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.
Every level Fighter says "moar BaB" he doesn't need any other abilities either!
Maybe YOU don't need anything else. But when I gain a wizard level and get nothing but 1 more spell of levels I already have it feels bad. It feels unfun. It feels lame. It feels NOT awesome. I need some more abilities on the chart to look forward to so that every other level or more isn't just lame feeling.
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... Fighters have 20 dead levels? Oh pardon me, 19. They get weapon supremacy right at the end there.
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 levelSo a Sorcerer getting a couple of spells known and more spells per day means its not a dead level... but a Wizard getting a couple of spells known and more spells per day is a dead level?
That's a bit of a double standard.
Nope. As far as I am concerned for primary spell casters levels without a new level of spell or other ability are dead levels.
Sorcerers just have less of them than Wizards now because they have bloodline feats and powers.
Bloodline spells are pretty uninspiring though, so those are pretty much still dead levels. . .
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wizards learn 2 new spells every level
One thing an abundance of base classes allows is for the DM to customize his regions/campaigns by pinning certain classes to certain regions.
Fer instance, one of my biggest derails with Skull & Shackles was that I couldn't match up sword & sorcery tropes with 17th century piracy tropes. But when I straight up banned the core classes and replaced them with the APG/UC/UM classes, suddenly the AP clicked for me. Alchemists, gunslingers and oracles fit the genre a lot better than wizards, fighters and clerics.
With so many classes to choose from (and more apparently on the way), a DM can pick and choose which classes his players can pick from to enforce whatever setting or genre he's aiming for.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm beginning to feel like @Nathanael is just complaining to complain.
I'm not quite sure about the "other classes don't have dead levels" argument either. I'm playing a hedge witch and a summoner right now; both have had "dead levels" by your definition. I put them off as easy levels to update.
If you don't like wizards in this generation, find something else. There are always going to be levels in which you don't get as much as others. It helps to add balance to the game. Personally, even when I had the option of Prestige Classes, I still preferred playing a single class. I hated feeling like I had to take a prestige class just to keep up or that I couldn't be the character I wanted until X level. Now that I can go up in a single class and feel like I still have options, I'm loving the game much more!
It gets me excited to try the new classes, even if sometimes they aren't as powerful as other classes that aren't already out.
...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.
Yeah, I really could have phrased that better, sorry. And yeah, there's absolutely no balance issue at all to it. The nature of that particular pet peeve is more- "Oh hey, I think I'm going to take this thing here." "Wait, I have the book that's from... name's not ringing a bell. Oh hey, here is is... and oh, that's something specifically meant for followers of Torag, and you're a paladin of Shelyn, so... yeah that seems like a weird sort of thing for you to pick up." After finding a few things like that, I'll start looking at stuff from books I don't have, and start second guessing everything about what setting-dependent things may have been omitted from them because I'm just a huge nerd like that.
That you have to cut those bits for copyright reasons is a given, but it would be nice to slap a quick note on about what's being left out. i.e. "This trait originally contained text suggesting it is intended only for characters from a specific region," or "this spell originally contained text indicating it was primarily intended for followers of a particular deity."
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.
Oh yeah, actually building that sort of filter in would take a crazy overhaul if you didn't happen to have a really specific sort of back end in place by coincidence. The only reason I mentioned your site in the first place is it's just the only example that springs to mind of a place where content from a new book isn't going to be inherently confined to that book. Although even then, it's easy enough to have a table rule banning 10 specific classes even if someone dumps'em into a common index you like to use. Past that, this is getting way off topic, but rambly e-mail inbound.
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.
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 you shoukld listen to MrSin.
Here are some facts:
The most common complaints when it comes to clerics are:
Other common Complaints are:
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.
If you want a Brawler, take TWF, and use your fists or Brass Knuckles, or Gauntlets or Cestii, add in Catch Off-Guard, Improvised Weapon Mastery, Throw Anything. Look it's a Brawler. Is he going to do as much damage as a guy with a two-handed sword? No, but someone as skilled with a two-handed sword as Mike Tyson is with his fists is going to cut Mike Tyson into dog food. That's the way things are. I'm absolutely convinced that the Brawler Class will be a fighter than the Fighter Class currently is.
The nature of that particular pet peeve is more- "Oh hey, I think I'm going to take this thing here." "Wait, I have the book that's from... name's not ringing a bell. Oh hey, here is is... and oh, that's something specifically meant for followers of Torag, and you're a paladin of Shelyn, so... yeah that seems like a weird sort of thing for you to pick up." After finding a few things like that, I'll start looking at stuff from books I don't have, and start second guessing everything about what setting-dependent things may have been omitted from them because I'm just a huge nerd like that.
That you have to cut those bits for copyright reasons is a given, but it would be nice to slap a quick note on about what's being left out. i.e. "This trait originally contained text suggesting it is intended only for characters from a specific region," or "this spell originally contained text indicating it was primarily intended for followers of a particular deity."
Hey Googleshng, can you clarify this a little. I still don't get what you are saying. Do you have a problem with filing the serial numbers off or not?
Personally I don't care if the original trait was intended for diamatic extenzibors from the planet fruton if it works for my character and can be reskinned to do so. And I'm not talking about cheese-munchkinning the uber-traits - I'm talking about any trait. If the GM disagrees about the mechanics, thats ok, I'll choose another.
As a GM I'll use any source available, no matter what the intended purpose was for the trait, and then I'll assess it in terms of application for the character and the mechanics. If a Pirate-y rope swinging buccaneers trait gives a bonus to rope-swinging maneuvers, and a player wants to tweak it for a jungletreader that's fine - even changing it to an underwater bonus to CMB could still work for an underwater campaign, though there is probably an Allurian trait out there effect for that.
The whole point of the d20PFSRD is that you don't need to own any books and the information is all eminently scrubbable.
If you are saying something like this then I agree with you 100%. Otherwise your post is freakishly unclear to me. :) Very strange - it reads very clearly, but I read it and I find it seems to say the exact same thing you were saying the first time!?!?!?
If you want a Brawler, take TWF, and use your fists or Brass Knuckles, or Gauntlets or Cestii, add in Catch Off-Guard, Improvised Weapon Mastery, Throw Anything. Look it's a Brawler. Is he going to do as much damage as a guy with a two-handed sword? No, but someone as skilled with a two-handed sword as Mike Tyson is with his fists is going to cut Mike Tyson into dog food. That's the way things are.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.
Darn to late to edit. I left out the word better. It should have read
I'm absolutely convinced that the Brawler Class will be a better fighter than the Fighter Class currently is.
|
I know a guy who does that. If a place serves even one thing he doesn't like he despises it. In an entirely different way, I know people who think you should always play RAW and make every option available.
I work in retail so I know. Move a few sections around and customers complain. To me that brings a complaint from a valid one into the realm of complaining for the sake of it.
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.
It is a non-issue. Unless I as a player am somehow mind controlling the DM. Or holding a gun to the his or her head a DM does not have to use anything. It's like DMs who can't say no to allowing something. Or completists that just have to buy new product. Then blaming Paizo. Even if they add the new material to APs one can alter or remove the ne material. A little annoying to be sure. Yet if I disliked Alchemists in my game or a AP I just disallow the class or in the case of the Ap alter the npc. As for the flame threads. I suggest taking what is said in those with a galaxy sized grain of salt. Usually the examples given by players and DMs don;t happen at most gaming tables.
I work as a bookseller. I dislike 50 shades of grey. I still sell and promote it. It's part of my job and in the end I'm not forced to read it. I even promote another product which is spoof called 50 shades of chicken. It's a cookbook written along the same lines. The adventures of a free range chicken at the hands of a overly aggressive chef. don't beleive me go check amazon.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm afraid that most non-munchkin players won't use multiclassing to achieve their desired effect. Casuals won't be looking at warrior-priest combo, they will take paladin instead because it meets thir aims and it simplifies the entire process of character creation and development.
Good roleplayer will take warrior class and roleplay fearsome bandit, noble knight, gladiator, swordsman, swashbuckler and he won't have any problem with it but what about casuals or less creative players? Good roleplayer won't mind seperate warrior-like class and it will certainly benefit new players that are looking for something that they feels comfortable to roleplay.
I will say it once again:
We - Game Masters - shouldn't ever stop players from picking or even creating class they want, unless it will disturb fun of other gamers (as long as character suits the setting & theme of your adventure and it's not vastly overpowered compared to other characters). Don't get me wrong, player characters shouldn't ever be equal or well-balanced - diversity makes parties more interesting - but we GM should craft adventures in a way that every character will have something to do. For example; back in D&D 3.5 adventure set in Forgotten Realms campaign one of the players picked a diviner wizard. She decided to roleplay her as a gypsy with all sorts of witchcrafting like fortelling from bones etc. She had no fancy fireball spells because who the hell would expect from a gypsy to cast magic missile in someone's face? She roleplayed her character in a way she wanted and even though most of her group consisted of battle-hardened mercenaries I manipulated adventure in the way that she could fully roleplay her character and feel useful in her group.
So, for this reason I want to see more classes even if they are not as good in combat as others, because at the end of the day player will choose only one class from hundreds others.
So, for this reason I want to see more classes even if they are not as good in combat as others, because at the end of the day player will choose only one class from hundreds others.
I was actually a little disappointed the new Investigator class looks like it'll be more Batman and less Sherlock Holmes (although reserving judgement until I actually see it properly.)
Yeah, but the beauty of RPG is that you can change almost every aspect of it. I know it's easier said than done, but if have open-minded GM then with his/her approval you can modify Investigator class that it looks more like Sherlock Holmes.
Ofc devs should listien to their customers so we won't have to change every class, but you can't satisfy everyone. :)
I was actually a little disappointed the new Investigator class looks like it'll be more Batman and less Sherlock Holmes (although reserving judgement until I actually see it properly.)
So, for this reason I want to see more classes even if they are not as good in combat as others, because at the end of the day player will choose only one class from hundreds others.
how is that disappointing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone likes Batman, you know...
how is that disappointing?I was actually a little disappointed the new Investigator class looks like it'll be more Batman and less Sherlock Holmes (although reserving judgement until I actually see it properly.)
So, for this reason I want to see more classes even if they are not as good in combat as others, because at the end of the day player will choose only one class from hundreds others.
Disappointing in that I was hoping for a skill-monkey non-combat investigator :)
If you want a Brawler, take TWF, and use your fists or Brass Knuckles, or Gauntlets or Cestii, add in Catch Off-Guard, Improvised Weapon Mastery, Throw Anything. Look it's a Brawler. Is he going to do as much damage as a guy with a two-handed sword? No, but someone as skilled with a two-handed sword as Mike Tyson is with his fists is going to cut Mike Tyson into dog food. That's the way things are.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.Darn to late to edit. I left out the word better. It should have read
I'm absolutely convinced that the Brawler Class will be a better fighter than the Fighter Class currently is.
all we know so far is its full bab, gets unarmed strike, and is proficient in light armor. I would rather withhold judgement for 24 hours before being certain about anything. Because you will just psychologically talk yourself into thinking it's OP and making excuses. That's just what humans do when we make up our minds.)
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.
Every level Fighter says "moar BaB" he doesn't need any other abilities either!
Maybe YOU don't need anything else. But when I gain a wizard level and get nothing but 1 more spell of levels I already have it feels bad. It feels unfun. It feels lame. It feels NOT awesome. I need some more abilities on the chart to look forward to so that every other level or more isn't just lame feeling.
So, you're just greedy then. Got it.
The lack of a 'o' in the title is seriously making me twitch.
I think I have a problem.
The lack of a 'o' in the title is seriously making me twitch.
I think I have a problem.
Is there a support group?
I, to, have a problem.
*pats Sammy and Cheapy on the back*
They're their. It'll be alright, but yes, their should of been another 'o' their.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The lack of a 'o' in the title is seriously making me twitch.
I think I have a problem.
Is there a support group?
I, to, have a problem.
*pats Sammy and Cheapy on the back*
They're their. It'll be alright, but yes, their should of been another 'o' their.
Sir, I believe that such disreputable abuse of English constitutes cruel and unusual punihsment to those with a properly refined sense of the language. You should be ashamed of yourself, sirrah. As if the regular colonial American debasement of the Queen's English was not sufficient.
*shudder* I propose a mandatory lynch!
The lack of a 'o' in the title is seriously making me twitch.
I think I have a problem.
It bothered me too until I visualized myself bellying up to the bar each time with a drink upraised in total agreement.
It bothered me too until I visualized myself bellying up to the bar each time with a drink upraised in total agreement.The lack of a 'o' in the title is seriously making me twitch.
I think I have a problem.
Funny how it can be taken either as a toast or as a complaint, isn't it?
Hey Googleshng, can you clarify this a little. I still don't get what you are saying. Do you have a problem with filing the serial numbers off or not?The nature of that particular pet peeve is more- "Oh hey, I think I'm going to take this thing here." "Wait, I have the book that's from... name's not ringing a bell. Oh hey, here is is... and oh, that's something specifically meant for followers of Torag, and you're a paladin of Shelyn, so... yeah that seems like a weird sort of thing for you to pick up." After finding a few things like that, I'll start looking at stuff from books I don't have, and start second guessing everything about what setting-dependent things may have been omitted from them because I'm just a huge nerd like that.
That you have to cut those bits for copyright reasons is a given, but it would be nice to slap a quick note on about what's being left out. i.e. "This trait originally contained text suggesting it is intended only for characters from a specific region," or "this spell originally contained text indicating it was primarily intended for followers of a particular deity."
Personally speaking? I am absolutely nuts for mechanical junk reflecting in-world cultural stuff. If there's a funny shaped knife that crits more often but breaks half the time, because it's made by this group of people cut off from modern smelting techniques and they're forced to work with obsidian or something like that, there's people who just go "hey cool, 18+ crit knife" there's people who go "hey cool, unique cultural weaponry" and there's people like me who go "hey cool! This unique cultural weaponry is actually reflected mechanically!"
I'm flexible with that, to the degree of "hey, so I'm making a character from this OTHER culture where their smelting techniques suck, it'd make sense if I mildly refluffed those brittle knives, right?" and honestly, if I'm GMing, and someone just really really digs them but has no interest in reflecting their origins with their character I'll generally OK it if I can't bring them over to my way of looking at these things. Whether I enforce the in-world justification or not though, I do at least like to read it and get a handle on where the designers were coming from with the premise. Something like d20pfsrd can't legally give me that sort of thing to read (and most people could not care less about it), so yeah, I have to hunt down the original source for that sweet sweet mechanics/story intersectional goodness, but if you remove stuff like that there's no trace of the extra note having been there, I'm not going to know to look for it, and I'm just going to be left with "Knife, 19-20. Brittleknife, 18-20 (fragile)." Ho hum, just two knives sitting on a shelf, seeing equal use.
Tying this back around to the matter at hand, I am all kinds of pumped about seeing new base classes, because that's going to let me say "OK so this guy here learned how to fight/cast spells/whatever under the tutelage of these people, but this girl grew up over here, where they have a very different approach to this, so while they have very similar strengths, there's some really interesting differences in the specifics of their approach, both mechanically and flavor wise," and that's one of my favorite things in the world to say.
Heh, once you get beyond the Core Four (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric), many of the later classes (but not all) are some type of hybrid (paladin=fighter/cleric; bard=wizard/rogue; etc). Hybrids aren't exactly new. I *do* like that the newer classes beyond aren't pure mash-ups. Each can be seen as a hybrid but often brings something new to the table (magi with spell combat, witches with hexes, etc). Looking forward to the new book.
Here are some facts:The most common complaints when it comes to clerics are:
1 They are too generic (true)
2 Even levels suck, especially once you get your last domain power at level 8 or even at level 6 (True)
2a And domains don’t make up for it (true)
3 Channeling is overrated (True)
3a and Channeling comes with a feat tax (True if you plan to heal in battle. Also true if you plan to use it agains undeads unless you have the right domains to help you) Other common Complaints are:
They are feat starved (True if you want to focus on channeling or spell casting, not true if you just want to be a melee god)
Not enough good low level spells that can be used at higher levels. (True)
Not enough scaling spells. (True)
Their spell list suck at higher levels and the list is generally un-sexy. (True if you want to be a caster, not true if you just want to be a melee god and use high levels slots for quicken spells)
They need more skills (not necessarily true. Certainly not if you just want to kill stuff min your stick)
Selective channeling is a feat tax. (True if...
Thanks for the efficient summary. I started on these forums in June, and I must have missed Cleric complaints (if they occurred in that time frame, that is). I have not played a Cleric since second edition, and the only one that I saw in 3rd edition was for a Dark Sun campaign (and that character only took Cleric levels so that she could heal the party).
I had thought about beefing up the Cleric for those reasons, even though I had not itemized them as such. It is good that my gut-reaction seems to be in-line with the views of others. I had figured that people just hate playing the Cleric. I still see Cleric as a synonym to Medic. We have an Oracle/Paladin in our group (mostly Paladin).
I'd like to add something to what I've said earlier... aside from the Oracle emphasis typo.
Can you really have too many classes? That's like saying that there are too many job opportunities in the real world.
You can have too many prestige classes though. This has been a major issue for me since a while now: with the addition of archetypes, a lot of PrCs feels like expensive archetypes, not to mention that they usually offer few abilities to compensate the loss of other abilties you kinda lose when ditching your base class.
Also, while the 11 base classes remain iconic, was there any "negative" feedback from the inclusion of new classes? Each of them added their own mecanics and flair to them that you couldn't compare them word for word to other classes.
A cleric is tied to a church and God, while an orcale is tied to a tribal community and foresight.
A figher is tied to his weapon training, while a cavalier is tied to his commanding abilities, similar to the Marshall class back in 3.5.
A wizard is tied to spell research and spellbooks, while a witch is tied to the occult and reclusiveness.
It's true that the number of classes can be overwhelming, but that much? I doubt it.
|
|
If you don't like new classes, feats, spells, or magic items in your game, don't use them.
Other people very much would like more classes, feats, spells, and magic items.
The design team is somewhere in the middle, looking for more interesting conceptual niches, but not wanting to just create new things for the sake of filling words on a page.
What it comes down to is you are not required to buy any expansions for the game, but your dislike of certain expansion ideas shouldn't mean other players shouldn't get to enjoy those things.
In spades. Play main book, nothing else, if it's what you like. Plenty do. Paizo needs to make money, and some of us like some of the alternate stuff... some may even like all of it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not everyone likes Batman, you know...
I don't understand this statement.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I came in with Basic and 2nd edition. 3rd ed was a huge improvement except it went from 4 classes to 11.
Way back in the good ol' 2nd ed days, I rolled a fighter with 18/impressive strength. So I gave him a 2 handed sword to capitalize on this. That meant I couldn't afford decent armour, so I gave him hide armour, and lo, a Barbarian was born. Since that day, I can make pretty much any character I want to play using just the 4 core classes. With dozens of skills and hundreds of feats, it has never been easier to play the character you want to play. And all without 23 extra classes.
I loved 2nd ed having rangers, druids, bards and stuff as subclasses.
Swashbuckler? Put your fighter in a floppy hat.
Investigator? Max out your rogue's perception skills.
Witch? Play an elderly female wizard.
Druid? Give your cleric nature spells.
I understand I don't have to use any of the new classes.
I've certainly never needed any of them.
There's only one thing you need for a game based on imagination.
$0.02
:-D
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Aw man, the title's been fixed. Now I can't grab a beer every time I come to this thread.
So, you're just greedy then. Got it.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.
Every level Fighter says "moar BaB" he doesn't need any other abilities either!
Maybe YOU don't need anything else. But when I gain a wizard level and get nothing but 1 more spell of levels I already have it feels bad. It feels unfun. It feels lame. It feels NOT awesome. I need some more abilities on the chart to look forward to so that every other level or more isn't just lame feeling.
I don't consider wanting to have something outside of four bonus feats to be greedy. . . but again, maybe PF isn't for me. 3.5 Wizards had way more cool options. Maybe I don't need to keep spending money on these new books if 'the character types I want to play aren't getting anything because the Devs are just pumping out more base classes.
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 levelSo a Sorcerer getting a couple of spells known and more spells per day means its not a dead level... but a Wizard getting a couple of spells known and more spells per day is a dead level?
That's a bit of a double standard.
Well it can come up as a bit of an issue. If you have two different sorcerers in the same party, then they will be distinctly different because of their different spells known.
However if you have two different wizards in the same party and they're close enough friends to share their spell books, then there won't be much difference between the two wizards.
I appreciate that this is a small problem, but it does make a quantifiable difference between the two. Personally I miss having the 3.5 era complete arcane wacky sets of different wizards to make them all feel different in ways other than spell selection. An acolyte of the skin and a elemental ascensionist felt like very different wizards.
The specialist powers are fantastic and do add an element of this in, but it is fairly small.
Its doubly problematic for wizards because while there are tons of archetypes for other classes there isn't even that much design space to build archetypes for wizards because there are so few abilities to replace. . .
And replacing school specialization is so devastating that it would never be worth it. . .
I'm all for introducing new classes or whatever. . . but none of the /Wizard classes are ever worth my looking at, and I almost exclusively play wizards.
Magi and Witches can never get past 6th level spells and have severely limited spell lists?
Sorry! I will take 1 level of something martial, then get to Eldritch Knight and keep my 7th and 8th level spells and end the game as a level 18 casting Wizard!
And be able to cast the spells I WANT not the ones Paizo thinks the Wizard/Fighter should cast. . . maybe I want to be a Fighter/Mage who casts mostly enchantments outside of combat and just wings my sword when its initiative time? Can't do that with the Magus!
What is your problem? You've admitted yourself that Paizo has the tools to serve what YOU want. Do you have so much of a problem acknowledging the fact that there are others looking for different varieties of cake and they deserve to be served to?
I have both Magus and Eldritch Knight characters under my belt, and I love them both. I see the Eldritch Knight as a dilletante fighter/wizard, and the Magus as the true Wizard of War. They inspire very different personalities and modes of thought.
Right. So my point is I would like to see more material (PRCs, Archetypes) published for the Wizard. It feels like its been left to the side and not supported. It had a four page spread in Ultimate Magic. It looks like it won't even be mentioned in Advanced Class Guide.
Its fine for other classes to exist. A few of the ones coming out actually seem fun and interesting. But when you do that at the expense of the others it gets frustrating for players who want new material for the classes they already have.
(This is relevant to the topic of "Too Many Classes" because clearly there are too many for Paizo to continue to support them all-- which leaves some of them neglected.)