After ACG: Do you still miss a class ?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 391 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
There is a magus archetype, the Greensting Slayer I believe, that gives up a lot of fighter abilities and gains some rogue like abilities, like evasion and sneak attack giving you the mage/thief style character that you want.
Where is this from?

link

It is from Bastards of Golarion IIRC.

Dark Archive

- KutuluKultist, no, I *want* a Mage/Rogue base class. Those archetypes I suggested are for the areas I'd like to see covered. The Spellthief and Beguiler are indeed 3.5 but I think they could be covered as archetypes within the Mage/Rogue standard class.

I agree that it should be D8, 3/4 BAB, 6th level spells and actually whatever else you said. My example archetypes are just to demonstrate how many other concepts can be encompassed within that base class.

And the other thing was an endorsement too.

The base Leader type - if there was a cavalier who gave up his mount for Inspire Courage and some improved teamwork stuff, it'd be there. I think it could be done with a Cavalier archetype. The only problem with that is that it's a lot better than standard Cavalier. I'd play them more if it weren't for that bloody horse who gets in the way. But a knight who can inspire others to sprint into battle with him and coordinate maneuvres? If Fighters are redundant anyway, may as well make another full martial equal in power to the Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger.


Captain K. wrote:

- KutuluKultist, no, I *want* a Mage/Rogue base class. Those archetypes I suggested are for the areas I'd like to see covered. The Spellthief and Beguiler are indeed 3.5 but I think they could be covered as archetypes within the Mage/Rogue standard class.

I agree that it should be D8, 3/4 BAB, 6th level spells and actually whatever else you said. My example archetypes are just to demonstrate how many other concepts can be encompassed within that base class.

And the other thing was an endorsement too.

The base Leader type - if there was a cavalier who gave up his mount for Inspire Courage and some improved teamwork stuff, it'd be there. I think it could be done with a Cavalier archetype. The only problem with that is that it's a lot better than standard Cavalier. I'd play them more if it weren't for that bloody horse who gets in the way. But a knight who can inspire others to sprint into battle with him and coordinate maneuvres? If Fighters are redundant anyway, may as well make another full martial equal in power to the Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger.

Battle Herald seems to be what you want... a PrC from APG. There is a guide for it in the advice section. If you combine The Flag Bearer Cavalier with the Bard and go Battle Herald you can actually be pretty good at inspiring your troops...


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Artificer for sure. (with a way to get 9th level spells although with diminshed spellcasting - Polymorph any object, animate object, Major creation, and fabricate would be needed).
Evolutionist (a class that acquire racial traits and mutations, much like as Syntetist, but with is own flesh).
Paragon A class that slowly becomes like a subtype of outsider, becoming an angel, aeon, inevitable, demon, devil, etc... of increasing power through the levels.

Dark Archive

Yes, we discussed it on the last page. It's very good indeed, but the need of a longspear and the level of Evangelist Cleric or Bard might be too complex and restrictive for some.

Flagbearer Cavalier 1/Arcane Duelist Bard 4/Battle Herald X is great though.

Or Arcane Duelist 5 for the Arcane Bonded weapon.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:
You guys make me laugh when you request a Mystic Theurge and an Arcane Trickster... when they're ALREADY Prestige Classes. Look, they cannot convert PrCs into actual classes, ok? So let them be..

Uh... You do realize this is exactly what the Magus did with the Eldritch Knight, right?


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wasn't missing a class before the Advanced Player's Guide, let alone the ACG...


A melee class with full BAB and canny defense, gaining (ex) and (su) tricks powered by a pool point system. Kensai Magus was almost perfect for me.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Odraude wrote:
Honestly, having played point buy systems, I can tell you that would really be easy to abuse and game.

Any system that allows for greater freedoms will necessarily have greater potential for abuse. That doesn't necessarily mean that the freedoms it grants will be less worthwhile because of that - nor, for that matter, does it mean that such potential abuses will necessarily occur.

Simply put, the potential for abuse is in any game that grants players a great deal of leeway. One doesn't have to look very far on these boards to see that Pathfinder is already filled with examples of "broken" and "overpowered" combinations of abilities. Given that, why not let players have the freedom to make a wider variety of characters (without requiring a massive increase of highly-specified mechanics required to build them)?

Odraude wrote:
Point buy systems can never beat experienced advice.

JoeJ already mentioned this, but it's worth reiterating - the two are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, this idea of experience "beating" a point-buy system showcases the line of thinking that these two are somehow opposed to one another. In fact, that's not the case - the two are meant to be complementary.

The main things that stop abuse of a point-buy system are 1) the player(s) don't want to try and break the game; ideally, they're focused on a character concept that they want to make, instead of focused on min-maxed, optimized roll-playing, and 2) the players will consult and work with the GM to make sure that everything's going to work for the campaign, the same way the GM will take into account the way the campaign is shaping up and how fun it is for the players.

There's an idea behind the stance that "point-buy is too open to abuse" that I personally find to be rather insidious: the players can't be trusted. It's this idea that if the opportunity to break the game is there, the players will seize upon it, either because they want to or because they're inept enough that they'll blunder into it accidentally.

Certainly, there are bad players out there - but I find that bad players can wreck a game regardless of the game rules. Writing the game rules so that they protect the players from themselves and each other, and in the process restrict a lot of character options from being (effectively) playable, doesn't strike me as the answer.

Captain K. wrote:
A class builder would also not work because either things like Druid would be shown to spend way more points than lesser classes, double or triple the Rogue, or his class abilities would have to be super cheap to compensate.

Disclaimer here: I use a point-buy class-builder for Pathfinder and I think it works spectacularly well.

That said, breaking down the Pathfinder rogue compared to the Pathfinder update to the 3.5 druid shows that you're right - the rogue doesn't get as many points as the druid does (though not nearly to the degree that you posit).

That's not because of any inherent mis-match, however. It's just that the druid has several restrictions that they're getting credit for, such as on what weapons and armor they can use, and their religious duties (though the Pathfinder druid does buy that one off, since most PCs tend to ignore that anyway).

That said, the idea that "point buy can't work in Pathfinder" isn't one that I subscribe to, since I've seen it work just fine.


I miss the marshall from 3.5. He was like a bard, but he chose his auras.
One scaled with Cha, the other with level, and you had one of the minor and one of the major always on.

His fun was, "oh Rogue is in flanking now! time to switch auras! bonus to will saves off! Everyone in 30 feet, add my charisma mod to all flanking attack rolls!"

Basically, rather than the bard having just one good aura to choose, he had tons of different auras you could do all kinds of things with, and he could switch between them all day long.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Alzrius wrote:
good things about point buy

Point Buy is the devil.

When class and game design are warped to let players bypass restrictions imposed on them by the point buy system, in a game that is not based on the point buy system it forces anyone who isn't using the point buy system to accommodate for it.

The game is not designed around point buy, starting wealth, age, and many other statistics class related are also not forced into the same pool of resources among the classes and forcing stats to be only reinforces a game style that people are forced to adapt to for the false promise of 'balance at all costs'.

It is a lie, a filthy lie, a dirty lie, a bloodstained lie.

The emergence of the new DEX to damage feat in the ACG and classes being given the means to bypass feat prerequisites that they could not meet and still be able to actually use their class abilities are just proof that it is poisoning the system.

Absolutely no good comes from point buy, other than the ability to theory craft, which I can appreciate is more fun for some players than actually playing the game, hence the large amount of activity in this forum.

Ultimately stats are irrelevant, as most of the time static bonuses and player skill will surpass the negatives from 'bad stats' and as a result players who want to play a character for the sake of it are punished for not being able to make a character who is mechanically effective in a game where the mechanics are what drive the game. The players who are rewarded are the ones who min max and abuse the system, and evolving game design choices that further reward that mindset are issues that are completely imposed by the point buy system.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
There is a magus archetype, the Greensting Slayer I believe, that gives up a lot of fighter abilities and gains some rogue like abilities, like evasion and sneak attack giving you the mage/thief style character that you want.
Where is this from?

link

It is from Bastards of Golarion IIRC.

Ah, kinda cool, not far enough though. I may look at it again if I want a Dervish Dance Magus... Maybe pick up some traits to fill in skills I'd like...


Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Kairos Dawnfury wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
There is a magus archetype, the Greensting Slayer I believe, that gives up a lot of fighter abilities and gains some rogue like abilities, like evasion and sneak attack giving you the mage/thief style character that you want.
Where is this from?

link

It is from Bastards of Golarion IIRC.
Ah, kinda cool, not far enough though. I may look at it again if I want a Dervish Dance Magus... Maybe pick up some traits to fill in skills I'd like...

The big downer for me is that its Sneak Attack progression flat out sucks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I would like a devil, demon, archon, azata, and angel monster classes. Where you become different outsiders as you level.


master_marshmallow wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
good things about point buy

Point Buy is the devil.

Almost all of your points are Player based, not system based.

Point buy is great for allowing players to freely build the character's they want to play.

Yes, it's abusable. They key is to find players who won't abuse it.


KrispyXIV wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
Alzrius wrote:
good things about point buy

Point Buy is the devil.

Almost all of your points are Player based, not system based.

Point buy is great for allowing players to freely build the character's they want to play.

Unless they want something that might conflict with the prerequisites for their class abilities, which forces the game to change the design to accommodate for that, which means people who don't use the point buy system are getting hit by a select group of players.

The argument is entirely system based.


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:
Unless they want something that might conflict with the prerequisites for their class abilities, which forces the game to change the design to accommodate for that, which means people who don't use the point buy system are getting hit by a select group of players.

I'm going to have to ask for an example here, as I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about. I'm not sure that I know what "something that might conflict with the prerequisite for their class abilities" means, for instance. Let alone how whatever-that-is "forces the game to change the design [of what?] to accommodate for that."

Quote:
The argument is entirely system based.

Given that it still seems (from what I can tell) to be based around the idea that the point-buy players are somehow screwing over the non-point-buy players in a hybrid game, I disagree with you here.


I'm honestly confused and am wondering if he's talking about Point Buy in general, or Point Buy in Pathfinder.


How is the Ranger being able to skip through terrible taxes that shouldn't be there in the first place a bad thing? How is being given the opportunity to play a finesse based fighter rather than being shoved into the same "two-handed power attack" hole as everyone else a bad thing?

I like point-buy because it means that I have full control over what my character is and can do when I get to the table. Nothing decides my character concept except me. I won't get shoehorned into a role I don't want to play because of a roll I didn't want.

Really marsh, to me, it sounds like you have an issue with player creativity.


I would like to see a unlimited use magic class ala the 3.5 Warlock. While not the strongest class around I loved the flavor of it. Other then that it would be the Artificer as already mentioned. Just about every other concept I can do with what is already here.


I think the mellow got a little too toasted...


Arachnofiend wrote:

How is the Ranger being able to skip through terrible taxes that shouldn't be there in the first place a bad thing? How is being given the opportunity to play a finesse based fighter rather than being shoved into the same "two-handed power attack" hole as everyone else a bad thing?

I like point-buy because it means that I have full control over what my character is and can do when I get to the table. Nothing decides my character concept except me. I won't get shoehorned into a role I don't want to play because of a roll I didn't want.

Really marsh, to me, it sounds like you have an issue with player creativity.

Who said anything about rolling?

Who said anything about player creativity being inhibited?

Your perceived method of rolling stats seems to imply that you have no control over what stats you get to put into what ability and that you will always roll bad. A problem with rolling sure, but not a justification for point buy.

Specific examples of evolving poor game design based on point buy include the new DEX-damage feats, allowing players to circumvent investing anhy points in STR so they can buy in more of the stats that control their character's statistics in game.

Anyone who read the swashbuckler playtest thread knows exactly where this is coming from, actual play tested data used to build and test the new classes were made with 15 point buy and 20 pint buy games.

In said games it was discovered that the warpriest and swashbuckler were unable to use their class abilities because their resources were too wide spread because of what the game demands.

If you want to go into feat taxes, that is a whole other discussion, if you are blaming feat taxes and die rolls to justify a terrible point buy system I think it just proves that it is becoming a sacred cow because how dare we overlook something like player creativity.

Give me a break, the system is flawed and only rewards players whose scope of creativity falls into the same finite curve as everyone else.

Once you get over 'stats are the most important part of creating a character' and stats become a non-issue, the game becomes so much more fun, I promise.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
master_marshmallow wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:

How is the Ranger being able to skip through terrible taxes that shouldn't be there in the first place a bad thing? How is being given the opportunity to play a finesse based fighter rather than being shoved into the same "two-handed power attack" hole as everyone else a bad thing?

I like point-buy because it means that I have full control over what my character is and can do when I get to the table. Nothing decides my character concept except me. I won't get shoehorned into a role I don't want to play because of a roll I didn't want.

Really marsh, to me, it sounds like you have an issue with player creativity.

Who said anything about rolling?

Who said anything about player creativity being inhibited?

Your perceived method of rolling stats seems to imply that you have no control over what stats you get to put into what ability and that you will always roll bad. A problem with rolling sure, but not a justification for point buy.

Specific examples of evolving poor game design based on point buy include the new DEX-damage feats, allowing players to circumvent investing anhy points in STR so they can buy in more of the stats that control their character's statistics in game.

Anyone who read the swashbuckler playtest thread knows exactly where this is coming from, actual play tested data used to build and test the new classes were made with 15 point buy and 20 pint buy games.

In said games it was discovered that the warpriest and swashbuckler were unable to use their class abilities because their resources were too wide spread because of what the game demands.

If you want to go into feat taxes, that is a whole other discussion, if you are blaming feat taxes and die rolls to justify a terrible point buy system I think it just proves that it is becoming a sacred cow because how dare we overlook something like player creativity.

Give me a break, the system is flawed and only rewards players whose scope of creativity falls into the same finite curve as everyone...

um... what...

the marsh really needs to mellow...


Adventure Path Charter Subscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
master_marshmallow wrote:

Who said anything about rolling?

Who said anything about player creativity being inhibited?

Your perceived method of rolling stats seems to imply that you have no control over what stats you get to put into what ability and that you will always roll bad. A problem with rolling sure, but not a justification for point buy.

Okay, I just realized that you're talking about point-buy attribute generation (e.g. a 32-point buy to assign points to Strength, Dexterity, Constitution, Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma) in by-the-book Pathfinder, rather than class-less point-buy character-generation.

To be fair, using the same terminology for two different things can be a legitimate point of confusion.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I want a druidic caster a little like the 3.5 Spirit Shaman who cast druid spells, but does't shape shift or have a animal companion.

Maybe a oracle subtype?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Ki Swordsman. The other way you could have went when combining Monk + Fighter, full BAB Ki pool, mystic sword tricks with said pool.

Sort of Magus without the spells at all.


IxionZero wrote:

Ki Swordsman. The other way you could have went when combining Monk + Fighter, full BAB Ki pool, mystic sword tricks with said pool.

Sort of Magus without the spells at all.

That might be pretty workable as a swashbuckler archetype, switching out Charisma for Wisdom for a number of abilities and slotting in some monk powers and Eastern weapon proficiencies.


GypsyMischief wrote:

I feel like a lot of these concepts can be produced with the classes we have currently. A few posts back I saw someone call for a 6 level arcane casting, 3/4 BAB, kinda sneaky guy, and his divine counterpart; you're asking for the Bard & Inquisitor.

I never played an artificer, so I'm not sure what they do, could someone educate me?

Just for the sake of class completion a 4 level arcane caster could be interesting. It could take form as a beefier hexblade, throwing around debuffs like a witch with magus style.

you are correct the only one that can't be done with the class we already have is the Priest and Warlocks as it 3.x fuction of them. but by definiation we already have Warlocks, all warlocks are male witches and we have a witch class.

One of two things should have happen to cleric back then spell levels reduced to 6 levels of casting to match Bard and dropped to light armor and light shield, and gained spontaneous cure casting. there was no need for 7 levels of casting or it should have been turned in to a Priest lost all armor use no spontaneous curing and 9 levels of casting. But that did not happen. Pathfinder tried to take care of monster CoDzilla, but I actual think they made things worse, by losing turn undead, which was mostly useless ability or over powered ability. Made undead encounter trial or no effective at all to channel, which is always useful either for healing or causing damage to undead As now the cleric does not have to drop as many spells for healing allowing him to buff a lot more. The Loss of heavy armor was not really that big of a deal because they were already over powered and now have more spell to buff themselves with since they don’t have to do as much healing. This make the cleric more fun and less of a heal bot, but also make them more powerful.

Cleric is still greater then wizard, better saves, more hp, spontaneous and prepared caster, full levels of spells, armor and some domain spells are wizard spells better weapon selection.

While the idea of priest is nice it is just not going to compare to cleric without become over powering. It would be model off the wizard and could be done easily as a wizard archetype that trade out wizard spell list for cleric list.

There is no need for Artificer any more, the whole point of the Artificer was a magic device crafter and specialist. The big selling point of the Artificer is it could use it Artificer points to build magic items without spending xp on them. Spending xp was removed with pathfinder, so that sell point is mute, the artificer could also for his level on wands and what not, this can already be done in the bard archetype magician. So if you want an artificer play that archetype and take the magic item crafting feats.


Alzrius wrote:

JoeJ already mentioned this, but it's worth reiterating - the two are not mutually exclusive.

In fact, this idea of experience "beating" a point-buy system showcases the line of thinking that these two are somehow opposed to one another. In fact, that's not the case - the two are meant to be complementary.

The main things that stop abuse of a point-buy system are 1) the player(s) don't want to try and break the game; ideally, they're focused on a character concept that they want to make, instead of focused on min-maxed, optimized roll-playing, and 2) the players will consult and work with the GM to make sure that everything's going to work for the campaign, the same way the GM will take into account the way the campaign is shaping up and how fun it is for the players.

There's an idea behind the stance that "point-buy is too open to abuse" that I personally find to be rather insidious: the players can't be trusted. It's this idea that if the opportunity to break the game is there, the players will seize upon it, either because they want to or because they're inept enough that they'll blunder into it accidentally.

Certainly, there are bad players out there - but I find that bad players can wreck a game regardless of the game rules. Writing the game rules so that they protect the players from themselves and each other, and in the process restrict a lot of character options from being (effectively) playable, doesn't strike me as the answer.

I've been sold on point-based character creation ever since I first encountered in back in Mayfair's DC Heroes RPG ca. 1985. Yes, they can be abused, but so can anything that gives the players choices about creating and developing their character. By far the easiest way to prevent OP min/max optimizers, in any system, is for the GM to make sure there's enough variety in the adventures that there's nothing to maximize for. For superheroes, that means the players don't know in advance what combination of powers and abilities the villains will have. In a fantasy game it's even easier: just giving combat, interaction, and exploration equal time automatically means that an overly maximized character is missing out on 2/3 of the action.

That said, point based character creation is not something that can be readily added on to a class based game. What I was asking for was not something for players to use, but a tool like the Race Builder that GMs can use to add something unique to their world if they choose. Player created classes, like player created races, are only allowed with GM permission, and the GM is advised to look very hard at the design and consider the impact on the campaign world before agreeing.


LazarX wrote:

There are various flavors of artificer about, ranging from the original Eberron take to various homebrew adaptations.

The one thing they have in common, is that they are uber magic item crafters, that ultimately get every magic item crafting feat for free. And that they can break down magic items for residue in helping them create new ones.

Right, I feel that, I recall the class being a thing, but...what do they do other than crafting? Say, in combat? I feel like an alchemist that could take crashing feats is already an adventuring tinkerer guy (I f&$#ing hate the word tinkerer)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

For the record, I never said point buy stat creation was bad. I use that all the time in PF over rolling. What I mean was full on point buy systems where you build an entire character. Things like HERO and GURPS.

JiCi wrote:

You guys make me laugh when you request a Mystic Theurge and an Arcane Trickster... when they're ALREADY Prestige Classes. Look, they cannot convert PrCs into actual classes, ok? So let them be...

Honestly, for missing classes? Hmmm...
- Artificer/Tinkerer: someone who can fabricate gadgets that duplicate spells. If that's problematic to you, pretty sure Numeria would have such a class amongst their ranks.

- Swordsage/Warblade/Crusader: Yes, I'm asking this, because I really liked how Tome of Battle was written and ruled. Look, the fighter is literally paling in comparison when it comes to "having something unique". These 3 classes made an awesome alternate fighter option. Tian Xia could be loaded with these right now. Basically, give the fighter spell-like abilities in the forms of unique attacks.

I dislike Prestige Classes in the core. I prefer having a character concept that doesn't require 6 levels of crappy multiclassing. Prestige Class that are more from a story line perspective (like in Paths of Prestige) are more my jam.

Beside, we already have the magus, the slayer/ninja, the bloodrager, and the myrmadarch that take the concepts of Prestige Classes (Eldritch Knight, Assassin, Dragon Disciple, Arcane Archer) and allow them to be playable right from the get go. Personally, I'd absolutely LOVE a Mystic Theurge, but for me, I have the Magister class from RGG.


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook Subscriber

Personally my vision of an artificer class is a largely non-magical class that comes with a bombs, robot/clockwork companion which grows in power over time, and can apply temporary buffs to weapons as well as fixing stuff. I really don't see how it's needs to be a magic factory, anymore than a alchemist has to be a potion factory.

Dark Archive

Seeing and seconding calls for;

A base shapeshifter class.
A knowledge-user like the Archivist.
An artificer-type with a pool of available creations that he has to abandon to free up 'creation points' to make new stuff, so that he isn't just an infinite supply of cheap goods to his allies (and 7000% more likely to be a cohort than a PC).
A martial controller.
A martial leader / warlord / marshal.
A class that evolves into an outsider of some sort (devil, angel, etc.), or some other type of 'monster' like a dragon or undead.

And my own notions;
A priest type that channels divine power for a series of stunts, with more stunts available with level acquisition (or via feats). No spells *at all*, just channel energy to heal, or to smite, or to ward off opposed creatures, or to cleanse an area (or person) of evil or afflictions, or to infuse a corpse with energy and animate it, etc. Many of the same effects of divine spells, but no spells, just power, and new ways of channeling it to perform various miracles.

A Skill specialist class that does what the Rogue does with trapfinding, having niche specialized applications of skills like Perception and Disable Device that few others can match, only with a larger assortment of skills, like a mundane Heal skill user, who can do all sorts of stuff with the Heal skill that Bob the Cleric can't (like treat conditions, or CPR someone who's only 'mostly dead' back to life if he gets there fast enough, etc.). It's kind of what I wanted to see from an 'Alchemist' class, someone who makes lives or dies based off of use of the Craft (alchemy) skill, and has a daily pool of 'free alchemy' he can use so that he doesn't spend all of his WBL just to use his class feature of throwing (ever increasingly effective) alchemist's fire and tanglefoot bags at people.

JoeJ wrote:
If only there was some sort of point-based generic, universal system that I could use in any genre.

There are many, and many of them have zero built-in balance. In GURPS Supers, for instance, you can find guys written up by the actual game developers that have 15 *die* attack, and DR 8 or so. Woo, freedom! 500 CP supers like Black Pearl that a 100 CP Fantasy wizard or fighter will absolutely smoke like a fine Cuban. It's crazy easy to build terrible characters with some of those systems, both terribly competent, and terribly *not,* which leads to some bad play experiences, and ends up driving people away.

Mutants & Masterminds, with the mixed concept of point-buy character design and offensive and defensive PLs was a step in the right direction for that sort of thing, IMO.


Certainly would love a spontaneous caster Magus (I like the idea of a warrior whose magic is inherent and not something he has to learn from a spell book).
Also curious of a monk/summoner (something like the character from JoJo's Bizarre Adventure where you could summon a fighting spirit)


1 person marked this as a favorite.

WARLORD.

4e's Warlord was my most favorite class ever. I could literally play one of those every game for the rest of my life and love every second of it.


As long as you bring the bravura along for the ride, I'm with you.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LoneKnave wrote:
As long as you bring the bravura along for the ride, I'm with you.

You can have the Bravura, I want my TacLord. :)


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Zhayne wrote:

WARLORD.

4e's Warlord was my most favorite class ever. I could literally play one of those every game for the rest of my life and love every second of it.

Cool class indeed. So was the Invoker.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
JiCi wrote:

You guys make me laugh when you request a Mystic Theurge and an Arcane Trickster... when they're ALREADY Prestige Classes. Look, they cannot convert PrCs into actual classes, ok? So let them be...

*stuff*

If you want something similar to ToB, check out Dreamscarred press's Path of War line. Its very cool stuff.

I disagree with you about the prestige class thing though.

The Swashbuckler, while a Gunslinger/Fighter, is truly the Duelist prestige class made playable. The Magus is a alternate take on the Eldritch Knight.

With two good examples of PrCs converted into classes, why can't we have some of the other PrCs converted into classes? I don't want to be an Arcane Trickster at level 5. I want to be one from level 1. I don't want to be a Mystic Theurge at level 5, I want to be one at level 1. Is it so wrong to want to be your character at level 1?


Adam B. 135 wrote:
JiCi wrote:

You guys make me laugh when you request a Mystic Theurge and an Arcane Trickster... when they're ALREADY Prestige Classes. Look, they cannot convert PrCs into actual classes, ok? So let them be...

*stuff*

If you want something similar to ToB, check out Dreamscarred press's Path of War line. Its very cool stuff.

I disagree with you about the prestige class thing though.

The Swashbuckler, while a Gunslinger/Fighter, is truly the Duelist prestige class made playable. The Magus is a alternate take on the Eldritch Knight.

With two good examples of PrCs converted into classes, why can't we have some of the other PrCs converted into classes? I don't want to be an Arcane Trickster at level 5. I want to be one from level 1. I don't want to be a Mystic Theurge at level 5, I want to be one at level 1. Is it so wrong to want to be your character at level 1?

You coudl also argue that the Bloodrager with the Dragon bloodline is a DD made base class as well. And from what the slayer spoiler shows, the slayer archetype could be similiar to a pseudo-shadowdancer...


K177Y C47 wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
JiCi wrote:

You guys make me laugh when you request a Mystic Theurge and an Arcane Trickster... when they're ALREADY Prestige Classes. Look, they cannot convert PrCs into actual classes, ok? So let them be...

*stuff*

If you want something similar to ToB, check out Dreamscarred press's Path of War line. Its very cool stuff.

I disagree with you about the prestige class thing though.

The Swashbuckler, while a Gunslinger/Fighter, is truly the Duelist prestige class made playable. The Magus is a alternate take on the Eldritch Knight.

With two good examples of PrCs converted into classes, why can't we have some of the other PrCs converted into classes? I don't want to be an Arcane Trickster at level 5. I want to be one from level 1. I don't want to be a Mystic Theurge at level 5, I want to be one at level 1. Is it so wrong to want to be your character at level 1?

You coudl also argue that the Bloodrager with the Dragon bloodline is a DD made base class as well. And from what the slayer spoiler shows, the slayer archetype could be similiar to a pseudo-shadowdancer...

I could. I chose against it since the DD still gets a lot of spellcasting, and the slayer archetype is a little too vague for me to make statements. I wanted to use concrete PrC conversions in my argument.

Though I believe bloodrager scratches the itch that DD does, while also scratching the itch I had for DD-like PrCs for every bloodline.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Adam B. 135 wrote:
K177Y C47 wrote:
Adam B. 135 wrote:
JiCi wrote:

You guys make me laugh when you request a Mystic Theurge and an Arcane Trickster... when they're ALREADY Prestige Classes. Look, they cannot convert PrCs into actual classes, ok? So let them be...

*stuff*

If you want something similar to ToB, check out Dreamscarred press's Path of War line. Its very cool stuff.

I disagree with you about the prestige class thing though.

The Swashbuckler, while a Gunslinger/Fighter, is truly the Duelist prestige class made playable. The Magus is a alternate take on the Eldritch Knight.

With two good examples of PrCs converted into classes, why can't we have some of the other PrCs converted into classes? I don't want to be an Arcane Trickster at level 5. I want to be one from level 1. I don't want to be a Mystic Theurge at level 5, I want to be one at level 1. Is it so wrong to want to be your character at level 1?

You coudl also argue that the Bloodrager with the Dragon bloodline is a DD made base class as well. And from what the slayer spoiler shows, the slayer archetype could be similiar to a pseudo-shadowdancer...

I could. I chose against it since the DD still gets a lot of spellcasting, and the slayer archetype is a little too vague for me to make statements. I wanted to use concrete PrC conversions in my argument.

Though I believe bloodrager scratches the itch that DD does, while also scratching the itch I had for DD-like PrCs for every bloodline.

true true xD.

I Do have to say though, Bloodragers get rediculous when you are am Abyssal Bloodrager+Dragon Disciple (since TECHNICALLY the Bloodrager ability is NOT the sorcerer bloodline directly called out in DD)+Eldritch Heritage (abyssal) to pump the ever loving crap out of yoru strength... you are a Abyss Dragon at that point!


Can you ever have enough strength? The Abyssal Bloodline Dragon Disciple says that there is no such thing.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd like the Duskblade back, just improved and given more touch spells that don't end 60% of the way through his career. And no, the Magus is not what I'm looking for.

As others have mentioned, the Tome of Battle stuff. I am aware of DSP's work and will hopefully be picking it up when I get paid this week. I'd still like to see a Pathfinder version of the Warblade though, and the ToB martial schools.

The Dragonfire Adept would be fun to have back as well.


Anzyr wrote:
HERO! The system you should only play if everyone knows what their doing, and everyone is on the same page.

Yeah - I'm in a dream group for Hero. I've been playing it since '85 and I have the least experience, and we have had the same players for over 15 years. That helps a lot.

After GMing HERO for decades, balance in PF is easy to do, and being able to say "No- it may be book legal, but not at my table" is second nature - as HERO expects the GM to make the balance, not the system.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Maps, Pawns Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Charter Superscriber

But...but...how can everyone possibly be on the same page if you don't follow the rules written in the pages?

;)


Classes I still miss -

I want a druid without shapeshifting. I want to be able to run a nature oriented guy with a pet, but no changing himself. Alternately a shapeshifting class that has no pet and likely not much in the way of magic. I've seen a few 3PP versions but none that I really liked.

I love 3PP so most of what I want to see has been done, or is in the process of being done (Thank you Dreamscarred for Akashic Mysteries!)


Set wrote:
JoeJ" wrote:
If only there was some sort of point-based generic, universal system that I could use in any genre.
There are many, and many of them have zero built-in balance. In GURPS Supers, for instance, you can find guys written up by the actual game developers that have 15 *die* attack, and DR 8 or so. Woo, freedom! 500 CP supers like Black Pearl that a 100 CP Fantasy wizard or fighter will absolutely smoke like a fine Cuban. It's crazy easy to build terrible characters with some of those systems, both terribly competent, and terribly *not,* which leads to some bad play experiences, and ends up driving people away.

I'm sorry, I thought it would be obvious from my choice of wording that I was being silly. I'm familiar with the Generic Universal Role Playing System, although I haven't had a chance to actually use it yet.


Lord Mhoram wrote:

Classes I still miss -

I want a druid without shapeshifting. I want to be able to run a nature oriented guy with a pet, but no changing himself. Alternately a shapeshifting class that has no pet and likely not much in the way of magic. I've seen a few 3PP versions but none that I really liked.

I love 3PP so most of what I want to see has been done, or is in the process of being done (Thank you Dreamscarred for Akashic Mysteries!)

Shaman with Nature as primary spirit and you can bounce between the elemental spirits as the need arises day by day.


Lord Mhoram wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
HERO! The system you should only play if everyone knows what their doing, and everyone is on the same page.

Yeah - I'm in a dream group for Hero. I've been playing it since '85 and I have the least experience, and we have had the same players for over 15 years. That helps a lot.

After GMing HERO for decades, balance in PF is easy to do, and being able to say "No- it may be book legal, but not at my table" is second nature - as HERO expects the GM to make the balance, not the system.

That's the truth. HERO taught me how to say no as a GM.

101 to 150 of 391 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / After ACG: Do you still miss a class ? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.