Too many classes!!!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

MrSin wrote:
thejeff wrote:
Would the game be just as good if all the flavor was removed? Strictly mechanics, not even names beyond Class 1, Ability 1, Feat 3, etc. Flavor matters.

Flavor matters yes, but personal freedom does too. I also don't pay for a pile of fluff for a game, I buy a book. When I play a game I want to create and play with a group of friends.

Hopefully more choices doesn't complicate things and just gives everyone a better chance to find something they enjoy and does what they want without jumping through hoops.

More choices do complicate things. It's pretty much inherent to there being more choices.

Discouraging multiclassing limits that as far as PF classes go, since it's combinations of choices that really drives the complexity up.


Izar Talon wrote:

I wholeheartedy disagree. It is not "the only flavor that matters." Otherwise the entire concept of classes is meaningless. Classes are not just collections of mechanical abilities; they have story built into them.

I despise game elements that are merely collections of rules mechanics with no story or thematic justification. Game mechanics are there to support the thematic role of a class.

In the case of themes, I'm just fine with those. The only themes I don't like are ones that are restrictive or don't allow much story, such as with monk/paladin. There's this weird additional layer of story that is restrictive and actually reduces the number of choices and stories you can make with the character.

For instance I think a holy warrior is cool, so is smiting, auras that debilitate/buff the people around you and give you a presence, and some magic is always a plus. However... its not just a holy warrior, he's a LG holy warrior with a code that he has to adhere to that you are completely uninvolved in the creation of. Ouch, sucks for all those guys who wanted support for a CG holy warrior who goes about smiting things.


thejeff wrote:
More choices do complicate things. It's pretty much inherent to there being more choices.

More choices can also simplify things, because then you have the go to guy for being a certain concept. Brawler might be the go to guy for punching people in the face! Where the monk required you to jump through hoops and look for all those extra options to make him good at punching people in the face.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Sometimes "more choices" is really more an ILLUSION of choice when many of the choices end up being more or less the same thing overall.

I have mixed feelings about all the bloat going on in PF. First of all I understand that from a business model perspective, it's pretty much baked into the industry that this is how companies make a profit. Publish more material. Paizo at least has the flexibility to make a good bit of money on adventure paths instead of splat books, but they've been hitting the splat market pretty hard too.

On the other hand, I feel all the bloat is starting to create the same issues that 3.5 had, and I don't want to see PF suffer the same fate as 3.5.

I wish there was an easy solution to this that allowed for the game to remain stable and predictable while also providing the game company a regular source of income.

It's a hard nut to crack.


Zhayne wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Would the game be just as good if all the flavor was removed?

Yes. It would actually be better, as people would not feel compelled to play stereotypes, because they wouldn't exist. No more 'well, I'm a (race) (class), so I have to act like THIS' like it's genetically encoded.

Yes, flavor matters. But the only flavor that matters is what the player gives his character and what the GM gives his world.

I have never felt compelled to play a stereotype because of the class I was playing.

Are you meaning to say that the MOST IMPORTANT thematic considerations of a class are those created by the player, and classes can be used flexibly to represent new concepts? Because I will agree with that. But I will not agree that thematic reasoning is unimportant to the mechanics of a class, because the mechanical considerations should always be based on thematic story considerations first. Concept should always come first with a class, with mechanical abilites based on that theme. This game is not Champions, classes are not random piles of abilities. A Paladin is a divine knight, not just a collection of superpowers.


thejeff wrote:

Well, given all the flame threads about how horrible it is when a GM doesn't allow any particular class or race in every game, I'm not sure it's quite as simple as a non-issue. Rules bloat certainly sells product, but it can also be a problem for some people.

And as new product builds on other new product, it becomes harder to take somethings without others: APs/scenarios making use of new classes/races/other content means you have either learn it and use or change it. If they don't make use of new stuff, then those rules are essentially being abandoned.

I don't think that's really the issue. These sorts of complaints generally seem to come up primarily in the context of games which are exclusively using first party Paizo books. There's plenty of 3rd party books that are compatible and thus theoretically in play. There's nothing really stopping you from bringing in 3.5 books too. It's really not any more arbitrary to say "Core Book only" or "Core Book and APG" or "Core Book and the Ultimates" than it is to say "official Paizo only." With all of these, you're just drawing crude lines to exclude stuff you don't want in your game, and probably cutting out a ton of stuff you'd actually be perfectly fine with in the process, just because it's easier on everyone to just ban whole books than go through weighing every little class/spell/feat/etc. by hand.

So... if you don't like the new classes in the ACG, just say you're not allowing anything from it for your game. Simple enough fix, easy to explain your position. The only time this sort of thing doesn't work out is if you're divorcing the content of a book from its original source. Say... with d20pfsrd. On the one hand, hey, it's a great resource because it collects and compiles everything. On the other, it's getting increasingly unusable because it collects and compiles EVERYTHING. More and more frequently I find myself getting sidetracked explaining to someone that they can't take feat/archetype X because it's from some obscure player companion book I've never read, which probably presents it as an option specifically for characters native to region X who belong to organization Y, and that site's really questionable policy on scrubbing off details like that/renaming things makes it hard to confirm these things.

But again, my response to that isn't "Hey Paizo! Quit printing all those player companions!" It's "Hey d20pfsrd! You seriously need to set up some kind of filtering mode or at least label sources more clearly!" That or "Hey someone! Set up a site like d20pfsrd with tighter restrictions on what gets integrated!"


MrSin wrote:
Izar Talon wrote:

I wholeheartedy disagree. It is not "the only flavor that matters." Otherwise the entire concept of classes is meaningless. Classes are not just collections of mechanical abilities; they have story built into them.

I despise game elements that are merely collections of rules mechanics with no story or thematic justification. Game mechanics are there to support the thematic role of a class.

In the case of themes, I'm just fine with those. The only themes I don't like are ones that are restrictive or don't allow much story, such as with monk/paladin. There's this weird additional layer of story that is restrictive and actually reduces the number of choices and stories you can make with the character.

For instance I think a holy warrior is cool, so is smiting, auras that debilitate/buff the people around you and give you a presence, and some magic is always a plus. However... its not just a holy warrior, he's a LG holy warrior with a code that he has to adhere to that you are completely uninvolved in the creation of. Ouch, sucks for all those guys who wanted support for a CG holy warrior who goes about smiting things.

Because the entire concept of of a divine knight with a holy aura and a special mount who goes around smiting things comes from the D&D Paladin, which has always been Lawful (Good,) based on the very strict (Lawful) ideals of the feudal European Catholic knights (really from the romantic ideal of them from stories,) which is why they are mounted and can heal and cure diseases by the laying on of hands. They are ablities based on real myths of things holy knights could do (or on the abilities of literary characters,) not just an assembly of cool powers Gary thought it would be cool to throw together. Why would a "Chaotic Good Paladin" get the same collection of powers as LG? Shouldn't their abilities be based on their alignment, rather than merely copying the abilities of the LG Paladin?

Look at the 1E alternate alignment "Paladins" such as the Paramander and such; each class had a unique name and their abilities were entirely unique for each alignment variation and based on what one would expect for their philisophical goals. The CG version emphasized granting freedom, the LE version was based on dominating people, etc. That is game mechanics following the thematic considerations of a class, the way it shoud be done. Pathfinder's Antipaladin, the evil opposite of the Paladin, gains the Paladin's abilities reveresed; that also follows very well.


Izar Talon wrote:
Why would a "Chaotic Good Paladin" get the same collection of powers as LG? Shouldn't their abilities be based on their alignment, rather than merely copying the abilities of the LG Paladin?

Can of worms. More importantly, I was trying to convey something about personal freedom and storytelling.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

There was a CG paladin-esque PrC back in 3.5. Was a pretty cool concept - didn't see why it had to be a PrC and not a base class.


DeciusNero wrote:
There was a CG paladin-esque PrC back in 3.5. Was a pretty cool concept - didn't see why it had to be a PrC and not a base class.

Because of the horrific uprising of grognards if I had to guess. Edit: Is it the Chevalier from Paizo?

Additionally in 3.5 there were dragon magazine articles with a set of alternate paladins, and Unearthed Arcana had the Paladins of Freedom(CG), Tyranny(LE), and Slaughter(CE).


DeciusNero wrote:
There was a CG paladin-esque PrC back in 3.5. Was a pretty cool concept - didn't see why it had to be a PrC and not a base class.

I don't know. I always kind of felt all paladins should be a prestige class. (Well, since the concept of Prestige Classes was introduced anyway...)

If the concept wasn't grandfathered in from earlier editions I bet it would have been in 3.x

Shadow Lodge

I think the extra classes are ways of expanding and changing the game with different mechanics.

When Pathfinder was born and the core classes were reworked the developers were limited to what they could change. There were some excellent new resources developed, Ki pool for monks, performance for bards, rage points for barbarians.

This was built upon in the APG. Witches and hex's, allowing you a resource that doesn't run out like spells. The build your own pet quality of the summoner, teamwork feats and classes that exploit them like the cavalier and the inquisitor.

The theme carried on with magus and arcane pool, and gunslingers and grit. These developments allow the game to adapt and change. With luck they will prevent the need for a Pathfinder 2.0

I was pretty resistant to a lot of the new classes when they first emerged. The alchemists bombs seemed too good. The summoner seemed too good, the magus and recurrent shocking grasp seemed too good. However, the core classes still feature highly in most games I play. After watching the classes progress you see they are just more easily optimised, or have one feature that is quite effective against most things, but often completely useless in the wrong situation.

While I was happy with the core classes, the invention of new classes allows the development of the game through different mechanics and continues the longevity of the current edition.

Dark Archive

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
MrSin wrote:
DeciusNero wrote:
There was a CG paladin-esque PrC back in 3.5. Was a pretty cool concept - didn't see why it had to be a PrC and not a base class.

Because of the horrific uprising of grognards if I had to guess. Edit: Is it the Chevalier from Paizo?

No, I think it was called 'Holy Champion' - it was from Complete Divine

Edit: 'Holy Liberator'

Quote:
The holy liberator is a holy warrior, a distant cousin of the paladin, who is dedicated to overthrowing tyranny wherever it may be found. These champions of freedom and equality are strong-willed, independent-minded, and virtuous. They particularly direct their efforts against lawful evil societies (dictatorships or plutocracies), slaveholders and slave traders, and powerful, corrupt governments, but they also recognize the possibility for tyranny even in a state of anarchy (where strong individuals may impose their will on people weaker than they).


DeciusNero wrote:
MrSin wrote:
DeciusNero wrote:
There was a CG paladin-esque PrC back in 3.5. Was a pretty cool concept - didn't see why it had to be a PrC and not a base class.

Because of the horrific uprising of grognards if I had to guess. Edit: Is it the Chevalier from Paizo?

No, I think it was called 'Holy Champion' - it was from Complete Divine

Found it I think, Holy Liberator.

Edit: ninja'd by an edit.


thejeff wrote:
Zhayne wrote:
thejeff wrote:


Would the game be just as good if all the flavor was removed?

Yes. It would actually be better, as people would not feel compelled to play stereotypes, because they wouldn't exist. No more 'well, I'm a (race) (class), so I have to act like THIS' like it's genetically encoded.

Yes, flavor matters. But the only flavor that matters is what the player gives his character and what the GM gives his world.

Wow. I hope they don't hire you to market. Such a game would be a total flop.

Yeah, the HERO System and GURPS sure died out quickly, didn't they?

I have no idea how the concept of 'Hey, look, creative freedom!' is an anti-selling point.


Izar Talon wrote:


I despise game elements that are merely collections of rules mechanics with no story or thematic justification.

That's when you give them your own story/theme/flavor. You know, creativity and imagination? Ever heard of it?

Either way, you do it your way and I'll do it mine.


dfsearles wrote:
Ok, so I have been seeing a bunch of posts asking for new classes like swashbuckler and thing things like that. What I don't understand, is why does Paizo have to make a new class that just combines what is already out there? Ninja (rouge/monk), Cavalier (Paladin/Fighter), Magus (Wizard/Fighter), Alchemist (Wizard/Rogue), even the witch (WIZARD/WIZARD! They just redid what he can do!).

Excuse me? Wizards get hexes? This is news to me. I mean, sure, you could go ahead and call them "spells" but you'd still need a completely different mechanic for at-will-casting. Worse, you'd have this special spell list to contend with which are "witch only". Worse still, you don't get all wizard spells. And don't pick a school. In fact... there's very little similarity between wizard and witch.

Alchemists are wizard/rogues? What? Bombs and mutagens are completely unique abilities that neither class get.

Quote:
All these classes would make great prestige classes, but at their core, they are just these base classes. Why make it easier to get the things we want.

Wow. Just wow. Prestige classes mean you have to play several levels of a class that isn't witch or ninja or inquisitor or magus or whatever class that isn't core before you get abilities that are what you wanted to play from the start of the campaign. Only now you've acquired a bunch of things your character concept DOESN'T involve, such as say... sneak attack.

It's not about making "getting things" easier. It's about making "getting things" POSSIBLE. You can't make a magus without the magus class. Not at 1st level. No. You have to play either your fighter or your wizard. Which isn't the spell-casting-fighter the player envisioned. And at 2nd level when the player picks up the other class in his multclass combination, he eyes his 1/2 BAB, looks at the DM and realizes "wait, this isn't really what I had in mind".

Quote:
Back when I first began playing D&D, I loved trying to figure out how to multi-class to get just what my character needs, but Paizo keeps putting out all these "combo classes" and takes away from the adventure. Am I just precieving this wrong? If so, help a guy out please. MAX TO THE CORE!!!

You're not wrong but you have an opinion that is a} not shared by many other people and b} not terribly useful to the community at large. As Sean and others have said, you can always not use content you don't like. The rest of us don't have the option of using content that doesn't exist. Get it? I don't like anchovies but I'm not offended that pizza joints carry them for people who do.

The base classes aren't something you can build out of multiclassing. They're unique. You can't make a full-BAB partial arcane caster (magus). You can cobble something together that sucks and both fighting and casting and many, many have. You absolutely positively can't make a summoner, my least favorite base class.

Yes, most base classes reuse existing mechanics but they generally introduce new ways of fusing them and add new mechanics as well, to create something that actually works.

Challenge: make an oracle without the oracle class. Ahhh. You see?

The Exchange

6 people marked this as a favorite.
Googleshng wrote:
...because it's from some obscure player companion book I've never read, which probably presents it as an option specifically for characters native to region X who belong to organization Y, and that site's really questionable policy on scrubbing off details like that/renaming things makes it hard to confirm these things.

We "scrub" words we're not allowed to legally use. I don't know how that's questionable.

Regardless, it is my personal opinion that a mechanic (a trait, feat, spell etc.) should not have its power level modified or based on its geographical location of availability. That is, something is either balanced or it isn't. If you say "Here is a feat that on its own is completely broken, but we've balanced it by saying 'only characters from the land of Hoboken can take it' then that's one hella horrible way of balancing it. Therefore, it is our (i.e. MY) opinion that a Trait (the most common instance where this occurs) like "Child of the Jungle (Mwangi Expanse)" can safely be renamed "Child of the Jungle" without affecting its actual mechanical strength or function.

If you, or another GM strongly objects to the removal of the words "Mwangi Expanse" from the name, then stick with the printed materials or use another site. We do what we have to and ultimately hope that these sorts of minor inconveniences are *MORE* than made up for by the other advantages of the site.

Googleshng wrote:
But again, my response to that isn't "Hey Paizo! Quit printing all those player companions!" It's "Hey d20pfsrd! You seriously need to set up some kind of filtering mode or at least label sources more clearly!" That or "Hey someone! Set up a site like d20pfsrd with tighter restrictions on what gets integrated!"

We'd love to but given our current infrastructure its not happening anytime soon. If you'd like to volunteer and know how to implement it, I can add you to the team in like 2 seconds.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
d20pfsrd.com wrote:
Googleshng wrote:
...because it's from some obscure player companion book I've never read, which probably presents it as an option specifically for characters native to region X who belong to organization Y, and that site's really questionable policy on scrubbing off details like that/renaming things makes it hard to confirm these things.

We "scrub" words we're not allowed to legally use. I don't know how that's questionable.

Indeed. To explain this to those with objections - the OGL doesn't allow Product Identity to be copied, only material that is released as Open Game Content (OGC)

Most companies claim names of places/characters/gods in their setting as Product Identity, and release rules as OGC - that means you can usually only reuse the rule itself, and not any identifiers tying it to geographical locations or deities.

Contrary to the belief of many, this means you can't usually simply reprint the text of a spell/feat/whatever verbatim without checking for and stripping out Product Identity references first - and yes, sometimes that means you can't even use the original name or title for it.


I'm fine with 100 base classes. My problem is that most of the prestige classes require you to multiclass before you can even get the PrC.


Great. They've got new classes. Pity they haven't gotten around to fixing the damn Rogue or Monk classes.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ericthetolle wrote:
Great. They've got new classes. Pity they haven't gotten around to fixing the damn Rogue or Monk classes.

What if... We take the word investigator and brawler off, and relabel them as rogue-fix and monk-fix?


One thing that hasn't been mentioned is how all these base classes are limiting choice.

They are super specific classes. Basically a single prestige class from 3.5 days but spread out to 20 levels instead of 10.

But instead of getting 3 base classes and 30 PrCs every major book we are getting 10 new base classes and zero PrCs.

With Archetypes as well you could have a system where a player could have a myriad of choices of base class, then a myriad of choices of Archetype, and then a Myriad of choices of PrC to go into giving them 3 times the amount of customization ability than without that.

But many classes *see Wizard, Summoner, ect have few if any Archetypes-- so they are limited in their choices.

Without PrCs for them to go into they are not gaining that level of customization, poof-- gone.

So now we have out 20ish core classes, but nothing else. So instead of 10 core classes x 10 archetypes each x 100 prestige classes each leading to nearly infinite choices. . .

we have exactly 20 effective choices. If you want to be a Wizard that is your only choice. Wizard. . .


Nathanael Love wrote:


we have exactly 20 effective choices. If you want to be a Wizard that is your only choice. Wizard. . .

Really?

Really?

You really think we only have 20 choices to make in the game? All these brand new base classes are limiting choice?

The Wizard in particular has a potential 41 options to decide his school of magic. And 7 archetypes to choose from if he so wishes.

Then he gets access to an entire 9th level progression of spells.

No. We are not lacking in Wizard options.


Yeah, I have trouble seeing a class that can change its entire class features lineup (aka spells) on a daily basis as 'lacking versatility'.


Scavion wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


we have exactly 20 effective choices. If you want to be a Wizard that is your only choice. Wizard. . .

Really?

Really?

You really think we only have 20 choices to make in the game? All these brand new base classes are limiting choice?

The Wizard in particular has a potential 41 options to decide his school of magic. And 7 archetypes to choose from if he so wishes.

Then he gets access to an entire 9th level progression of spells.

No. We are not lacking in Wizard options.

Sure we are. I don't know which 7 archetypes you are referring to. . . I've seen three or four, all of them awful.

And again, this is comparative lack of options-- in 3.5 I had close to 70 PrCs to choose from, combined with all the other choices you mentioned, plus the alternate feature choices which were the equivalent of Archetypes--
I don't have those 70 PrCs to choose from anymore, I have more like 4. The school of magic powers are ok, but not nearly enough to make up for losing 67 choices of prestige classes.

Grand Lodge

I think Nathanael should be making a distinction about lack of viable options rather than a lack of options.

Just because Nathanael discounts options that are less powerful does not mean they do not exist.


Nathanael Love wrote:
Scavion wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:


we have exactly 20 effective choices. If you want to be a Wizard that is your only choice. Wizard. . .

Really?

Really?

You really think we only have 20 choices to make in the game? All these brand new base classes are limiting choice?

The Wizard in particular has a potential 41 options to decide his school of magic. And 7 archetypes to choose from if he so wishes.

Then he gets access to an entire 9th level progression of spells.

No. We are not lacking in Wizard options.

Sure we are. I don't know which 7 archetypes you are referring to. . . I've seen three or four, all of them awful.

And again, this is comparative lack of options-- in 3.5 I had close to 70 PrCs to choose from, combined with all the other choices you mentioned, plus the alternate feature choices which were the equivalent of Archetypes--
I don't have those 70 PrCs to choose from anymore, I have more like 4. The school of magic powers are ok, but not nearly enough to make up for losing 67 choices of prestige classes.

I'm glad those Prestige Classes are gone, they had a massive amount to do with the Cleric, Druid, Wizard pantheon.

Heres your Wizard Archetypes

Gee, I wonder why 3.5 had so many options...maybe because....oh I don't know...

They had 5 years worth of development. They also sold alot of crunch to make sure they had good profits.

Pathfinder has been out for almost 4 years. WoTC also had hell of alot more spending power and manpower than Paizo does.

What Paizo did do for us is make Prestige Classes not as demanded for the concepts of characters we were building.


Scavion wrote:
What Paizo did do for us is make Prestige Classes not as demanded for the concepts of characters we were building.

Multi-classing also tends to be more anathema and PrCs tend to be bleh. It would help if there was a large amount of quality material, but to be honest there still isn't and we still just end up rifling through for the good stuff and throwing the rest to the side. Sturgeon's law applies well to both editions.


Malwing wrote:

My opinions;

1. I hate PrCs. I have a list of reasons that have been stated in this thread for hating them but the biggest is that I want to be a concept from level 1 and I hate the nightmare of containing three classes on one character sheet.

2. I love archetypes. I think with archetypes there could be fewer classes with a lot of diversity if they were part of the game from the beginning. If Pathfinder were made from scratch I'd settle for there being 7 classes with most options being archetypes.

I agree with your first statement whole heartedly I dislike not " being my character" from first level very much. I am even hesitant to multi class unless I can at least passingly play my concept from day one.

Your second statement has always boggled my mind. How can people get so up in arms over the base class, archetype, kit etc..etc.. Debate..? Functionally I see no difference but nomenclature.

Grand Lodge

Now we just have a hundred archetypes instead of prestige classes, and we get to deal with them in the 1-5 tier rather than 6th level and beyond.

So all of the time instead of part of the time.


Scavion wrote:


I'm glad those Prestige Classes are gone, they had a massive amount to do with the Cleric, Druid, Wizard pantheon.

Heres your Wizard Archetypes

Gee, I wonder why 3.5 had so many options...maybe because....oh I don't know...

They had 5 years worth of development. They also sold alot of crunch to make sure they had good profits.

Pathfinder has been out for almost 4 years. WoTC also had hell of alot more spending power and manpower than Paizo does.

What Paizo did do for us is make Prestige Classes not as demanded for the concepts of characters we were building.

1. I don't have Inner Sea Magic. . . I guess I was thinking of options in core books, but its good to know there are a few more out there.

2. Funny, but I seem to remember Pathfinder having Five years of development. . .

But whereas 3.5 put out MORE options for the classes they had, PF is putting out more classes with less options each.

Pathfinder has put out as many books as core 3.5 did. They are just using that for other things-- you can't make the excuse that they don't have the time/money to give us more options for each of our existing classes when they have the time to make 10 completely new base classes.

Taking away the prestige class options doesn't actually make us able to do those concepts better without them-- many of those options we simply cannot do/ do not have the ability to do anymore.


TriOmegaZero wrote:

Now we just have a hundred archetypes instead of prestige classes, and we get to deal with them in the 1-5 tier rather than 6th level and beyond.

So all of the time instead of part of the time.

But we don't have a hundred archetypes for every class.

How many Summoner Archetypes are there?

Or Gunslinger?

There is a huge gap in the amount per classes from most to least, and Archetypes are very specific in that ONE class gets benefit.

Archetypes are fine, but why can't we have Prestige classes too?

PrCs are less limiting in that there are usually more than one way to get into them (A Druid or a Cleric with the Animal Domain can qualify for many of the same PrCs; a Sorcerer, Wizard, and Bard can all qualify for many-- and if they were done the same way then Summoners and Witches and Magi would all be able to qualify for those as well. . . obviously most Martials can qualify for the same PrCs as the main requirement was usually +6 BaB).

And to bring this back to base classes. . . the one they describe that is a Sorcerer/Barbarian build is an extremely limited/niche concept-- as niche or more than most prestige classes were.

Why can't we have books where they introduce a handful of new archetypes, a few base classes and a handful of new prestige classes?

Prestige classes are still a part of the rules, they just haven't been given support which is frustrating as someone who really, really enjoyed them-- and no Archetypes and a myriad of new, limited base classes don't fulfill the same function.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Every time I see this thread title I want to lift my glass a la ciretose's avatar and say "hear hear! to many classes indeed!"


Nathanael Love wrote:

Pathfinder has put out as many books as core 3.5 did. They are just using that for other things-- you can't make the excuse that they don't have the time/money to give us more options for each of our existing classes when they have the time to make 10 completely new base classes.

Taking away the prestige class options doesn't actually make us able to do those concepts better without them-- many of those options we simply cannot do/ do not have the ability to do anymore.

Very little of the Core 3.5 actually had the good Prestige Classes so your argument is falling a bit. The crunch books like the Spell Compendium and Complete line had all the really broken stuff in them.

If you actually read up on whats going to be in the Advanced Class Guide you'd know theres going to be alot more than just the 10 new classes.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Personally I am never opposed to adding in some more options so long as the gm is alright with it. I like having new building blocks to build new characters out of :-p

As for wizard options, there are some prestige options, not a ton but some. I like the magaambyan arcanist :-p

And no the wizard hasn't had as many archetypes, they do have specialty schools, and the focused version of those. Each specialist type was built as an archetype really. Much like sorcerer whose bloodline defines the special class features. The other large difference for all spell casters is spell choice. A wizard focusing on illusion is going to play entirely different than an evoker. A rogue never gets those options so they got a lot more archetypes and instead of spells they got talents.

As for prestige class options paizo has produced well over 70 prestige class and like in 3.5 many aren't really something to brag about being, but they can all find a place sometimes, even just if as an npc. now add that to all the class options and archetypes out there, there really is a lot you can do. Heck even with combo classes I still like multiclassing :-p I had a PFS character make it to retirement a magus(kensai)/alchemist(trapbreaker)/monk(martial artist)/master spy. He was actually still quite competent in combat.

What is nice about the base classes is they give something that will almost always stay competent as they level if they stay one thing. So nicer for new players. They still also add more blocks to build frankenstien's monster if you want though :-p


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

It seems to me that Paizo is leaning towards making it so that a character concept is viable without the need to multi-class. While I thought that multiclassing was a design strength of 3rd edition, that was probably partly because the base classes were kind of lame at times. Multiclassing and Prestige Classes were practically required. And now while they CAN be viable, they are no longer necessary.

The only base class that I so far have a gripe with is Magus, but I have been thinking about that the past few days and I am thinking that maybe I was looking at it the wrong way. I saw it as a Wizard with a stripped down spellbook, and I thought that perhaps other characters could also have fun with spell combat (a Cleric came to mind).

However, I have been thinking at perhaps it is like Cavalier vs. Samurai, which is essentially the same class only a little different (where you specifically cannot multiclass between the two). Put that way, I could just view Magus as an archetype or Specialty of Wizard, and put that way, my gripes are put to rest.

I think that a lot of the issues that people have with various classes are generally a matter of perspective. Some multiclass builds are ideal for certain character concepts. That said, it is awesome in my opinion that you can stay single-classed and be cool throughout the entire 20-level span.


@Nathanael Love - regardless of what "we can't have" we are going to "have" an ACG. It will have 10 new hybrid classes, with archetypes for each and a bunch of archetypes for the existing core and base classes. I'm moving in that direction, because complaining about what we "aren't getting" won't really achieve much, in this thread. Sure, feedback is valuable to the marketeers, but Paizo have made their decision on []ithis[/i] book.

* I too want more archetypes for the under-supported core, base, and alternate classes. But then I also want more/better archetypes for the core/base classes than the ones there are now. I'm picky - as my caustic and cautiously optimistic/pre-having seen anything pessimistic posts show. Maybe some of my desires will be realized in the ACG. Smaurai archetypes, using Brawler or Hunter mechanics! Ninja archetypes using Slayer mechanics!!!! Summoner archetypes using Hunter or Brawler mechanics!!!! etc etc etc

As for PrCs, Paths of Prestige has a bunch. Cool. I don't really like PrCs for the whole deferred gratification aspect. I occasionally see PrCs as a really good story advancement/plot twist... But very rarely.


SeeleyOne wrote:


I think that a lot of the issues that people have with various classes are generally a matter of perspective. Some multiclass builds are ideal for certain character concepts. That said, it is awesome in my opinion that you can stay single-classed and be cool throughout the entire 20-level span.

Take a look at the Wizard Chart. You can't do it. That's why it annoys me so much to not have any worthwhile options to go with my characters. . .

Paizo put SOMETHING on the charts at almost every level for almost every class except the one that I want to play 9/10.

You can tell me "but you get your spells" which is fine-- but in 2.5 I got my spells and I got to have cool, flavorful, different PrC abilities as well. . .

I haven't seen the Advanced Class guide, but if many more books come out without any options for the one class that I want to play I am going to grow more and more likely to go back to playing 3.5 and stop spending money on Pathfinder products. . . I made the switch to pathfinder so my options could keep expanding and I could keep having a supported product, but it is becoming more and more clear that the Wizard is an afterthought that Paizo wishes wasn't in the game and that makes me very sad.

That's just me, and that's just one reason why I can see the massive emphasis on core classes being frustrating to people.


Scavion wrote:
Nathanael Love wrote:

Pathfinder has put out as many books as core 3.5 did. They are just using that for other things-- you can't make the excuse that they don't have the time/money to give us more options for each of our existing classes when they have the time to make 10 completely new base classes.

Taking away the prestige class options doesn't actually make us able to do those concepts better without them-- many of those options we simply cannot do/ do not have the ability to do anymore.

Very little of the Core 3.5 actually had the good Prestige Classes so your argument is falling a bit. The crunch books like the Spell Compendium and Complete line had all the really broken stuff in them.

I'm not going to way in on the whole PrC debate, because all the 3.5 prestige classes can be used equally well in PF so the entire question seems rather moot, but I can point out that this is entirely wrong. A vast majority of the really broken stuff from 3.5 was in the core rules (and Faerun, but that stuff was intended to be more powerful than normal and wasn't suppose to be used outside of FR). The later 3.5 supplements were the point where WotC understood the game better (since it had been around for longer) and made less broken, more balanced content.

Incidentally, the most broken parts of 3.5 were portions that came from the 3.0 core rules, made when no one was particularly familiar with the game as it was brand new. And, naturally, the most broken stuff it PF are from the portions of the CRB that were copy/pasted verbatim from the 3.5 rules (which may have been copy/pasted from the 3.0 rules...)


Nathanael Love wrote:
SeeleyOne wrote:


I think that a lot of the issues that people have with various classes are generally a matter of perspective. Some multiclass builds are ideal for certain character concepts. That said, it is awesome in my opinion that you can stay single-classed and be cool throughout the entire 20-level span.

Take a look at the Wizard Chart. You can't do it. That's why it annoys me so much to not have any worthwhile options to go with my characters. . .

Paizo put SOMETHING on the charts at almost every level for almost every class except the one that I want to play 9/10.

You can tell me "but you get your spells" which is fine-- but in 2.5 I got my spells and I got to have cool, flavorful, different PrC abilities as well. . .

I haven't seen the Advanced Class guide, but if many more books come out without any options for the one class that I want to play I am going to grow more and more likely to go back to playing 3.5 and stop spending money on Pathfinder products. . . I made the switch to pathfinder so my options could keep expanding and I could keep having a supported product, but it is becoming more and more clear that the Wizard is an afterthought that Paizo wishes wasn't in the game and that makes me very sad.

That's just me, and that's just one reason why I can see the massive emphasis on core classes being frustrating to people.

Atleast Wizards can get Arcane Discoveries, many of which are crazy powerful. Outside of Domain Powers, Clerics get no love in their natural progression.


SeeleyOne wrote:
It seems to me that Paizo is leaning towards making it so that a character concept is viable without the need to multi-class. While I thought that multiclassing was a design strength of 3rd edition, that was probably partly because the base classes were kind of lame at times. Multiclassing and Prestige Classes were practically required. And now while they CAN be viable, they are no longer necessary.

Depended on your book and class.


Pathfinder Maps, Starfinder Maps Subscriber

The Wizard is my favorite class, too, which probably has a lot to do with my initial disdain of the Magus. While the chart does not show it, each level does work towards your Specialist type abilities. My house rules include a revised version of the Universalist (but it has not seen play yet).

Does the Wizard lose out on its levels? I don't think so. I think that Wizards (and Sorcerers) are the most powerful classes of the game. That is not why it is my favorite class, though. I like options, and it gives you the potential for plenty of them. Every spell gives you an option that you did not have before.

If you look at the class level summary table, the Cleric looks like it loses out as well. I have not heard anyone complain about that they lose out on every even-numbered level. But their Domains make up for that.

Grand Lodge

Nathanael Love wrote:
TriOmegaZero wrote:

Now we just have a hundred archetypes instead of prestige classes, and we get to deal with them in the 1-5 tier rather than 6th level and beyond.

So all of the time instead of part of the time.

But we don't have a hundred archetypes for every class.

I didn't say we did. I was unaware you were complaining about options for a single class.

Have you looked at third party offerings?


SeeleyOne wrote:
Does the Wizard lose out on its levels? I don't think so. I think that Wizards (and Sorcerers) are the most powerful classes of the game. That is not why it is my favorite class, though. I like options, and it gives you the potential for plenty of them. Every spell gives you an option that you did not have before.

Well... To be fair, the potential and options are what make them powerful.

SeeleyOne wrote:
If you look at the class level summary table, the Cleric looks like it loses out as well. I have not heard anyone complain about that they lose out on every even-numbered level. But their Domains make up for that.

I dislike cleric for that reason and more. You have no heard someone complain about it. I also don't think the domain makes up for it, nor that channel is a great ability.


SeeleyOne wrote:

The Wizard is my favorite class, too, which probably has a lot to do with my initial disdain of the Magus. While the chart does not show it, each level does work towards your Specialist type abilities. My house rules include a revised version of the Universalist (but it has not seen play yet).

Does the Wizard lose out on its levels? I don't think so. I think that Wizards (and Sorcerers) are the most powerful classes of the game. That is not why it is my favorite class, though. I like options, and it gives you the potential for plenty of them. Every spell gives you an option that you did not have before.

If you look at the class level summary table, the Cleric looks like it loses out as well. I have not heard anyone complain about that they lose out on every even-numbered level. But their Domains make up for that.

Most of the Schools have 3 abilities, some of which will advance times/day per level, and a few have an extra ability at 5th or 8th level-- but honestly, there is no reason whatsoever to take my 12th level in Wizard if I could take it in a PrC with a caster level instead.

Its not a POWER question-- its a question of choices, of abilities, ect. Sure, every spell gives me options-- but again, in the past I would get those options in addition to my PrC abilities.

Arcane Discoveries are nice. . . could have been great to add them onto the chart at a few of those higher levels. . . but no, according to the chart I get a bonus feat at 5th, 10th, 15th, and 20th and nothing else.

I haven't gone very deep into 3rd party offerings. I don't have an unlimited budget to buy books, so I have been picking up the core PF ones when I can, and building from there. . . so yes, my complaints are basically about the lack of Wizard options in the core books.

I have the Core, Advanced Race Guide, Advanced Players Guide and Ultimage Magic.

The incredibly thin sliver of new stuff for Wizard in Ultimate Magic is the most galling-- the book where there could easily be a dozen Wizard Archetypes to make me not feel left out for having no PrCs to go into that replaced the 5th/10th/15th level Bonus Feat with something cool to make me feel good about grinding out all those featureless levels to get to and I got. . . one Archetype. ONE.

An entire book about magic and as a Wizard player I got one Archetype, four pages, and Arcane Discoveries that I have to spend feats on-- so some more feats. Great. A little disappointing use of my $40 to be honest. I was so excited when I was waiting for it to ship to my house, and so very very disappointed when I got it.

And yes, Cleric is the other class that suffers the most from this. Wizard and Cleric and to a lesser extent Sorcerer-- the core/primary casters get left out of viable/interesting options.

Which makes no sense-- look at the Druid by comparison. Also a primary caster. Gets a ton of spells, which in their own way are as powerful as Cleric and Wizard. But look at that chart-- so much more interesting to keep putting levels into Druid the entire way in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Frankly, getting more spells every level is more than enough. Full-casters do not have dead levels.


Zhayne wrote:
Frankly, getting more spells every level is more than enough. Full-casters do not have dead levels.

I disagree heartily. I can see that levels where I get a new level of spells isn't a dead level. But a level where I get to do something I can already do once more per day is pretty dead-- and to have nothing else on my chart besides four bonus feats means that these are very much dead levels as I am playing my character.

That's like saying levels where fighter gets a +1 BaB aren't dead levels. . .


Not even a little bit, no.

You have spells on your chart. The most powerful thing in the game. Every level it says 'MOAR SPELLS' under 'class features'. You don't NEED anything else.


Zhayne wrote:
Frankly, getting more spells every level is more than enough. Full-casters do not have dead levels.

Generally, I consider something a dead level if the only thing gained is higher numbers. If you can actually do something new or in a new way, it isn't a dead level.

So IMO, sorcerers don't have dead levels, as they get something completely new every level (new spells known). On the other hand, a prepared caster who gets nothing but more spells per day still has a dead level...but gaining access to a new spell level makes it not a dead level.
The core PF wizard therefore has dead levels at 2,4, 12,14,16,18, and either 6 or 8 (depending on specialization).
The stuff it gets in between are really powerful, so whether it 'should' have those dead levels filled in is another question entirely.

101 to 150 of 194 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Too many classes!!! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.