The Slayer class evokes war ensemble by Slayer for me for some reason :O
|
Haven't done the math, but I'm pretty sure they haven't breached the 3.5 class total yet.Seriously? I don't remember 3.5 having nearly this many base classes. Then again, I didn't buy most of the later 3.5 stuff.
I'm more curious how much will be PFS legal.My guess is the vast majority of it.
This list contains all the variants & substitution levels, but sums the full offical class bloat of 3.5:
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Class bloat! 3.5 splats! Doom and gloom!
:)
If this doesn't constitute class bloat, what on Earth would?
Pathfinder presents: 101 New Classes.
|
This list contains all the variants & substitution levels, but sums the full offical class bloat of 3.5:
The problem with that list is it includes ACFs as completely separate classes, and since those are basically the prototype of archetypes we would have to count all of the archetypes Paizo has released as separate classes as well.
I'm asking this question in earnest: Do you think it is possible to express that opinion without fury or shouting?
Yes. I just did! :)
|
|
Crusader is a Cleric archetype. That's probably why they didn't pick it.
Assassin has a lot of political / moral baggage behind it. Slayer just means you kill stuff. You're not really an assassin if you're a giant slayer, for example. I'm expecting a Rogue with full BAB, but can only sneak attack favored enemies.
Didn't say Fighter Druid, said Ranger / Druid. That one seems a bit odd to me too, though.
New options and new ways to build characters is never excessive as long as everything keeps roughly the same level of power. That's exactly what the 3.5 class overload was; 3.5 classes quickly invalidated one another. I.E. why ever be a Fighter when you could be a Warblade?
Doesn't have to be Crusader, but I absolutely hope they become something less bland than War Priest, Slayer and Hunter.
But yeah, the Ranger/Druid hybrid is weird. Why would they fuse two classes that are basically two different aspects of the same theme. I could maybe see it if they focus on the animal companion more, sort of a divine summoner or something, but that isn't something I care for.
I count 33 in just splatbooks alone, and that doesn't include campaign setting ones like the artificer.
Yup, that's way more than I expected.
If this book has a rogue/wizard or rogue/sorcerer hybrid I will be EXTREMELY happy :D
I agree with you. But I expect the people that were upset that the ninja and samurai exist will be even more furious now. I expect to see alot of 'rules bloat' shouting over the next year or so.I'm asking this question in earnest: Do you think it is possible to express that opinion without fury or shouting?
The problem often with expressing that opinion is it really is just a opinion. What you call 'rules bloat' others might find useful options. As long as you can respect other people might want more options in the game...and respect them for it...than sure. Unfortunaly too many people think their opinion are facts and their way is the right way. So lines get drawn and people get very offensive when these discussions come up.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The nice thing about this take on new classes is that since they're hybrids of two pre-existing classes, these concepts already exist on Golarion. No need to explain why suddenly X appeared :)
|
This should be interesting.
One Hybrid I would hope to see is something we cant really do with the current rules.....
an Oracle/ Sorcerer...Mystic Theurge type character.
Oh I would also like to see a monk...a tonsure well maybe not a tonsure, possibly spends time in a monastery but someone who focuses on divine magic, illuminating manuscripts, a keeper of knowledge and books etc....perhaps some "Lore" capability, channel energy. Perhaps a poor base attack bonus, d6 hit points, full casting ability like a wizard/cleric 2 domains and no armor feats.
Just a thought.
The problem often with expressing that opinion is it really is just a opinion. What you call 'rules bloat' others might find useful options. As long as you can respect other people might want more options in the game...and respect them for it...than sure. Unfortunaly too many people think their opinion are facts and their way is the right way. So lines get drawn and people get very offensive when these discussions come up.
Of course its just an opinion. I just find it unfortunate (though unsurprising) that some of us jumped straight to "rules bloat shouting." Preemptively characterizing those with whom you (presumably) disagree is unreasonable and counter productive.
Yes, my opinion is that, given what little we know, these classes seem to lack thematic distinctness. They cover ground already well tread. Therefore -- and again, in my opinion -- they are not worth the overhead. I'd go so far as to say that redundant mechanics to simulate the same archetype work against the strengths of a class-based design.
Did I manage to convey that without panic or shouting? :)
Chalk me up as mixed feelings, though optimistic. I'm pretty pleased with Paizo's track record, and certain ideas do intrigue me (I've long wanted a shaman class, and oracle/witch really seems to fit the niche; although I really do like Kobold Press' take on the shaman.
On the other hand, a lot of these do seem like they can already be done with existing classes/multi/archetype combinations, and/or just seem a little weird (like the Hunter).
And put me down for a vote for Crusader for the cleric/fighter, as well. Don't care if it's an archetype name already; Paizo has reused archetype names for different classes before, and I don't see any problem with it in that situation (I'd personally like to see more of it, rather than trying to come up with a different name for the same niche that is filled by a different class. I have no problem with fighter pirate, rogue pirate, wizard pirate, etc.)
The nice thing about this take on new classes is that since they're hybrids of two pre-existing classes, these concepts already exist on Golarion. No need to explain why suddenly X appeared :)
The other reason why hybrids of two classes might be a nice way to go is if the hybrid class draws from the two parent classes abilities than that would be less rules(fewer new abilities) and built in support via feats and spells(so you would need fewer of those as well) it also might be defined as a class like ninja and rogue( so no need for archetypes). Also one of the reasons for prcs that not tied to a setting is to support multiclass characters...which hybrids kinda of make uneccessary.
They might be going this way to cut down on the rules bloat over all.
Though I am still thinking this book is going to have more than 10 new base classes...just a feeling in my bones.
His may sound odd, but core and base classes should only be a single word - War Priest sounds more like an archetype or PRC.
Shaman
Artificer
Marshal/Warlord-like class - done properly
Warden - nature Druid/Fighter
Psion (although I cannot think of a suitable hybrid combination)
Warlock
I can't wait for the Wizard/Summoner hybrid!
Psion: Sorcerer / Monk.
The problem often with expressing that opinion is it really is just a opinion. What you call 'rules bloat' others might find useful options. As long as you can respect other people might want more options in the game...and respect them for it...than sure. Unfortunaly too many people think their opinion are facts and their way is the right way. So lines get drawn and people get very offensive when these discussions come up.Of course its just an opinion. I just find it unfortunate (though unsurprising) that we jumped straight to "rules bloat shouting." That kind of preemptively characterizing those with whom you disagree as unreasonable is very unproductive.
I kinda of agree...I am for the more options are a good thing camp if you will...I don't think labeling is productive on either side. Though really I will never understand the 'rule bloat' people complaints...just don't use the books.
You know I have never had a problems with the 'rules bloat' in 3.5 run...I just kept the things I liked and got rid of the the few thing) that I did not. That is why they do put out book full of option is so we can pick and choose what we want and make the game our own. Not their version...or your version... or even my version. That is ultimately the beauty of RPGs in general...is they are what YOU make them.
I can't wait for the Wizard/Summoner hybrid!
Elementalist - like the old EQ magician class
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hmmm, this sounds familiar...wherever did I hear something like this before?
Wow, I'm good! ;)
EDIT: Of course, we don't know yet whether or not customization rules are in it. But ten classes will hardly fill a hard cover release.
I'm hoping for rules for creating your own prestige classes and archetypes. That would really allow GMs to tailor make class options for their homebrew campaigns.
Psion: Sorcerer / Monk.
That works. Although if Psychic magic turns out to be just a limited subset of arcane spells I'm not sure it would feel different enough.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Though really I will never understand the 'rule bloat' people complaints...just don't use the books.
If you're really interested in understanding, there are several reasons why it isn't that simple:
1. Organized play.
2. Positive network externalities are impacted. The utility of subsequent adventure/setting products is decreased as those products rely on more supplementary rules material. For example, AP volumes now routinely contain references to non-core material (and not infrequently, non-PRD material). Yes, I can remove said material, but that's work I didn't have to do pre-bloat. Decreased utility.
3. Refusing to allow supplementary material often sets the stage for player/GM conflict.
4. Bloat hastens the advent of a new edition (though I personally don't care at all about this one at all).
While I don't expect you to suddenly agree, hopefully this provides some insight into the POV.
I agree with you. But I expect the people that were upset that the ninja and samurai exist will be even more furious now. I expect to see alot of 'rules bloat' shouting over the next year or so.I'm asking this question in earnest: Do you think it is possible to express that opinion without fury or shouting?
Its certainly possible. But I see a lot of doom and gloom when it comes to rules bloat complaints. As if the sheer existence of additional material some how ruins the game for people that dont want it. Part of that I am sure is organized play where people dont get a say in what is or isnt at their table. Which is among the reasons I dont lparticipate in organized play.
Aside from that there is something wrong at your table if you cant come to an agreement with your group on what should be used and what shouldnt. But somehow the release of additional optional material will ruin the game for people who dont want that extra material.
Seriously? I don't remember 3.5 having nearly this many base classes. Then again, I didn't buy most of the later 3.5 stuff.
Every complete book had 3 or so new classes in them.
Complete adventure - ninja, scout, spellthief
Complete arcane - warlock, warmage, wu jen
Complete divine - shugenja, favored soul, spirit shaman
Psionics Handbook - Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soul Knife, Wilder
Complete Psionics - Ardent Divine mind lurk, Erudite
Complete warrior - Hexblade samurai, swashbuckler
Dungeon scape- factotum
Magic of Incarnum - Incarnate, Soulborn, Totemist
Miniatures Handbook - Healer, marshal, and repeats of the warmage/favored soul
players handbook II - beguiler, dragon shaman, duskblade, knight
Dragon magic - dragonfire adept
Heroes of horor - archivist, dread necromancer
The dread necromancer was in there somewhere
tome of magic - binder, trunamer
tome of battle - warblade, sword sage, crusader
Yea...we arent even close. Seriously, not even close. Paizo is being VERY measured with their base classes by comparison to 3.5.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Chalk me up as mixed feelings, though optimistic. I'm pretty pleased with Paizo's track record, and certain ideas do intrigue me (I've long wanted a shaman class, and oracle/witch really seems to fit the niche; although I really do like Kobold Press' take on the Shaman.
Thanks for the kind words regarding the Shaman! I must admit I was pretty surprised to hear Paizo is doing a book of new classes and even more so to hear there will be a shaman in it. I'm also very interested to see how similar their version is to the Kobold Press version ...
I'm also curious to see how close the ranger/rogue class will be to Kobold Press's Spell-less Ranger since in many ways that's what the spell-less ranger is.
I'm not quite clear on if Paizo will also be including a full BAB 4th level arcane spell-pregression 'arcane paladin' type of class, but I can't help but wonder if it will feel at all like the Battle Scion
Needless to say, I'm really interested to see this book when it comes out in a year!
Though really I will never understand the 'rule bloat' people complaints...just don't use the books.If you're really interested in understanding, there are several reasons why it isn't that simple:
1. Organized play.
2. Positive network externalities are impacted. The utility of subsequent adventure/setting products is decreased as those products rely on more supplementary rules material. For example, AP volumes now routinely contain references to non-core material (and not infrequently, non-PRD material). Yes, I can remove said material, but that's work I didn't have to do pre-bloat. Decreased utility.
3. Refusing to allow supplementary material often sets the stage for player/GM conflict.
4. Bloat hastens the advent of a new edition (though I personally don't care at all about this one at all).While I don't expect you to suddenly agree, hopefully this provides some insight into the POV.
1. Totally get that, its among the reasons I dont play in PFS.
2. Fair enough, I get that part. Its always been a damned if you do damned if you dont sort of thing for companies. I think paizo has a really fair compromise of putting everything up on the prd so you dont have to BUY all the books to use their setting and adventure stuff. That said, as a dm, you still have control over what you use, meaning that if an oracle shows up in an ap, you only need to learn about the abilities of THAT oracle, not ALL oracle stuff. That is still a considerable subset of material you have to deal with as dm.3. This is what really hangs me up. If there is conflict over material, something more then just the rules are wrong. There is an underlying playstyle difference causing this problem, not the rules. And that is something you should be working out directly with your group, and not relying on a game publisher to stop publishing the game.
4. Not releasing new material is just as likely to hasten the new edition. They have to sell books. If no new material is released they wont sell as many books. Not selling books isnt really good for an rpg company. Paizo again is already a big departure from wizards only releasing 3 harback books a year with one third being monster/advesary books and nearly a 3rd NOT being straight character options.
There was a point where wizards was releasing a hardcover book a month.
Psion: Sorcerer / Monk.That works. Although if Psychic magic turns out to be just a limited subset of arcane spells I'm not sure it would feel different enough.
I agree Psychic magic or psionics should have a different mechanics behind it. it does not have to be way different but different not just reskined sorcery. I can do that with out a book. I would like to see more on the Distant Worlds book and a psychic class would work well
I think it would be nice if most of these are something very exotic and different- sorcerer/gunslinger? paladin/summoner? - maybe something that doesn't conform to expectations at all, but more experimental.
The magus as hybrid wasn't really a stretch; people had long been wanting a fighter/wizard type as a full class, and not just a multiclass or prestige class. The mechanics for it turned out to be pretty unique, which made it more than expected.
I'd like to see something like that; where the mechanics, and possibly the concept, don't really fit expectations. Like the paladin/summoner I just mentioned- I just threw that one out there at random, but now that I think on it, it could be kind of cool. The eidolon would be a sort of servitor/representative of the paladin's deity, and its role would overlap with the paladin's mount special ability. Maybe some of the paladin's other powers- mercies, etc.- would only be usable by the eidolon. Things like that.
Again, the shaman sounds interesting, and to echo someone else I'd be surprised if a swashbuckler (rogue/fighter) didn't make it in, but some of the other concepts seem a little too standard (war priest) and don't easily lend themselves to unique sorts of mechanics, or even different uses of existing mechanics, to warrant new classes all to themselves.
But that's just my current thinking, and I'm definitely intrigued to see what develops.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not releasing new material is just as likely to hasten the new edition. They have to sell books. If no new material is released they wont sell as many books. Not selling books isnt really good for an rpg company. Paizo again is already a big departure from wizards only releasing 3 harback books a year with one third being monster/advesary books and nearly a 3rd NOT being straight character options.
I don't see why "new books" has to equal "new crunch" -- although I understand crunch sells the best, which simply means Paizo is giving people what they want. I guess I just miss the days when Paizo was more about adventures than rules.
In any event, I'm not trying to convert anyone to my side, just to foster understanding and demonstrate that the "anti-bloat" position isn't inherently irrational. I guess what I perceived to be an implication of hysteria just ruffled my feathers. It's not like any of this is important in the grand scheme of things, after all. :)
Every complete book had 3 or so new classes in them.
Complete adventure - ninja, scout, spellthief
Complete arcane - warlock, warmage, wu jen
Complete divine - shugenja, favored soul, spirit shaman
Psionics Handbook - Psion, Psychic Warrior, Soul Knife, Wilder
Complete Psionics - Ardent Divine mind lurk, Erudite
Complete warrior - Hexblade samurai, swashbuckler
Dungeon scape- factotum
Magic of Incarnum - Incarnate, Soulborn, Totemist
Miniatures Handbook - Healer, marshal, and repeats of the warmage/favored soul
players handbook II - beguiler, dragon shaman, duskblade, knight
Dragon magic - dragonfire adept
Heroes of horor - archivist, dread necromancer
The dread necromancer was in there somewhere
tome of magic - binder, trunamer
tome of battle - warblade, sword sage, crusaderYea...we arent even close. Seriously, not...
You forgot the Shadowcaster from Tome of Magic, one of my favorite alternate spellcasters. All told from this list I actually count 39 base classes. Add the eleven, and you get base classes put out by WoTC alone! That doesn't count the myriad of 3pp entries.
Paizo has refrained from that sort of bloat. With ten new classes, we have 31 all told. Two of those are alternate classes—ninja and samurai—of other established classes and are essentially archetypes written large.
From what little we know, this product feels to me like a symptom of the mid-edition doldrums.
Nah... The mid-edition doldrums would be if they released the Advanced Player's Guide 2. This is the Advanced Class Guide! For players.
;-)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Though really I will never understand the 'rule bloat' people complaints...just don't use the books.If you're really interested in understanding, there are several reasons why it isn't that simple:
1. Organized play.
2. Positive network externalities are impacted. The utility of subsequent adventure/setting products is decreased as those products rely on more supplementary rules material. For example, AP volumes now routinely contain references to non-core material (and not infrequently, non-PRD material). Yes, I can remove said material, but that's work I didn't have to do pre-bloat. Decreased utility.
3. Refusing to allow supplementary material often sets the stage for player/GM conflict.
4. Bloat hastens the advent of a new edition (though I personally don't care at all about this one at all).While I don't expect you to suddenly agree, hopefully this provides some insight into the POV.
I got those mostly...
1) And you will find ten organize players clamoring for more options.
2) I generally have to adjust APs and modules anyway...also oddly enough most of the characters I see breaking the APs are Core only characters.
3) There are deeper roots in those conflicts between GM/player than the rules.
4) Sure but Pazio is no where near this point..
Let me put it this way...part a large part of WotC 3.5 rules bloat came from two things mostly putting out 1 or 2 hard covers per month.
This cause problems in two ways..
1) The design teams did not have the ability to test things so a lot of really dumb designed things slipped through.
2) The community of gamers did not have the time to read and understand the books before two more came out.
Pazio is after putting out 1 book of 'player' options( though really I use them more as a GM than my players do) between now and next Gen Con.
True they put in other options the campaign books...but those books are a nice mix of lore and crunch...
They are still continueing the APs...and put out a 64 page module every other month. I do not see how 1 book of options is a bad thing.
|
|
I got those mostly...
1) And you will find ten organize players clamoring for more options.
2) I generally have to adjust APs and modules anyway...also oddly enough most of the characters I see breaking the APs are Core only characters.
3) There are deeper roots in those conflicts between GM/player than the rules.
4) Sure but Pazio is no where near this point..
1. Which just reinforces the point that the more Paizo releases, the more he has to put up with in organized play or stop participating in it.
2. Does not address his point that he is losing utility in the products he does want due to other products he doesn't. And has nothing to do with character power and breaking of APs.3. True, but not all conflicts need to be addressed for a group to be successful.
4. Personal opinion doesn't really address the point.
:)
What does this smile mean?
Is it a knowing smile?
No arcane Ranger or Paladin equivalent? with more focus on utility spells than blasting ala Magus?
A bit strange, given even Jason Bulmahn acknowledged that's an unfulfilled niche.
I would honestly like to see it as an Archetype/Alt-Class for Ranger,
keeping alot of the nature focus, but going with arcane abilities,
perhaps useful for higher-magic wilderness areas, like possibly Southern Garund?
Shaman seems nice, mainly because I never liked that Witches used INT rather than CHA or WIS.
I don't see why "new books" has to equal "new crunch" -- although I understand crunch sells the best, which simply means Paizo is giving people what they want. I guess I just miss the days when Paizo was more about adventures than rules.
Well, I can't speak for your table, but at my Table there are usually five people hanging out; me and four players. As GM, I hate my wallet and will buy whatever books Paizo makes just to stay one step ahead of my players. My players don't feel that they need books aimed at me, but they might be tempted into buying books aimed at them.
Simple math says that making sure to include players in your target demographic will theoretically sell five times more. As much as I absolutely love Ultimate Campaign, its honestly a miracle that the book was made to begin with. Doubly so for the GameMastery Guide.
Also, isn't there usually a new AP volume a month? 12 months = 12 AP volumes, compared to to Rulebooks of which there are typically three per year. Player Companions are usually aimed at players (no wai!) and the Setting Guides are usually a pretty fair split between crunch and flavor.
I guess what I'm saying is that I don't understand your wish for Paizo to focus on Adventures. They're pretty darn focused on Adventures, especially when you compare them to Wizards of the Coast.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rules Bloat is a separate issue from power creep.
I am personally not concerned about rules bloat, as having more options is only a problem when weird synergies cause problems.
I welcome this style of adding variation.
3.5 fell apart when the new classes overshadowed the core classes and the new options pushed the power level of the game to the point that classic options paled in comparison to options that were supposed to be uncommon.
Hrm. Mixed feelings. I'm not necessarily opposed to new classes so long as they fill a real need, but (i) I can't myself really think of 10 needs that need filling and (ii) the alchemist, summoner, and gunslinger–*shudder*.
So we'll see. I'll be curious to hear more.
Just my thoughts:
--I love the alchemist. Only thing weird about it is the utter lack of explanation of where the alchemist does his work making elixirs and extracts. If they had given the alchemist a free portable alchemy lab or the like, I would be fine with it.
--Gunslinger is okay, but it suffers from three points. One, the class has absolutely no options within it. Two, certain firearms rules were very poorly written using "they're anachronistic" as an excuse to avoid an errata. 3) No monsters were ever written that challenge a gunslinger. To be specific, no high Touch AC monsters exist in Pathfinder.
--Summoner ... I can't defend you.
Not releasing new material is just as likely to hasten the new edition. They have to sell books. If no new material is released they wont sell as many books. Not selling books isnt really good for an rpg company. Paizo again is already a big departure from wizards only releasing 3 harback books a year with one third being monster/advesary books and nearly a 3rd NOT being straight character options.I don't see why "new books" has to equal "new crunch" -- although I understand crunch sells the best, which simply means Paizo is giving people what they want. I guess I just miss the days when Paizo was more about adventures than rules.
That sort of changed when they hired people to run an RPG line. When they decided to start their own rpg, that changed things. And releasing new crunch is part of that. And as you can see, alot of that crunch supports their adventures. IE mythic rules coming out for wrath of the righteous. And they did that because they needed a living game to keep releasing adventures. A living game is one thats growing and in print. If they didnt need that, they would have stuck with 3.5
In any event, I'm not trying to convert anyone to my side, just to foster understanding and demonstrate that the "anti-bloat" position isn't inherently irrational. I guess what I perceived to be an implication of hysteria just ruffled my feathers. It's not like any of this is important in the grand scheme of things, after all. :)
I dont think its irrational, I just think there are some very loud proponents of anti bloat.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
What you call 'rules bloat' others might find useful options.
This is me in a nutshell.
I can never have too many new classes.
Rules Bloat is a separate issue from power creep.
I am personally not concerned about rules bloat, as having more options is only a problem when weird synergies cause problems.
I welcome this style of adding variation.
3.5 fell apart when the new classes overshadowed the core classes and the new options pushed the power level of the game to the point that classic options paled in comparison to options that were supposed to be uncommon.
I agree.
Although I would love more classes that challenge certain status quos, namely martial classes that do cool things with their Intelligence, Wisdom, or Charisma.