninja is slightly better.

And Samurai and Fighters are completely different mechanically, so you cannot, in fact, play a Samurai (the class) as a Fighter.

So we're back to bashing the Pathfinder rogue because its a thief and not a stabby machine from Azeroth. The only difference between a Fighter and Samurai is the dogmatic code the Bushi paid lip service to. Sure, in Pathfinder they can be "magical karate warriors" if you want them to be, but in actuality you're talking about an asian themed fighter with ranks in poetry, banzai pruning, and bullying the peasantry.

People are bashing the rogue because he fails to match the wizard at being the ultimate thief, stealth expert (invisibility), trap finder (detect trap,magic etc), skill monkey and also fails to be able to outfight anything. The rogue is an inferior good, pretty much outclassed at all its specialities by the periphery talents of other classes.

Liberty's Edge

Wind Chime wrote:
Maccabee wrote:
Rynjin wrote:

Yeah but the Rogue sucks donkey testicles. At least the Ninja is slightly better.

And Samurai and Fighters are completely different mechanically, so you cannot, in fact, play a Samurai (the class) as a Fighter.

So we're back to bashing the Pathfinder rogue because its a thief and not a stabby machine from Azeroth. The only difference between a Fighter and Samurai is the dogmatic code the Bushi paid lip service to. Sure, in Pathfinder they can be "magical karate warriors" if you want them to be, but in actuality you're talking about an asian themed fighter with ranks in poetry, banzai pruning, and bullying the peasantry.

People are bashing the rogue because he fails to match the wizard at being the ultimate thief, stealth expert (invisibility), trap finder (detect trap,magic etc), skill monkey and also fails to be able to outfight anything. The rogue is an inferior good, pretty much outclassed at all its specialities by the periphery talents of other classes.

And all the while, people still play them, contribute regularly, and have a blast.

Gee.


To maintain the order, it is always important to have the same number of ranks in poetry (on blossoms mostly) as ranks in bullying the peasantry. There must be beauty and harmony.

Yeah, some online games make rogue/thieves/assassins ultimate shiv machines. Capable of out-damaging two handers (Dragon age, two weapon, rogue type). This bleeds on to our game, and then people wanting their pf or 3.5 to be their dragon age.

All must be the same.


Samurai pic activated!


Assuming_Control wrote:


And no it's not an archetype, It's an alternate class.

An alternate class is merely an archetype with a few more changes than usual and a chart made for it.


Grey Lensman wrote:
Assuming_Control wrote:


And no it's not an archetype, It's an alternate class.
An alternate class is merely an archetype with a few more changes than usual and a chart made for it.

Whatever. The Fighter is still a better representation of samurai than the Samurai archetype/class/whatever you want to call it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Assuming_Control wrote:
Samurai the concept, is a Fighter. Samurai the PF class is a joke. In no way does samurai the PF class actually have anything to do with Samurai historically or even as presented in popular culture (see Sanjuro, The Seven Samurai etc.).

I emphatically disagree. The classic, pre-Tokugawa, samurai was a mounted warrior skilled in archery, swordplay, and the use of pole arms. The PF samurai is as a good a representation as you'll get in a d20 system and the use of the honor/resolve mechanics are a nice touch.


There's also the question of whether the PF Samurai is supposed to represent the historical Samurai or the legendary/fictional/genre version.


3.5 Loyalist wrote:

To maintain the order, it is always important to have the same number of ranks in poetry (on blossoms mostly) as ranks in bullying the peasantry. There must be beauty and harmony.

Yeah, some online games make rogue/thieves/assassins ultimate shiv machines. Capable of out-damaging two handers (Dragon age, two weapon, rogue type). This bleeds on to our game, and then people wanting their pf or 3.5 to be their dragon age.

All must be the same.

That's mostly because there are actually some reasons to have a rogue in your party in dragon age.


Admittedly Samurai are Knights (mounted noble fighters), Geishas are courtesans and Ninja's are assassins. Pretty much all the stuff that existed in the Orient in pre-modern times also existed in the West and visa versa so you could just use flavour changes for the same mechanics. The only exception I can think of it the stuff coming from religion (Shinto, Buddhist, Daoist etc)and the Ki and charm magic stuff which didn't have to deal with Roman Catholic purges of anything they didn't like (magic/witches etc).


Aaaarrrrrrr I hates all da new baaase classes, because I hates when sometin' is more nifty that I am.

yaarrrrrrrr

Shadow Lodge

Wind Chime wrote:
Maccabee wrote:
So we're back to bashing the Pathfinder rogue because its a thief and not a stabby machine from Azeroth. The only difference between a Fighter and Samurai is the dogmatic code the Bushi paid lip service to. Sure, in Pathfinder they can be "magical karate warriors" if you want them to be, but in actuality you're talking about an asian themed fighter with ranks in poetry, banzai pruning, and bullying the peasantry.
People are bashing the rogue because he fails to match the wizard at being the ultimate thief, stealth expert (invisibility), trap finder (detect trap,magic etc), skill monkey and also fails to be able to outfight anything. The rogue is an inferior good, pretty much outclassed at all its specialities by the periphery talents of other classes.

Which is a reason to fix the wizard, not the rogue. Of course that runs contrary to the d20 design philosphy of magic being able to do anything that anyone else can accomplish, but with the spellcaster only needing to be half the level.

Strengthening the "weaker" classes isn't the only way to balance the game. Nerfing the "stronger" classes is just as acceptable an option.

Or, you know, actually making them play by the rules, which is frequently ignored.


Ashiel wrote:
3.5 Loyalist wrote:

To maintain the order, it is always important to have the same number of ranks in poetry (on blossoms mostly) as ranks in bullying the peasantry. There must be beauty and harmony.

Yeah, some online games make rogue/thieves/assassins ultimate shiv machines. Capable of out-damaging two handers (Dragon age, two weapon, rogue type). This bleeds on to our game, and then people wanting their pf or 3.5 to be their dragon age.

All must be the same.

That's mostly because there are actually some reasons to have a rogue in your party in dragon age.

2h damage in dragon age is pitiful. Dual wield warriors make decent tanks and can tear through mobs. I wouldn't use a rogue in DA:O if they didn't do lockpicking and traps, but there are mods for that. Mages are mages and get a lot of nice CC, heals, and aoe they can use at the same time. Bioware games aren't big on balance imo, but that's totally off topic.

In Pathfinder I expect a rogue to be great with skills and to do combat at least viably well. I mean surely a guy who specializes in being skilled would have a lot of options right?... right? I don't blame archeologist, ninja, or vivisectionist for rogue being meh. I blame the rogue. I think you could merge the ninja and rogue and the class wouldn't be overpowered. Again, I feel like this could go off topic. We're already talking about wizards and rogues in talk about base classes.

I think Samurai have at least one thing over fighters. 4+ skill points per level. Skill points are nice for building a character concept I've always thought. Only one of the base classes suffers from 2+ skill points, the summoner. I really wish the core didn't suffere from 2+ skill pints for non int based classes.

Shadow Lodge

Pendin Fust wrote:
+1 to Beckett's post. I've played in 2 of his PbP's and he does a phenomenal job.

Thanks , I really appreciate that.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Wind Chime wrote:
Maccabee wrote:
So we're back to bashing the Pathfinder rogue because its a thief and not a stabby machine from Azeroth. The only difference between a Fighter and Samurai is the dogmatic code the Bushi paid lip service to. Sure, in Pathfinder they can be "magical karate warriors" if you want them to be, but in actuality you're talking about an asian themed fighter with ranks in poetry, banzai pruning, and bullying the peasantry.
People are bashing the rogue because he fails to match the wizard at being the ultimate thief, stealth expert (invisibility), trap finder (detect trap,magic etc), skill monkey and also fails to be able to outfight anything. The rogue is an inferior good, pretty much outclassed at all its specialities by the periphery talents of other classes.

Which is a reason to fix the wizard, not the rogue. Of course that runs contrary to the d20 design philosphy of magic being able to do anything that anyone else can accomplish, but with the spellcaster only needing to be half the level.

Strengthening the "weaker" classes isn't the only way to balance the game. Nerfing the "stronger" classes is just as acceptable an option.

Or, you know, actually making them play by the rules, which is frequently ignored.

I would LOVE it in a new edition of PF if higher level spells had more full round actions attached to them. If you are summoning a meteor or are about the drastically change the field of battle for everyone, that should require you to be chanting and waving your hands for the full round, so that the party needs to defend you. It also would make the choice between casting and moving more dire.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Wind Chime wrote:
The only exception I can think of it the stuff coming from religion (Shinto, Buddhist, Daoist etc)and the Ki and charm magic stuff which didn't have to deal with Roman Catholic purges of anything they didn't like (magic/witches etc).

When the Jesuits arrived to Japan with the Portuguese merchants, they were at first mistaken for yet another sect of buddhism (wearing robes, shaving parts of their hair, carrying rosaries and talking about souls, death, redemption).


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.

I am curious since you have mentioned this before, what are the usual objections you've faced to a classless system, and how does kirthfinder address these concerns while being more modular?

I've told you about my concerns about really modular rules, but then I see things like the new Super genius games talented rogue and fighter, and think maybe there is hope. I am wondering what your actual experience with other players is on the matter.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber; Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Kolokotroni wrote:
I've told you about my concerns about really modular rules, but then I see things like the new Super genius games talented rogue and fighter, and think maybe there is hope.

You can add Tripod Machine's Monk Reborn to that list.


As for the original post, the new base classes add a great new feel to our table. Initially, I had the thought process that any one of the APG base classes can be duplicated with one or more of the CRB classes. However I had a breakthrough regarding this after reading the NPC Codex, in that we at our table place character concept first and class builds second. (Giving a look over at NPC Codex, there's multiple demon slayers, bounty hunters, contract killers, royal guards, etc. across a multitude of the classes.)

What the APG classes have to offer in order to differentiate themselves is a great of amount of pizazz. I'm looking at you, Magus and Inquisitor. Tons of flexibility and great use of every action in a round, giving a sense of power in the player's hand.

I won't mention the summoner, but only because none of us have gotten around to it yet. When we feel the need, we will scratch the surface.


Quote:

Strengthening the "weaker" classes isn't the only way to balance the game. Nerfing the "stronger" classes is just as acceptable an option.

Or, you know, actually making them play by the rules, which is frequently ignored.

Except when there are 3 classes in the game that have problems, out of 21 classes, then instead of nerfing most classes, you can just strengthen the one that cause such problems.

Personnaly, I think the only two classes that need complete reconstruction are the monk (useless) and the Summoner (doesn't fit Pathfinder rules). The fighter and rogues could be better with just a few modifications.


Kolokotroni wrote:
I am curious since you have mentioned this before, what are the usual objections you've faced to a classless system, and how does kirthfinder address these concerns while being more modular?

I've gotten a lot of two basic statements:

1. "If there aren't classes, it just ain't D&D!"
2. "If I wanted to play a classless game, I'd play GURPS or HERO."

To these, sometimes there's a third:
3. "I don't want to have to build a new class every time I make a character. Just give me a package!"

Objection #2 you can deal with by pointing out that other systems aren't compatible with Pathfinder APs, which presumably people are interested in or they wouldn't be on the Paizo boards to begin with. Objection #1 is simply old-skool preference and can't be addressed with logical arguments; you can only take it or leave it.

For Objection #3, for some reason a large number of options is a lot more palatable to people if you group them under general "classes" and then describe how to combine them later on. No one screamed bloody murder when Paizo added rogue talents, for example, so I took that idea and ran with it: almost all classes in "Kirthfinder" get talents, and a lot of those talents were ripped off from prestige classes, which obviated the need for most of the latter as a separate thing.

---

After all that, there's a fourth objection, from people who can't mentally separate the "crunch" from the "fluff." To those people, a "ninja" has to wear black pajamas, is required to do backflips, and must use shuriken in ranged combat -- for some reason they get fixated on these as non-negotiable things that somehow need to be hard-coded into a separate class. For those people wanting to play a ninja, a rogue with all of the abilities of a ninja won't work for them, because you didn't cut-and-paste the entire class, change the name of class and the names of all the class features, and declare that they need pajamas. Some of these people will tell you that they want to run a straight Tolkien setting, no Oriental flavor allowed -- and if you can potentially build a ninja-like character using the rogue, they'll scream bloody murder that you're ruining all their fun -- even in the absence of pajamas. Because they want to name specific classes to ban, when in fact it's the added flavor they're objecting to. This argument is especially intractible when it comes to paladins (which is why I made paladins, very intentioally, the only prestige class in the Kirthfinder rules).


Humphrey Boggard wrote:
Assuming_Control wrote:
Samurai the concept, is a Fighter. Samurai the PF class is a joke. In no way does samurai the PF class actually have anything to do with Samurai historically or even as presented in popular culture (see Sanjuro, The Seven Samurai etc.).
I emphatically disagree. The classic, pre-Tokugawa, samurai was a mounted warrior skilled in archery, swordplay, and the use of pole arms. The PF samurai is as a good a representation as you'll get in a d20 system and the use of the honor/resolve mechanics are a nice touch.

Backing Boggard, however. Gempei and post period samurai were mostly mounted archers (but not all, the naginata was considered superior and more important to the uchigatana or tachi for a long time, and it is a great weapon). Once you get into the Sengoku period, the naginata and nagamaki is less used, but the sword and yari is more greatly emphasised (especially yari cavalry with sword). Bow cavalry declines, but some favour the use of the new matchlocks.

Get into the Tokugawa period, the romanticism of the sword takes over, and armour use really declines, but there is still banditry, duels, drunk fights, ronin vs. lawmen/metsuke, danger abounds.

251 to 300 of 737 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 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.