| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've read it plenty of times now that people complain that a class doesn't fill any new niche or role and is therefor superfluous. While I agree that some classes don't have a distinct niche of their own, I disagree with this notion that they need to have one.
While I certainly see the prerogative to fill new niches where they exist as a good thing, I don't think that that should be the only point of classes as such.
Sure, when casting spells a shaman does basically the same thing as a cleric, and an arcanist is having the same effect as sorcerers or wizards, but why is that a problem? We have covered pretty much everything ins spellcasting already, with Bards, Inquisitors, Druids, Clerics, Wizards, Maguses, Summoners and Witches we have covered pretty much every combination of offensive, defensive, buff, debuff, heal and utility spellcasting. I don't think that means we should stop making new spellcasting classes.
I got the impression that people have been looking at the new classes strictly from a mechanical standpoint. "There is a class that can do this, so we don't need another one". But we shouldn't forget that this is a roleplaying game where players slip into the identity of a fantasy hero. When create your character you might want to create them with a certain flavor in mind. Not just "what do they do" but "how do they do it", and "what gives them these abilities"
What classes like the arcanist, warpriest or shaman (just for examples) deliver, that wizards and clerics don't have, is a new flavor to their abilities. They combine them with different side abilities or altered mechanics to create a new type of hero that if you had tried to build them before would have ended you at best with two crippled spellcasting and two chopped-off class feature progressions.
An arcanist allows a player to be a mage who learned to harness their already inherent abilities through study. A shaman allows a player to be a mystic who communes with the spirits surrounding him every day to draw power from them. A brawler let's the player take on the role of a brutal pugilist without having to attach the self-discipline and super-natural abilities to it.
Ive seen a lot of people arguing that a lot if not all of the new classes are unnecessary, to which I say: I beg to differ.
I'm glad they exist and don't want them to go away. They allow new character concepts, which I think in a roleplaying game is much more important than new tactical options and mechanics. You should play the game and your character for its style and story, not for its numbers. If you want a game about numbers, you should consider playing Yahtzee.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Niche, no. Feel, yes. Look at the revision to the Arcanist. It took a lackluster tossed-together feel and revised it so the class has its own uniqueness. It is no longer a wizard/sorcerer. It is the Arcanist.
Likewise, other new classes need to be modified to be unique. Some already have this - there was a lot of care and interest put into the Swashbucker. The Slayer likewise has elements that help it be more than just a Ranger/Rogue. But some classes (like the Hunter and the Shaman) lack this unique quality.
Fundamentally, this is what the hybrids need. They need some aspect of uniqueness that makes them more than just the combination of their parts. They need an element that says "I am my own class."
I mean, look at the Paladin and the Ranger. The core of these classes is that they are hybrids: Fighter/Cleric, and Fighter/Druid. But rather than just tossing together elements and calling it a done deal, each was enhanced to give them their own unique qualities.
Every single hybrid needs this core unique element. Without it, they fail to be effective classes.
|
Every major complaint I have had with a new class has been more about its fluff than with its crunch (crunch is what we really need to playtest for sure, but the fluff needs to be in place first). Some classes just don't have their own niche fluff wise. Arcanist is fixed, Warpriest needs it more than any other and Slayer needs it somewhat as well. If they add nothing new or interesting to the world then all they are is a collection of mechanics and a base class should be more than that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Niche, no. Feel, yes. Look at the revision to the Arcanist. It took a lackluster tossed-together feel and revised it so the class has its own uniqueness. It is no longer a wizard/sorcerer. It is the Arcanist.
Likewise, other new classes need to be modified to be unique. Some already have this - there was a lot of care and interest put into the Swashbucker. The Slayer likewise has elements that help it be more than just a Ranger/Rogue. But some classes (like the Hunter and the Shaman) lack this unique quality.
Fundamentally, this is what the hybrids need. They need some aspect of uniqueness that makes them more than just the combination of their parts. They need an element that says "I am my own class."
I mean, look at the Paladin and the Ranger. The core of these classes is that they are hybrids: Fighter/Cleric, and Fighter/Druid. But rather than just tossing together elements and calling it a done deal, each was enhanced to give them their own unique qualities.
Every single hybrid needs this core unique element. Without it, they fail to be effective classes.
Gotta say I disagree. The class being a hybrid is a unique feel in my book. I really liked the original flavor behind the Arcanist. I absolutely love the Shaman. They differentiate themselves from their parts by simply being combinations of the two.
It's not, however. All it is is a cheap and easy way of letting someone multi-class but still reach a capstone of sorts. These are underpowered gestalts and while some people enjoy gestalt classes... they're ultimately unbalanced and a sloppy way of filling a hole in the party roster.
For instance, take the Swashbuckler. If all the class was is a fighter/gunslinger with guns removed, it wouldn't work. Instead, they took elements of the Prestige class Duelist and incorporated it into the class to give it its own feel. Likewise with the Slayer, which incorporated elements of the Assassin Prestige class. The Bloodrager is more iffy because while some of it is Dragon Disciple, the spell selection and rage elements haven't been effectively merged.
Each of these classes ultimately need something new that is outside the two "core" classes that make up the whole. This helps build the class's identity and make it interesting. Gestalt aren't interesting, thus having these classes be micro-gestalt ends up with curiosities that won't get used and are a waste of Paizo's and our time and money.
I wouldn't say niche...I'd say trade-off. That is, a class shouldn't do everything, but investing in one area should be done at the expense of another.
I'm more of a fan or role and flavor, for example. That said, I wouldn't want a class to be the "best at everything." More, that the player's choices, and the theme of the class, determined these specialties.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm with Threeshades on this one, but for a completely different reason. I'm pretty unrestricted in my fluff, and as such I don't need new classes to justify my flavor. You only need the most tangential link between your RP and your character sheet. Maybe my wizard doesn't cast spells, he just really nice asks the rock spirits to turn into mud spirits. The reason I don't think every hybrid needs a niche is because they're not new classes. They're blends of existing classes who almost by definition are going to fill existing niches. That's totally okay with me. It used to be if I wanted to play a full arcane caster, my choices were Wizard or Sorcerer. Then Witch came out, and that was cool, not because it introduced new mechanics (don't get me wrong, I like those too), but because it allowed me to build my caster differently. A few less evocations, a few more at-will SLAs, and that's a class. Arcanist now too is yet another way to build an arcane caster that's fundamentally different even though it accomplishes the same goals.
Question. How many pages of discussion have you read about which method Wizards use to spontaneously cast one or more spells is the most effective? For that matter, how much discussion have you read about how Sorcerers can best expand their spells known? I know the Arcanist mechanics are really, really, really simple, but if you can't get excited about Arcanist casting, either you've become really comfortable with your favorite arcane casting system, or you just don't notice the intricacies of the mechanics.
And we could have the same discussion about filling each other niche with a hybrid. Once you accept that the intent was never to make 10 more Maguses, I think you might agree they've been successful enough for a playtest doc.
|
Making a gestalt Sorcerer/Wizard into a single class is not hard, and can easily be homebrewed together at your own table. Creating something that fits into the Pathfinder world, and /adds/ both mechanical and flavor value to the system, is the point of official Paizo products like the ACG.
Even if the end-result doesn't have an incredibly unique niche or whatever, that's ok; what's important is that they come out approaching a pre-filled niche in a new way. Take the Magus, even: it doesn't really create a new niche. Spellcaster/Warrior is one of the oldest builds in Tabletop RPGs and easily doable with or without Eldritch Knight in PF. Magus didn't invent the niche, it invented its own way to approach it. When done correctly, the "new" class synergies its new mechanical/flavor aspects into something greater than the sum of its parts.
A hybrid class that just copy/pastes all of two classes' abilities and calls it a day simply cannot add that same amount of value.
If you want to make 'simple' hybrid classes, you dont' need Paizo for that.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've sat at a lot of tables, and played with an awful lot of amateur homebrewers, and maybe you've got a good group, but let me just say I've seen many people who, yes, definitely need Paizo for simple hybrid classes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All it is is a cheap and easy way of letting someone multi-class but still reach a capstone of sorts.
And this is bad, why? We all know multi-classing is a terrible choice in Pathfinder, but some concepts require it.
Each of these classes ultimately need something new that is outside the two "core" classes that make up the whole. This helps build the class's identity and make it interesting. Gestalt aren't interesting, thus having these classes be micro-gestalt ends up with curiosities that won't get used and are a waste of Paizo's and our time and money.
I think the extra things that are being added to some of these classes is just that: an extra. A nice little bonus for focusing on two disciplines instead of one. I think all these classes would work just fine if all they did was take things from each of their component classes. True, they wouldn't likely get as much play, but someone would love them.
Maybe I just like gestalt too much. Fully half of my campaigns have been gestalt, and it is nice to see some of my favorite combinations being put together in a single class. These hybrids are actually making a lot of my old group's characters viable without doing gestalt.| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
No.
I have zero problem with there being multiple routes to realizing your character concept.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The problem is that gestalt are unbalanced and broken.
Thus creating a bunch of micro-gestalt and calling them an official Paizo product? It doesn't sound like a good idea. And while you can always tell me not to use them in my game, it's the same problem as with Mythic (which I like, btw): Now that it exists, Paizo will incorporate it into their future products. I do not need a bunch of broken gestalt showing up in future APs.
Thus my urging Paizo to do to these "hybrids" what Paizo did with the Magus, Witch, and other classes: find ways of making these classes unique instead of micro-gestalt.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
These classes arent gestalt. They have a normal class worth of class abilities. their saves, base attack bonuses and hit die are normal for their character type. They are a combination of abilities, but they dont recieve more class abilities then comparable existing classes. There is nothing gestalt about them unless a paladin is gestalt, a ranger is gestalt, a inquisitor is gestalt etc. THey are a combination of concept and abilities, but they dont get to double down on abilities.
The problem is that gestalt are unbalanced and broken.
Thus creating a bunch of micro-gestalt and calling them an official Paizo product? It doesn't sound like a good idea. And while you can always tell me not to use them in my game, it's the same problem as with Mythic (which I like, btw): Now that it exists, Paizo will incorporate it into their future products. I do not need a bunch of broken gestalt showing up in future APs.
Thus my urging Paizo to do to these "hybrids" what Paizo did with the Magus, Witch, and other classes: find ways of making these classes unique instead of micro-gestalt.
I hope you didn't pull a muscle making that stretch. Any relation between this classes and gestalt is, at best, cosmetic.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I like some of the new classes. I'm not outright against new classes, but I do think Pathfinder is getting bloated, and it puts extra stress on the DM every time a new class is added (since the DM needs to learn a new set of rules). Therefore I believe you should only add new classes if there's a need for them.
Some of the classes, such as the brawler, are desperately needed. Some classes provide flavor, although IMO if they're not doing something mechanically different they should be given something mechanically different. (Take a look at the witch. It's basically a wizard mixed with a little druid, but neither class uses hexes. It doesn't just have somewhat distinct flavor, it has somewhat distinct mechanics.)
Some of the new classes don't do enough to distinguish themselves, and some do. Naturally this is subjective, so it's all people's opinions.
The only place releasing new material puts extra stress on dms is organized play(where players could be anything at any time). Every other case, the workload is nearly identical when dealing with something new. Youh have 4-6 players, they have a certain set of abilities. You have to learn those abilities. There are x npcs in your campaign, you have to look at those preparing for your campaign.
In addition base classes are the LEAST complicated way to add options to the game. If you add archetypes, they interact (potentially) with everything else release for that class, and all the generic options (talents, feats etc). I might have to look through several books to see all the options that could potentially interact with that archetype.
New base classes are dramatically less complicated and more self contained. I need only read the couple pages that specifically describe that class to understand it. As a dm I would MUCH rather a player choose a new base class that i can pick up and read simply, then 2 archetypes and 4 feats from 3 different books along with the core class being modified that I have to look through to understand the character.
So in terms of adding options to the game, in my opinion (and in terms of the pure math of the complexity added by new options) base classes are by far easier then any other method of adding options. Particularly when they use already existing features (reducing the effort needed to absorb and understand the new class).
The idea that adding base classes is extra stress on gms instead of alternate classes, archetypes is simply not true. Mind you adding options to the game will always apply some stress to a gm, because it is in fact something new, so unless you are of the opinion that no new options should be added to the game, there isnt a way to avoid this. And if you are of that opinion, then you are not a customer of this product.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Presumably part of the reason we are getting hybrids though is to prevent bloat issues. For the most part, the hybrid classes tend to use class features that already exist, as well as preexisting spell lists. Granted some classes do vary from this...The Inspiration mechanics of the Investigator is a bit different for instance. But my feeling is that part of the goal behind the hybrid classes is, beside improving upon multiclassing, it to introduce new options with less bloat than we would get with 10 completely novel classes.
A class may not need an exact niche, but it does need an exact theme and goal. Otherwise, you get the same issue we have with the monk and the rogue.
A class may not need an exact niche, but it does need an exact theme and goal. Otherwise, you get the same issue we have with the monk and the rogue.
Which is a non-issue to many people.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
When I look at a new class, all I care about is 'does this look fun to play?'
When I look at a new class, all I care about is 'does this look fun to play?'
Pretty much the same for me. My questions when it comes to new classes are:
1. Would I play this?2. Would anyone in my group play this?
3. Is it broken?
4. If 3, can I fix it?
A class may not need an exact niche, but it does need an exact theme and goal. Otherwise, you get the same issue we have with the monk and the rogue.Which is a non-issue to many people.
A non-issue to many, but also an issue for many others. Paizo recognized this sort of issue when they crafted the brawler. The numerous, fire-filled rogue threads attest to it.
"Make the rogue a d10, full BAB class!" is one cry. Another, "Make them more shadowy and social!" Or, "Give them fighter feats and bonuses in light armor!" In a way, the new classess address this very issue with the swashbuckler.
So no, for many it isn't an issue. However, we can't deny that for others it clearly IS, and clearly enough that Paizo has done some design in response TO it.
Whether we agree personally is a different matter, and there's nothing wrong with that. I expect Paizo to do their market research, though, which clearly they've been doing.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
"Niche" is the wrong word. It's fine for multiple classes to fill the same niche.
However, each class should have it's own unique concept to fill that niche with.
I'll use the most obvious example in this playtest: The Warpriest.
This class offers me nothing that doesn't already exist for a concept. Clerics/Oracles are already good "divine combatants". Inquisitors and Paladins are even better for when I want "more fighty, less casty".
So the Warpriest's concept and niche are both already filled, and leave me wondering why it even exists. (Now what we don't have is a non-LG Paladin option, and that would have been a great place for the Warpriest to shove it's way into. However, the Devs have already been pretty clear that this direction is not going to happen, leaving people like me scratching my head in stupendous wonder.)
A less extreme example is the Swashbuckler. The Duelist prestige already exists, and fills this concept exactly. However, Paizo has a hate-on for generic, non-flavor-based, prestige classes, and there wasn't a base/core class that could adequately fill the same concept - so the Swashbuckler is born.
Then there are classes where the concept wasn't adequately filled, such as the Bloodrager, who wants to be Fighter/Mage but more Fighter than Mage - The Arcane Paladin, if you will. The Magus is kind of 50/50 with melee and magic, and doesn't fit the same sort of flavor the Bloodrager would. So now the Bloodrager can fill a niche that didn't exist previously, and with it's own unique concept. (Sure, the Eldritch Knight could kinda fill the niche, but it was awkward and, just as the above example, it's a generic PrC, which Paizo hates.)
Players may pick a class for reasons other than conceptual issues. For instance, I will never play a cleric, simply because I *hate* prep-casting. I would dearly love for PF to print a character that is a Magus that uses spontaneous casting. Sometimes, a class will just have something mechanical you don't like, so a different option is appreciated.
|
|
Players may pick a class for reasons other than conceptual issues. For instance, I will never play a cleric, simply because I *hate* prep-casting. I would dearly love for PF to print a character that is a Magus that uses spontaneous casting. Sometimes, a class will just have something mechanical you don't like, so a different option is appreciated.
This. People on forums often forget that there are multiple facets to the game. We think in terms of "Roleplaying" and "Combat", and tend to sift out anything that doesn't fit into those two, broad categories. However, each of those categories is split into multiple subcategories of which it is comprised, and it's there that new classes find a home.
We need to stop saying things like "Oh, this class can do X better" or "This class already fills Y role", because both of those statements have the same fundamental problem: They assume that a single role or ability is being achieved in the manner the player wants it to be.
Let's look at a classic example: The druid. At its most basic level, if you REALLY boiled it down to basics, the druid is nothing but a cleric with the animal domain, wild shaping instead of channel energy, and a slightly altered spell list. If I wanted to, I could make a Cleric that, for all intents and purposes, could pass as a druid. It wouldn't even be difficult. But players can have drastically different experiences playing two very similar classes, because HOW you build a unique character and play him, from both a roleplaying AND mechanical perspective, is important.
You know what my favorite character EVER was? A halfling ranger/rogue with a greatsword that specialized in charging and became a Spherewalker. He was AWESOME. Not because of roleplaying (though that was fun), and not because he was a powerhouse, but because he was fun to play. His abilities were varied, but potent enough to be effective. Now, I COULD have made an equally effective character with different abilities (Heck, straight ranger probably would've worked out just fine), but that wouldn't have been as fun as having a character with the SPECIFIC ability set he had.
Now, if the argument against these new classes was that the EXACT result could be achieved with current classes and multiclassing, I might see the argument against them. However, as the classes bring new ways to an end by combining abilities from a variety of classes into a balanced (read: Viable and not Overshadowing) way, even if those ways exist separately in existing content, then there is going to be a group of players for those classes. Heck, I could see a party with a Cleric, Oracle, Warpriest, and Paladin, all specializing in combat, and all doing it in slightly different ways, that wouldn't be redundant at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For me the need to be a reason for the new class. It needs to be able to be some kind of character that was not really doable before. This is both in a story or fluff mening but also in a gamemechanic way. The oracle is a good example of some one that is mainly a game mechanic difference from its parent class the cleric. But it is ok as a sort of divinely inspired outsider, not the monster type. The stalker is good because he seems to be a better stand alone combatant than the rogue so he is a possibl combat focused sneeky type with out spells and Nature connections and without ninja Ki.
Some Tine the game mechanic is too close to the story and fluff, this is my concern with the arcanist. Because the discription sounds like what could have discribed the wizard. It must be possibl to discribed a class without refering to mechanics.