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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"4e was balanced, and 4e is boring, therefore balanced games are boring" is a complete non-sequitur.
It's not that I'm against balance, I'm against the idea of everyone doing the same thing. Every class should be good at "something", and sometimes that "something" is better than someone else's "something". Or something, I kinda confused myself with that last one.
4th Edition is the Godwin's Law of RPGs.
... I hate it when someone says something so perfect that I have just to go "yeah, you got me there." Sorry about that, I won't be so quick to throw the "4" word around in the future.
Athaleon - 1
Sundakan - 1
Unluckyblackjack - 0
You know I think the worst part about bringing up 4e is that it's not even that well balanced.
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.
Not to derail the discussion to talk about different editions, but the problems with 4E had nothing to do with balance. They made a design decision to remove practically all roleplaying from that edition, and they made every class basically the same. Not balanced, the same.
Personally I welcome more balance in PF, but unlike 4E, I don't want every class to be so similar to each other.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Insert angry, nearly incoherent, rage filled rant against 4th edition, and especially 4th edition Forgotten Realms]
I think the opinion of Hehateme rather extreme and narrow minded. To call the Base classes broken train wrecks is simply not true. Yes I like some of the newer classes but the older base classes are fun just as they are. Had players play them all the time competing with newer classes on equal footing without being broken or unbalanced.
I never claimed to have the "correct" opinion and speak for everyone. Like everyone else, I'm only speaking from my own experience and perspective.
It's just my own experience that tells me core classes are unbalanced. I remember playing a Fighter and feeling completely obsolete and unnecessary by 8th level. The guy playing the rogue felt the same way. Who made us redundant? The Wizard and Druid. I'm sure other people had different experiences, but that was mine. I found my personal sweet spot to be 6-level casters, I never feel redundant when I play one of those. The CRB only has the Bard, which means I'll never play a core class.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I do actually agree that 6 level casters are the beeznees.
I've actually seen some people say they don't like Alchemist because the flavor doesn't fit. Yep, apparently "guy who makes potions (some of which are unstable and some of which have side effects)" doesn't fit in a fantasy setting.
The Alchemist is obviously based upon 1880's "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde". It doesn't belong in a fantasy setting inspired by medieval European technology and magic. In other words, The Alchemist, Monk, Ninja, Samurai, Gunslinger etc just don't fit the mileu. Some GM's are okay with that, others are not (obviously).
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Alchemist is obviously based upon 1880's "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde". It doesn't belong in a fantasy setting inspired by medieval European technology and magic. In other words, The Alchemist, Monk, Ninja, Samurai, Gunslinger etc just don't fit the mileu. Some GM's are okay with that, others are not (obviously).
Alchemy doesn't fit in a Medieval European setting? Come again?
If I still had my list of SKR quotes, I could pull it up for you.
That wasn't the only inspiration though.
Alchemy has nothing to do with creating bombs, throwing said bombs, or taking potions that turn you into a combat monster. It has everything to do with primitive chemistry and trying to turn materials into gold.
No bombs? What about Greek Fire?
No bombs? What about Greek Fire?
Greek fire is not a bomb. It's a lost formula from ancient Rome and Greece.
It is the result of "primitive chemistry."
Alchemy has nothing to do with creating bombs, throwing said bombs, or taking potions that turn you into a combat monster. It has everything to do with primitive chemistry and trying to turn materials into gold.
I don't see why not. They're all pretty thematic and fit both from the chemist angle and the more mystical angles.
It just sort of feels like saying Paladins don't fit because Golarion doesn't have Charlemagne.
I disagree. Alchemy is NOT chemistry. Alchemy is literally defined as the pursuit of turning base metals and such into gold.
Meanwhile, the class itself is more of a bomb throwing/jekyll and hyde mix, which makes little to no sense. The story was written in 1886, well beyond the scope of "medieval fantasy" and well into the Industrial Era.
Basically, somebody decided it looked cool, without regard to the setting. That's fine if you don't mind a mash up, but me, I don't like it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. Alchemy is NOT chemistry. Alchemy is literally defined as the pursuit of turning base metals and such into gold.
Well, also the quest for immortality, perfection of body and soul and a bunch of other things, but so what? That real alchemists couldn't actually do any of the things they wanted to doesn't seem to have much bearing on how that relates to the in game class.
Meanwhile, the class itself is more of a bomb throwing/jekyll and hyde mix, which makes little to no sense. The story was written in 1886, well beyond the scope of "medieval fantasy" and well into the Industrial Era.
I'm honestly not sure why you keep referencing Jekyll and Hyde. I mean, I know there's the Master Chymist PrC but that's not the Alchemist class. Alchemists have the ability to enhance their physical ability scores as a class feature, but I'm not sure how you're going from that to a story about the struggle between good and evil personified through a scientist's experiment gone wrong.
Basically, somebody decided it looked cool, without regard to the setting.
I guess I'm just really not seeing how a mystical chemist doesn't fit in a high fantasy game.
Especially given that everything the alchemist does already existed in Pathfinder in more rudimentary fashions beforehand (i.e. extracts and mutagens are just better potions and bombs are just better splash weapons).
I mean, there's also Golarion not being a medieval fantasy setting in the first place, but that's a whole separate topic.
I do actually agree that 6 level casters are the beeznees.
Me too
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Inquisitor is such a bad class: It isn't spanish and it was preannounced.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Alchemist is obviously based upon 1880's "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde". It doesn't belong in a fantasy setting inspired by medieval European technology and magic. In other words, The Alchemist, Monk, Ninja, Samurai, Gunslinger etc just don't fit the mileu. Some GM's are okay with that, others are not (obviously).
That's true.
The problem however is that Golarion is not a Fantasy setting inspired by medieval europesn technology and magic. It's inspired by James Jacobs own Home Campaign, which is a mashup of things and heavily tech influenced.
If Golarion was a europesn middle age but with magic, then we would not have Numeria, or Alkenstar, snd Elves would not be plsnet hopping travelers who Hide themselves in Venus while ancient aboleths conjure a meteor to kill everybody
Uhm, have you READ the original story of Jekyll and Hyde? It had nothing to do with "good vs evil". It was more Man vs Beast.
Uhm, have you READ the original story of Jekyll and Hyde? It had nothing to do with "good vs evil". It was more Man vs Beast.
And I'm still wondering what you think that has to do with the Alchemist class at all.
Are you confusing the Alchemist with the Master Chymist PrC? The latter requires you to be an Alchemist to take, but is a wholly separate class.
Sigh. Jekyll's formula didn't just change him ethically/morally. It also changed his demeanor and physical capacities.
I disagree. Alchemy is NOT chemistry. Alchemy is literally defined as the pursuit of turning base metals and such into gold.Well, also the quest for immortality, perfection of body and soul and a bunch of other things, but so what? That real alchemists couldn't actually do any of the things they wanted to doesn't seem to have much bearing on how that relates to the in game class.
Meanwhile, the class itself is more of a bomb throwing/jekyll and hyde mix, which makes little to no sense. The story was written in 1886, well beyond the scope of "medieval fantasy" and well into the Industrial Era.I'm honestly not sure why you keep referencing Jekyll and Hyde. I mean, I know there's the Master Chymist PrC but that's not the Alchemist class. Alchemists have the ability to enhance their physical ability scores as a class feature, but I'm not sure how you're going from that to a story about the struggle between good and evil personified through a scientist's experiment gone wrong.
Basically, somebody decided it looked cool, without regard to the setting.I guess I'm just really not seeing how a mystical chemist doesn't fit in a high fantasy game.
Especially given that everything the alchemist does already existed in Pathfinder in more rudimentary fashions beforehand (i.e. extracts and mutagens are just better potions and bombs are just better splash weapons).
I mean, there's also Golarion not being a medieval fantasy setting in the first place, but that's a whole separate topic.
I just wanted to let you know hes describing what he feels fits into his fantasy setting you can argue with the guys feeling but it won't get you anywhere regardless of whether its right or wrong you can't change his mine since his decision isn't based on something you can relate to. I personally have no problem with the alchemist but some people have only one fantasy world in mind it seems like. frankly Golarion is a fantasy world and it has them so that should be that the way I see it.
but really i'm trying to say is your probably wasting your effort on a resolution that will never come.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I disagree. Alchemy is NOT chemistry. Alchemy is literally defined as the pursuit of turning base metals and such into gold.
Meanwhile, the class itself is more of a bomb throwing/jekyll and hyde mix, which makes little to no sense. The story was written in 1886, well beyond the scope of "medieval fantasy" and well into the Industrial Era.
Basically, somebody decided it looked cool, without regard to the setting. That's fine if you don't mind a mash up, but me, I don't like it.
No alchemy is definitely chemistry and in fact often had little to do with turning base metals into gold.
No alchemy is definitely chemistry and in fact often had little to do with turning base metals into gold.I disagree. Alchemy is NOT chemistry. Alchemy is literally defined as the pursuit of turning base metals and such into gold.
Meanwhile, the class itself is more of a bomb throwing/jekyll and hyde mix, which makes little to no sense. The story was written in 1886, well beyond the scope of "medieval fantasy" and well into the Industrial Era.
Basically, somebody decided it looked cool, without regard to the setting. That's fine if you don't mind a mash up, but me, I don't like it.
All you did was contradict me. Provide proof against historical evidence, please.
I personally have no problem with the alchemist but some people have only one fantasy world in mind it seems like. frankly Golarion is a...
It's also that Alchemists make constant touch attacks against opponents. Same argument I have against Gunslingers.
I've actually seen some people say they don't like Alchemist because the flavor doesn't fit. Yep, apparently "guy who makes potions (some of which are unstable and some of which have side effects)" doesn't fit in a fantasy setting.The Alchemist is obviously based upon 1880's "Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde". It doesn't belong in a fantasy setting inspired by medieval European technology and magic. In other words, The Alchemist, Monk, Ninja, Samurai, Gunslinger etc just don't fit the mileu. Some GM's are okay with that, others are not (obviously).
What about a setting inspired by Medieval Middle Eastern Technology, like Quadira or Katapesh?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Tis a silly argument indeed.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My favorite classes
1. Alchemist
2. All the Occult classes
3. Magus
4. Bard (just not the cliche singing one, Archetypes exist for a reason)
5. Investigator
6. Slayer and Ranger
7. Hunter, surprisingly, surprised myself with this one even
8. Oracle
9. Inquisitor
10. Witch.
My least favorite classes
1. Paladin
2. Anti-Paladin
3. Summoner
4. Anything Unchained (unsupported, except for Summoners, and tends to complicate more then help, ymmv)
5. Paladin
6. Anti-Paladin
7. Paladin
8. Anti-Paladin
9. Shaman (unnecessary)
10. Arcanist (unnecessary)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
10. Arcanist (unnecessary)
I'm personally super duper torn on the Arcanist.
Because you're right. It's very unnecessary. The very idea of hybridizing two classes that should arguably just be archetypes of each other in the first place is ridiculous.
But at the same time I think the Arcanist is significantly more well constructed than the base Wizard too. It's way more interesting and has a nicer casting mechanic and class features that don't stop at level 8.
Other than that and really liking U-rogues I like your list though.
Excellent points, i can agree with that.
I was quite turned off by the concept of Arcanist, i haven't given it much of a look.
I just haven't found Unchained to be to my tastes at all, though i do agree that Rogues should've started with full BAB, so there at least, i agree with Unchained, otherwise i don't see how it "fixed" things. i absolutely do not care for Unchained Summoner.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Okay, controversial opinion time: I think the Unchained Summoner is much better that the vanilla version. I like the fact that the eidolon is not just a servant to the summoner, but instead has it's own goals and ideas. Also, I like that you get a general idea of what it's going to be. That way this conversation never happens:
"I choose you, Eldragon!"
*horrible screeching*
"What in the world is that!?"
"When I finally get enough points, it's going to be a dragon. Just ignore the lack of... everything dragon-like until then."
I will say this, and the same goes for the Spiritualist: They can easily become the spotlight-stealing squad.
As for the rest of your list:
1. I like the arcanist, but it is unnecessary. Fun, but unnecessary.
2. Same with the shaman.
3. Unchained rogue is the default at my table.
4. Hey! I like paladins. And, in an effort to avoid the whole "you're just playing it wrong" argument, all I'm going to say is that they can be a little difficult for the party to handle. Especially if the paladin is more lawful than good.
5. I have already stated my dislike for rangers. It's not they're obsolete in the face of hunters and slayers, but I can't think of a reason to play a ranger when you usually would be better of just going with on of them. I will say though, they make really good NPCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Arcanist casting is more fun (for me) than the wizard's, so if it were up to me I'd just have the arcanist take the wizard's place in the world.
See, that would be fine with me.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
See, that would be fine with me.
fine with me too. I've always been a big believer that the books, including the core, are a toolbox. You take out what you need for the game you have in mind. Customizing a class list is one way of shaping your campaign to evoke a specific theme. Likewise creating a world by cherry picking classes and archtypes is another.
There is nothing that says you have to use/allow everything.
My problem with the U-Summoner is I feel like it kills a lot of the creativity that went into designing unique eidolons and gives them one of the worst spell lists in the game... while still retaining a lot of the really BS stuff like the SLA and having the fighter as a class feature.
Also while it might be better balanced than the baseline summoner and a decent replacement for it it still leaves a sour taste in my mouth that Paizo has decided to essentially abandon one of its classes wholesale.
I'm not a huge fan of the shaman, but special mention to the Unsworn Shaman for being able to change all of its class features every day except its familiar, which always makes me chuckle.
I think the "perfect" Summoner is the normal Summoner's Eidolon with the Unchained Summoner spell list.
|
I disagree. I still see no issue with the summoner as it was.
The above allegory of the summoner happens even more with the Unchained summoner as they don't gain the abilities of whatever they are meant to mimic again until they reach a certain level. Which ofcourse leaves you with no actual choices of your own because the amount of points you have got cut in half. Unchained Eidolon is only good for a select few concepts and even then they are locked behind alignment for little reason.
The Unchained Spellist just makes the Summoners already paltry spells mean even less. having good spells a level early didnt mean a thing save that those spells were just that good and people whined the wizard wasnt the best at everything ever.
All you did was contradict me. Provide proof against historical evidence, please.No alchemy is definitely chemistry and in fact often had little to do with turning base metals into gold.I disagree. Alchemy is NOT chemistry. Alchemy is literally defined as the pursuit of turning base metals and such into gold.
Meanwhile, the class itself is more of a bomb throwing/jekyll and hyde mix, which makes little to no sense. The story was written in 1886, well beyond the scope of "medieval fantasy" and well into the Industrial Era.
Basically, somebody decided it looked cool, without regard to the setting. That's fine if you don't mind a mash up, but me, I don't like it.
Your the one who managed to reduce hundreds of years of history into a historically inaccurate little sound bite.
You know I think the worst part about bringing up 4e is that it's not even that well balanced.
Before 2010 the balance issue was "Pick one of 3 simple math hole fixes sometime before 11th level." But as soon as Mearls took the wheel and tried to go retro with 4e, yeah, the quality really tanked on the PC side.
Also, so glad to see that my undead thread has been hijacked by 4e complaints.
;)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know I think the worst part about bringing up 4e is that it's not even that well balanced.Before 2010 the balance issue was "Pick one of 3 simple math hole fixes sometime before 11th level." But as soon as Mearls took the wheel and tried to go retro with 4e, yeah, the quality really tanked on the PC side.
Also, so glad to see that my undead thread has been hijacked by 4e complaints.
;)
Well, in 4e they made Raise Dead a RITUAL that you could perform EVEN IF YOU AREN'T A CLERIC, so obviously that means more threads will be brought back to life.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like them all just fine.
I did not like that the gunslinger decision to make them all touch attacks i don't think it makes since or is the best way to convey firearms i like the gunslinger class in and of itself but the touch attack thing it bothers me however it makes since that the alchemist makes touch attacks your really just trying to get the bomb into their square not shoot through adamantium full plate or dragon scales.