true, but the line of questions you are replying to and quoted doesn't make mention of it anywhere.If you go back a couple of post you will see that the post that started this trending topic had "grit" in it.What part of "Not if we define it as "has more options in a given turn." had grit in it? I didn't see it.Wich does not imply a grit-like mechanic at all.So interesting options make a character interesting, but interesting is defined by the player. There are many people who don't find spells interesting at all.Its probably safe to say "AM FULL ATTACK!" without any other options is going to be less interesting to most people than "AM FULL ATTACK!" + a few options. I don't like actually like vancian casting, but I do think its more fun than "AM FULL ATTACK" playstyle.
Fair enough.
For me, the blood rager, brawler, hunter, investigator, swashbuckler, slayer, skald and warpriest all fit into concepts, that while workable before, are much more neatly fit by these classes. If someone says they want to be the dashing fencer who swings in on a rope and fights with a rapier, I'm going to tell them to be a swashbuckler. Not because it has replaced the fighter, but because its MUCH easier to make this specific concept work with a base...
Well said.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
As somebody has pointed out, you can make a ranger who sucks at spellcasting. You can make a gunslinger who doesn't have a large grit pool and then when you are at the game table just not do things that earn you grit.
However, having those abilities gives those players more options, allows them to solve problems that they otherwise couldn't through thoughtful REGULATED play (like pathfinder society or with a "by-the-book" GM). Further it helps balance the expansion of the game because you can add new grit powers just like you can add new spells. That means that theoretically, every new sourcebook won't have to be another 100 reasons why casters are better and martials suck more.
So yes, I think that a person can reasonably say that having grit/panache is more interesting than not.
Grit/Panache/arcane pool and the like are not really the system I would personally implement for either the improve non-casters or give non-casters more agency. However, the gunslinger has basically earned his place in pathfinder and most of the protest against him had more to do with his weapon emphasis than his abilities in or out of combat.
The core pathfinder classes need updates to be more like the arcanist/slayer/swashbuckler. I fully expect that even if a pathfinder 2nd edition is not announced within 3 months of 5e, that we will get get a book in the near future that is a "Master Player's Guide" that updates the core classes with later features so that they are more similar to later character designs.
So yes, I think that a person can reasonably say that having grit/panache is more interesting than not.
The same way that for a persos could be equally valid to say that a grit/panache do nto interest him at all. An "just not use it" is not valid response.
The same way that for a persos could be equally valid to say that a grit/panache do nto interest him at all. An "just not use it" is not valid response.
So yes, I think that a person can reasonably say that having grit/panache is more interesting than not.
Imagine if a character had an ability to reduce their con by 2 to reduce their own health by 10.
That option doesn't make them more interesting.
Even options that are mechanically useful do not always make something more interesting.
Actually, your own example fails exactly because it is not mechanically useful.
ANY mechanically useful ability is interesting. The ability to give your self additional penalties for no gain is not interesting exactly because it is not mechanically useful. However, any ability that lets you do something definite within the mechanics that you otherwise would not be able to do, even if its minor like adding 1d6 to a skill check, is mechanically interesting because it means that you have greater agency. You KNOW that you can do thing X and it is likely to accomplish or increase the chance of accomplishing thing Y. That makes thing Y something worth considering.
Again, because of the way systems like spell casting or grit work you can build your character to where they cannot ever use them if you don't care. However, that does not mean that they are not interesting. You have already shown a level of interest in them by choosing not to have them as functional parts of your build.
Regardless of if you like them, or if they are the system that I want them to be, or how much you try and debate the "are they interesting" angle, the direction of class design has been to give MORE classes "action" pools from which they pick a few special abilities at a time and earn more as they level. The end result of that is that we will either have a new edition that adds those features to existing classes, or we will eventually end up with a book that creates classes that fill the same roles as the core classes, possibly with the ability to make use of their Archtypes, that have a design philosophy matching later pathfinder classes. If there is not a new edition it will be presented as and "Expert" level player book.
You might find any mechanically useful option interesting but many of us do not.
Just as you may find country music interesting and I may find it completely uninteresting. If a player isn't interested in the Grit system there is nothing inherent about it that says it has to be interesting to them.
And there are a lot of players like that. There is a reason when Book of Nine Swords came out it was mocked-- because a large group of players did not find adding spell like options to fighters interesting.
I have never met a player that liked to play fighters or paladins that mocked book of 9 swords. Nobody EVER said BO9S was not Interesting. They didn't like the Aesthetic it gave fighter types. It is DEFINITIVELY interesting from a game design perspective.
Honestly this is getting silly. The addition of options does not prevent you from playing a character who just full attacks every round. Although even 2 pages back people were talking about how DMs who don't do everything in their power to punish rogues who manage to get their sneak attack every round by flanking are not playing tactically and ruining the game.
Seriously if you are trying to argue that "has mechanics to accomplish fewer things" is MORE interesting than "has mechanics to accomplish more things" then you have crossed over into the realm of straight logical fallacy.
The math on this is simple. There are plenty of people who would like to play a do more things fighter or rogue. However, there are clearly also players who want these characters to be based around doing one thing all the time like full attack or backstab. Honestly that's fine and can ALSO be accommodated with the "more options" character because you can just DO EXACTLY WHAT YOU WERE DOING BEFORE. A grit based fighter can full attack every round too. He didn't LOSE full attack as an option.
However, all of this is secondary to the point of the thread. ACG classes, and all Pathfinder class design shows an EVOLVING game. One where the classes generally get more intricate and not less. Its one where Hybrid classes replace multi-classing basically completely. Eventually, the designers will want to revisit the core gamespace and make those classes align with their current design standards.
I was thinking that this would mean a second edition of the game. However, as I think about it more and more I think that pathfinder is more likely to do it under some sort of Advanced/Expert/Master label where they could say "these are revisions to the classes for more experienced/compotent players." They could get most of the advantages of a new edition without actually having to do a new edition.
Further, the fact that pathfinder society and organized play includes everything with a pathfinder label on it would mean that "Master Pathfinder" would be the defacto normal. It would be a new edition but without people complaining about having to buy "everything" again.
I have. The players in my group who play fighters hated that book. One of them went as far as to literally deface it. You are imposing YOUR idea of whats interesting and assuming everyone shares it.
Perhaps a Grit based fighter doesn't lose any Strength-- but if this "new improved" fighter has even 1 less bonus feat that the Fighter in the PH there are going to be players who want the feat instead?
If the "new improved fighter" has five fewer feats than the current one to fit in the "interesting, evolved, current design ideals" then a great number of people will choose to continue to use the old one.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The pathfinder fighter was given more class features than bonus feats because they were neccessary to keep the class even remotely interesting compared to other classes. Further, MOST of the archtypes take away bonus feats and pathfinder society play has shown that almost no one plays a fighter without finding SOME archtype to play because feats are generally terrible and the fighter gets more than he needs anyway.
Finally, you could change every reference to "dexterity" in the list of grit and panache powers to "strength" change the name of the pool to "courage" and slap it onto the fight RIGHT NOW without him giving up a SINGLE feat and he would still not be anywhere near overpowered. Honestly, the Gunslinger and the swashbuckler both have lots of bonus feats AND lots of class powers BESIDES grit/panache.
Sure some people might continue to use core versions of classes if they published a "master players guide" or something similar. Especially if they found something these could cheese really badly, but anybody who is actually looking at this logically realizes that options, power creep, and game evolution tend to push people toward newer options and out of older ones.
I have. The players in my group who play fighters hated that book. One of them went as far as to literally deface it. You are imposing YOUR idea of whats interesting and assuming everyone shares it.
Perhaps a Grit based fighter doesn't lose any Strength-- but if this "new improved" fighter has even 1 less bonus feat that the Fighter in the PH there are going to be players who want the feat instead?
If the "new improved fighter" has five fewer feats than the current one to fit in the "interesting, evolved, current design ideals" then a great number of people will choose to continue to use the old one.
I'll take bravery over grit.
I don't want grit on my fighter. I find grit to actually take away from a class, not add to it. I would rather see a grit-less gunslinger archetype than a grit fighter archetype. I might actually play a gunslinger then. Too many of the grit abilities could have just been feats.
EDIT: My thoughts on Bo9S
The pathfinder fighter was given more class features than bonus feats because they were neccessary to keep the class even remotely interesting compared to other classes. Further, MOST of the archtypes take away bonus feats and pathfinder society play has shown that almost no one plays a fighter without finding SOME archtype to play because feats are generally terrible and the fighter gets more than he needs anyway.
Get your filthy archetype away from my true neutral vanilla human fighter!
I have. The players in my group who play fighters hated that book. One of them went as far as to literally deface it. You are imposing YOUR idea of whats interesting and assuming everyone shares it.
Perhaps a Grit based fighter doesn't lose any Strength-- but if this "new improved" fighter has even 1 less bonus feat that the Fighter in the PH there are going to be players who want the feat instead?
If the "new improved fighter" has five fewer feats than the current one to fit in the "interesting, evolved, current design ideals" then a great number of people will choose to continue to use the old one.
I'll take bravery over grit.
I don't want grit on my fighter. I find grit to actually take away from a class, not add to it. I would rather see a grit-less gunslinger archetype than a grit fighter archetype. I might actually play a gunslinger then. Too many of the grit abilities could have just been feats.
I'd be fine with both those archetypes existing though-- they probably should.
Someone will want to play Fighter with Grit or Panache or "Fight Club Points", and obviously at least one person wants to play a Gun using character without it.
But I think "IthinkIBrokeIt" is suggesting literally stripping out the core fighter and replacing it. . . and for the record PF Fighter has the same number of bonus feats as 3.5 Fighter-- it just got Bravery, Weapons and Armor Training added on top of those feats.
Edit: @Marthkus I knew that was coming sooner or later.
The "grit-less gunslinger" is actually the trench fighter.
Why does that archetype have no gun weapon proficiency?
In theory a generic point based system has more options than any class based system. Is Hero System thus inherently more interesting (and better?) than any D&D variant?
Or, moving out of character design and into actual play, is a character who can do literally anything more interesting and fun to play than a more limited character?
To the first point this is not theortically true. If the a point based design game gave characters unlimited points it would be true at the limit of character design. However, level based games have generally resulted in giving characters more defined option for interacting with the gamespace than point based games of the same generation. 2E D&D compared to gurps of that edition. Similarly, 3e/d20/pathfinder characters generally have have more powers than non-montey haul hero system characters actually end up with.
As for the second point, again this is true at the theoretical limit of the design space. Playing the genie from Aladin (post freeing) would probably be extremely fun for the player. Probably not so much fun for the rest of the party...
As for the second point, again this is true at the theoretical limit of the design space. Playing the genie from Aladin (post freeing) would probably be extremely fun for the player. Probably not so much fun for the rest of the party...
Fun for about 5 minutes. The whole point of D&D/PF is to have characters with limits.
If no limits was more interesting, we wouldn't even be using rules.
Because it's for high availability gun games where guns count as martial/simple weapons, so it'd be redundant.The "grit-less gunslinger" is actually the trench fighter.Why does that archetype have no gun weapon proficiency?
Ah.
But that doesn't quite make it the "grit-less" gunslinger.
I'd be fine with both those archetypes existing though-- they probably should.Someone will want to play Fighter with Grit or Panache or "Fight Club Points", and obviously at least one person wants to play a Gun using character without it.
But I think "IthinkIBrokeIt" is suggesting literally stripping out the core fighter and replacing it. . . and for the record PF Fighter has the same number of bonus feats as 3.5 Fighter-- it just got Bravery, Weapons and Armor Training added on top of those feats.
Edit: @Marthkus I knew that was coming sooner or later.
Exactly, the Pathfinder fighter has MORE STUFF than the 3.5 fighter.
The MASTER Pathfinder fighter has courage, bonus feats, armor training, class specific feats AND GRIT.
For comparison the Magus has 6 level casting, his sword fighting and casting abilities, armored casting abilities AND his arcane pool.
The "grit based fighter" still has tons of feats, he just has grit as well...
I'd be fine with both those archetypes existing though-- they probably should.
Someone will want to play Fighter with Grit or Panache or "Fight Club Points", and obviously at least one person wants to play a Gun using character without it.
But I think "IthinkIBrokeIt" is suggesting literally stripping out the core fighter and replacing it. . . and for the record PF Fighter has the same number of bonus feats as 3.5 Fighter-- it just got Bravery, Weapons and Armor Training added on top of those feats.
Edit: @Marthkus I knew that was coming sooner or later.
Exactly, the Pathfinder fighter has MORE STUFF than the 3.5 fighter.
The MASTER Pathfinder fighter has courage, bonus feats, armor training, class specific feats AND GRIT.
For comparison the Magus has 6 level casting, his sword fighting and casting abilities, armored casting abilities AND his arcane pool.
The "grit based fighter" still has tons of feats, he just has grit as well...
The fighter has more stuff in PF because everyone has more stuff in PF. PF wanted to more away from the prestige class mentality of 3.5 so they gave each class a progression that they would miss out in by taking a prestige class.
This was also done to remove dead levels (because leveling up and not getting anything seems contradictory).
EDIT: I wouldn't play that fighter because I do not like grit mechanics.
I highly doubt they will ever add even more abilities to the current fighter. The chart is already full.
Because it's for high availability gun games where guns count as martial/simple weapons, so it'd be redundant.The "grit-less gunslinger" is actually the trench fighter.Why does that archetype have no gun weapon proficiency?Ah.
But that doesn't quite make it the "grit-less" gunslinger.
Gunslinger / Trench fighter:
-grit and deeds / this is what you don't want
-gunsmith / can pick it up with your first bonus feat
-nimble / has heavy armor instead
-bonus feats / you have more
-gun training / weapon training and trench warfareWhat else do you need?
Actual weapon proficiency?
That archetype only functions in settings where guns are so common as to be martial and simple weapons.
Also would be nice to be nimble. Since you have high dex, and no armor training. Heavy armor may not be ideal.
Really I could just take gunslinger, remove all deeds and grit, replace them with fighter bonus feats and I would be much closer.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Every time they add classes to pathfinder they have more abilities than previous classes.
The Slayer, Swashbuckler and Warpriest have charts that make the fighters look like a list of gifts for an orphan on Christmas.
The whole point of this discussion is where the game is going and will the core class be obsolete.
Let me put it this way. Which of these statements do you think is not factually correct:
Pathfinder produces 4 hardcovers a year.
They will produce more classes.
The ACG already has classes that open up the discussion of core classes being obsolete.
The pathfinder devs seem to like the grit type activity pools and have put them on a number of classes designed since the core rulebook
There will be more hybrid classes in the future
There will be more classes with activity pools in the future
The additional hybrid and activity pool classes will likely continue to push into the design space of the core classes.
Eventually, a hybrid or activity pool classes that serves the same function and fit the same design space as an existing core class will probably be created.
As I said above, I don't think that grit or its like is what I would have designed. However, based on the track record of the pathfinder DEVs I would say its most likely what they would do.
Personally I think the ACG is adding even more options than before.
For instance:
Bloodrager: About time we got an Arcane Paladin right? The flavor for it is awesome and it plays well. The only thing I wish was that it got spellcombat but meh, not really necessary. It would be stepping to much on the magus' toes actually...
Arcanist: Schrodinger's wizard! Personally I have been waiting for this casting mechanic for a while. Reminds me a lot of the Spirit Shaman from 3.5 Complete Divine (I think?) except for arcane. The ability to prepare Certain spells but not HOW MANY is cool and power wise, it is not that much more powerful than a sorcerer. The limited spells per day means the Arcanist has to penny pinch alot and utilize their pool.
Brawler: the best guy are being actually versatile with CMB. Yes, the lore warden is a better tripper, but the brawler can trip, grapple, dirty fight, overrun, or whatever all well when he most needs a certain thing. That at monk -monk stuff is awesome (I hate the whole zen thing)
Hunter: getting a dip into Mammoth rider is funny... just saying...
Investigator: Oozes with flavor and allows you to make some awesome urban games. Yes, it steps on the rogue's toes, but the mechanics of it better support the skillmonkey guy than the rogue. Honestly, he is just straight better at being a rogue than the rogue (which is MUCH needed since they can only fix the rogue so much without having to straight re-write it).
Shaman: This class is cool. It is actually fairly original and has a nice mix of abilites, adaptibility (with wandering spirit), and spells. Shaman also has a certain flavor that you just can't quite get with the oracle or druid, but feels a little off with the witch's spell list.
Skald: Bardbarian that rages everyone. Honestly, in a low magic game or E6 type of game, the Skald is actually really cool and gives players to play a character that pumps up all his gusy without the slightly negative connotation of being a bard. Also gives him the feel of a a warrior that inspires heated courage and ferocity (gives rage powers).
Slayer: pretty much a rogue fix. Allows people to play the sneaky assassin guy without having to be pigeon-holed into a sap master build to be useful.
Swashbuckler: Pretty much needed. The Swashbuckler is an incredibly popular trope that just hasn't been well implemented before. The prestige class is... well... a prestige class (and paizo does not like prestige classes xD) and the archetype can only do so much since it is limited by the fighter's skeleton. Having it as a whole seperate class allowed paizo to make the swashbuckler what it needed to be, a derringdo who can pull moments of extreme bad-arsery.
Warpriest: This guy allows SO MUCH build ideas it is funny. Want to build a sling guy but find that slings are just really bad? Warpriest! Now your sling is dealing 1d10 damage and is enchanted! Want to have fun with a agent of Pharasma that fights with dual daggers? (because that image of a guy in a heavy robe with dual daggers that look all ceremonial and acts as a church "assassin" is actually a common character that is cool) You can go Warpriest and deal respectful damage with your daggers and have a good to-hit (free temporary enchanting and effectively full BAB is really nice). Also works very well as "Paladin of a diety that is not LG because screw you and your stupid alignment restrictions and code of conduct" guy.
And there are a lot of players like that. There is a reason when Book of Nine Swords came out it was mocked-- because a large group of players did not find adding spell like options to fighters interesting.
A lot of people who hate Bo9S also happen to not read it. Warblade didn't get spell like options. He didn't get supernatural or spell like. A lot of people just scream "WEABOO!" or something similar because apparently jumping as a swift action to help reach an opponent or parrying an opponent with your own attack roll takes crazy magical stuff I guess? Swordsage got plenty of magical junk with desert wind and shadow hand, and crusader got divine-esque powers(that didn't key off his own alignment but his foes. Evil vs. evil!) from his devoted spirit. Warblade is the fighter of that book. Additionally, all of those classes in the book could full attack and in a lot of situations could actually do better by full attacking.
I'm not sure if "I don't like it" is synonymous with "Not interesting". Its sort of awkward to say that a class that can do everything another class can do and more but the first class is interesting and the other is not. You might not like those new options, but saying its less interesting is just... off.
And there are a lot of players like that. There is a reason when Book of Nine Swords came out it was mocked-- because a large group of players did not find adding spell like options to fighters interesting.A lot of people who hate Bo9S also happen to not read it. Warblade didn't get spell like options. He didn't get supernatural or spell like. A lot of people just scream "WEABOO!" or something similar because apparently jumping as a swift action to help reach an opponent or parrying an opponent with your own attack roll takes crazy magical stuff I guess?
I'm not sure if "I don't like it" is synonymous with "Not interesting". Its sort of awkward to say that a class that can do everything another class can do and more but the first class is interesting and the other is not. You might not like those new options, but saying its less interesting is just... off.
Spell like in terms of the book keeping responsibilities required in creating and playing the character. Regardless if the abilities were "magic" or not they required players to track them, when and how they were using, ect.
Some players really just want to put a total attack bonus on the sheet and charge then full attack with a static number rather than having to make a decision every round on which abilities they are using.
Again, interesting is a subjective term. A character who gets +20 to hit, +20 to all Saves, and can cast Wish and Miracle three times each every round infinite times per day can do everything every class in the game can do and more. But that would be far less interesting.
Honestly, most of the core classes are ok. Sorcerers, Wizards, Clerics, and Druids are all fine. They have their design space and honestly, are hard to "obsolete". Paladins are still extremely popular and can't be recreated with other classes (except partially by the warpriest, but the warpriest just lacks the "super holy warrior of super holy rightous kick assery that the paladin has). Barbarians just can't be replaced with bloodrager. Some people just don't like casting, or are playing a low magic game. Bards are THE pet class of the devs....
Honestly the only classes people seem to be bringing up about being obsoleted by ACG are the rogue and the fighter... which is pretty telling. If it was any other class I might be a little concerned, but the fact that the fighter and the rogue are the two classes people are bringing and are also the two classes people have called "NPC classes" raises the question of whether ACG can obsolete them, or have they already been obsoleted LONG before...
I mean lets look at the two classes...
Rogue: Pretty much lost his job to the Bard (Archeologist and Base), Ranger, Alchemist, Sorcerers, Monks, and Inquisitors. Note how majority of that are core classes...
Fighter: The barb, pally, ranger, cavalier, gunslinger, and certain monks pretty much walka ll over the fighter. Yes the fighter may be a little better at fighting, but is lack of versatility and his HORRID defenses makes him a huge liability in many combats that go beyong "we full attack each other till one of us dies" which is a majority of combats beyong level 5...
So the problem looks more like with the fighter and the rogue... not other classes...
Some players really just want to put a total attack bonus on the sheet and charge then full attack with a static number rather than having to make a decision every round on which abilities they are using.
Again, interesting is a subjective term. A character who gets +20 to hit, +20 to all Saves, and can cast Wish and Miracle three times each every round infinite times per day can do everything every class in the game can do and more. But that would be far less interesting.
Well, supposing the first guy is interesting, the second example isn't less interesting than the guy in the first example because he can do everything the guy in the first example can do. The only thing that can make him less interesting is if he's dominating and isn't challenged anymore because hyperbole and Mary Sue, but he sure isn't any less interesting than the guy in the first example for his options.
You might prefer the first guy, but he's not going to be more interesting.
Not if you define "Interesting" as "can do more"
Not everyone does.
I don't define interesting as "can do more". I'd say that something that can do everything you can do and more and can play exactly like you can but with more options shouldn't be called less interesting.
So the problem looks more like with the fighter and the rogue... not other classes...
Eh these new classes don't replace the fighter. Some of us still see the value in feats.
Rogue still plays differently and offers a different game experience. Mechanically? Yeah probably not as strong when all is said and done.
I don't define interesting as "can do more". I'd say that something that can do everything you can do and more and can play exactly like you can but with more options shouldn't be called less interesting.Not if you define "Interesting" as "can do more"
Not everyone does.
So, you honestly find 3 wishes and 3 miracles per round to be the most interesting class possible?
Some people find limits and working around those limits to be interesting. Its the same reason Wizards/Clerics have to memorize spells instead of simply getting to cast any spell spontaneously.
Some people aren't interested by having more choices in a round, and what is interesting to you is not interesting to everyone.
Fighter who gets everything fighter gets, plus a system of abilities usable times per day similar to spells is not inherently "more interesting".
So, you honestly find 3 wishes and 3 miracles per round to be the most interesting class possible?
Maybe, can you find where I said that?
I don't define interesting as "can do more". I'd say that something that can do everything you can do and more and can play exactly like you can but with more options shouldn't be called less interesting.Not if you define "Interesting" as "can do more"
Not everyone does.
I disagree. The "no limits" character can play exactly like you can but with more options IS less interesting.
"I can do everything, but I'm going to pretend to be a fighter, but then poop spells when I feel like it."
Who's more interesting Batman or Superman? Superman can do everything Batman does, be just doesn't. Does that make Superman more interesting?
So the problem looks more like with the fighter and the rogue... not other classes...Eh these new classes don't replace the fighter. Some of us still see the value in feats.
Rogue still plays differently and offers a different game experience. Mechanically? Yeah probably not as strong when all is said and done.
True, but the people complainging about the new classes "marginalizing" the core classes tend to focus on how they are mechanically just about replacing them in most tropes or builds. Like how between the Slayer, Investigator, and bard there is little need for the rogue for most concepts and builds (I say most because there is still the obnoxious sap master guy).
True, but the people complainging about the new classes "marginalizing" the core classes tend to focus on how they are mechanically just about replacing them in most tropes or builds. Like how between the Slayer, Investigator, and bard there is little need for the rogue for most concepts and builds (I say most because there is still the obnoxious sap master guy).So the problem looks more like with the fighter and the rogue... not other classes...Eh these new classes don't replace the fighter. Some of us still see the value in feats.
Rogue still plays differently and offers a different game experience. Mechanically? Yeah probably not as strong when all is said and done.
Investigator can't really fight. Less so than the rogue.
Slayer takes over the niche that the rogue just could never do in the first place.
So, you honestly find 3 wishes and 3 miracles per round to be the most interesting class possible?Maybe, can you find where I said that?To be more strict, a hypothetical gestalt hyrbid class with all the features of all existing classes would necessarily at least as interesting as any of them, right?
Since it would have all the same abilities + more. You could always just not use any that didn't interest you.
A hypothetical class that does everything? You mean like the example where I talked about a hyperbolic mary sue?
Interrogations aren't going to help anything.
A hypothetical class that does everything? You mean like the example where I talked about a hyperbolic mary sue?So, you honestly find 3 wishes and 3 miracles per round to be the most interesting class possible?Maybe, can you find where I said that?To be more strict, a hypothetical gestalt hyrbid class with all the features of all existing classes would necessarily at least as interesting as any of them, right?
Since it would have all the same abilities + more. You could always just not use any that didn't interest you.
So counter examples just aren't worth consideration?
OK
|
Who's more interesting Batman or Superman? Superman can do everything Batman does, be just doesn't. Does that make Superman more interesting?
First of all, no he can't. Batman's much sneakier and smarter.
Second, and more importantly to the discussion at hand, the problem with this comparison is that what makes superman boring isn't his offensive powers, it's the fact that he's invulnerable barring a few very specific weaknesses. It's the inability to be effected by things that makes him boring, not the fact that he can see through walls or kill people with a single blow if he wished.
No character in Pathfinder is, or even can be, nearly as invulnerable as Superman...so using him as a basis for comparison is inappropriate, as it's not a comparable situation.
A clever character ala Batman with Superman's offensive arsenal, equal ingenuity to Batman, and much lower defensive abilities (ie: vulnerable to a much larger subset of things...probably close to Batman's level of vulnerability) might easily be more interesting than Batman in many ways. It's hard to say.
Some players really just want to put a total attack bonus on the sheet and charge then full attack with a static number rather than having to make a decision every round on which abilities they are using.
Again, interesting is a subjective term. A character who gets +20 to hit, +20 to all Saves, and can cast Wish and Miracle three times each every round infinite times per day can do everything every class in the game can do and more. But that would be far less interesting.
But thej player that wants to play like that can STILL play a gunslinger (heck they could play a warblade from b09s and be better than the fighter as well, even if they never really used the b09s powers). The gunslinger works for BOTH the player who just wants to right a large number on his character sheet AND the player who wants to have numerous options they can tinker with.
A class need not be "one or the other" if it has both then you can PLAY it in the basic way. Heck, who knows maybe one day that player may WANT to have the additional options. However, if they are always built with the minimal options then they WILL NOT GET PLAYED by half the player base.
Further this whole canard that interesting is subjective is silly because interesting is also relative. A class with more options is more interesting to more people than one with fewer options. That would seem to be a pretty basic and unchallengable statement. A class that does 2 things will be interesting to more people than a class that does 1 thing......
C47: While the rogue and the fighter are the ones in the need of the biggest upadate I honestly think that All of those classes could use some review.
Who's more interesting Batman or Superman? Superman can do everything Batman does, be just doesn't. Does that make Superman more interesting?First of all, no he can't. Batman's much sneakier and smarter.
Second, and more importantly to the discussion at hand, the problem with this comparison is that what makes superman boring isn't his offensive powers, it's the fact that he's invulnerable barring a few very specific weaknesses. It's the inability to be effected by things that makes him boring, not the fact that he can see through walls or kill people with a single blow if he wished.
No character in Pathfinder is, or even can be, nearly as invulnerable as Superman...so using him as a basis for comparison is inappropriate, as it's not a comparable situation.
A clever character ala Batman with Superman's offensive arsenal, equal ingenuity to Batman, and much lower defensive abilities (ie: vulnerable to a much larger subset of things...probably close to Batman's level of vulnerability) might easily be more interesting than Batman in many ways. It's hard to say.
Actually Superman is smarter. He doesn't really have any need to use stuff.
Synthesist Summoner gets pretty close to being superman.
Ugh... Berserker meta. Glass cannons are not inherently more interesting.
]There's also a middle ground of more versatile options that aren't only usable a few times a day or based off of a point system or something.
That kind of a approach would work better for me than grit or a B09S kind of approach.
Feats kind of pretend to give you that, but in practice they don't seem to be able to do so.
There are LOTS of things that the developers of pathfinder could have done instead of grit and its like. Some of them would have been better, lots could have been worse or less well received.
The thing is, what HAS been done is grit. I think we are more likely to see more variations of grit than we are to see something all together different.