Why You No Likey PF's New Classes?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

201 to 250 of 485 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sundakan wrote:


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.

Really? The high point of Pathfinder design was the book that had the slightly different sorcerer, two fighter variants that only functioned with a single messy and broken combat style a piece, a reprint of 3.5's duskblade and the Summoner?

Harsh.

Quote:

but the others are just SO BLAND. You have:

1.) Occult Wizard

I'd argue it's more like a variant sorcerer. Seeing how it uses the same casting system and even has a fake bloodline. Though yeah, I don't think a third iteration of the sorcerer was really necessary for the game.

Quote:
2.) Occult Summoner

I can't even figure out which class you mean here. Spiritualist, maybe? But I mean that's more like an anti-hunter if I were going to compare it to any class.

Quote:
4.) Occult Bard (Now with 200% more debuffs [and 90% less buffs])

So like a bard, just without any of the stuff that makes a bard a bard?

Quote:
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.

If a full BAB martial with 6 skill points per level and pounce only works in one type of campaign, what do you consider a general use class?


Squiggit wrote:
Sundakan wrote:


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.

Really? The high point of Pathfinder design was the book that had the slightly different sorcerer, two fighter variants that only functioned with a single messy and broken combat style a piece, a reprint of 3.5's duskblade and the Summoner?

Harsh.

The Alchemist, Inquisitor, and Magus still remain some of the most balanced, multi-purpose classes they've ever made.

The Oracle is basically the Sorcerer DONE RIGHT (Mysteries are Bloodlines but you can actually pick the kind of abilities you want, so no two Oracles with the same Mystery are necessarily the same class feature-wise).

Cavalier and Gunslinger are meh, but anything Fighter related is, so whatever.

That just leaves the Witch and Summoner, and while I agree the Witch could potentially have been a Wizard archetype, I think it having a unique spell list was warranted , and Paizo has never been in the habit of making unique spell lists for archetypes.

Although, again, the Hexes are a FAR better class feature than Arcane Schools as far as player choice goes.

The Summoner...besides the spell list, I'm not sure why people gripe about it. It's a good take on a pet class, and Build Your Own GOO is fun.

Squiggit wrote:


Quote:
2.) Occult Summoner
I can't even figure out which class you mean here. Spiritualist, maybe? But I mean that's more like an anti-hunter if I were going to compare it to any class.

It is basically the Unchained Summoner with some extra random class features tacked on. The only reason it has to exist is for the Ectoplasmatist to build off of. That's justa cool archetype.

Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
4.) Occult Bard (Now with 200% more debuffs [and 90% less buffs])
So like a bard, just without any of the stuff that makes a bard a bard?

Most people seem to forget this, but Inspire Courage is not the only performance a Bard has.

The Mesmerist reads like a Bard archetype that gets a souped up Dirge of Doom to be based around. The spell lists are similar, the chassis is similar, the Cha focus is similar, and it even does some buffing on the side with Implanted Tricks.

Squiggit wrote:
Quote:
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.
If a full BAB martial with 6 skill points per level and pounce only works in one type of campaign, what do you consider a general use class?

It's a Slayer archetype (loses Studied Target and Sneak Attack, gains a new Slayer Talent pool to choose from...) with a crappy secret identity tacked onto it. The Slayer already exists, so the only reason for the Vigilante is aforementioned crappy secret identity...which only really works in a certain kind of campaign.


I actually like the Vigilante and most of the occult classes (medium IS a bit too complicated for my tastes)

And honestly at this point in the game I would rather see more niche classes and character options. Most of the nut and bolt character options for a standard fantasy game are pretty well defined by this point. It's why I am such a huge fan of the Adventures line of books.


We have enough classes. We can safely say that aspect is pretty much done. More adventures and worlds please, outside of PFS. Bring in the stuff similar to the weird Gygax stuff like that wonderland one or the one about Mordenkainen's movie studio.


Paizo is very unlikely to develop another setting, but that is what 3pp is for. Midgard, Cerulean seas, Obsidian apocalypse, the lonely coast, that one where rappan athuk is. No need to ask paizo something where there are many high qualities options out there.

And to stay on topic, I'm not fond on paizo choice on making more classes and the way they did it. Since the ACG my interest in paizo crunch book declined considerably.


Jaçinto wrote:
We have enough classes. We can safely say that aspect is pretty much done. More adventures and worlds please, outside of PFS. Bring in the stuff similar to the weird Gygax stuff like that wonderland one or the one about Mordenkainen's movie studio.

I would LOVE more settings, or even just one massive tome WITHOUT any rules in it (or very few IF THEY MUST) that fills in all the things about Golarian (or howver you spell it). to repeat: ALL THE THINGS. like festivals, sports, passtimes, popular entertainment, political powers, economies, some secrets that various famous individuals within the world may hold, common pets, etc.


Air0r the only issue with that is when you get the one player that studies those books to death and thus dominates every conversation with every NPC and argues said information is common knowledge.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Undead Thread wrote:
Lemmy wrote:
Poor thread thought it could finally rest... But its soul is once again twisted by the meddling of mortals.
Aaaaaargh! Why?!?

YEEEEES!!! SUFFER!!!


Jaçinto wrote:
Air0r the only issue with that is when you get the one player that studies those books to death and thus dominates every conversation with every NPC and argues said information is common knowledge.

Not all things published is for player eyes; some stuff is for the DMs.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Air0r wrote:
Jaçinto wrote:
Air0r the only issue with that is when you get the one player that studies those books to death and thus dominates every conversation with every NPC and argues said information is common knowledge.
Not all things published is for player eyes; some stuff is for the DMs.

That doesn't really stop players from reading it. This isn't Paranoia, where knowledge of the rules is treason and you should just trust friend computer.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Clearly we should take and burn all the rulebooks.

Since the argument seems to be "Some people might read it and BS themselves into some advantage with a weak GM".


People should have the damn common courtesy to learn how to not apply that information in the game. Just because you know something does not mean your character should know it, nor does every little NPC. The argument I have made before is "Do you know the names of every person on the next town's city council in real life? No? Then why do you think the NPCs in this game know it?"


Jaçinto wrote:
We have enough classes. We can safely say that aspect is pretty much done. More adventures and worlds please, outside of PFS. Bring in the stuff similar to the weird Gygax stuff like that wonderland one or the one about Mordenkainen's movie studio.

I would like to remember that not anyone that plays PF do it on Golarion. My own group plays on Golarion at most half the time we play PF. If Paizo move so much to Golarion lore, many people will be left behind.

I really like many of the new classes, many of the core classes seems really bland now. I play many Oracles and Inquisitors, while Cleric is nearly forgotten. That said, I think we have enough classes for now, specially if Starfinder is highly compatible. In fact, I don't like some of the classes, mainly Warpriest. With Inquisitor and Cleric is an unnecessary class, and by its mere existence it disallow the "paladin of all alignment" that I really would like to see. But move all to Golarion stuff is not a good idea. For the planning of Paizo we have seen, there seems to be a movement to books to help the DM on NPCCodex style. That seems a better idea.


you know you guys call them new classes and reference old way but the cavalier has been around since 1st edition ADnD I'm fairly certain alchemist was to but that might have been home brew or 3rd party (been a long time) as far as the gun hate you know there is a crossbowman archetype for gunslinger no guns required. (i think theirs also one to be rid of the cavalier mount.)
Magus has no previous history except for multi class gishses but i think most people love the class it seems myself included

no experience with inquisitor iv'e only barely read it

oracle I think its very thematically appropriate never played one myself nothing against them.

summoner and witch both feel like they could of been wizard archetypes like a illusionist is a wizard specialist but there is enough mechanically different where it would of been a pain making the archetypes (i played a character with 2 archetypes so flipping between 3 books to figure out what replaced what was taxing not unbearable but taxing)

I love bloat give me bloat although i will say i don't like when they make sub-par options im ok with nuanced good for specific kind of campaigns but things like the hulk vigilante archetype that is just terrible and a few others i wish they had polished more. I'm mostly just surprised ultimate horror didn't come with a "true necromancer" (arcane/divine hybrid with bone armor and scythe you know ;D )


7 people marked this as a favorite.

2010 -

Paizo CEO: Guy's I've been thinking...

Game Devs: Yes?

Paizo CEO: Are we going too far, printing this Advanced Player's Guide?

Game Devs: What? No. Why?

Paizo CEO: I mean...We already have so many Class options for Players. Aren't these new classes just going to come off as hokey or redundant?

Game Devs: Uhhh no?

Paizo CEO: What if we printed a book of just Archetypes of the Core Classes instead?

Game Devs: Um, sir, aren't Archetypes to existing Classes more redundant than new Classes?

Paizo CEO: Or course! But this way, the players can exclusively enjoy nostalgia forever. They don't want new classes, or new ideas, or new ways to play the game - just tiny, safe, adjustments that won't overwhelm them or alter the game in any way whatsoever.

Game Devs: Sir, that sounds like a horrible idea.

Paizo CEO: You're right, I'm sorry...let's just keep it as is.

Game Devs: Wha- NO!

And so, Paizo never published another Player rule, supplement, or companion book, and the game stayed stagnant and unevolved, and everyone was happy forever. The end.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Quark Blast wrote:

Back on page one,

bugleyman wrote:

I don't like the new classes because:

(1) They're conceptually redundant.
(2) They pointlessly compound Pathfinder's already excessive mechanical complexity.

All hail bugleyman and his One* True Answer. :D

*Albeit a compound answer, it is one with itself and therefore true in it's unity.

Neither is really factual though, only an opinion.

1. They are not anymore conceptually redundant then a bard is or a sorcerer. All of them offer new mechanical ways to express a slight variation on the original 4 or some combination there in. They have slightly different themes but mostly they are meant to give a different way to express those themes.

For many, the entire value of pathfinder is that the rules are not dissociative. Namely that they 'feel' like what they are meant to represent. A monk feels distinct form playing a fighter or ranger. That is important for many. And the new classes give a (completely optional) way to express differences in concept mechanically.

2. Actually compared to most other ways to add options, they REDUCE complexity. Feats, archetypes, prestige classes etc, things that add to the existing classes. Choose a wizard archetype and you still have all the complexity of a wizard, plus the archetype. Everything that is added to it, adds complexity to the whole. Feats have to interact with everything that has ever been written. Archetypes have to interact with everything that has ever been written for that class.

Classes though, particularly since pathfinder has deincentivised multiclassing are self contained. If you want to add options to express a new concept to the game the BEST way to do it in terms of reduced complexity is to do so with a new class. Because that class doesn't have to interact with everything ever written. Its a new, self contained thing.

Heres an example. We have the core rulebook. We want to give players a better way to create a 'swashbuckler'.

1. You could, create a chain of swashbuckler feats. Those feats would have to interact with literally everything in the core rulebook, since feats are something everyone can take.

2. You could create an archetype for the rogue or the fighter, which would interact with everything the rogue or fighter class has access to (which is more complex then just the fighter or just the rogue.

3. You can create a swashbuckler class. It is around equal in complexity to any single class. And is by straight up mathematics less complex then option 1 and 2.

You can say you don't like new classes. You can say you prefer other ways to give options for whatever reason. But it is objectively false that a new class is more complex then any other way to add rules to a system.

They are also far easier for new players to manage. If a new player wants to create a swashbuckler its way easier to hand them 5 pages of class to read over, then to have them look at a core class, an archetype from anther book, 3 feats from 2 other books, etc. This is another way new classes are less complex then others. They reduce the amount of books, and the amount of pages you need to look through to make a given character.

And aside from organized play (which is its own entity) they are easier for dms to manage. Why? Because once someone chooses that new class, it REDUCES the amount of rules you need to keep track of. You only need to keep track of what your party is going to actually use. If you constantly expand on the core classes, the mount of options a character can take as they level continues to expand. If you expand with new classes, once your player chooses the class, it reduces the amount of rules they can then choose. Keeping track of a single classed swashbuckler is not any more difficult then keeping track of any core class. But if your player instead needed to take the core rogue, an archtype from one book, a pair of feats from another, and a replacement feature from a third, added to all the things a rogue can take, that is actually more difficult to keep track of as a dm.

Are new classes less familiar then the classics? Sure, but so are ALL new rules. But it is objectively false to say they add complexity to any individual party or character. And in fact compared to any other way to make new concepts options, they are LESS complex.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Cuup wrote:


Paizo CEO: What if we printed a book of just Archetypes of the Core Classes instead?
Game Devs: Um, sir, aren't Archetypes to existing Classes more redundant than new Classes?

FYI, the Paizo CEO is a woman ...

Liberty's Edge

I find a lot of the ACG and OC classes to be a bit too complicated and cumbersome. The Kineticist in particular is a massive headache. So many of these new classes feature resource management and manipulation that the original ones didn't adding to the complexity. I wouldn't say they are intrinsically more powerful than Core classes with archetypes but they do present a wider range of option that when combined with multiclassing and archetypes can be gamed to high power levels.


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
J-Bone wrote:

I find a lot of the ACG and OC classes to be a bit too complicated and cumbersome. The Kineticist in particular is a massive headache. So many of these new classes feature resource management and manipulation that the original ones didn't adding to the complexity. I wouldn't say they are intrinsically more powerful than Core classes with archetypes but they do present a wider range of option that when combined with multiclassing and archetypes can be gamed to high power levels.

What they provide is a way for more concepts to reach those high level. If you take the core book and the Advanced Class guide (for me this is the core set of pathfinder options), none of the new classes are more powerful then the high end of the bell curve for those 2 books. But now, more types of characters can reach that peak instead of just god wizards, druids with pouncing companions and summoners.


Marc Radle wrote:
Cuup wrote:


Paizo CEO: What if we printed a book of just Archetypes of the Core Classes instead?
Game Devs: Um, sir, aren't Archetypes to existing Classes more redundant than new Classes?

FYI, the Paizo CEO is a woman ...

It's almost like the entire story was made up.


RDM42 wrote:


And some people have an unhealthy psychological addiction to change for its own sake. And some people don't want to mix tech in with their fantasy, and I would wager a good portion that don't like guns in their game aren't going to be putting in the laser beams and androids either.

What does not liking "tech" in fantasy have to do with liking or not liking new classes?

J-Bone wrote:

I find a lot of the ACG and OC classes to be a bit too complicated and cumbersome. The Kineticist in particular is a massive headache. So many of these new classes feature resource management and manipulation that the original ones didn't adding to the complexity. I wouldn't say they are intrinsically more powerful than Core classes with archetypes but they do present a wider range of option that when combined with multiclassing and archetypes can be gamed to high power levels.

The Kineticist is an odd example for you to choose. It is the one class in OA which doesn't have to track how many times per day it can blast, but you are complaining about "resource management" being required?

Regardless, since you seemed to have missed it earlier, I'll post a re-post question I asked yesterday:
I wrote:
Okay. What makes "new" classes more complicated than "old" classes? I don't think I've seen any Pathfinder classes more complicated than the druid. And Summoner would probably be second on that list. Most Pathfinder classes were published after the summoner and druid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Cuup wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:
Cuup wrote:


Paizo CEO: What if we printed a book of just Archetypes of the Core Classes instead?
Game Devs: Um, sir, aren't Archetypes to existing Classes more redundant than new Classes?

FYI, the Paizo CEO is a woman ...
It's almost like the entire story was made up.

But I read it on the internet!


7 people marked this as a favorite.
Rub-Eta wrote:
Cuup wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:
Cuup wrote:

Paizo CEO: What if we printed a book of just Archetypes of the Core Classes instead?

Game Devs: Um, sir, aren't Archetypes to existing Classes more redundant than new Classes?
FYI, the Paizo CEO is a woman ...
It's almost like the entire story was made up.
But I read it on the internet!

Then it must be porn!


But at least it's true!

@137ben: Have you looked at the Occult classes? Their entries are longer than 5E's combat chapter!

EDITED


Lemmy wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:
Cuup wrote:
Marc Radle wrote:
Cuup wrote:

Paizo CEO: What if we printed a book of just Archetypes of the Core Classes instead?

Game Devs: Um, sir, aren't Archetypes to existing Classes more redundant than new Classes?
FYI, the Paizo CEO is a woman ...
It's almost like the entire story was made up.
But I read it on the internet!
Then it must be porn!

Welcome to Avenue Q!


Rub-Eta wrote:

EDIT: But at least it's true, Lemmy!

@137ben: Have you looked at the Occult classes? Their entries are longer than 5E's combat chapter!

Yeah... Occult classes are needlessly complicated. Shaman is also pretty bad in that regard...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

They aren't all complicated, they are just adding lots of new features. So of course they'll take up more room than classes that can say, "this works as the rogue's uncanny dodge"


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:
Rub-Eta wrote:

EDIT: But at least it's true, Lemmy!

@137ben: Have you looked at the Occult classes? Their entries are longer than 5E's combat chapter!

Yeah... Occult classes are needlessly complicated. Shaman is also pretty bad in that regard...

Chess Pwn is right. They're long because they have lots of new options, but I'd really hesitate to call any of it complex. I mean, most of them are just spellcasters and while pseudo-vancian magic is pretty cumbersome, if you're playing Pathfinder at all you should be familiar with it, but there's nothing particularly complex about an int-based sorcerer or a hunter with undead stuff instead of nature stuff or an anti-bard etc.


Advanced Class Guide introduced some interesting hybrid classes. Having seen the Warpriest played by friends it's one hybrid class that our group likes it to consider playing it more often. I have played the Exploiter Wizard which grants him the abilities of an Arcanist. I was impressed enough to consider the base Arcanist class. The other classes I have little interest in playing.
Occult Adventures wasn't a bad book. I have played an Earth Kintecist and was impressed enough to consider playing them again. I find the Occultist interesting and want to play one. I like the Spiritualist finding it's spell list is what makes it superior to a Summoner.


They're not anything that I can't get my head around or that I think it's any wrong about them or that it's a trend for all new classes.

But I do think they're much more complicated than most other classes. Not only that it's new, their mechanics are also (mostly) unique to them with a lot of interconnections between their own class features while also having more to track during play than most other classes.

But it's enough systems within them that I feel like I should stay away from them in a more laid back, casual game and pick another class instead.


Occultist is the main, heavy offender in the complexity department, because of sheer long-windedness in the ability descriptions.

There are exactly TWO abilities in that class that take less than a paragraph to explain. Most of them take 2+.

And it really shouldn't take that many words to explain a lot of these. For example, this:

Magic Circles (Su) wrote:

At 8th level, an occultist learns how to draw magic circles. To draw a circle, he must have chalk, salt, blood, powdered silver, or some other appropriate substance at hand (although he can press a magic circle into a softer surface such as dirt or clay). Drawing a circle takes 1 minute and requires the occultist to expend 1 point of mental focus (either generic focus or focus from any one of his implements). Once completed, this circle functions as a permanent magic circle against any alignment of the occultist's choosing. The circle can't be against a component of the occultist's alignment (if he is lawful good, for example, it can't be a magic circle against good or law). The circle remains until its form is physically broken (for example, if the lines are smeared or the salt is scattered).

Only a living creature can break the circle; environmental effects can't break it. An occultist can have only one circle created in this way at a time. If he creates a second circle, the first one loses all its magic powers. This type of magic circle can't normally be focused inward to bind an outsider.

"At 8th level an Occultist can cast Magic Circle Against Good/Evil/Law/Chaos at will with a duration of permanent. This circle can be destroyed by smudging or destroying the material used to draw the circle. Drawing this circle takes one minute and expends 1 point of mental focus. Only one circle may exist at a time, and an Occultist cannot create a circle that matches one of his alignment components (if he is lawful good, for example, it can't be a magic circle against good or law)."

That's, what, 1/2 the length? And that's not nearly the worst offender.

Yes, I know that leaves a few gaps in it, but they could be filled in without that many words still.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My thread got necroed!

...Does that make me the tormented soul trapped within the husk of my former vessel, or just a hapless bystander about to have my brain eaten?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

My thread got necroed!

...Does that make me the tormented soul trapped within the husk of my former vessel, or just a hapless bystander about to have my brain eaten?

4:36


1 person marked this as a favorite.

The way I see it, it's all about how it feels. I like the new classes because they feel different. I know they all still use almost the same rules (or at least a variation). Oracles are Sorcerers that use divine magic. Spiritualists are Summoners who use ghosts instead of outsiders. But they needed their own class because an archetype is a slight variation on a class; a shift to focus more on an aspect that the class has in it's purview. A new class can have an entirely new purview. Let's look at a example:

Let's say I wanted to make an dwarf. But not just any dwarf: a dwarf that loved to dance. But our dwarf still wants to fight. He could be a fighter, and could take an archetype or a prestige class. Or, and here me out, he could be a Swashbuckler. With the Slashing Grace feat, he could be the most graceful, axe-wielding, swash-buckling, dancing dwarf that has ever been. And sure, you could accomplish a substitute means through archetypes/feats/squinting hard, but it wouldn't have had the same feel as the Swashbuckler. How about another example?

You want to be a shadow summoner. And since the Shadow Caller archetype for the summoner is a no-go now, what are you going to do? You could still go Summoner, but none of the outsiders are shadows, or "shadow-ish" even. You could be a wizard/sorcerer, but it's still not close enough. Shadow conjuration/summon monster to summon shadows just means you can only do your thing a couple times a day. But, the Spiritualsit has an archetype that is a Shadowcaller. And it is basically Paizo going "Remember that thing we took away? Sorry! Have it back, but even better." And it is.

It fits much better with the more esoteric Spiritualist than it did with the more plane-focused Summoner. Eidolons have a personality as part of their type of outsider; Phantoms can be emotionless, which fits better as a shadow. Plus it feels different. A Summoner just summons shadow-related things; the Spiritualist can do shadow-related things.

tl;dr version: New classes can have different feelings and tones to them that can't be expressed through archetypes of preexisting classes, and the new classes can have new archetypes because of their different feelings and tones. One last example: you want to play Batman. You could do a weird Ninja/Fighter/Investigator build, or now you can just go with a straight Vigilante. And anything that makes it easier to have a medieval Batman in a campaign is always a plus.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tequila Sunrise wrote:

My thread got necroed!

...Does that make me the tormented soul trapped within the husk of my former vessel, or just a hapless bystander about to have my brain eaten?

It means you are under my control!


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally I like newer classes better. In fact, I can't stand the CRB classes and refuse to ever play them. They're completely unbalanced, unimaginative, broken trainwrecks. In the same book, you have the Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid and Cleric, all hideously broken. Then you have the Rogue, Monk and Fighter, all underpowered and useless. The Bard is the only balanced class in that entire book.

The Ranger can be either OP or worthless, depending on what favored enemy/terrain you pick, and the Paladin ruins more campaigns with that stupid alignment requirement than all the other classes put together.

Personally, I think PF works best with 6-level casters. Martials are worthless and 9-level casters are Godlike. That's the big issue with the Core classes, they exist on either extreme with nothing in the middle except the Bard.


Cuup wrote:

2010 -

Paizo CEO: Guy's I've been thinking...

Game Devs: Yes?

Paizo CEO: Are we going too far, printing this Advanced Player's Guide?

Game Devs: What? No. Why?

Paizo CEO: I mean...We already have so many Class options for Players. Aren't these new classes just going to come off as hokey or redundant?

Game Devs: Uhhh no?

Paizo CEO: What if we printed a book of just Archetypes of the Core Classes instead?

Game Devs: Um, sir, aren't Archetypes to existing Classes more redundant than new Classes?

Paizo CEO: Or course! But this way, the players can exclusively enjoy nostalgia forever. They don't want new classes, or new ideas, or new ways to play the game - just tiny, safe, adjustments that won't overwhelm them or alter the game in any way whatsoever.

Game Devs: Sir, that sounds like a horrible idea.

Paizo CEO: You're right, I'm sorry...let's just keep it as is.

Game Devs: Wha- NO!

And so, Paizo never published another Player rule, supplement, or companion book, and the game stayed stagnant and unevolved, and everyone was happy forever. The end.

You brought much joy to my life thank you for this.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:

Personally I like newer classes better. In fact, I can't stand the CRB classes and refuse to ever play them. They're completely unbalanced, unimaginative, broken trainwrecks. In the same book, you have the Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid and Cleric, all hideously broken. Then you have the Rogue, Monk and Fighter, all underpowered and useless. The Bard is the only balanced class in that entire book.

The Ranger can be either OP or worthless, depending on what favored enemy/terrain you pick, and the Paladin ruins more campaigns with that stupid alignment requirement than all the other classes put together.

Personally, I think PF works best with 6-level casters. Martials are worthless and 9-level casters are Godlike. That's the big issue with the Core classes, they exist on either extreme with nothing in the middle except the Bard.

I largely agree. I was about to mention how i still play monks, but then realized that I haven't touched CRB monk in years and, in fact, play unchained monks these days. (Or third party classes).

side note, you made no mention of barbarian.


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 don't find the classes add much to complexity. Archetypes increase complexity. But the big that makes thing complex is the sheer amount of feats and the combinations you can apply to classes.


voska66 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 don't find the classes add much to complexity. Archetypes increase complexity. But the big that makes thing complex is the sheer amount of feats and the combinations you can apply to classes.

Also, a GM should only have to worry about how 4-6 classes operate at a time.


Air0r wrote:
HeHateMe wrote:

Personally I like newer classes better. In fact, I can't stand the CRB classes and refuse to ever play them. They're completely unbalanced, unimaginative, broken trainwrecks. In the same book, you have the Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid and Cleric, all hideously broken. Then you have the Rogue, Monk and Fighter, all underpowered and useless. The Bard is the only balanced class in that entire book.

The Ranger can be either OP or worthless, depending on what favored enemy/terrain you pick, and the Paladin ruins more campaigns with that stupid alignment requirement than all the other classes put together.

Personally, I think PF works best with 6-level casters. Martials are worthless and 9-level casters are Godlike. That's the big issue with the Core classes, they exist on either extreme with nothing in the middle except the Bard.

I largely agree. I was about to mention how i still play monks, but then realized that I haven't touched CRB monk in years and, in fact, play unchained monks these days. (Or third party classes).

side note, you made no mention of barbarian.

You're right I forgot all about the Barbarian, my mistake. Personally, I'm not a fan but I don't think they cause balance problems.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
HeHateMe wrote:

Personally I like newer classes better. In fact, I can't stand the CRB classes and refuse to ever play them. They're completely unbalanced, unimaginative, broken trainwrecks. In the same book, you have the Wizard, Sorcerer, Druid and Cleric, all hideously broken. Then you have the Rogue, Monk and Fighter, all underpowered and useless. The Bard is the only balanced class in that entire book.

The Ranger can be either OP or worthless, depending on what favored enemy/terrain you pick, and the Paladin ruins more campaigns with that stupid alignment requirement than all the other classes put together.

Personally, I think PF works best with 6-level casters. Martials are worthless and 9-level casters are Godlike. That's the big issue with the Core classes, they exist on either extreme with nothing in the middle except the Bard.

I disagree with you on somethings. The high casters can be used; they just need to be role-played well. Think of it like Superman. He has a weakness, but it's not kryptonite. Okay it is, but he has another one; himself. It's the reason Luthor can be his arch-enemy, even though he's just normal guy. He can play with superman's emotions, exploit supes' ethics, and use his own ideals against him. Even with all his power, Lex can still match him. Just replace "Superman" with "wizard" and there you go.

I still love the new classes though.

As for the paladin, that's easy: don't play it Lawful Stupid. Paladins know that sometimes, lying can be useful. That sneaking and stabbing have a place. They personally won't do it, but as long it's for the greater good, and there's no other way, the paladin shouldn't mind. I don't know why everyone plays their paladins like sticks-in-the-mud. For a paladin, they are Lawful Good, but the latter is the more important part than the former. Unless they follow a Lawful Neutral god, of course.

I do agree with you on two points, the rogue and ranger. The rogue got fixed in Unchained, but the ranger only got worse. The way I see it, if you want to be a minor nature-themed spellcaster and have a pet, be a hunter. If you want to be a tracker who can fight, be a slayer. Rangers have two choices: either you play it safe, but boring, or out there but useless. Favored enemy: Orc/Undead/Animal/other boring thing, or Favored enemy: Dragon/Fey/other thing you rarely ever fight. Favored terrain: Forest/Urban/*snore*, or Favored terrain: Shadow Plane/outerspace/place you will go only once.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Unluckyblackjack wrote:
The high casters can be used; they just need to be role-played well.

I'm used to "Rogues are fine, you have to play them cleverly", but this is a new one...

"Casters are fine, you have to play them stupidly"

Because having an arch-enemy, that you could kill by just looking at them, alive for more than 2 encounters...well it makes you pretty incompetent.

And nope! If you think killing world-threating criminals is immoral and you have the power to do so, you're responsible for everything they do, thus making your choice immoral at the same level they are (which is pretty bad).

Saying that to play full casters you need to pull your punches, by whatever means, just shows how much broken they are even more.


I suppose you could go with True 20s class set up

Warrior
Spellcaster
Expert

everything else is created by multiclassing between these three.

Bard for example
1st = Expert
2nd = Expert
3rd = Spellcaster
4th = expert
etc...

with very specific abilities being chosen for each level

The Paladin is similar; 4 levels of Warrior then 1 level of Spellcaster. Repeat until 20th


Greylurker wrote:

I suppose you could go with True 20s class set up

Warrior
Spellcaster
Expert

everything else is created by multiclassing between these three.

Bard for example
1st = Expert
2nd = Expert
3rd = Spellcaster
4th = expert
etc...

with very specific abilities being chosen for each level

The Paladin is similar; 4 levels of Warrior then 1 level of Spellcaster. Repeat until 20th

I don't know if you're joking or not but there are people who would seriously want something like this. Every class besides fighter, mage, and thief is just an archetype of the main three. They won't even accept cleric/priest as a distinct class.


Larkos wrote:
Greylurker wrote:

I suppose you could go with True 20s class set up

Warrior
Spellcaster
Expert

everything else is created by multiclassing between these three.

Bard for example
1st = Expert
2nd = Expert
3rd = Spellcaster
4th = expert
etc...

with very specific abilities being chosen for each level

The Paladin is similar; 4 levels of Warrior then 1 level of Spellcaster. Repeat until 20th

I don't know if you're joking or not but there are people who would seriously want something like this. Every class besides fighter, mage, and thief is just an archetype of the main three. They won't even accept cleric/priest as a distinct class.

not joking at all.

True20 is a variation on 3E that Green Ronin put together using only d20s. They put out a suppliment book called Fantasy Paths that breaks down the traditional D&D classes into a 20 level path using their system. The main difference between a Wizard and a Cleric is more about the type of magic they use rather than a class so both use the Spellcaster class but make different choices on magic. A Barbarian and a Fighter are both "20levels of Warrior" paths but the abilities they select at each level differ


Greylurker wrote:

not joking at all.

True20 is a variation on 3E that Green Ronin put together using only d20s. They put out a suppliment book called Fantasy Paths that breaks down the traditional D&D classes into a 20 level path using their system. The main difference between a Wizard and a Cleric is more about the type of magic they use rather than a class so both use the Spellcaster class but make different choices on magic. A Barbarian and a Fighter are both "20levels of Warrior" paths but the abilities they select at each level differ

I understand the thinking behind that but I think it's more complicated than just having separate classes. When I think "I want to play Legolas," the ranger is right there with the abilities I need picked out. In your system I'd need to hunt down every feature the warrior has and build him myself. I don't mean to imply that building is easy in Pathfinder now but it at least does *some* of the work for you.

I also think that system works better if you have a strong character concept in your mind first and then want to hunt down mechanics to fit what's in your head. That is perfectly fine but I find it easier to draw inspiration from the mechanics of the class and work my way back from there.


Larkos wrote:
Greylurker wrote:

not joking at all.

True20 is a variation on 3E that Green Ronin put together using only d20s. They put out a suppliment book called Fantasy Paths that breaks down the traditional D&D classes into a 20 level path using their system. The main difference between a Wizard and a Cleric is more about the type of magic they use rather than a class so both use the Spellcaster class but make different choices on magic. A Barbarian and a Fighter are both "20levels of Warrior" paths but the abilities they select at each level differ

I understand the thinking behind that but I think it's more complicated than just having separate classes. When I think "I want to play Legolas," the ranger is right there with the abilities I need picked out. In your system I'd need to hunt down every feature the warrior has and build him myself. I don't mean to imply that building is easy in Pathfinder now but it at least does *some* of the work for you.

I also think that system works better if you have a strong character concept in your mind first and then want to hunt down mechanics to fit what's in your head. That is perfectly fine but I find it easier to draw inspiration from the mechanics of the class and work my way back from there.

That's the main reason they wrote up the Fantasy Paths book. It essentially prebuilds the Core classes for quick referance and players could customize on their own.

Digging the book out now and looking at it
Ranger for example is built like so.

1 Warrior 1st Armor Training (light), Track, Weapon Training,Wild Empathy
2 Warrior 2nd Favored Opponent
3 Warrior 3rd Point Blank Shot
4 Adept 1st Familiar (animal)
5 Warrior 4th Endurance
6 Warrior 5th Attack Focus (Bow)
7 Warrior 6th Quick Draw
8 Warrior 7th Trailblazer
9 Warrior 8th Far Shot
10 Warrior 9th Uncanny Dodge
11 Adept 2nd Beast Link
12 Warrior 10th Attack Specialization(Bow)
13 Warrior 11th Favored Opponent (+4/+2)
14 Warrior 12th Precise Shot
15 Warrior 13th Trackless
16 Warrior 14th Improved Critical (Bow)
17 Warrior 15th Improved Precise Shot
18 Adept 3rd Nature Reading
19 Warrior 16th Ranged Pin
20 Warrior 17th Favored Opponent (+6/+3)

Player wants to play Legolas they grab the ranger and customize it a little. Maybe they want to swap out the familiar for something else like Enhanced Senses


VanCucci wrote:
Unluckyblackjack wrote:
The high casters can be used; they just need to be role-played well.

I'm used to "Rogues are fine, you have to play them cleverly", but this is a new one...

"Casters are fine, you have to play them stupidly"

Because having an arch-enemy, that you could kill by just looking at them, alive for more than 2 encounters...well it makes you pretty incompetent.

And nope! If you think killing world-threating criminals is immoral and you have the power to do so, you're responsible for everything they do, thus making your choice immoral at the same level they are (which is pretty bad).

Saying that to play full casters you need to pull your punches, by whatever means, just shows how much broken they are even more.

"If I don't kill you, everything you do is my fault."

I never got the logic in that. It completely absolves a person of responsibility. By the same logic, if you save a person, you should get all the credit for his work after that.

And when I said played well, I meant "like a person who's first response to a problem isn't fire." And while there is a place for a good hack-and-slash, not everything can be solved by "Mike the Magic Murderer."

Plus, characters aren't playing in a vacuum; the world should respond to their actions. If a bad guy knows that the wizard loves to go in guns-a-blazin', the bad guy should compensate and prepare for that. After all, he is a smart bad guy, and he has probably dealt with magic users before.

You are right though, full casters are powerful. More powerful than other classes. But I would argue that's a good thing. If every class were equal in power, nobody would be special. All the numbers would be the same, just with different names. And I played that: it's called 4 Edition. And it is sooooo boring.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Unluckyblackjack wrote:
You are right though, full casters are powerful. More powerful than other classes. But I would argue that's a good thing. If every class were equal in power, nobody would be special. All the numbers would be the same, just with different names. And I played that: it's called 4 Edition. And it is sooooo boring.

"4e was balanced, and 4e is boring, therefore balanced games are boring" is a complete non-sequitur. "It's like 4th Edition" is the Godwin's Law of RPGs.

201 to 250 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.