|
I've run across something in recent playtesting for classes I've been designing and I wanted to get the community's opinion on it.
A class I recently designed is a martial buffer (full BAB, medium armor, 2 good saves, 4+Int skills), who at level 2 can choose a specialty (Medic, Scout, Soldier, Artillerist) that allows her to cover a secondary role of healer, skill-monkey, tank, or controller (respectively). One of my local playtesters told me that he and his group were worried that this gave the class too much versatility and that you shouldn't be able to build an entire group out of one class with all of the roles covered. My initial response was that it's actually easier to list the core classes you can't build a group out of with every role covered than the ones that you can (my personal list would probably Fighter, Gunslinger, Rogue, Samurai, with the note that you can actually build a reasonable 4 man group from Rogues and possibly Gunslingers, you just wouldn't do it in a way where you have all 4 roles covered).
The thing is, this isn't the first time I've heard this. In other playtests I've seen this come up before from multiple parties, this idea that if one class can be built for any role it's too strong, even if you can't actually fill all of those roles in one build. What are everyone's thoughts on this? Do you think it's a selling point or a point of concern when a single class has the potential to fill any role in the game? How does that jive with the fact that there are already so many classes who can do so already?
For me, as long as one specific character cannot fill multiple roles (other than a primary and backup as you describe) I'm fine with it. That approach is also great for parties with fewer people.
|
|
For me, as long as one specific character cannot fill multiple roles (other than a primary and backup as you describe) I'm fine with it. That approach is also great for parties with fewer people.
Elaborating on that, do you think one specific character shouldn't be able to fill in multiple roles on a given adventuring day, or at all? What if a class (not the one referenced above) had enough modular or exchangeable parts that it could be a healer today and a tank tomorrow, but not both at once?
For me, as long as one specific character cannot fill multiple roles (other than a primary and backup as you describe) I'm fine with it. That approach is also great for parties with fewer people.Elaborating on that, do you think one specific character shouldn't be able to fill in multiple roles on a given adventuring day, or at all? What if a class (not the one referenced above) had enough modular or exchangeable parts that it could be a healer today and a tank tomorrow, but not both at once?
I'd say that is just fine - I'm actually playing a gestalt Dilettante / Savant right now, admittedly for a solo game. :D
I don't think that day by day thing is any problem... as long as other players at the table don't feel like their schtick is being stepped on. No group I have ever been in worries about party roles and exclusivity - we play overlapping characters all the time, but I know many groups aren't that way.
Tables that are fairly focused on what they allow in probably would have something of an issue, but being this is for 3PP, so someone looking into it would be more open than others, it might not be as big of an issue.
My games are usually solo, or only a couple of player - so any class that can cover more than one niche/role I whole heatedly approve on. But I do understand those that are very focused on siloing and niche protection.
|
So let's look at some existing Paizo classes, as they ought to be a baseline for balance.
Cleric. With the right spell selection and domains he does the melee bit quite proficiently along with being a healer. There are ways to make him a healer and a skill monkey(ish) through archetype choices but it affects your ability to do the melee bit.
Witch is actually a more interesting case. She rocks the controller bit with hexes. Spells can add in direct damage and healing as well. Transmutation spells can also let her use her familiar for melee with some proficiency at higher levels. High Int means a lot of skills as well. That's an awful lot of versatility hobbled only by action economy.
Wizards can basically do anything. Melee by virtue of summoning, control, damage, anything but healing. With enough gold to buy scrolls, they can change their role on the daily.
The examples above are all 3/4 BAB types who make themselves versatile through spells. Yours is not, I assume, a full caster. This may be an example of "fighters can't have nice things" syndrome.
I really don't see anything wrong with a martial buffer beign able to pick a secondary role; unless picking the Soldier specialty makes you better at combat than a fighter or choosing Scout makes you a better rogue.
For example: a full-BAB class gets the same sneak attack progression as a rogue in addition to other unique features
This would be problematic, unbalanced etc..
It's not a matter of "how many roles can this class cover" imho, it's about not stepping over other classes areas of expertise.
But that's terribly limiting for design. Fighters and rogues are genuinely bad at their role.
I agree on that, but i was referring to a martial (or mundane) class so picked fighter and rogue :D
Also i wasn't talking about "power levels" or tiers, there's nothing wrong if ssalarn class is more powerful than a fighter because of its buffing abilities, but i think it's wrong if said class also posses better combat skill then someone who's only focus is wacking things with a weapon.
|
|
I really don't see anything wrong with a martial buffer beign able to pick a secondary role; unless picking the Soldier specialty makes you better at combat than a fighter or choosing Scout makes you a better rogue.
For example: a full-BAB class gets the same sneak attack progression as a rogue in addition to other unique features
This would be problematic, unbalanced etc..It's not a matter of "how many roles can this class cover" imho, it's about not stepping over other classes areas of expertise.
The Soldier isn't really playing the same game as the Fighter, his main trick is that he adds his INT as a bonus to CMB and CMD for various maneuvers, and eventually to some saves. The Scout would be closest to a Ranger, but focused more on infiltration. Both with the basic chassis of buffing abilities and party coordination of course.
I think Yuengling is probably pretty close to the mark with attributing it to FCHNT syndrome (also YD, I know I owe you a review still. YOu're on my list of things to do!). I noticed once upon a time that people tend to leap to thinking something is OP if it has full BAB but versatility more akin to a 3/4 BAB class. Which is a little funny really, as many 3/4 BAB classes are capable of outperforming full BAB counterparts (I did a comparison a while back showing how an Inquisitor can meet or beat a Fighter at almost every level of play).
I try to kind of shoot for the Paladin as my gold standard in martial class design. You've got a really solid chassis with some solid abilities, and you can encompass multiple primary and secondary roles within the class; I usually see tank, mounted dpr, mounted control, and standard dpr as primary roles, with healer, buffer, and party face as the secondary roles. The Paladin can usually click in 1 to 2 primary and potentiall all 3 secondary roles in a single build. Granted the Paladin has all kinds of baggage with it, so I figure if a given character as around 3-4 primary roles and a similar number of secondary roles, any one build should probably be able to fill at least 1 primary and 2 secondary on any given day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I am of the belief that a class being capable of fulfilling multiple roles is something all classes should strive for. Druids, Alchemists, Bards and Clerics can fulfill multiple roles and can do very well at at least 2 roles in one day. In fact, my least favorite classes are the ones that only fulfill one roll. I want my party members to feel like I am more than just a meatshield. Similarly, I don't want a party member to just be damage numbers, or just skill checks.
I would have no more problem with a class that works as you described than I would with a Druid or Cleric. An actual soldier can often do more than just fight, so I see no reason for a Fighter to be only capable of fighting. A real saboteur can do more than just sneak around and break things, so I see no reason for a Rogue to just be good sneaking and traps.
|
|
I am of the belief that a class being capable of fulfilling multiple roles is something all classes should strive for. Druids, Alchemists, Bards and Clerics can fulfill multiple roles and can do very well at at least 2 roles in one day. In fact, my least favorite classes are the ones that only fulfill one roll. I want my party members to feel like I am more than just a meatshield. Similarly, I don't want a party member to just be damage numbers, or just skill checks.
I would have no more problem with a class that works as you described than I would with a Druid or Cleric. An actual soldier can often do more than just fight, so I see no reason for a Fighter to be only capable of fighting. A real saboteur can do more than just sneak around and break things, so I see no reason for a Rogue to just be good sneaking and traps.
If it isn't one of my favorite playtesters!
The Battlelord for Amora Games soon to be released Liber Influxis and the Daevic for Dreamscarred Press' Akashic Mysteries project have been two of my most interesting design experiences. Even though both classes tend to lose the Fighter's high specialization and hit a bit below his dpr, both of them in playtesting have bumped into this reception where I get messages, feedback statements, and posts that all kind of boil down to "You can't be almost as good as a Fighter at combat and have so much more versatility than he gets". Sometimes it feels like the Fighter is a weight around the neck of any potential full BAB class. I can say "Hey llok over here at the Ranger, Barbarian, Gunslinger, etc. who I was actually trying to compare to!" and inevitably the Fighter rears his incomplete head.....
Anyways, it's cool to see people on that same page of wanting classes that have enough scope to embody at least a main and secondary role within a build and hopefully quite a few roles within the class chassis for replayability and variance. I prefer to try and make a given game run at least the length of an AP, and I find that flexible characters are less likely to lead to bored players.
Well if it isn't another thread by one of my favorite designers. The Battlelord and Daevic are perfect examples of what I want Ssalarn. I can definitely see your desire for replayability in those classes, and in other classes you have been working on.
Sorry for mentioning the Fighter again, but I feel that it makes a great foil to what I want out of a class.
Anyway, I am glad to see that other people are happy with flexible classes as well. I hope all the freelancers and 3PPs see this and know to keep doing what they are doing.
For me, as long as one specific character cannot fill multiple roles (other than a primary and backup as you describe) I'm fine with it. That approach is also great for parties with fewer people.
This. This is why the druid has been considered so broken. Full caster, plus wild shape combatant, plus good skills, PLUS animal companion (most likely).
So long as a single character can't do this, I'm fine with it.
For me, as long as one specific character cannot fill multiple roles (other than a primary and backup as you describe) I'm fine with it. That approach is also great for parties with fewer people.This. This is why the druid has been considered so broken. Full caster, plus wild shape combatant, plus good skills, PLUS animal companion (most likely).
So long as a single character can't do this, I'm fine with it.
Your opinion is very similar to mine, but I want to delve deeper. What do you consider should be the absolute limit for a class that fulfills multiple roles. Obviously being a full caster with an animal companion, free nearly infinite transmutation, good skills, and medium BaB is too much. What do you consider the limit?
I think the Bard is around where I'd put the limit. Arguably the best at skills, medium casting, medium BaB, strong class features that usually all see use, and strong party synergy. His spells cover healing, buffing, debuffing, skill augmentation, and small amounts of damage.
|
|
I consider the bard and inquisitor to be pretty much the best classes in Paizo's core line right now. They're well balanced, individually capable, and excellent team players. They can also both pull their weight in a number of areas in game, but you almost never hear anyone complaining about how OP they are.
Difficult to tell, since there's not a lot of hard benchmarks for this kind of thing.
Ultimately, I think this is where the GM and players need to work together, make characters together, and determine that sort of stuff. I've been hearing about a game where one player made a decent archer-ranger, but someone else made a Zen Archer and just blows him out of the water.
I prefer niche protection to be mainly at the table level, not the system level, I guess is what I'm saying.
True, table variance is a big thing. I know a guy who plays his druids as purely spell batteries. He uses Wildshape to become small birds for the AC boost, and just rains thunder and fire. So obviously, part of a class's power is in its player.
And I hope I did not come across as sounding like I dislike the Bard. I love the bard for getting right up to what I consider the "limit" and stopping right on the edge. I want to see more classes stand with the Bard and Inquisitor.
For me I find the Bard, Inquisitor, Alchemist, Paladin, Ranger, Magus, and almost the Summoner (too stronk) to be pretty much where I want classes to be.
-Bard: Amazing at buffing team, decent offensive attacks and spells, out of combat powerhouse in utility. Two primary roles and one secondary role.
-Inquisitor: Combat powerhouse, useful for specific skills, has spells to "fix stuff." 1 Primary role, 2-3 secondary roles.
-Alchemist: Combat powerhouse via either bombs or sneak attack+mutagens, skills to the max, extracts that offer good utility. 1 primary role, 2-3 secondary roles.
-Paladin: Combat, debuff fixing, team buffing, a couple important skills he's great at. 1 Primary, 2 secondary
-Ranger: Combat, good utility spells, tracker, lots of skill points, a trained animal or a team buff. 1 Primary 3 secondary
-Magus: The combats! Lots of skill points+some useful skills, spells for utility along with combat. 1 primary role, 2 secondary roles.
A common trend I noticed is that each of these classes manages to have 1 primary and at least 2 secondary roles. In my opinion a class needs that much to actually be fun at a table. I don't think any more than 3 secondary roles should be on a single character or then the class feels too much like it's stepping on toes.
At one table that I played an Arcane Duelist Bard at I had a character who had an answer for anything and everything and some other players got irritated. I was buffing everyone, had spells to make encounters easier, was able to hit pretty hard, and had relevant skills to almost every challenge. I had to rein myself in to keep the session from being a sort of "one man show." That session is why I actually believe the Bard has a few too many secondary roles for certain tables.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
To directly answer the OPs questions
I think that classes versatile enough to select their specialty and possibly create a successful 4 man group are good for the game. I believe that those classes do need a little input from their fellow players because the stepping of toes can become a problem. Of course that complaint is not a problem with the class itself, but simply table etiquette.
BTW my favorite Paizo class is the Bard. Favorite 3rd party classes are the Stalker from PoW1 despite it being a little runty compared to the Warlord and Harbringer and the Cryptic from Ultimate Psionics. I am looking forward to the Book of Collective influence for the "Bender" class as well as the Battlelord.