|
Ninja: Should be a rogue archetype. Also rogues should get more somethings.
Samurai: Should have been an archetype or PrC (5 level).
These 2 ARE archetypes. Read the blurb at the beginning of each class. The Ninja is an archetype of rogue and cannot multiclass with it. The Samuri is an archetype of Caviler and cannot multiclass with it.
The reason it is set up as a base class is to delineate the abilities better, since more than a couple of things changed.
Also the Gunslinger started as a fighter archetype but with so many changes, they decided to make it their own class.
Fair cop on the ninja/samurai. Still not too interested in a "rogue but better" class though while the rogue languishes.
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?
Their tasty sacrifices were not wasted, sadly Journ-Y-LST-3 was demoted for putting too much protein in the infrared cafeteria.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Like whatever classes you want.
Saying Paizo shouldn't have published them because you don't like them shows an amazingly self-absorbed world view.
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.I dont understand how your statement can be true. 6 of the 10 new base classes (assuming the ninja and samurai count as new classes in your mind) came in the same book as archetypes. We new about the classes before the archetypes as archetypes werent part of the playtest, the new classes were. Subsequent to that, there was then 1 new base class (magus) and a TON of archetypes in ultimate magic, and 1 new class and 2 new alternate classes which are basically big archetypes in ultimate combat, along with a ton of new archetypes.
Unless you somehow were unaware of the 6 new classes in the advanced players guide, and then did not read through the apg in order. Your statement is impossible. It is not possible for you to have been exstactic about archetypes, and then be disappointed as paizo 'poured out new base classes'. Since the 'pouring on' added 2 of 8 classes, and 2 alternate classes which are conceptually similar to archetypes, just with greater changes. They could have been listed in the format of archetypes as the abilities changed were one for one.
I am not saying you have to like new classes, or that you cant wish there were only archetypes added. But your statement is either a distortion of the truth, or a rediculous hyperbole. Paizo certainly hasnt 'poured on the base classes'. Its added 8 to the game since the game came out in 2009. Thats 2 a year.
@OP - I love the new base classes, I think they add alot to the game. I think new base classes is the best way to add options to the game. They are self contained, easier to manage and easier...
I did indeed hear about archetypes before new base classes because my initial exposure to the idea was at a weekly game(ironically enough the game the op wasnt able to make it to because he lived too far away)- i didnt check out the apg itself for a while because i was broke. I did not say anything about paizo pouring on new base classes. Next time, think things through before you post that things are impossible.
Jeez, I should have guessed this would be a hot button topic.
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.Yes, but do archetypes have hottie iconics? ;)
clearly, paizo has been holding out on us.
Methinks that bad experiences with a few hairbrained players, and possibly internet CharOppers, are coloring the view of some of us here.
this I cannot deny. My first table flipper was a guy who was told he could not play a ninja in a friend's gamebback in the second ed days. Had a similar experience with a guy who wanted to play a samurai in the same edition, although his reaction wasn't as extreme.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I find the whole.. "I don't like guns in my pathfinder" to be a rather silly argument, especially when its "Cause technology!"
Especially when we have laser beams. Seriously, what do you think a ray of light is? Its a laser!
We've got folding full plate (Ironman anyone?)
Throw on a fly spell, pick up ray spells and the like.. BAM you got a wizard who could theoretically be iron man, pretty much from the core rule book.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Because many people have an innate psychological dislike of change.
I mean, I wish the answer were more complex, but really, that's what it boils down to.
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Poor thread thought it could finally rest... But its soul is once again twisted by the meddling of mortals.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It must be thread revival Monday. :-)
Because many people have an innate psychological dislike of change.
I mean, I wish the answer were more complex, but really, that's what it boils down to.
That is hardly the universal case. And keep in mind I am a huge proponent of new classes as the primary way to add options. But there are many who just have a very specific line for what constitutes a new class. If you go back through the thread, several people for instance like archetypes, and don't like additional classes.
My own opinions, are already in the thread, so I wont repeat them. But it is factually untrue to apply a blanket label to people who don't like new classes that they simply don't want new options.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
To be honest I like most of the newer classes over the older ones. At this point I open up more third party classes than anything else but even without that as an option I'm rarely willing to roll up a core class aside from Monk and Fighter (because the newer classes don't cover ki or mundane martial angles very often.). For one, the core rulebook is probably the root of any broken thing that ever happens in any game I've ever been in. Secondly a good chunk are pretty boring to me without any real reach or thematic glue to hold my interest. The 6/9 casters are all full of things to do, are more appropriately balanced, have been the most fun I've had playing, and all but one exists outside the core rulebook. I love all of the psychic classes, and I even roll up hybrid classes before core classes.
There are some spots where the newer classes are rather thematically redundant, like Brawler, Skald, Cavalier, Shaman, and Slayer, and some just scream grid filling for BAB to spellcasting ratios for the three (now four) flavors of magic, like the Hunter, Warpriest, and Bloodrager, but in all reality would it really be better if all of the concepts and options were crammed into fewer classes? For me its always been a pain in the a$$ to hunt down feats and spells to make what I want to do work and it would be murder to have to do this for class features too. There's some places where the classes could be consolidated but as a whole I do appreciate diviying them out to different classes with more specific themes so that I can get to what I want to play a bit faster and more importantly predict my players so that I can compensate for inefficiencies as a GM.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm going to keep it simple, Pathfinder is a game filled with hundreds of rules.
For every rule, there's more rules on top, conditions altering those rules and rules written badly just to make things fun.
My problem with the new classes is how they tend to break the rules that have already been established or create weird caveats/conditions to situations. From a GM point of view I find it annoying that for every class, there's about two dozen extra rules I need to learn so I can properly adjudicate a session.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But it is factually untrue to apply a blanket label to people who don't like new classes that they simply don't want new options.
But Triune didn't do this. "Many" is not "most," nor "the majority," nor "all," it simply means "many." It is pretty easy to observe an inherent resistance to change in human behavior rather frequently. From a personal standpoint, I thrive on change, my wife, however, fears it immensely (she calls me a gypsy).
Oh, I should add, 3 of my current favorite classes are relatively new: the investigator, magus, and witch. I still love the original AD&D classes, too. Of the 3 campaigns I'm running (well, 2, the 3rd is cursed), only my noobs are running CRB classes (fighter, druid, ranger), but all the rest have characters with a rather broad mixture of classes. These guys take multi-classing to new extremes, too, and the new stuff is what they all tend to like. The options are great. Yes, it is hard to deal with from a GM standpoint, but we have more fun this way, IMO.
As Pathfinder was pitched to me as "the King of Crunch", I really don't have a problem. It's what I came here for.
Is it really though? I've had more of a headache with GURPS and Champions. At best its midranged in terms of being crunchy and even then a lot of the actual bulk of the crunch are blatantly optional.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
3e totaled 65 hardcovers (roughly 10,000 pages), not counting 3pp.
PFRPG may not yet be there, but I'd be surprised if the total page count of just what Paizo's published hasn't either exceeded that page count or come within spitting distance of it.
PF feels like it became bloated 2 or 3 years ago, to me.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
| 9 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's bloat when it is tons of false options. Seriously. Cut out everything that is just bad and see how much is left. Balance everything they put out together and trim the fat. Not much meat left at all.
"Bloat" seems like a strange word to describe the Core Rulebook.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
It must be thread revival Monday. :-)
♫♪ It's just another Necro Monday... ♫♪
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I love PF's new classes. With a few exceptions the further away you get from core the better the class design and there's still many, many viable and interesting character concepts that can't be realized in PF yet, so keep them coming.
As I've read through a lot of Pathfinder material, I'm hard pressed to find character concepts that couldn't be (more or less) accomplished through application of meaningful feats to the classes found in the core book, even dropping the paladin & bard from that list (the first which could be done with a martial focused cleric & the second which could be any number of things from rogue to wizard with a lute as a spell focus).
Feats and spells would need to be expanded to better accommodate the loss of class features and facilitate customization, but I think it's doable.
There are WAY too many feats in Pathfinder, to the point of absurdity. CRB had, what, about 150? Now there's somewhere close to 1800 "official" feats. Add in another several hundred 3pp feats and it goes from absurd to ludicrous.
Tack that onto that cases can be made for several of the new base classes that should have been/could have been archetypes and the feeling that PF is bloated to the point of exploding is an understandable perspective.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like the newer classes more than the originals. They are better designed and often more flavorful, largely because they had less to worry about straying from the original classes design and ticking people off in the 3.5 transition. I also think the developers have just improved their ability to create new classes; Most of the new classes are pretty decently balanced, in contrast to the Core Rulebook which includes almost all of the classes that are most frequently complained about.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I actually like the newer classes more than the originals. They are better designed and often more flavorful, largely because they had less to worry about straying from the original classes design and ticking people off in the 3.5 transition. I also think the developers have just improved their ability to create new classes; Most of the new classes are pretty decently balanced, in contrast to the Core Rulebook which includes almost all of the classes that are most frequently complained about.
Ehhhh...
I think they hit a peak with the APG and have been on the downward slope since. The APG classes were inspired and generally superior to the Core classes balance and flavor-wise, and the ACG classes while uninspired in flavor are mechanically pretty well rounded as a whole.
The Occult classes are overly complicated messes, and while great flavor-wise are mechanically uninspired (kinda like the polar opposite of the ACG). The two standouts are the Medium and Kineticist which attempt to do something new (to a debatable degree of success) but the others are just SO BLAND. You have:
1.) Occult Wizard
2.) Occult Summoner
3.) Poor Man's Spherecaster
4.) Occult Bard (Now with 200% more debuffs [and 90% less buffs])
And the newest member of the family is the Vigilante, which has absolutely no clue what it wants to be, and was designed based entirely around the ill-conceived notion of "Class that only works in a very specific type of campaign", and doesn't even really pull that off particularly well.
I think with the ACG classes they somehow got married to the concept of "hybrid classes" and it restricted them needlessly. The result was a lot of redundant classes, and a few gaps (dedicated shapeshifting martial, or 1/2 BAB Divine Caster) left unfilled.
I really don't like the Vigilante. Why does there have to be a whole class (with Fighter/Rogue/Mage/Priest archetypes) based on the broad concept of having a dual identity? Any class could do that before. To make matters worse, they have all kinds of mechanics tied to the dual identity to play it up as something more than it is. It feels like something contrived just because Ultimate Intrigue needed its own class, just because Ultimate Magic and Ultimate Combat each had one.
And I just have zero interest in the Occult classes. As a matter of personal preference I don't like Psionic magic existing in the same setting as Arcane, and PF's version of Psionics is just a tweaked Arcane. Most of the classes' schtick doesn't appeal to me thematically either, to the point I haven't even really examined their mechanics (which from what I've skimmed over, also don't appeal to me).
Given the business model is "keep publishing more books with more rules" you expect things to get bloated eventually. I hate to say it but I wonder if, if things keep up as they are, we'll have Zombie Pathfinder the way we got Zombie Simpsons.
I love the Occult classes, every single one, the were just what I needed.
And they aren't even close to Psionics, despite what people insist. :-)
Poor thread thought it could finally rest... But its soul is once again twisted by the meddling of mortals.
Aaaaaargh! Why?!?
And they aren't even close to Psionics, despite what people insist. :-)
You're right, they aren't, which is the whole problem. Psychic, Psionic, whatever Paizo's incarnation is called, it's Arcane with different components. Why have it in the first place?
I love the Occult classes, every single one, the were just what I needed.
And they aren't even close to Psionics, despite what people insist. :-)
They aren't even similar, considering psionics is just a superior mechanic for spellcasting and occult classes are... different.
I prefer DSP's Ultimate Psionics. They even released stuff recently that interacts between the two! I'm a bit of a fanboy I guess.
I love them (the Occult classes), so that's something you need to work out yourself.
I'm not the person to help you talk through it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And they aren't even close to Psionics, despite what people insist. :-)
I think the only people who say they're close to Psionics have never played with Psionics.
With the exception of a few pretty blatantly...inspired by Psionics elements (*cough*Mindblade Magus*cough*), they're nothing like any of the Psionic classes, and have ABSOLUTELY ZERO relation to the core Psionic mechanics (Power Points and Psionic Focus).
Occult magic set out to be a tiny variation on the core Arcane/Divine Vancian, and it succeeded. It isn't anything like Psionics in either theme or mechanics, so it's weird that people compare them at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I guess some clarification is in order. I know Pathfinder "Psychic" is different from D&D "Psionic", mechanically, but I used the terms interchangeably by mistake. My gripe is that if you're going to introduce a whole new type of casting into your world, either make it different enough to be worthwhile or just add more spells to Enchantment and Illusion.
Are we moving here as well, good to know. :-)