Huh? Who implied that?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.
He inferred it; which is different.
Huh? Who implied that?He inferred it; which is different.
First, thank you for knowing the difference between imply and infer. Seriously.
In this case, the implication, deliberate or not, seems pretty clear to me. If I incorrectly inferred it, I apologize.
So Fighting Man, Magic User, and Thief?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.
Nope. Fighting Man, Magic User & Cleric.
Thief came later. Heck, I more or less invented the class (with a lot of help from my friends, and of course Gygax changed it a lot, which was a Good Thing)
To those bashing the Gunslinger please bash them because you don't like them based on their mechanics or their smelly feet or something. Not because, "Guns didn't exist in that time period." What time period? Who's time period? Which plant/solar system/universe/dimmension/paralel universers time period?
That arguemnt simply isn't valid. If you don't like them thats fine, but don't dislike them because guns "didn't exist then" because there is no "then" when referencing Pathfinder. Especially if you are playing in Golarion... because then they DO exist "then". It's "canon", if you will.
If guns don't exist in "your" world then they don't exist, much like if Wizards don't exist in a given world then they don't exist but that isn't a reason to hate Wizards.
I'm just tired of the "guns didn't exist then" crap, its pedantic and annoying. I don't care when firearms were invented on Earth, it's irrelevant. All that matters is when (if ever) they were invented in the setting you happen to find yourself playing in.
/rant off
My main problem with the gunslinger is that, assuming he is willing to spend the resources, the fighter should be the best with any given weapon -- including a gun. That is clearly not the case.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
(Monks are Friar Tuck monks, btw)
Friar tuck is clearly a D&D monk given this evidence. He is clearly unarmored and facing down a opponent armed with a sword. He we see that he is using a flurry of blows and effortlessly dodges any attempt at reprisal. His attacks are powerful and continuous so that his foe is forced to take a total defense each round to avoid being taken down.
It's not until an unknown assailant surprises (catching him without his Dexterity modifier to AC) him and succeeds at a dirty trick to blind him. Blinded, the monk's AC drops dramatically and he cannot hit anyone due to the miss %. At this point the warrior he is fighting initiate's a grapple with some manacles and the fight is over.
Of course, given that the Sheriff didn't just pound him into the ground, it's obvious that Friar tuck is a higher quality monk than we have in Pathfinder - or was extremely optimized.
I happen to like the new classes. I've played three of them (Cavalier, Summoner, and Inquisitor) and had enjoyable experiences that would have been different with mere archetypes.
If firearms were limited to the fire lance (ultimate equipment pg 45) and similar weapons like the hwa'cha and fire arrow, I'd be a lot happier with the gunslinger in the medieval period.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
If firearms were limited to the fire lance (ultimate equipment pg 45) and similar weapons like the hwa'cha and fire arrow, I'd be a lot happier with the gunslinger in the medieval period.
I just want to clear that I'm not calling out you out on this (you just happened to frame it well), but this line of thought continues to confuse me. Why does the availability of technology during "Our" world's medieval period mean anything to another world in a fantasy setting? I mean sure you can make the conscious choice to do that, but why limit yourself? I'm not saying all campaigns must have guns, but I get the feeling that some people have very narrow ideas about "fantasy". (Again not implying you here Thelemic_Noun)
Let me put it this way... what is the problem with the PCs flying their magic spaceship around the planes. Heck Jim is playing an golem with magical circuitry and he's rocking two arcano blasters. Bill is a crazy occultist who has a personal fire elemental, and Susan has shapeshifting assassin who shadow teleports. None of that is medieval, all of it is fantasy and none of it would be out of place in the default setting. Now again I'm not saying you can't play a "faux-European medieval time" campaign, but our Medievel period developed very differently from a fantasy one owing to the lack of people with phenomenal cosmic power and god power on tap.
None of what I wrote is science fiction though. Its the default setting for Pathfinder. Furthermore, its very easy to produce a reason why guns are available to those who use them but unknown to the rest of the population namely, knowledge about the devices are secret. We already have a class that functions on secret knowledge (the Wizard) so the effect is largely the same. All you need is a few discreet "Gun Lodges" and your set! Problem solved! Gunslingers fit in every setting... see how easy it is?
My main problem with the gunslinger is that, assuming he is willing to spend the resources, the fighter should be the best with any given weapon -- including a gun. That is clearly not the case.
I think that's a weak argument, considering that a gun is a mechanical device that while Dex and/or feats can improve one's ability using a gun in game, the skill with using a gun effectively as a weapon should be just as easy for a bard, wizard, fighter or any class. While the best user of a gun, should be a gunslinger versus any other class (if such exists, and it does).
Most other ranged weapons require physical skill by it's operator which falls under the purview of the fighter. The only physical skill with a gun is to properly point it and pull the trigger which doesn't necessarily say 'fighter should be best at this'.
I get that fighters should be the best wielders of physical weapons in game (a sword, a bow...), but pulling a trigger isn't a very physical task, so IMO falls outside the kind of weapons that should especially fit fighter vs. anything else.
A 90# weakling with no physical weapons training should be able to kill something just as easily as a fighter tank when using a gun. So 'your' problem with guns doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Incidentally, in my first post here, I said, I don't care for the gunslinger because I don't care for guns in my game. I never claimed that guns didn't fit historically for a given period that a setting might be based off of. So I don't want a gunslinger for a completely different reason.
First of all... in a world of magic guns don't really stack up well. A weapon that requires a feat (Exotic Weapon Proficiency), that misfires, and if misfired again will explode is not that impressive. If you had to arm commoners with something to fight something out of their weight class like a Manticore that's terroizing the town.. Yes, they'd be nice. They also cost significantly more Masterwork crossbows, which could be distributed significantly cheaper and be nearly as effective (in the manticore example) with less lost investment if things go south. Really unless you have an elite group of firearm users the cost simply isn't worth it to the nation.
If a nation were going to acquire a group of highly trained experts... they should go with Wizards, not firearm users.
I think that's a weak argument, considering that a gun is a mechanical device that while Dex and/or feats can improve one's ability using a gun in game, the skill with using a gun effectively as a weapon should be just as easy for a bard, wizard, fighter or any class. While the best user of a gun, should be a gunslinger versus any other class (if such exists, and it does).
A crossbow is a mechanical device...should we have a "crossbower" class?
It might help if you could be e a little more specific about what, exactly, you feel makes a gun so different. Is it the rapid release of energy by combustion?
A crossbow is a mechanical device...should we have a "crossbower" class?
It might help if you could be e a little more specific about what, exactly, you feel makes a gun so different. Is it the rapid release of energy by combustion?
I have to agree that a crossbow is also a mechanical device that shouldn't necessarily be especially fit for martial classes vs. any other classes. My arguments about a gun not being a physical weapon would be exactly the same when regarding crossbows. Perhaps there should be a 'crossbower' class - or better yet, have crossbow be another weapon type that gunslingers are better at using than any other class - that would make a lot more sense to me (and would better justify including a gunslinger in my game - which as stated previously, gunslingrs aren't in my game.)
I've got ideas for playing an old west setting, where guns are the predominant weapon of choice for anybody. So playing that kind of setting, I'd definitely include a gunslinger. However when playing any other genre, I don't want to ever see a gunslinger in play.
We haven't seen a new class in 2 years, from a game that has been published for 4.
I don't think that most of the UC book was necessary, but the Gunslinger was an acceptable class for people who want that type of thing.
Saying "all these classes should be archetypes" is futile and silly because, well, Ranger and Barbarian and Paladin should be Fighter archetypes. Druid should be a Cleric archetype. Yadda yadda.
I'd much rather the game remove the Monk class than the Magus class. Because the Magus class is FUN.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I really like a lot of the base classes but I do have some criticisms about some of them.
Alchemist has a lot of unconvincing fluff behind it's mechanics to cover up the fact that some of it's class features are very arbitrary to fit around the concept of vancian spell slots and amounts of abilities per day. Things could have been explained better. (he's a magic user that uses his body's magic to make gatorade but only has enough magic to go around, plus since it's his magic his gatorade only works on him unless he makes special gatorade.)
Cavalier seems redundant. I can easily see this as a fighter archetype. Also some of it's abilities have arbitrary per day limits when it's not a magical class. Strikes me as weird.
Gunslingers feel redundant because several classes have gunman archetypes. I don't approve of classes based on a weapon.
My problem with Inquisitor is that I like it too much. It's kind of the Ranger I always wanted so sometimes I wish some of it's abilities went to ranger and the rest went to cleric, because fluff-wise it's redundant and could be a cleric archetype.
I love the Magus, however I think its not explored enough through archetypes. I think by what it does (use magic to enhance weaponry and weapon combat) it has the potential to be an artificer class. I keep saying that if you could craft legs onto a blackblade you got yourself an artificer.
Everything else I like enough as it is, and even the ones I complain about are fun to play. I won't complain too much about what flavors fit and what needs to go away because there are large chunks of the core classes that I feel are redundant and need to go or merge with another class.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find it kind of silly that people are complaining about too much choice...
The answer to what to do if you don`t like a class seems too obvious to merit typing. I`ll probably never allow gunpowder in my campaign - "probably" being the operative, here.
In my humble opinion, if GMs stopped complaining about complexity etc. and instead took the new classes on as a challenge to incorporate into your storyline, it could actually enrich the gaming experience for everyone.
You don`t have to do all the classes at once - but challenging yourself to write an adventure that stars , say, an Alchemist one week, and maybe a Summoner the next may force you out of your comfort zone and actually inspire you to come up with a plot that goes beyond killing orcs and buying magic items...
|
It's not all the new classes I dislike. Just several of them.
Ninja is a better rogue. I'd much prefer just having a better rogue, and the option of eastern influence, but no, if you want a decent rogue you're now a ninja.
Samurai is really more of an archetype, it's silly to make it a class.
Alchemist is the only one that actually pissed me off. A class that *screams* awesome powers of science and the physical ends up just being another wretched caster. The pathetic thing is that just a *few* tweaks would have changed the whole class into something less irritating. "Look at my alchemy vanish in this anti-magic field! At least I went vivisectionist to steal the rogue's sneak attack!"
Witch is a waste.
First -- didn't we just have this thread?
Second, since you asked, I don't like the new classes because:
(1) They're conceptually redundant.
(2) They pointlessly compound Pathfinder's already excessive mechanical complexity.
I agree with this.
---------------------------Even some of the core classes, i wish were prestige classes instead.
Barbarian = Fighter prestige class.
Druid = Cleric prestige class.
Other Classes, i wish people had to multi-class into them (to give multi-class meaning again).
Bard = Rogue/Sorcerer.
Paladin = Fighter/Cleric = Drop the who Alignment problem, or as cleric.
Ranger = Fighter/Rogue.
That would leave you with the base classes: Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard.
First -- didn't we just have this thread?
Second, since you asked, I don't like the new classes because:
(1) They're conceptually redundant.
(2) They pointlessly compound Pathfinder's already excessive mechanical complexity.
I agree with this.
---------------------------Even some of the core classes, i wish were prestige classes instead.
Barbarian = Fighter prestige class.
Druid = Cleric prestige class.Other Classes, i wish people had to multi-class into them (to give multi-class meaning again).
Bard = Rogue/Sorcerer.
Paladin = Fighter/Cleric = Drop the who Alignment problem, or as cleric.
Ranger = Fighter/Rogue.That would leave you with the base classes: Cleric, Fighter, Monk, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard.
Wait so you have issues with Clerics and druids whose only common mechanical feature is that they cast divine spells but are okay with sorcerers and wizards whose only really differing mechanical feature is spontaneous versus prepared casting?
Alchemist is the only one that actually pissed me off. A class that *screams* awesome powers of science and the physical ends up just being another wretched caster. The pathetic thing is that just a *few* tweaks would have changed the whole class into something less irritating. "Look at my alchemy vanish in this anti-magic field! At least I went vivisectionist to steal the rogue's sneak attack!"
We call that balance. It's hand wavey baalance to be sure. But that's what it is.
I'm gonna go Counter-Thread and mention one thing I like about every Paizo class and one thing I don't like about every Paizo class. Because I'm a hipster, baby.
Like: I like the feel of this class. Extracts are neat, but easy enough that they don't take pages of text to explain how they work. The discovery system is very versatile and overall the class feels very customizable.
Dislike: I'm not a fan of boring, specific bonuses on saving throws (e.g. bravery, trap sense, poison resistance). I think the bombs are a little on the strong side and would have liked to see the class focus more on using existing splash weapons (i.e. alchemist's fire) instead of inventing an all-new one.
Like: I like the idea that this character is a tactician and a marshal. I like that this class breaks the tradition of "only spellcasters can have exceptional animal companions."
Dislike: I don't like how this class interacts with Teamwork Feats; in my opinion, they should have gotten Solo Tactics at 3rd level (like the Inquisitor) instead of a class feature that trivializes Handle Animal, a skill that most players conveniently forget exists in the first place.
Like: I like that this class exists. I'm a big fan of guns in my fantasy and like that this class is brave enough to step outside of traditional fantasy tropes. The monk did it in 3.5, and I like that this class expands the traditional "European Fantasy" genre of the game even more. Although it isn't Gunslinger specific, I like the concept of touch AC guns, but the biggest problem with this is that Pathfinder has a ludicrously small number of ways to challenge the gunslinger; most of its best monsters have horrible touch ACs.
Dislike: I don't like how Deeds were handled; instead of being cool, powerful powers that you got to pick from every few levels, they are all given to you for free and somewhat underwhelming, save for one or two extremely powerful deeds. I would have liked if they functioned more like Rage Powers or Talents, in that you have to choose carefully and the choices weren't easy. Again, this isn't a problem with the Gunslinger, but I loathe how double-barreled firearms were handled. They are written extremely vaguely, but its one of those topics that the Developers seldom talk about.
Like: I like that this is a 6th-level spellcasting class. Prior to the Advanced Player's Guide, the bard was the only one. I love the bane class feature and I think Judgment is a cool idea. I love the development of Inquisitions.
Dislike: I don't understand why this class has Teamwork feats; personally, I think it feels like the designers had a new gimmick they wanted to try, so they slapped it onto the Inquisitor for giggles. I wish that the Inquisitor got a Fighter Level and used the free feats it got to select Fighter Feats for their deity's favored weapon instead. I don't like X/day abilities and wish that judgment could be used whenever, but required a standard action to switch judgments and could only affect one target at a time, or something similar.
Like: I love the gish concept, and I love how the Magus defines the role of the Eldritch Knight better. Spellstrike is an awesome ability, as is spell combat and spell recall. The game needed more 6th Level spellcasters, and the Magus is byfar my favorite of Paizo's; its a toss up between this class and the bard overall for me.
Dislike: I don't like how archetypes for the Magus are never designed to be spellcasting focused; they're always focused on melee and weapon the magus's spell power. I don't that there is no viable Two-Weapon Fighting version of the Magus, and it breaks my heart that the Spellblade has the audacity to trade the best tool in the Magus's repertoire; I feel like trading Spellstrike is going to be a change that renders most Magus archetypes undesirable for players, and I wonder if whether or not that's okay from a design perspective.
Like: Spontaneous spellcasting is my favorite. In my opinion, the Oracle vastly improves upon the design of Sorcerer Bloodlines, to the point where I am jealous of the Oracle every time I play my Sorcerer.
Dislike: The name is sort of confusing because the class isn't better at divinations than any other class without specialization; I wish they called this class the Shaman instead. In addition, while not really a complaint, I wish there was a Cross-Mystery archetype or something. I also think that there is a horrendously small number of oracle curses in the game.
Like: I like the concept of the eidolon; it feels very Final Fantasy X to me.
Dislike: There is nothing I like about this class aside from the note above. I hate that it tries to be sneaky and ignores its own Spell Level restrictions, I hate that there is almost no structure to building your eidolon, I could go on all night if you let me. In my opinion, the summoner should have had a 4th level progression; that is the only spellcasting progression that arcane magic does not have, and using paladin and range as precedent, they could have fiddled around with new spells and ideas moreso then they do now. Greater Invisibility as a 4th level spell is ridiculous.
Like: I love Hexes and I love that the witch basically amounts to an arcane druid, right down to having cure spells as arcane magic.
Dislike: I don't like that there isn't a way to make an effective witch healer, but this is also a problem I have with the druid.
I specifically don't like the two alternate classes (Ninja and Samurai) because I don't like Asian in my PF. Some folks don't like aliens, lasers, or plane hopping; I don't like Asian or Lovecraft. Mechanically, I find they pander to a demo that I'm not in, and just assume they don't exist. (Monks are Friar Tuck monks, btw)
Change the flavor of the class, if that is the problem. Nobody is holding a class to the book description. The barbarian does not have to be some uncivilized brute, as an example.
Alchemist: The flavor fits the class, but it does not appeal to me. That does not mean I dislike it. I just don't care for it, and I only learned the rules because I knew they would show up in a game one day.
Oracle: I did not like them at first, but they are ok now. I just wish they had two good saves, and more options for curses, other than 3rd party products
Gunslinger: They don't bother me. I just dont like the gun mechanics, but I dont see them as overpowered unless the GM allows for the advanced rule or some build that requires unlimited free actions.
Inquisitor: I did not like this one at first, but it has also grown on me. It is one of my favorite classes now because it can do several things.
Ninja: It is just a variant rogue to me, and even if I did not like the flavor, that is always mutable.
Cavalier / Samurai: Too focused on mounted combat.
Magus: Good mix between fighting and magic. The burst damage can be scary to some GM's, but the class is manageable.
Summoner: Enough people get the rules wrong that I think the class is too complicated. Other than that it is not bad unless the player tries to make “super character”, but I can deal with that.
Witch: I like it. It is like a 20 level MT, and the slumber hex is nowhere hear as annoying as evil eye.
The only new class that I'm not a fan of is the Gunslinger. Not because of a dislike of gunpowder in my fantasy games though. I dislike the gunslinger because it baffles me that a mundane bullet can have more armor penetrating power than the most powerful magical arrow you can possibly create. Guns shouldn't randomly be able to ignore all armor just because they are guns.
If I ever let someone play a gunslinger, I would have to change the rules for how guns work.
I allow all other classes, though I would only let a competent and experienced player run a summoner.
Alchemist: I like it except when it goes into two-weapon bomb fighting nova mode.
Cavalier: I don't like mounted combat or teamwork feats.
Gunslinger: I don't like ranged touch attacks or guns.
Inquisitor: I like it. It lets you make a martial-focused character who is good out of combat as well.
Magus: I think it's a nice idea but the simultaneous spell combat / spellstrike system is muddled.
Ninja: I like it - it lets you make a rogue character without the mechanical weakness. I think it should have been called something less setting-specific, maybe with Ninja as an archetype.
Oracle: I like the option of a spontaneous-casting divine caster. I think the curses needs work.
Samurai: I prefer it mechanically to the cavalier, but I think the 'Japanese nobleman' flavor should have been presented as an optional extra.
Summoner: I like the concept of an eidolon but it needed better balancing.
Witch: Seems good except for some overpowered hexes.
|
For a different sort of Gunslinger mechanic, I had pondered allowing it, but instead of guns counting as a touch attack, guns just halving (round up) armor bonuses and natural armor bonuses.
(And then allowing that 'armor piercing' feature to be purchasable as a magical enhancement for other weapons, and 'hardened' armor enhancements that allowed someone's armor to *not* be halved against gunfire or other 'armor piercing' attacks.)
It seemed likely to add a level of complexity to the game that ultimately felt unwarranted. Guns seemed fine, accuracy wise, even *without* the 'ignores armor' advantage.
And then nobody wanted to play one, so I stopped even thinking about it. :)
Dislike: I don't like that there isn't a way to make an effective witch healer, but this is also a problem I have with the druid.
I know, right? Apparently it's not enough that the cleric can spontaneously heal -- which makes him the Golden Standard of Healing. Nope, on top of that, all other casters have to get delayed access to at least one cure spell, if they're not arbitrarily banned from curing altogether.
Why is access to the simple cure spells so grudgingly given? /rant
Observation: People have been unknowingly houseruling classes into their own style of game for years. When they don't like a class, it is usually because it doesn't mesh, or meshes too well, with their personal style of play and they don't know how to instinctively change it yet. Because in many ways, each class is designed for a completely different version of the game itself:
By high levels, a wizard is teleporting, planar binding, and scrying. This makes him fundamental for large scale, self-directed games, but makes the travel log game obsolete.
A rogue is underpowered for your average smash and grab game and is little more than a scout, but in an urban game where you actually USE traps, stealthy break-ins, and frequent ambushes, he's king and virtually all other classes become useless.
The fighter hits things, hence the name. Great for combat, but put him in the rogue's game above, and heavy armor and lack of skill points means he'll only hold the party back.
By the book, the Cleric can summon angels to do his bidding at level 7, and talk to God or dimension hop to heaven beginning at level 9. Afflictions that otherwise would require whole adventures to find a cure can be fixed with a spell. We say he's fundamental for his healing abilities, but he also is a gateway to plane-hopping, agent-commanding games that far out-reach your average old-school dungeon crawl.
Same goes for all the other classes. Gunslingers are only overpowered In a game where fighters don't also have guns. Ninjas are rogues more focused on combat and assassination than dungeon-delving. Cavaliers are fighters designed for a game involving mounted combat and small squadrons of soldiers. Each one makes assumptions about the Game itself, just like the core 4 do, which may or not be true for your table.
The problem is, I don't think people realize the assumptions and houserules they're using; heck, that's the whole basis for archetypes in the first place. How many rogues will keep trapfinding, or take talents like Fast Picks, unless they know ahead of time it will be necessary? How many Clerics do you know who actually use planeshift? I remember a GM who liked to think he let his players make their own decisions and not give them too much direction, only to take it all back as soon as the players started talking about armies, castles, golems, and plane-hopping, because it was on their class lists so why not?
People get mad at the new classes for having different flavor, or changing up the core-4 dynamic, or being over/under powered, but that's all relative. In reality, we've been houseruling the flavor and abilities of classes for years, and new classes just mean we have to once again change up our expectations of how the game is 'supposed' to be played. AP's are a tricky thing since they make assumptions for the players, but otherwise the only problem comes from a GM who doesn't tell his players what to expect, and what isn't appropriate for that expectation.
A rogue is underpowered for your average smash and grab game and is little more than a scout, but in an urban game where you actually USE traps, stealthy break-ins, and frequent ambushes, he's king and virtually all other classes become useless.
How? Several other classes have more skills (alchemists, summoners, bards), or can do what the rogue do through spells (Spider climb, knock, disguise self, invisibility, clairvoyance...)
A rogue is underpowered for your average smash and grab game and is little more than a scout, but in an urban game where you actually USE traps, stealthy break-ins, and frequent ambushes, he's king and virtually all other classes become useless.How? Several other classes have more skills (alchemists, summoners, bards), or can do what the rogue do through spells (Spider climb, knock, disguise self, invisibility, clairvoyance...)
Hence the word 'virtually'. He can be doubled for with magic, but then everything can be doubled for with magic. I'd love to play a game once comprised by nothing but wizards, just to see the ingenuity of the players in using magic to tank, support, be skillful, etc.
And I was exaggerating for effect. You can build a stealthy fighter, a skillful alchemist, etc. I was referring directly to the assumptions the base class makes, which are that a fighter is a heavily-armored skill-less damage dealer, that a wizard will spend his skill points on knowledge and spellcraft, etc.
Because I don't like new classes in general. I was ecstatic when pathfinder put out archetypes and I was hoping they would continue in this vein and perhaps expand upon it. But when they started putting out new base classes, espcially ones I have had poor experiences with such as the ninja and samurai, I was dissapointed. Still noone is forcing me to play with them, so I will continue to ignore them.
Your expectations might be too high or much too narrow. The Ninja is a good answer to the limited effectiveness of the rogue, and face it, a lot of people like to play ninjas.
only three races too. Dwarf elf and humanNot 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.So Fighting Man, Magic User, and Thief?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.
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?
That may be true, but I like all the Core Rulebook classes. All the newer ones just seem uninteresting to me.
The community has tons of experience with the core classes. When non-core classes are allowed there's much more risk of a character who is broken, too strong, too weak, or can't find a reasonable role. I might be able to spot upcoming problems with a single class, but I know I'm going to miss stuff when I have to consider all of the possible multi-class combos as well.
So my preference would be to run core-only; but increasingly this requires re-writing NPCs in the APs and modules (NPC alchemists seem particularly popular). Ignoring the new classes is *not* cost-free if you use prepared material.
I guess the short form is that I'm very risk-adverse. I like to run long campaigns with continuing characters, and we tend to do parties who are tightly thematically linked, such as members of the same family. Swapping out characters who don't work is really disruptive for us. Killing off the campaign and starting a new one is even more so. (We tend to use about two APs' worth of material per campaign, so they are substantially longer than the average AP-based game--often a couple of years real-time, playing twice a week.)
So for me to welcome a new class it would have to add a lot to the game. My player loves Oracles so I deal with them (though the party consisting of four Oracles and a heavily multi-classed I-don't-know-what-this-character-is character made my head hurt, and I would rather not do that again). Ninjas have some promise as a drop-in replacement for Rogues, minus the Asian feel. The rest? They haven't showed promise sufficient to outweigh the risk (though I might try Inquisitor sometime myself) and the community experience with Summoner suggests that the risk is pretty darned high.
My other concern is that, in my experience, having a lot of diverse mechanical options around encourages players to want to try them all--which is fine if that's what you're looking for, but does not mix well with the two-year mega-campaign play style I prefer. I'm playing in a campaign now where the other player looks wistfully at each new book that comes out and says "Hm, wouldn't it be cool to have a [archetype + race + trait + new splatbook feat + ....]" and I just cringe. Fortunately he reins in this impulse, because Jade Regent *really* does not work well for constant character swapping!
Since we're all making lists:
Alchemist: If it's anything it feels a bit like the artificer from Eberron recast with some things added to replace the IP stuff.
Gunslinger: Shoulda been a fighter archetype, but guns are fine.
Cavalier: I find it dull and not needed. Could have been some kind of paladin archetype.
Inquisitor: Neat I guess.
Oracle: Divine sorcerer, why not?
Summoner: As a GM I'll look out for these after reading everyone complain, and I don't feel like the first specialist wizard class should be based on the most powerful school in the most powerful way. (Won't stop me from using it to make Sentai.)
Witch: I feel like it could have been done as a wizard archetype.
Magus: So back when 3e came out, one of my buddies played a fighter/mage. By 8th level he was useless, being not enough fighter to fight and not enough wizard to wizard against what the party was fighting. He'd have loved the Magus, I think it's pretty neat.
Ninja: Should be a rogue archetype. Also rogues should get more somethings.
Samurai: Should have been an archetype or PrC (5 level).
So looking at the list, Samurai, Ninja, Witch, Cavalier, Gunslinger all seem like "extra" classes to me, so there's a 50 percent rate, not bad.
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.
You're looking for Iron Heroes, where everyone is a muscle wizard with pools of tokens to use for awesome.
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.You're looking for Iron Heroes, where everyone is a muscle wizard with pools of tokens to use for awesome.
Like some Barb builds, you mean?
P.S. What happened to Journ-O-LST-1 and Journ-O-LST-2? Food vats?
I get the gist of those who do not prefer to play Asian settings to consider the samurai an archetype for cavalier. Consider that I develop the Kaidan setting of Japanese horror (PFRPG), and for example, Way of the Samurai supplement describes an entire samurai based caste of class archetypes for the following classes: gunslinger, ranger, paladin, wizard, and 4 samurai archetypes. There are also 2 prestige classes included that samurai can take. If samurai were a prestige class, that would further limit what could be done with the class. There's also a Way of the Yakuza supplement that covers rogues and more yakuza based versions of several classes (bard, fighter, 2 flavors of rogue and a tattoist wizard).
If samurai were for an archetype instead of class, I couldn't have built four archetypes for it (you can't make an archetype for an archetype). In my setting cavaliers do not belong, and having different flavors of samurai make a lot more sense. One samurai archetype is a Kuge which are for high born samurai who get more training in knowledge and other skills making a skill-monkey samurai with a slower progression of resolve and fighting skills. Another is for the sought after 2WF samurai (Miyamoto Musashi build) who tends to be ronin more often by choice, and cannot take an order. A Tajiya samurai gains paladin-like abilities to better combat against supernatural horrors: yurei ghosts and undead, oni demons and cursed beings (all being common threats in a typical Asian setting). Finally the Yabusame is an archery specialist samurai better fitting the traditional older style samurai that the samurai class just doesn't fit. In my setting all these samurai niches need a place, and the standard samurai class cannot easily fit in those niches.
The setting also has it's own versions (archetypes) for most every other class. If you're a foreign visitor to Kaidan, it's possible to play the standard races and classes one normally expects. However, for those indigenous to Kaidan, there are no dwarves, halflings, elves, etc. None of the 'standard races' fit, and many classes and their respective archetypes don't fit either. If I were restricted to only Core classes and standard races, Kaidan might just be another standard PF setting wearing a kimono and little else (like Golarian's Minkai). Whereas I wanted to create a rich oriental setting with a full cast of unique classes and races that best fit campaigning there. Playing in Kaidan one quickly realizes that this is a very unique place presenting the kind of game, you've not likely encountered before - the unique races and class archetypes help make it that way.
If this sounds all too specific, it's not the first setting I've developed that required unique character options designed to best emulate this specific setting. Being restricted to base classes and races is not necessarily an advantage for every game.
If you only want to play 'vanilla' Pathfinder, that's fine, but that doesn't work for every game - class options are good, but you should only allow those class options that best fit your campaign. Just because a limit of core classes and races is best for your game, doesn't mean it's best for everyone, and Pathfinder should be able to cater to many specific gaming styles and flavors, not restrict that from happening.
Well, non-cleric casters should have SOME "weakness". At this point, low hp and this might be the only ones.Dislike: I don't like that there isn't a way to make an effective witch healer, but this is also a problem I have with the druid.I know, right? Apparently it's not enough that the cleric can spontaneously heal -- which makes him the Golden Standard of Healing. Nope, on top of that, all other casters have to get delayed access to at least one cure spell.
Their weakness is not being able to cure spontaneously, or do that thing that PF clerics do. Energy channeling? Messing with everyone else's access to cure spells is kicking them when they're already down to second-rate healers. Why must they be kicked down to third-rate?