|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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!). 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. 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!!!
I have some problems because with archetypes around it feels like more design space is open with fewer diverse classes as opposed to many narrow classes.
However that ship has sailed from day one so as long as I can adequately navigate the whole mess I'm pretty satisfied with what we're getting. I hope that one day we get a 'class index' so that players don't have to go class hunting through a bunch of books.
Personally the only class that I think is kind of lame is the Magus. But that is because I have three complaints:
1) The Magus uses Wizard spells, but only some of them. It does not work very well with a multi-classed Magus/Wizard. If anything the Magus spell list should be the "recommended spell list" and have you be a Wizard.
2) The spell combat things that a Magus can do should be available to a Fighter/Wizard. Actually, I think it should be a feat-tree that is available to any spellcaster.
3) I am partial to the Figher/Wizard multiclassed character and the Eldritch Knight prestige class.
The Ninja should just be a bunch of options made available to the Rogue or Monk/Rogue. It should not be its own class, but maybe an archetype.
The Cavalier and Samurai should just be a bunch of options made available to the Fighter. Same thing with the Gunslinger, in my opinion.
So, I agree with the OP, but I do acknowledge that these specific classes may be what is "the perfect character" for someone else, which is why they are made available.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why make it easier to get the things we want?
Paizo feels this way is better than waiting until 6th level to get the feel for your character that you want, or having to step outside of a class to get that feel. They prefer characters that can embody the character archetypes from fiction that we all love and want to emulate. So they will continue to try and fill those gaps with new classes that are custom made rather than kludged together.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Why make it easier to get the things we want. 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.
Why not? If you don't like them, don't use them.
| 36 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
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.
This, in a nutshell.
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!). 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. 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!!!
FWIW, I prefer just using the core classes, however I dont see that giving extra character options "takes away from the adventure". You can still do things your way if you prefer - who cares if there's a whole bunch of options you dont use?
.Cobbling together two classes created a few years ago imposes more restrictions on where you end up than if you start with a clean slate. Another problem with trying to fill those 'weird' niches with multiclassing or prestige classes is that it takes several levels before you start to get the feel you're looking for. There are many people who prefer the low level games - expansive options via more base classes or a plethora of archetypes allow people to have lots of options at low levels. As I understand things, the lower levels are the most popular (based on sales of supplements and adventures) so I think it's sensible to cater to that market.
|
|
It isn't that I hate the new classes that keep coming out, but it just seams like they are all just prestige classes for the cross-classed characters. Think about it. A Magus is a Martial Character (or Caster), that also specializes in the other. After working on both options, they learn to combine the two and use them more effectively together. To me, this just sounds like a prestige class. Now an Alchemist definably should have been either an Archetype or Minor Prestige class. I love this class because it didn't focus the whole on one way or the other, it could have been done both ways. A rogue that has perfected his poisoning techniques and has developed other special concisions along the way, or a wizard who just plains sucks at casting, but does great with brewing concoctions. You could even do a really smart fighter/barbarian type, or a doctor. I understand all the classes are this way, but they still seam like revamped versions of what we have. If they are going to do new classes, cant they come up with something completely new and original?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I thought this thread was about giving features to many classes, instead it is the opposite. I don't think there are too many classes, in fact I look forward to many more in the coming years. If you do not enjoy more classes you can always ignore them.
Class Index
More like something in print, that I can put on the table and describes the classes function in layman's terms a bit.
In response to Sean K Reynoylds; Pretty much. When I don't want to deal with expanded rules in specific campaigns due to various reasons I just limit the books used or ban classes. As a player whenever the GM bans a class I like there's enough diversity in the rest of the rules to suck it up and just be creative within those confides.
I am glad that design is in the middle ground because while new classes are nice, I don't want to deal with the nightmare of having to keep up with a constant stream of base classes.
A toast: "To many classes!"
lol glad i am not the only one.
I've no problem with classes that fulfill roles, but with the spread that archetypes give to classes, I can't see what mishmashing class combos is worth to come up with a new class. And that's where I see the problem. We've covered the recognized (and I do consider them pigeonholed) veins that adventurers come in. Given this existing spread, I would rather see more archetypes that fine tune existing classes than waste space with whole classes that piecemeal what's already out there.
|
I felt the same way at first. I saw the announcement of advanced class guide or whatever it will be called and was puzzled. Are they looking to kill multi-classing once and for all? I just love multi-classing and guess after a decade of using the 3E system I really learned to love it!
I have come around though to the argument of being your concept from level 1. I find that I play too seldom at higher levels to reach many concepts. I just don't like high level and these new hybrid classes are doing the trick. I still love to MC, and will never give up on it fully, but count me in as a more classes guy.
How does having more classes 'take away from the adventure'?
In any event, I've no problem with them printing as many classes as they feel like. if I don't like one or more, I can just forbid them in my game, and there's nothing wrong with having more than one way to turn a concept into a character.
I'm a more options, more better kind of guy.
I don't like playing any classes except the ones in the Core rulebook, but I like that they exist.
One advantage is with the wealth of classes we have the players can never assume they know what abilities an NPC or BBEG has (unless they know every single ability every class has). This make them scarier imo.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
Some customers (myself included) would rather you focus your efforts elsewhere. There is certainly no harm in us telling Oaizo "Hey, we're good on base classes".
I woukd orefer we shift focus away from archetypes and base classes and get some more PrCs out there. Yeah 3.5 had a huge focus on them but I think we are far enough away from that now. I am reserving judgement for the playtest release but so far I am not liking what I hear for ACG. PF has reached a point where we csn slow down on new rules elements and maybe some of its members (like you Sean and Jason) can switch back to writing some adventures.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prestige classes are slowly being eeked out and they do try to maintain a level of inferiority to base class progression. I'd much rather prefer having cool base classes than get multiclassapolooza.5
Prestige classes are slowly being eeked out and they do try to maintain a level of inferiority to base class progression. I'd much rather prefer having cool base classes than get multiclassapolooza.5
Tend to agree with this. I'd rather find a single class that meets my character concept than have to cut off halfway through progression to multiclass into a prestige class. If we had AP support for L20-30 I'd probably change my mind, but as we've pretty much had a definitive "no" to L20+ from Paizo I'll go with more variety in base classes.
I'm looking forward to the new classes, but I can see PFS games becoming mental all the different races & class choices.
"I'm a half-fox-lizard Daemon blooded teifling ranger/wizard hybrid with the Doohicky archetype who has lycanthropy because he was raised by werebears"
I'm tempted to think perhaps a "complexity score" is needed to limit the complexity of a single character. Options are great, but throwing them all in at once can indeed make a mess :)
However, new classes and races hopefully help to reduce the complexity, because there's (hopefully) less need to hybridize if you can find a single race or class that does the job you want.
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!). 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. 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!!!
They make new classes so they will have content for new books that they can sell and therefore make money and stay in business.
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!
My only gripe with the increasing number of classes is that it's continuing to exaggerate the number of spellcasting classes vs. non-casting classes.
Of the 11 core classes, seven have sellcasting abilities. With the new base classes, that jumps to an additional six casters and only two additional non-casters.
As a DM, spell proliferation is a problem area*. So while I approve of more base classes to choose from (I like it better than multi-classing), I'm not super-thrilled with the way it ups the number and variety of spellcasters in my game.
So yeah, I'd love to see a swashbuckler class, or a non-casting ranger scout class. I've just no interest in an elementalist mage class or a combined arcane/divine thaumaturge class.
* In my own experience, too many casters slows down gameplay by dragging out individual combat turns while at the same time promoting the 15-minute adventuring day.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Prestige classes are slowly being eeked out and they do try to maintain a level of inferiority to base class progression. I'd much rather prefer having cool base classes than get multiclassapolooza.5
I actually miss the good old Prestige Classes of 3.5e, though I doubt I'm the only one.
|
|
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!). 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. 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!!!
Here's what I figure.
1) There are folks out there like myself who continue to shell out the $130 per year for the RPG subscription, and want more classes and content. Apparently there is enough of us to sustain this business model, otherwise they would stop doing it. Similarly, there are enough folks who run AP's to sustain their AP business model. I don't buy them, and I'm not required to use them to play my game. Consumer demand pushes future development, and if folks keep buying more class books, the manufacturer will continue to produce new class books.
2) One of the core design principles behind PFRPG from the start was eliminating the want to multi-class. 20th level capstones, progressing class features, etc, all were introduced to highly discourage cherry picking classes and being a 1/2/1/4/10 MC combo class. The hybridized classes help satiate the desires of those of us who either a) continue to multi-class but want to not suffer so much in power level, or b) bring a concept that doesn't already exist in a mechanically beneficial form to fruition. Where is the 4 level arcane caster with full bab? Currently this can be accomplished via *2* divine base classes, but without homebrewing rules or simply suffering with weaker spell lists and poor caster levels through multi-classing, it doesn't exist. I'm hoping the new Bloodrager fixes this, since it clearly is an open hole in classes.
|
|
Not quite, it was to make the core classes worth taking all 20 levels of. In 3.5 there was nothing for Sorceror past level one for example.
I also shell out money on the RPG subscription, it doesn't mean I want more base classes even though I will likely enjoy other aspects of the book, which is why I express my opinion here. I feel these classes are going to hurt the long term health of the system and a good chunk of the should be cut. Divine Magus/Warpriest could be changed into an archetype or alternate class for magus for example.
| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
It isn't that I hate the new classes that keep coming out, but it just seams like they are all just prestige classes for the cross-classed characters. Think about it. A Magus is a Martial Character (or Caster), that also specializes in the other. After working on both options, they learn to combine the two and use them more effectively together. To me, this just sounds like a prestige class. Now an Alchemist definably should have been either an Archetype or Minor Prestige class. I love this class because it didn't focus the whole on one way or the other, it could have been done both ways. A rogue that has perfected his poisoning techniques and has developed other special concisions along the way, or a wizard who just plains sucks at casting, but does great with brewing concoctions. You could even do a really smart fighter/barbarian type, or a doctor. I understand all the classes are this way, but they still seam like revamped versions of what we have. If they are going to do new classes, cant they come up with something completely new and original?
I am going to separate my response into facts and opinions. First facts.
1. The majority of the game is played at low levels. This is supported not just by anecdotal evidence, its supported by sales of products. Its supported by the proliferation of the E6 concept. Paizo adventure paths all start at level 1. Most dont run over levels 14-16. Levels 10-12 is where prestige classes start to really do whatever it is that they are meant to do. It takes some campaigns months or years of actual time to that level. Many dont ever get there. Many dont WANT to get there. Prestige classes should exist because some people like them. But they are not sufficient to fufill conceptual needs. They cannot be the only or even primary way to acheive a given concept.
2. Paizo has deliberately introduced elements of the game to make single class characters the norm. This was a design choice. Paizo set out to make a 1-20 single class character, not only acceptable, but good. All classes have abilities that explicately scale with class level. Favored class bonuses mean that a non-half elf multiclass character is explicately losing out on something if they multiclass or use a prestige class. All classes have abilities they get each level that continue (in theory) to add to its effectiveness, its concept, and (hopefully) its fun. Mixing classes delay or prevent those higher level abilities. To that effect, it is less practical and workable to multiclass or use prestige classes to acheive concepts. It simply doesnt work as well.
Since paizo made that design choice, they need to support more concepts with base classes. Archetypes and alternate classes are one way to do that. But that provides a limited design space.
There is only so much you can do to with the original class framework. Sometimes you have to break out of it. The gunslinger is an example. Paizo originally wanted to make it a kind of fighter. After playtesting and rewrites, they realized they needed to step outside of the fighter framework and made it its own class. Did it HAVE to happen? Ofcourse not. But they obviously felt the BEST way to make a gunslinger is to make it its own class. Designing a class from the ground up to make it do what you want it to do is often more managable then making another class do something different in terms of their mechanics.
3. Pathfinder has been a revolution of 'mixed' classes when compared to 3.x. 3rd edition had vrelatively few classes that where 'bard' chasis. A mix of magical, skillful and martial abilties. Paizo has more or less made that their standard. They converted the core, so they were limited by what came before. But of what they have created from scratch, The Summoner, Inquisitor, alchemist, witch and Magus (possibly ninja), are a mix of the classic 4 classes (fighter wizard cleric rogue). The cavalier, Oracle and samurai are not mixed. All of that first group of characters mixes some of what already exists and some new stuff to make something different. Mixed base classes instead of multiclassing or prestige classes is the norm in the pathfinder design space.
Opinion.
1. New classes are the best way to add options to the game in my opinion. I can take the 3-8 pages of that new class, and just read it and work with it to pretty much make my concept work. Could it be done with feats and prestige classes and multiclassing? Sure, but that is harder then just getting a class that was specifically designed to do the thing I want.
Its also much easier for new players. If they just have to read one class to do whatever it is they want to do, its less stressful, less difficult and more approachable then having to mix and match options from various sources.
2. New classes are easier to balance then prestige classes, alternate classes or even archetypes. All those other things involve trading one thing for another. Prestige classes trade prerequisites and time spent leveling up for the abilities it gains. Archetypes and alternate classes trade abilities in and out. If you have to worry about specific trades being balanced at each level, its much harder to make the class work then if you simply design it from the ground up.
3. New classes work explicately better then multiclassing because they can include new mechanics to bring disperate abilities together. I can play a fighter/wizard multiclass to acheive a 'concept'. But what I end up with is a class that has 2 sets of lower level abilities that I have to work hard to make compliment eachother well. If however, I play a magus, I get some fightery things, and some wizardy things, and then I get spell combat and spell strike to bring them together so they work as well as the single class abilties in terms of overall effectiveness.
4. New Classes are easier on GMs then any other method of adding options. This stems from #1. When I am creating npcs, or brushing up on how an existing npc works, if its single classed that gives me a very specific space to work in. If I can say, 'He will be an inquisitor' that significantly narrows down my choices, and also makes several automatic choices for me. If I am going to make that same character by multiclassing fighter, cleric, rogue, and some prestige class, its more work to make it happen, and it requires a greater mental investment to make the character.
5. I like new base classes. They excite me more then any other addition to the game. They bring forth ideas, and creativity, and make me want to play more then anything else. I have played the core classes in one form or another for 20 years. I want new stuff, even if it includes recombinations of older stuff with a few new things to bring it all together.
|
|
No one voicing their disapproval has claimed to be a majority or speak for all the customers, only themselves. It is a bit crass to write off our opinions as "the vocal minority" especially as you don't have access to the sales metrics anyway.
To Kolo: I disagree with you on every of your opinions, but want to say this about fact 1: Yes, most games are played at low levels, and end around 15 (for the adventure oaths) when a PrC gets its capstone ability. In my opinion that makes PrCs even better as your character reaches his pinnacle for the final chapters of the campaign. I have run PrC chars in 1-18+ games and it is a bit of a letdown going back to the base class afterwards.
If I were designing I would prefer the d20 modern base/advanced/prestige system personally. Full versatility in design.
|
On the subject of more classes, I think this new book will be interesting. I am also looking forward to their discussion on how to create classes.
I was hoping for a hybrid Oracle / Sorcerer because you cant effectively do one with the current rules. But with the class building advice, and the examples of the hybrid classes in the Advanced Class guide, hopefully I can make my own.
I like most of what paizo has put out. I don't like everything. For example, I dislike guns and have no interest in the gunslinger. However, just because I don't like either guns or the gunslinger, doesn't mean that there are lots of people who like them. And just because I don't like the gunslinger, doesn't mean I'm not going to buy the Ultimate Combat book. I'm not going to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". I have the Ultimate Combat on my book shelf.
Am I excited about every single hybrid class being introduced in the Advanced Class guide? Well there are some I am more excited about then others. But I am still excited about the play test, and I am looking forward to buying this book.
And If there is materiel I don't like, I won't use it.
Variety is the spice of virtual life.
They created the new classes because there were more narrowly defined basic literary tropes to fill.
In the 40 odd years of gaming they wanted varied content. Sure a wizard can call them selves a witch but a wizard didnt have curse, hex mechanics and a spell to cook their victims.
The witch trying to cook Hansel is not the same as Gandalf laying down a wall of fire on the bridge of Kazadum
As much as I hope they will stop all the class bloat, they wont!! They really do need something to market every month to make money. So we do we've always done. Invoke rule zero, drive on, play and have fun!
I love PrCs and multiclassing. I even started a thread a while ago where we discussed what roles PrCs are best at filling and why they still have a role in the game.
But I really like the design elements of PF that you should be able to play a class from 1-20, and feel you are playing the concept you want from level 1.
I don't think there is such a thing as "too many options." That doesn't even make sense to me. I don't get why there are some who feel then need to restict what a player can be so severely.
But that is the great thing about this game, you can just not use a new book, or new class, or even just change how a rule works in your game. So no amount of new material has to affect your game if you choose not to use it.
|
Personally the only class that I think is kind of lame is the Magus. But that is because I have three complaints:
1) The Magus uses Wizard spells, but only some of them. It does not work very well with a multi-classed Magus/Wizard. If anything the Magus spell list should be the "recommended spell list" and have you be a Wizard.
2) The spell combat things that a Magus can do should be available to a Fighter/Wizard. Actually, I think it should be a feat-tree that is available to any spellcaster.
3) I am partial to the Figher/Wizard multiclassed character and the Eldritch Knight prestige class.
I used to think that magus was the silliest class ever invented (for the same reasons you mentioned in your post), and now I'm playing an 8th level elven bladebound magus and having a blast! These days I think magus is a great concept, and deserves to exist in the game as a base class. It plays very differently from your typical fighter/wizards, and I think that's a good thing.
I was also highly skeptical of witch, alchemist, inquisitor, oracle, summoner and cavalier; I, too, thought they should be prestige classes at best. Well, since then all of them have featured as NPCs and/or PCs in my own campaign, and I think they're really fun and flavorful to run and play (except maybe for the Life oracle, which one of my players tried playing for a while; to me it seemed like he was always spamming healing, and I wasn't surprised when he wanted to create a new character).
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.