Why You No Likey PF's New Classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 485 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

So, Freehold can ban whatever classes he chooses in his game. That in no way means PF/WotC/whoever else shouldn't put out more material. They should print everything they think of (within d20's loose balance guidelines), and let the individual tables decide what they do and don't allow at their table/in this particular game/on this particular planet.


Calybos1 wrote:

The more options you provide for players, the more complexity the GM has to deal with.

"More options" is not always a good thing; a balance must be achieved. Just like the art of good writing is cutting away all unnecessary words, the art of good gamecrafting is cutting away all but the most essential rules.

If only we could decide what "unnecessary" means. You seem to take a utilitarian view of language and gaming. Pound gave an exercise to at least one of his students which involved removing "unnecessary" words from Shakespeare sonnets. Something remained, the propositional content I guess, but not much worth looking at. As far as gaming, if you have fun playing a class I don't see how it is "unnecessary." I agree that more is not always better. But neither is it necessarily worse.


jocundthejolly wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:

The more options you provide for players, the more complexity the GM has to deal with.

"More options" is not always a good thing; a balance must be achieved. Just like the art of good writing is cutting away all unnecessary words, the art of good gamecrafting is cutting away all but the most essential rules.

If only we could decide what "unnecessary" means. You seem to take a utilitarian view of language and gaming. Pound gave an exercise to at least one of his students which involved removing "unnecessary" words from Shakespeare sonnets. Something remained, the propositional content I guess, but not much worth looking at. As far as gaming, if you have fun playing a class I don't see how it is "unnecessary." I agree that more is not always better. But neither is it necessarily worse.

I think the cleric and druid are unnecessary. (Sarcasm On.) You must all rip those pages out of your books right now, because someone you don't know on the internet wants to tell you how to play your game. (Sarcasm off.)

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

How I feel about the new classes:

Alchemist: Alchemist is a neat class but I feel it doesn't work for a classic fantasy game--it feels more steampunky or dark fantasy to me. I'd use it in some campaigns, but not others. I don't like the flavor of the bomb mechanic in particular (although they do have an archetype or two which changes this). Also, this is quite minor, but I wish they had named the alchemist something else. To me, an "alchemist" is a professional who focuses in "craft: alchemy" -- if I go to the "alchemist's shop" or the "alchemist's guild" I am not going to a place run by a mad scientist bomber, I am going to a place run by an Expert who is going to sell me stuff like alchemist's fire and acid flasks.

Cavalier: I like this class, but the mount actually limits it too much. In too many games I have played, a mount just becomes something you have to leave behind or have someone babysit. I would have preferred this class be named something else, focused on its marshalling abilities more, and provided the OPTION of something other than a mount (but left the mount as a CHOICE for people who wanted to play a proper knight, horse and all). There is a lot good about it, but its particular focus in my opinion limits it too much. (I tend to prefer broad focus classes.)

Inquisitor: This one I just do like, little to few complaints. We needed a good divine-servant half-caster that wasn't so code-restricted as the paladin, and we needed one that could be sneaky depending on build. The concept, unlike many of the other new ones, is also broad enough that you can come up with a lot of variations on your class build to reflect a nice variety of flavors.

Oracle: Another one where I generally like the idea of it and much of the flavor... but there are pieces that don't work for me, particularly for the high fantasy games I run. I like the idea of the mysteries but I have trouble associating the mysteries with some of my more civilization-oriented gods... and fact, with most of my gods, period (while this affects only me, it does affect how I feel about the class, so it's a valid answer to the inquiry). I also think there are FAR too few options for the oracle's curse--I think it's a cool mechanic in theory but they just didn't do enough with it. It was especially disappointing that Ultimate Magic contained no additional curses, and IMO quite an oversight.

Summoner: Interesting idea, the execution left me wanting. It's just too complicated and easy too screw up -- it's not so much that the class is broken, but more that it's easy to think you've broken it because you misunderstood the eidolon building rules. Too fussy for me, personally. Definitely YMMV of course.

Witch: This one I like fine. I don't use it in my campaigns because I feel arcane caster overload and it also has a very specific sort of flavor I'm not sure I want magic to have in my campaign world, but I'd play one and in a different setting I'd use it. (I'd actually love to run a sword and sandals campaign where the only full casters available are the oracle and the witch.)

Magus: I just read the class and feel totally meh about it. I dislike pool mechanics, so that doesn't help (yes, I realize Paizo's lead designer loves pool mechanics so much he's married them and had their babies, so I'll have to live with it, but it doesn't make me like it). Pool mechanics are fiddly and create extra tracking work for players and GMs and blech. If I want to play a gish I'd rather play a bard; counting rounds left of performance is a little easier at least. Don't know, just feels different. I also hate the name of the class, as a "magus" is just another word for "mage" which I prefer to use as a catch all phrase for "any arcane caster." The word also specifically has its origins in the Hermetic and Zoroastrian Magi in the real world, which are most analogous to wizards. The ban against naming the class a compound word was also silly ("Pathfinder" after all, is itself a compound word). The name isn't why I find the class meh, but on top of a class that doesn't inspire me, that it has a name that frustrates me just bugs.

Gunslinger: Again, dislike pool mechanics. Also, I am not sure why we needed a separate class to use this one kind of weapon. Should we have separate classes for archers and crossbowmen and swordsmen and axewielders? This is also one I won't use in my own world because my high fantasy world does not use firearms. But I think even if I allowed them, I'd actually be tempted to not use the class, but just allow the gun-related archetypes for the other classes.

Samurai and Ninja are just versions of cavaliers and rogues so not covering them.

So that is how I feel. It is just feelings, and my feelings are not an attack on others who feel differently.

A general summary is that a large number of classes have some nice ideas to them, but fill such specific niches I feel I can't always find a use for them--but in fairness may be good for certain campaigns. Some classes I'd have little issue with save for specific mechanics which bug me--I like the idea of them but the execution I find lacking.

All that said, I have no problem with Paizo having written up the classes. I think it's important to look at how other classes in the system might work and what class mechanics work best/most interestingly/are most or least newb friendly, etc. and these accomplish that. I'd actually in the far someday when there might be a Pathfinder 2.0 or some similar fork of the d20 system, like to see a system that doesn't keep an old class for tradition's sake, but has new and old (or similar to old) classes alike but that fill what we expect now out of a fantasy game system. Some of these may at least pave the way for new and interesting but essential classes in a future system.


Inquisitor: I really like this class. When it comes to hunting mythic beasts through the wilderness, the ranger is a better fit, but when it comes to the most dangerous game, the inquisitor has their own special niche, carved out by Torquemada of Spain.

Summoner: Screw the synthesist. Seriously. But I love the Master Summoner. If only there were a way to get rid of the Eidolon and just use summon monster. And perhaps a slight casting nerf in exchange for Quickening a summoned monster's spell-like ability x/day.

Ninja: Meh. Class design is great, but never liked Asian stuff. Maybe reuse as a base class version of the Shadowdancer?

Samurai: Building a whole class around longsword+shortsword TWF is kind of dumb. So is Japanese stuff unless you're playing that kind of game.

Cavalier: Just steal the 3.5 PHB2 Knight, add the mount feature, and be on your way. A vast improvement over the mechanics of this meh-nstrosity.

Alchemist: Perfect in every way. A few tweaks to the fluff would be appreciated (i.e. the bombs going inert if not used in 1 round; makes no sense. Better if they went inert after 24 hours).

Oracle: Excellent.

Gunslinger: Perhaps a better name would have been musketman. Or maybe not. I think firearms are too limited a mechanic to base an entire class around.

Magus: Nice. It makes eldritch knight-an archetypal role-available at level 1. The name is kind of dumb; perhaps athame would be better.


Thelemic_Noun wrote:


Ninja: Meh. Class design is great, but never liked Asian stuff. Maybe reuse as a base class version of the Shadowdancer?

Samurai: Building a whole class around longsword+shortsword TWF is kind of dumb. So is Japanese stuff unless you're playing that kind of game.

You do realize that you can rename and refluff those classes and their abilities to whatever you want, right?


Zhayne wrote:
Thelemic_Noun wrote:


Ninja: Meh. Class design is great, but never liked Asian stuff. Maybe reuse as a base class version of the Shadowdancer?

Samurai: Building a whole class around longsword+shortsword TWF is kind of dumb. So is Japanese stuff unless you're playing that kind of game.

You do realize that you can rename and refluff those classes and their abilities to whatever you want, right?

That's kind of implied by the Shadowdancer remark.

Still, building a class around two-weapon-fighting with two specific weapons is just strange.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

So, yesterday I was researching medieval firearms for my worldbuilding and was surprised at how prolific gunpowder weapons were even before the eras of knights.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Wait, I'm confused. The Pathfinder Samurai is essentially just a Cavalier with mettle and more focus on archery as opposed to charging. The "two-weapon fighting with a wakizashi and katana" was 3.5's samurai. The class has little to no TWF benefits in Pathfinder. Well, unless you count bonus feats...

On a side-note, I've allowed ninjas a special place inside my heart ever since i finished reading Brent Weeks' Night Angel Trilogy, and realizing that with only a minor bit of tinkering the Pathfinder ninja just becomes a wetboy. Vanish, dampening your footsteps, assassination ability. Check, check, check. Heck, you can even pull some ka'kari-like nonsense, and you have an affinity towards poisons. Now i can play Durzo Blint in peace.


Alchemist: Tries to do too much. I never saw this class until years of 4e, leaving me with a negative feeling toward classes that don't have clear roles.

In my group, we had three people all multiclassing with it, because it gives yet another type of stat bonus that stacks with everything, including rage, plus people get obsessed with size-increasing magic. Why wouldn't you want to drink a Potion of Shield when wielding a lucerne hammer and mounted? (Is that even legal? Seems like it shouldn't be.)

Cavalier: When we had cavaliers (two at at time, one was multiclassed with bard), the tactical feats seemed quite good. That's not a cavalier ability though. Fighters could take them too.

The horse was too powerful. This is a problem with the mount rules, not the cavalier rules. I don't have a problem with the mount getting more hit points/AC/better saves, because that's needed. To put it another way, I think the horse should just boost your charge and speed and not die easily, nothing more. It shouldn't be adding three attacks per round when it wasn't charging, four with Haste because ... we used Haste, a lot. (In 4e, mounts have to share actions. Thank god! That doesn't apply to NPCs, but IMC if an NPC is riding a horse they must still share actions.)

Challenge was a disappointment. Maybe it gets better at high levels, I don't know. The cavalier/bard turned into a magus (more on that later), and the other one turned into a paladin (DM let him switch all his class levels)... it seems like an attempt to "antagonize" enemies or replicate the 4e fighter's amazing marking abilities, but it failed. Both players literally refused to it (sensible in the bard's case, but not in the other one... at least it should have been sensible to use Challenge).

Inquisitor: I have not seen it in play but it looks cool. There's too many judgement types; some look really wimpy and some look really strong.

Summoner: Probably the new class I hate the most. You could already be a summoner by playing a wizard, sorcerer, or druid. This class is basically a caster that's been nerfed, but the most aggravating parts of that class has been left in (in terms of time used per round). In 3.5, a player and I made the mistake of designing a remarkably similar class. It was basically a druid with stuff taken away, so it was left with an animal companion and summons. All it could really do was summon, so it did it. A lot. It was not balanced, despite being technically weaker than a druid.

Ninja: Doesn't need to exist.

Samurai: I'm always leery of a class with this name, in part because WotC did it twice (doing it well in Oriental Adventures but really screwing it up in Sword & Fist). All in all it doesn't look bad, but I still feel you could replace it with feats. New feats, obviously.

Oracle: I don't think there's enough to distinguish it from the cleric. (Especially the life oracle!) The mysteries just make me think of domains in a slightly different way. Unfortunately there's curses that can cause chaos at the table. (Our group's oracle could only speak Auran during combat. Apparently deaf oracles are worse. Or the lame oracle, which wasn't playtested by powergamers, who would have immediately informed Paizo of the barbarian abuse potential.) They can't switch to "emergency spells" the way a cleric could, so they're less useful to the party.

Gunslinger: Grit is weak, and turning regular attacks into touch attacks is dubious when it comes to game balance. But mainly I don't like guns. Partly due to fantasy gun control (see the trope), and partly because there's such a vast gulf in power between basic and advanced firearms. You can end up with very weak gunslingers, or those that can kill dragons, just because one is using an advanced weapon and another isn't.

Magus: I like this one. The eldritch knight doesn't do anything for a fighter/mage's action economy. The abilities seem a little fiddly and easy to lose track of/abuse. Also, I don't like the name Spell Combat. But those are quibbles. We had one at our table, and I wasn't really sure if the DM knew how it worked (too many classes results in an overwhelmed DM) but I presume the player knew what they were doing, and was doing it properly.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
So, yesterday I was researching medieval firearms for my worldbuilding and was surprised at how prolific gunpowder weapons were even before the eras of knights.

The answer was very.

The issue was that the technology was finnicky, unpredictable, and not particularly powerful enough until advances in metallurgy, gunpowder, and aerodynamics made the cannon and musket a bread and butter part of most infantries.

Plus, when you think of the medieval writers of the time nobody wanted to talk about the filthy commoners lighting a fuse and making a loud bang that makes a noble warrior fall from his mighty steed and after years of terrible training under an older knight die of a horrific infection.


I like the new classes. The Witch and the Alchemist are my favorites. Probably because my love of Gothic Horror. The Summoner was a misstep, sure, but I think Paizo's track record is pretty good. I like having new options and they aren't pumping out classes like WotC. I don't really see the problem.

And stop dissing the Alchy. Seriously.


Umbral Reaver wrote:
So, yesterday I was researching medieval firearms for my worldbuilding and was surprised at how prolific gunpowder weapons were even before the eras of knights.

The first oriental Hand Cannon came about in around 1200, the European version in the late 1300's.

The first Knight is debatable. We can argue The Romans, Charlemagne, Normal Knights (1066) or the first Orders, such as the Templars- 1099.

In any case, Knights came before guns.


DrDeth wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
So, yesterday I was researching medieval firearms for my worldbuilding and was surprised at how prolific gunpowder weapons were even before the eras of knights.

The first oriental Hand Cannon came about in around 1200, the European version in the late 1300's.

The first Knight is debatable. We can argue The Romans, Charlemagne, Normal Knights (1066) or the first Orders, such as the Templars- 1099.

In any case, Knights came before guns.

And ironically purely a product of the dark ages need for defense . The Romans, Macedonians, and Spartans would have found the concept of a knight interesting but wasteful given they had large professional armies compared to what the feudal system could manage to muster. :)

Hussars however, Hussars were f'n terrifying.

Oh and let's not forget norse mercenaries in scale male working in the eastern roman empire.

History's fun.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I think most of them are silly and unnecessary.

I don't really know why I don't like them, but I prefer playing classes that are part of the long tradition of this great hobby.


Morain wrote:

I think most of them are silly and unnecessary.

I don't really know why I don't like them, but I prefer playing classes that are part of the long tradition of this great hobby.

So Fighting Man, Magic User, and Thief?


I really like some of the new classes and some I'm sort of meh about. I love the Alchemist, Summoner, witch, Magus and even Gunslinger in the right setting. Cavalier, Inquisitor and Oracle aren't something I want to play anytime soon, but absolutely have a place in most of the games we run. Oracles and witches were fantasy predating medieval fantasy by at least 1000 years. Alchemists at the very worst make a great NPC, and with so many ways to play them, at best make fun characters.

I think many Paizo fans are paranoid about change. Many are still angry about 4E. Some still pine for THAC0 for crying out loud (I will say 2E magic items > all other magic items.) So I think they are extremely defensive about anything that's "ruining" there precious imaginary ecosystems. That's fine. You don't have to use anything.

I personally like more classes if they work with a setting. I think most of these do and all of them can. They're cleaner than archetypes and can really be a boon on any adventure.


Albatoonoe wrote:
Morain wrote:

I think most of them are silly and unnecessary.

I don't really know why I don't like them, but I prefer playing classes that are part of the long tradition of this great hobby.

So Fighting Man, Magic User, and Thief?

Don't forget races which are also classes.


Regarding the idea of using Archetypes for everyone, well, the rules they seem to have for Archetypes are pretty limited. They don't seem to allow changing BAB, saves, or hit dice for instance. I don't believe I've seen one significantly alter spell-casting progression or spell-casting in general. Small changes, but nothing big that wasn't very hamfisted (like the spell-slinger).

So I don't really see how you'd make a class like the Magus with only archetypes.

And honestly, if you change a ton of stuff about the class with an archetype, then you are basically making a new class anyways -- except a new class is easier to follow since it isn't a bunch of cut-and-paste. Archetypes are suitable for variations of a theme, but not that great at an entirely new theme.

A Mystic Theurge base class, for instance, would be much easier to make from the ground up than by altering an existing class with a few changes. Now, you might base those changes on an existing class, but there's more freedom and comprehension allowed when you present it as a base class.

Contributor

Kimera757 wrote:

Alchemist: Tries to do too much. I never saw this class until years of 4e, leaving me with a negative feeling toward classes that don't have clear roles.

In my group, we had three people all multiclassing with it, because it gives yet another type of stat bonus that stacks with everything, including rage, plus people get obsessed with size-increasing magic. Why wouldn't you want to drink a Potion of Shield when wielding a lucerne hammer and mounted? (Is that even legal? Seems like it shouldn't be.)

The alchemist doesn't do anything more than, say, the bard. Its a mostly self-buffing character (unless you start brewing potions, which you should) that uses splash weapons as its primary weapon (unless you take an archetype like Vivesectionalist). Drinking a potion in that situation is legal, but its still going to take a move action, meaning you're not going to get a full attack when you do it. Plus that shield potion is only lasting 1 minute if you dip into Alchemist. The money adds up. If you are drinking it as an extract, its a standard action instead.

Not sure which bonus you are complaining about. Most of the Alchemist's extracts function as spells, so I'm assuming you're talking about Mutagen. Mutagen is a nice ability, but its pretty limited and it has its penalties. One of them being that you can't turn it off after you've drank it.

Quote:

Cavalier: When we had cavaliers (two at at time, one was multiclassed with bard), the tactical feats seemed quite good. That's not a cavalier ability though. Fighters could take them too.

The horse was too powerful. This is a problem with the mount rules, not the cavalier rules. I don't have a problem with the mount getting more hit points/AC/better saves, because that's needed. To put it another way, I think the horse should just boost your charge and speed and not die easily, nothing more. It shouldn't be adding three attacks per round when it wasn't charging, four with Haste because ... we used Haste, a lot. (In 4e, mounts have to share actions. Thank god! That doesn't apply to NPCs, but IMC if an NPC is riding a horse they must still share actions.)

Challenge was a disappointment. Maybe it gets better at high levels, I don't know. The cavalier/bard turned into a magus (more on that later), and the other one turned into a paladin (DM let him switch all his class levels)... it seems like an attempt to "antagonize" enemies or replicate the 4e fighter's amazing marking abilities, but it failed. Both players literally refused to it (sensible in the bard's case, but not in the other one... at least it should have been sensible to use Challenge).

I'm not a fan of animal companions personally, so I usually try to ditch it when possible. Tactical feats are nice, but they're only worth it when multiple players invest in the same tactics. Tactician is a woefully poor ability because those feats are dead abilities for most of the day.

I've never found an animal companion to be OP; then again, I love doing crazy stuff to characters who ride their mounts as a GM. I've had enemies trip mounts, hurt mounts, drag and reposition mounts; you name it. Warhorses were bred to be nasty killing machines (the European Warhorse is basically extinct today) and it makes sense how much damage they can inflict on an enemy. Most people don't play with the mounted combat rules correctly, or even the Handle Animal rules. You're supposed to make checks to make your mount do just about anything, and there are at least three stacking conditions that can increase the DC.

I'm not a fan of use per day abilities personally and Challenge is on my "meh" list. Some of the Orders make Challenge really helpful, however.

Quote:
Inquisitor: I have not seen it in play but it looks cool. There's too many judgement types; some look really wimpy and some look really strong.

The inquisitor is sort of the Divine Bard, but focused on all of the interrogative and manipulative spells of the cleric list instead of the buff and social spells of the social/wizard list. It honestly does more as a class than the Alchemist does, so I'm surprised you like it. Judgments aren't wimpy when you get the ability to start applying multiple judgments at once, but the true key ability of the class is Bane, which is like a conditionless but low-powered sneak attack.

Quote:
Summoner: Probably the new class I hate the most. You could already be a summoner by playing a wizard, sorcerer, or druid. This class is basically a caster that's been nerfed, but the most aggravating parts of that class has been left in (in terms of time used per round). In 3.5, a player and I made the mistake of designing a remarkably similar class. It was basically a druid with stuff taken away, so it was left with an animal companion and summons. All it could really do was summon, so it did it. A lot. It was not balanced, despite being technically weaker than a druid.

The Eidolon is a cool concept that I like, but the Summoner's spell capacity is not weak enough to justify it. Your comparison to the Druid is not an accurate one, because the Summoner gets all of the spell toys it would have wanted despite being a restricted-level class and it gets to custom-build its animal companion in ways that defy the laws of reality.

Quote:
Ninja: Doesn't need to exist.

Its actually pretty awesome; its a cross-class between a Rogue and Monk. Its probably my favorite Alternate Class. And yes, its not considered a full class, so you can't really include this (or Samurai) on your list.

Quote:
Samurai: I'm always leery of a class with this name, in part because WotC did it twice (doing it well in Oriental Adventures but really screwing it up in Sword & Fist). All in all it doesn't look bad, but I still feel you could replace it with feats. New feats, obviously.

Resolve would have been Overpowered as a feat. The Samurai is almost as good as the Ninja; I would argue that it is probably better in most situations than a Cavalier; especially in PFS when you can't count on your party members packing the same Teamwork Feats as you. Plus Weapon Expertise is downright awesome.

Quote:
Oracle: I don't think there's enough to distinguish it from the cleric. (Especially the life oracle!) The mysteries just make me think of domains in a slightly different way. Unfortunately there's curses that can cause chaos at the table. (Our group's oracle could only speak Auran during combat. Apparently deaf oracles are worse. Or the lame oracle, which wasn't playtested by powergamers, who would have immediately informed Paizo of the barbarian abuse potential.) They can't switch to "emergency spells" the way a cleric could, so they're less useful to the party.

The Life Oracle makes the Healing Domain Cleric look like a Druid in terms of its healing power; there is absolutely no comparison. Oracles are to Clerics what Sorcerers are to Wizards; Spontaneous spellcasters are awesome at specialization but can never generalize as well as a Wizard. For example, a Cleric with the Healing Domain is still as good as any other cleric because of how open her spell choice is. An oracle of Life has a very small number of spells known and most of their spells are going to be tailored to their build; this is emphasized by the fact that oracles will often get access to spells that Clerics can only dream up that they can cast as many times as they want (spell slots allowing) whereas a Cleric who has Burning Hands from the Fire Domain can only cast that spell once per day with her Domain Slot.

Quote:
Gunslinger: Grit is weak, and turning regular attacks into touch attacks is dubious when it comes to game balance. But mainly I don't like guns. Partly due to fantasy gun control (see the trope), and partly because there's such a vast gulf in power between basic and advanced firearms. You can end up with very weak gunslingers, or those that can kill dragons, just because one is using an advanced weapon and another isn't.

I personally think that Grit should have been handled like talents instead of like something you always get. I've used Advanced Firearms and the only ones I can honestly say are broken are double-barreled ones; I had an 8th level Gunslinger one-shot a CR 12 Greater Cyclopes with one after rolling average damage once; bad experience.

Quote:
Magus: I like this one. The eldritch knight doesn't do anything for a fighter/mage's action economy. The abilities seem a little fiddly and easy to lose track of/abuse. Also, I don't like the name Spell Combat. But those are quibbles. We had one at our table, and I wasn't really sure if the DM knew how it worked (too many classes results in an overwhelmed DM) but I presume the player knew what they were doing, and was doing it properly.

Magus is the best glass cannon in the game; low defense, best damage potential of any character I've ever seen. Very fun, cool class. It an Eldritch Knight can exist side-by-side, though and the Magus solidifies that PrC's role as someone who wants to be good at spells with a backup in fighting; the Eldritch Knight will always have more spells known at higher spell levels than the Magus, but the Magus can do awesome stunts with their spells.


TarkXT wrote:
The Romans, Macedonians, and Spartans would have found the concept of a knight interesting but wasteful given they had large professional armies compared to what the feudal system could manage to muster. :)

It's funny that you say this, because it was the Romans that basically came up with the idea of a knight. The Equestrian class was a lower level of aristocrat (below the Patrician class) who were responsible with serving in the army as a cavalryman. Though the early Romans weren't known for their cavalry they understood the necessity of having a cavalry arm despite the greater expense.

In the late West Roman Empire the armored cavalryman (or cataphract) was the centre of the Roman army and the most important component. By that time heavy cavalry ruled the battlefield. The traditional Roman Legionnaires could not stand up to a heavy cavalry charge. Ironically, a Macedonian phalanx could have, but Roman infantry techniques had completely replaced the phalanx in the Mediterranean region long before.

While the romantic associations around what a "knight" was would not come until much later, the heavy horseman of noble birth was already in existence prior to 400 AD. So yes, knights were around long before guns.


The new classes are goofy. I prefer games with only the core classes. I like it even better if no one is playing a monk or a bard.

The best characters in the game are fighters, rogues, paladins, rangers, clerics, and wizards. Everything else is gimmicky and extraneous.


Cranefist wrote:

The new classes are goofy. I prefer games with only the core classes. I like it even better if no one is playing a monk or a bard.

The best characters in the game are fighters, rogues, paladins, rangers, clerics, and wizards. Everything else is gimmicky and extraneous.

One could say the Fighters and Rogues are also gimmicky and extraneous.

Anyhow, I'm all for classes and options that help players realize a concept that they like and be effective at it.


Albatoonoe wrote:
Morain wrote:

I think most of them are silly and unnecessary.

I don't really know why I don't like them, but I prefer playing classes that are part of the long tradition of this great hobby.

So Fighting Man, Magic User, and Thief?

Not only those 3 classes, but I have never found any of the classes not in the core rulebook worth looking at. I do have all the books, but I just use them for spells and feats mostly.


Drachasor wrote:
Cranefist wrote:

The new classes are goofy. I prefer games with only the core classes. I like it even better if no one is playing a monk or a bard.

The best characters in the game are fighters, rogues, paladins, rangers, clerics, and wizards. Everything else is gimmicky and extraneous.

One could say the Fighters and Rogues are also gimmicky and extraneous.

Anyhow, I'm all for classes and options that help players realize a concept that they like and be effective at it.

They aren't though. You can say anything, but that doesn't make it so.

I'm not for players realizing every concept when their concept doesn't actually make a coherent picture. Your vivisectionist ninja gunslinger from a quiet town in rural Britian is non-sense, and it ruins the flow of the game to have to cater to every crappy three color whim to pop up into someone's head because they noticed a three book combo for more damage.


thejeff wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:

Curiously, I think all classes should had been designed like those. Rogues should have had ki points (with anotger name) since the begining. Fighters should have grit/resolve. Every class should have some skills and skill points to be something more than a pokemon who can barely say his own name and strike things. All claases should have unique cool abilities like arcana or hexes or misteries.

I actuslly love the new classes

Cool unique abilities, sure.

I prefer not to have them all built around ki/arcane/grit point type things. It's not a mechanism I'm too fond of, but more importantly, I like different classes having different mechanics.

the nechanics are different. Ki and rage id nit similar, neitger are smite evils and grit or arcane pool and resolve.


Methinks that bad experiences with a few hairbrained players, and possibly internet CharOppers, are coloring the view of some of us here.


Cranefist wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
Cranefist wrote:

The new classes are goofy. I prefer games with only the core classes. I like it even better if no one is playing a monk or a bard.

The best characters in the game are fighters, rogues, paladins, rangers, clerics, and wizards. Everything else is gimmicky and extraneous.

One could say the Fighters and Rogues are also gimmicky and extraneous.

Anyhow, I'm all for classes and options that help players realize a concept that they like and be effective at it.

They aren't though. You can say anything, but that doesn't make it so.

I'm not for players realizing every concept when their concept doesn't actually make a coherent picture. Your vivisectionist ninja gunslinger from a quiet town in rural Britian is non-sense, and it ruins the flow of the game to have to cater to every crappy three color whim to pop up into someone's head because they noticed a three book combo for more damage.

And just because you say they aren't doesn't make it so either. The Fighter is still a pretty weak example of the warrior concept relative to his peers. His class features are all quite generic and while that's probably not gimmicky, altogether it does make him rather extraneous. Sure, there are some concepts the other classes can't handle perfectly -- then again, Barbarians, Paladins, and Rangers allow a lot with archetypes. But hey, it isn't like you care about enabling character concepts.

The rogue is far more gimmicky, and not a great implementation. The trap system is designed just to make him more useful -- and that's about as gimmicky as it gets. Further, his sneak attack ability is a very mediocre gimmick when he has trouble tumbling to use it. Rogue Talents are all pretty crappy. Now add in that with a pair of cheap boots you can find traps as well as a rogue. Also consider traps are the most fun when they are interesting puzzles to solve rather than just a DC to beat. This makes the rogue both extraneous and gimmicky. The latter in a particularly bad way.

Your arguments against a Ninja/Alchemist/Gunslinger in no way invalidate each class taken separately. Nor do you really invalidate those three classes together, because it is certainly possible to conceive of a large number of concepts that combine elements of those three classes. Honestly, I am not familiar with that combo so I don't know how it stacks up to anything. I do find the best way to deal with balance problems is by using some house rules to adjust things so everyone is happy.

Point is, the original classes are largely just as gimmicky and/or extraneous as the new ones. Heck, by and large the newer ones are more balanced and better designed than the old ones -- most of them are closer to Tier 3 than the original classes (save the Bard).

Really it seems like you are more arguing that anything different is bad.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cranefist wrote:

The new classes are goofy. I prefer games with only the core classes. I like it even better if no one is playing a monk or a bard.

The best characters in the game are fighters, rogues, paladins, rangers, clerics, and wizards. Everything else is gimmicky and extraneous.

All classes are gimmicky. Those gimmicks are usually referred to as "primary class features."

That said I like pretty much all the classes except for Cavalier/Samurai for the obvious mount issues. I've also been kinda leery of Witch just because there is such a small number of useful hexes that sometimes I wonder why they even bothered giving us options instead of just assigning them... though I really like Beast-Bonded as body snatching is such a cool concept it hurts.

Oracle is probably my favorite class. I like spontaneous casting and the modular design of the class. You get to pick Curse, Mystery, and then from a set of (mostly) unique Revelations tailored to that Mystery. Compare that with Bloodline where you make the one choice and then have no further input.

Drachasor wrote:


Your arguments against a Ninja/Alchemist/Gunslinger in no way invalidate each class taken separately. Nor do you really invalidate those three classes together, because it is certainly possible to conceive of a large number of concepts that combine elements of those three classes.

Alchemist and Gunslinger practically scream to go together conceptually. Add "trained for stealth and infiltration assignments" (ie Ninja) and you're pretty solid for flavor.


Drachasor wrote:
So I don't really see how you'd make a class like the Magus with only archetypes.

It wouldn't be exactly the same, no, but you could cover the gist of it with a bard archetype who traded skill powers for combat feats and used a new bardic performace to gain temporary weapon enchants.


Nem-Z wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
So I don't really see how you'd make a class like the Magus with only archetypes.
It wouldn't be exactly the same, no, but you could cover the gist of it with a bard archetype who traded skill powers for combat feats and used a new bardic performace to gain temporary weapon enchants.

Arcane Duelist is not even close to Magus. At all.


Nem-Z wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
So I don't really see how you'd make a class like the Magus with only archetypes.
It wouldn't be exactly the same, no, but you could cover the gist of it with a bard archetype who traded skill powers for combat feats and used a new bardic performace to gain temporary weapon enchants.

the problem with that is that tou get only the base magus. Magus have several archetypes on his own. Are you going to bring archetypes to tge archetypes?


As far as classes go I have mixed feelings about them. Some I like, and others I don't. I've rated them according to how much I like them using stars, from 0 to 5.

Oracle ****
I think the Oracle was a necessity. As far as I am concerned there ought to be a spontaneous and a prepared version for both types of magic. For arcane there are Wizards and Sorcerers, but for divine magic there was only Clerics. Oracles fill the gap. In D&D 3.5 the Favoured Soul did the same thing, but the Favoured Soul is not covered by the OGL.

I'm not sure I like the execution of the Oracle though; it seems like it is too customizable. I also don't like the name, since it has little to do with what an Oracle actually does. But overall I think it is a good class and it definitely needed to be there.

Inquisitor *****
The Inquisitor is mechanically a divine-themed version of the bard. While not absolutely necessary this class was a reasonable addition. Once again, I think the name is inappropriate, since it is only a small slice of what an Inquisitor actually does, but it is a bit closer to the mark than "oracle". I also think that the kind of stuff the Inquisitor does makes him worth playing. His Judgement abilities allow him to participate in the front line of battle; he may not be as powerful as a fighter or a barbarian but the judgements make up for that in versatility. I don't like the teamwork feats but the funny part is that the inquisitor doesn't need his friend to have the feat, which makes these feats almost worth it.

Summoner ***
I am inclined to agree that the Summoner is overpowered. However I do really like the theme of it. If I was running a game I would allow them but I might nerf the eidolon slightly to make up for the fact that they can't die.

Cavalier **
Personally I think this ought to have been an archetype of fighter rather than its own class, but the cavalier is a classic class from original AD&D so I can see why they used it.

Unfortunately the cavalier suffers from a few severe problems. One problem is the mount feature. Paizo fixed the Paladin by giving the paladin another option to use instead of the mount class feature; cavaliers should have had the same thing. It wouldn't have had to be the same ability, but an option should have been included for them to trade the mount for something else. I like mounts personally but in many campaigns they are a wasted resource.

The inclusion of teamwork feats also set my teeth on edge. Practically speaking, teamwork feats should be for non-player characters. It seems that after inventing teamwork feats and then realizing nobody would use them, Paizo created classes that were forced to incorporate them. So once again we have a class that gets around the requirement that your ally possess a teamwork feat by making a class that gives them. Frankly, teamwork feats should just have been left out of the game.

I also don't like the challenge mechanic since as far as I am concerned, if you have an ability that can only be used N times per day, then that ability is magical, no matter what its in-game designation is; normal human talents can be used whenever a human wants to use them. The challenge ability falls into this category. I don't have a problem with a fighting class specializing in one-on-one combat but the challenge should have been at will but with substantially lower benefits, or perhaps more drawbacks. I can live with challenge but I don't especially like it.

Samurai ****
The Samurai, as others have mentioned, is really an archetype of the cavalier class. But the Samurai fixes one of the big problems of the cavalier class, and replaces it with an ability that not only is very useful but also thematically fitting - resolve.

The fact that resolve is usable N times per day doesn't bother me, though I would have preferred it to be keyed to Wisdom or Constitution somehow. But it is so thematically fitting that I don't mind. The idea of a warrior that can shrug off pain and hardship through sheer will - that's pretty awesome, and great roleplaying. Overall I think the Samurai is hands down an improvement over the cavalier and I would choose one over the cavalier every time. However, I find the oriental theming a bit unfortunate. Being a samurai is a state of mind, and you should not have been forced to use Japanese weapons. Instead, the institution could appear in other areas of the world and with other weapons.

My houserule for this is to allow a samurai character to choose one weapon at creation instead of the three exotic Asian weapons he normally gains proficiency in. The character would gain Exotic Weapon Proficiency in this weapon if it is exotic, or Weapon Focus in it if it is not. This weapon would then automatically be the one that weapon expertise is applied to at 3rd level. Presto! Western Samurai.

Ninja ****
Like the Samurai the ninja is essentially an archetype of rogue, but unlike the rogue the use of the ki pool makes the ninja mechanically very different. I actually really like the "supernatural rogue" angle and have a hard time seeing why people would play a rogue now that the ninja is in the game.

I do think that it is kind of sad that the only way to "fix" the rogue involved giving him supernatural powers. Maybe there are other ways, I don't know. But the ninja is definitely not a "dip" class. If you are playing a ninja you want to stay in class.

Once again the reliance on eastern weapons is a disappointment, but there are a lot more of them in this class and there isn't an easy fix. I would have preferred a version of the ninja that did not require the campaign world to have a Japan-analogue. But overall you can play a ninja largely the same way as you might play a rogue, only he has some supernatural powers that he doesn't tell to many people about. You don't have to run around in a black jumpsuit all the time. I like the ninja for this reason.

Witch ***
While I like the witch as a class, overall as an arcane caster the witch could have been written up as an archetype of wizard. Using the familiar as the spellbook and replacing school powers with hexes probably would have worked fine.

Overall I like the class but the fact that it has a different spell list is problematic, as it makes spells even more difficult to wade through, and it also means that every time new spells are published Paizo will feel obligated to include witch spells as well as wizard/sorcerer spells. For this reason the witch isn't my #1 favourite but it's still pretty good.

Magus **
Yeah, I feel them on the Magus. On the one hand, multiclassing between fighter and wizard just won't work, no matter how you try. The Eldritch Knight doesn't really seem to work either. So I can see how Paizo would feel it had to come up with an effective fighter/magic-user.

Execution-wise though the Magus is not so much a fighter/wizard so much as a fighter who can do really cool things with shocking grasp. Seriously, it bugs me that the whole spellfighting schtick is really built around one spell in the entire book.

Mind you, I think a Magus would be fun to play. But I would have preferred a class that was built around mixing fighters and wizards in a more organic way. I also think the Magus can be rather deceptive in terms of what role the character has in the party, since he potentially does a lot of damage, but he can't take damage like most combat classes.

Alchemist *
This class fails utterly in doing what I think a class called "Alchemist" ought to be able to do.

It's a shame, because the Alchemist is actually a legit medieval profession and I don't have a problem with a guy who makes potions for a living. But the implementation is all wrong. Basically the alchemist is a wizard, except for the fluff about how he casts his spells. Sure, he makes little potions and drinks them, but they work just like spells; they lose their effect if he gives them away or if he keeps them bottled for more than a day.

Overall I don't have a problem with an alchemist being able to make potions and bombs and such; the problem I have is that the alchemist can't put them on a shelf and sell them. Frankly if you can't store it for later I don't really see the point in saying it's a potion instead of a spell.

I did give it one star though, because I can see the pyromaniac in me wanting to try playing one.

Gunslinger 0
Yes, no stars. I think a lot of people dislike the gunslinger and so do I.

First off, I am here to play in a fantasy RPG, not a Western. There is some serious genre clash here.

There is also the whole technology disconnect. The crudest firearms listed are still flintlocks, a design that did not get developed until after 1600, and the advanced firearms, like revolvers, weren't developed until the 1830's, at a time when steam engines, trains, telegraphs, weaving machinery, flush toilets, submarines, vaccinations, typewriters, adding machines, electric arclights, photography, and navigational clocks have all already been invented.

I don't want these other things in my fantasy world so I don't feel I should stand for Industrial Revolution weaponry being there either.

On top of that firearms end up requiring all these special class features to use effectively. If guns are going to exist then your average fighting man is going to use them if he can get them. The big historical advantage of firearms is that they are really easy to use compared to bows. It takes years of training for someone to become a decent longbowman (the Welsh used to say that if you want to teach someone the longbow, start with his grandfather) whereas the musket can be effectively taught is a couple of weeks. But instead Pathfinder goes to great lengths to limit the use of firearms to the Gunslinger class.

Well, I don't think I have to rant too much on this one; there are lots of people on my side here. Overall I have zero interest in playing a gunslinger, and would never allow them in a home game I ran.

Peet

Dark Archive

DeathQuaker wrote:
Also, this is quite minor, but I wish they had named the alchemist something else. To me, an "alchemist" is a professional who focuses in "craft: alchemy" -- if I go to the "alchemist's shop" or the "alchemist's guild" I am not going to a place run by a mad scientist bomber, I am going to a place run by an Expert who is going to sell me stuff like alchemist's fire and acid flasks.

On that note, I kind of wish there was an 'alchemist' class that build entirely off of the alchemy skill, creating more effective variations of alchemists fire or acid or tanglefoot bags, and having more options with that skill (larger area, longer lasting effects, higher DC effects, more damaging effects, different energy types (alchemist's frost, alchemical spark), etc.).

The alchemist class seems like somewhere between two and four half-formed ideas squished onto a single chassis, the Mad Bomber, the Jekyll & Hyde, the half-arsed spellcaster, etc. That's kind of how I feel about several classes, including the Summoner, who, barring a specific archetype, can choose which of his class abilities he wants to use, since they are mutually exclusive (and a large chunk of his other class features revolve around the eidolon, which, if he's using his Summon Monster SLA, might as well be teats on a bull, because he made the tragic mistake of attempting to be a 'summoner' instead of a 'eidolon-wrangler').

Still, of the new classes, the Summoner as a chassis is my favorite, because you can rip out the conjuration spells and replace them with necromancy spells, and then replace the eidolon with an undead companion, and have a wildly different thematic class with much the same mechanics. (Ditto a shadow creature using illusionist or a shield golem using abjurer, the exact school chosen is kind of irrelevant. It's a versatile base upon which to build a non-conjuration themed character!)

Still that's perhaps a left-handed compliment, to say that my favorite class is one that I love for how I can rip it's guts out and stuff in my own chitlins...

At the end of the day, I'd prefer no classes at all, just frameworks and then a bunch of class features I can buy individually, so that my 'Warrior' can have a few Barbarian tricks and some Ranger tricks and maybe a splash of Rogue, to go all Conan (or Fafhrd & the Grey Mouser) with him, but this is not the game for that, and never has been. So, having accepted that this is not True20 or GURPS or whatever, I've really got no problem with a bunch of new Core classes, so long as, unlike the Healer, Warmage or Spellthief, they don't suck.


Nem-Z wrote:

Fundamentally, because they don't need to exist. They should be archetypes for the existing classes, not entirely new things in themselves.

Then again, I also think most of the core classes don't need to exist as separate entities either. Paladin should be a cleric archetype, for example.

Also Bard is from the Rogue table


Nem-Z wrote:
Drachasor wrote:
So I don't really see how you'd make a class like the Magus with only archetypes.
It wouldn't be exactly the same, no, but you could cover the gist of it with a bard archetype who traded skill powers for combat feats and used a new bardic performace to gain temporary weapon enchants.

Change a half-dozen things in a class and require looking up class information in two separate sources is more than a little annoying. Also, balanced progression might not entirely line up. So there's a lot of potential problems and you end up with something that's more difficult to reference.

A new base class can just be a much cleaner solution.


chaoseffect wrote:
Nem-Z wrote:


It wouldn't be exactly the same, no, but you could cover the gist of it with a bard archetype who traded skill powers for combat feats and used a new bardic performace to gain temporary weapon enchants.
Arcane Duelist is not even close to Magus. At all.

Certainly seems to be what Magus was based on. AD is still more of a supporting, plays well with others class vs. the Magus as a glass cannon, but the overall flavor of 'magical fighter' is definately there.


Alchimist * Would have liked it more if hey made two separate classes here. The mad bombing Alchimist and some Mutating Warshaper.

Antipaladin**** Well not much to do wrong here. An Antipaladin is a good and necessary idea. The Antipaladin needs more Archetypes though!

Cavalier*** Like the flavor, but the guy seems kinda weak. He shouldn't be that tied to his mount, like many already said. Sharing his teamwork feats more oftne per day would also be welcome.

Gunslinger*** Kinda interesting. His damage can get out of hand a bit, but he has his flavor. Shure he is only for campaigns, which have some kind of steampunkish techniques. It would be nice if there was a working way for him two dual-wield his Pistols.

Inquisitor ? Even though I would have liked more martial Inquisitors, his abillities look quite intersting. Haven't seen one in action yet though.

Magus**** Nice damage output. Cool flavorful concept, once you find out you are a blaster not a selfbuffer. Stupid irritating name though.

Ninja** His abilities are cool, but annoying out of Oriental Settings. Shure one can reflavour them to be some Assasin Order etc., but which player thinks of reflavouring when able to play a Ninja? I also don't like the fact, that they outshine the poor rogues.

Oracle***** Really flavourful customizeable interesting class. And spontaneous divine casters were needed.

Samurai*Never really got why you cannot just make a fighter and equip him with Eastern weaponry and armor.

Summoner*** The Eidolon is nice and funny. You can make everything from a chtuluresk groteskity, over the spirit of your dead grandma to the marshmallowman.
The balancing however is kinda hard and the dude's rounds take forever.

Witch**** Nice class, some really cool Archetypes, interesting spells. Hexes can be annoying if spammed in an RPheavy campaign.


Quote:

Samurai*Never really got why you cannot just make a fighter and equip him with Eastern weaponry and armor.

While this is true, it doesn't ivalidate the class design. Take a samurai, equip him with some western armor and weapon, and you have a much better looking fighter, with resolve, inspiration to others in combat, and mire decent skills


TarkXT wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
So, yesterday I was researching medieval firearms for my worldbuilding and was surprised at how prolific gunpowder weapons were even before the eras of knights.

The answer was very.

The issue was that the technology was finnicky, unpredictable, and not particularly powerful enough until advances in metallurgy, gunpowder, and aerodynamics made the cannon and musket a bread and butter part of most infantries.

Plus, when you think of the medieval writers of the time nobody wanted to talk about the filthy commoners lighting a fuse and making a loud bang that makes a noble warrior fall from his mighty steed and after years of terrible training under an older knight die of a horrific infection.

actually any setting based in late medieval ages will be unrealistic without gunpowder, no the other way around


gustavo iglesias wrote:
TarkXT wrote:
Umbral Reaver wrote:
So, yesterday I was researching medieval firearms for my worldbuilding and was surprised at how prolific gunpowder weapons were even before the eras of knights.

The answer was very.

The issue was that the technology was finnicky, unpredictable, and not particularly powerful enough until advances in metallurgy, gunpowder, and aerodynamics made the cannon and musket a bread and butter part of most infantries.

Plus, when you think of the medieval writers of the time nobody wanted to talk about the filthy commoners lighting a fuse and making a loud bang that makes a noble warrior fall from his mighty steed and after years of terrible training under an older knight die of a horrific infection.

actually any setting based in late medieval ages will be unrealistic without gunpowder, no the other way around

Yes, but the kind of weapons presented in PF, even as early firearms, are much later than "gunpowder".

And they really weren't suitable for the kind of fighting focused on in PF. Volleys on a battlefield, sure. In personal combat, you'd get a shot off then draw a sword and fight that way. Reloading just wasn't feasible in close combat. And it stayed that way, at least into colonial times. They were also pretty inaccurate at any distance, at least until rifling was introduced.

But the structure of PF mechanics means you need to focus on whatever weapon you want to use. Having weapons you can't use with iterative attacks isn't practical.

I also have setting consistency problems with firearms being common enough that the Gunslinger can get the weapons and ammo he needs, but so rare that they are essentially not used in mass warfare, which they're far better suited to than adventuring. The Gunsmithing feat is a nod to that, but it really seems a kludge.


Maybe, but that doesn't rule out cannons.

Also, reloading isn't that important if you only have 1 attack. A party of 10 goblins with blunderblusses is game-changing


gustavo iglesias wrote:

Maybe, but that doesn't rule out cannons.

Also, reloading isn't that important if you only have 1 attack. A party of 10 goblins with blunderblusses is game-changing

Yeah, in fact that's kind of my point. You'd have commonplace cannons long before you'd have gunslingers.

With early firearms, you'd really only get one attack. Not one attack/round, but one attack. A couple per minute, if you're good at it. Which means if the enemy is close or closing, fire once and get a melee weapon out.

The 10 goblins with blunderbusses (apparently late 1600s) would be a threat. That one volley would hurt. But the PF assumption is that they won't have them. Only the elite gunslingers will have firearms.

I do have a setting in mind where early firearms are common. They'd probably be the standard backup range weapon. Most armies would use them, as would bandits and humanoid types. It would be interesting to see how the heavy armor melee types would adapt.


Morain wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
Morain wrote:

I think most of them are silly and unnecessary.

I don't really know why I don't like them, but I prefer playing classes that are part of the long tradition of this great hobby.

So Fighting Man, Magic User, and Thief?
Not only those 3 classes, but I have never found any of the classes not in the core rulebook worth looking at. I do have all the books, but I just use them for spells and feats mostly.

But Fighting Man, Magic User, and Thief were the only classes needed originally. All the other classes were added later, and the game worked fine without them.

That's also why there should only be three alignments (lawful, neutral, chaotic). It worked perfectly with just those three, why did they need to add the other gimmicky 6?


137ben wrote:
Morain wrote:
Albatoonoe wrote:
Morain wrote:

I think most of them are silly and unnecessary.

I don't really know why I don't like them, but I prefer playing classes that are part of the long tradition of this great hobby.

So Fighting Man, Magic User, and Thief?
Not only those 3 classes, but I have never found any of the classes not in the core rulebook worth looking at. I do have all the books, but I just use them for spells and feats mostly.

But Fighting Man, Magic User, and Thief were the only classes needed originally. All the other classes were added later, and the game worked fine without them.

That's also why there should only be three alignments (lawful, neutral, chaotic). It worked perfectly with just those three, why did they need to add the other gimmicky 6?

only three races too. Dwarf elf and human


Is it that time again? I didn't hear the "argue that other people's opinions are objectively wrong" bell.


bugleyman wrote:
Is it that time again? I didn't hear the "argue that other people's opinions are objectively wrong" bell.

He's just asking out of curiousity.

So far I haven't seen many people say others are objectively wrong for disagreeing with their take. They've calmly given their reasons for their preferences, and discussed it like reasonable people.

Which is unbelievable for the interbutts.

The Exchange

Kolokotroni wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:

The more options you provide for players, the more complexity the GM has to deal with.

"More options" is not always a good thing; a balance must be achieved. Just like the art of good writing is cutting away all unnecessary words, the art of good gamecrafting is cutting away all but the most essential rules.

I can totally understand that, but what I dont understand, is why people think that adding to existing classes adds less to the complexity of the game then a new class. For me, individual classes (if they are not endlessly expanded on) is less complex and more self contained then if you add a dozen new archetypes and feats to an existing class.

Lets take an example. The cleric and the Oracle. If the core rulebook Cleric has complexity C, and the feats spells and other non-class options from the core rules that work with a cleric have complexity X. Then a given PC cleric has a complexity C*X.

Now you want to add options to the game for divine casters. You can either A, add to the cleric, or B, add the Oracle(a simplification I know, but bare with me. Lets say the oracle takes up 4 pages of material (I dont have my book handy but the actual number of pages isnt important). If you JUST add that 4 pages to the game lets say its Complexity is O. Assuming all or most of the feats/spells/items that work with the cleric work to some degree of with the oracle, then the Oracle's complexity is O*X. A player will then have to choose either a cleric or an oracle (baring some odd multiclassing). So the complexity the DM has to deal with is either C*X or O*X.

If you instead add the same page count (4 pages) of archetypes or subdomains or alternate clesses or what have you for the cleric class isntead of the oracle with a Complexity of Y. Then you are adding to the complexity of the cleric class, making its potential C*X*Y.

Adding new classes instead of expanding existing classes reduces the complexity of a given party, because the choice of class narrows down...

I just wanted to comment on something here. Fuzzy math.

Even if there is 4 pages of archetypes for a cleric that doesn't add 4 pages of complexity to the game. That only adds the complexity, at character creation, of whatever archetype is picked. A GM doesn't have to deal with all 4 pages of complexity, just the variant that the player chooses. And being that archetypes swap out one ability for another on a one-to-one basis fairly constantly the only real complexity added to the class is some differences in abilities that the class gains so if the GM reads up on the archetype(usually 1/4 of a page) he knows if/how to address the changes ingame. If the player chooses a cleric with an archetype it is easier for me because I already know the cleric stuff, just need to learn the couple of abilities the archetype adds. If a player Class X from the new book that sorta fills the role of a cleric I need to learn about the whole class and all associated feats/skills that go into modifying it.
I am more inclined to allow archetypes than classes from other books due to the same...


Arguecat wrote:

He's just asking out of curiousity.

So far I haven't seen many people say others are objectively wrong for disagreeing with their take. They've calmly given their reasons for their preferences, and discussed it like reasonable people.

Which is unbelievable for the interbutts.

The implication is that it is irrational to like anything beyond the three original classes if one objects to the APG classes on the basis that they are redundant. Trying to use logic to prove someone's opinion (what constitutes redundant?) "wrong" is bad enough; resorting to a false dichotomy (all or nothing) is just the cherry on top.


bugleyman wrote:
Arguecat wrote:

He's just asking out of curiousity.

So far I haven't seen many people say others are objectively wrong for disagreeing with their take. They've calmly given their reasons for their preferences, and discussed it like reasonable people.

Which is unbelievable for the interbutts.

The implication is that it is irrational to like anything beyond the three original classes if one objects to the APG classes on the basis that they are redundant.

Huh? Who implied that?

51 to 100 of 485 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Why You No Likey PF's New Classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.