Classes that are still needed


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 409 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Milo v3 wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
The Black Blade is a sentient weapon that grows with the magus as you level up. It has a separate arcane pool that it uses to activate various abilities, and at high level it feeds on those it slays.
But it's not just a sentient weapon that's wanted, it's a sentient weapon that can take human form or a human that can take weapon form. Black blades don't even get close.

That's basically like taking the Leadership Feat, which is a wholly unique level of BS.

Maybe an Archetype of the Summoner would work, but other than that, it's practically impossible without treading on really insane ground that plenty of people actively try to avoid


Another vote for the d6 divine caster class. Make it two: give us one that's nature-oriented, and one that's the cleric analogue. So we have some sort of geomancer, plus the priest. Yes, several 3PP products have taken up that role. None quite suit my tastes as they don't fix the spell list to give you a nice variety of things to get into, because as I've said before, the cleric spell list is highly reactive. Needs more proactive things to do besides buff IMHO. And I'd just like to see what someone could do with the casty druid :)


My wishlist:

1. 3/4BAB full Martial with lots of feats and some features to make it a good fighter in spite of low BAB.

2. Full BAB spontaneous caster that is NOT CHA based.

3. Full BAB with extracts.

4. Wildshaping Martial.

5. 3/4BAB spontaneous INT caster with sneak attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Silver Surfer wrote:

IMO there is only class that is TRULY missing (and has been from the start)

1) D6 divine...

And before you say it... NO.... the Ecclesithurge does NOT have this covered.... no offence but a very half assed attempt IMO.

D6 divine caster is not a concept.

A concept may be so good that it forces a divine caster to be a D6, however the reason for existing is entirely different.


Joey Virtue wrote:
Mysterious Stranger wrote:
The Archeologist bard is a magical rogue. Their spell list has many utility spells that further boost their ability for trickery and deceit. Instead of combat spells they have illusion and enchantment, but that actually works better. Being able to go invisible, teleport and turn gaseous makes for an almost unstoppable thief. Combine Heroism with Archeologist Luck and lingering performance and they become the ultimate skill monkey.

Does he get sneak attack?

Im looking for a rogue mage like that the magus is a fighter mage, so I want a combat rogue mage who can also have other areas of expertise.

But all in all we are getting close to what seems like most character classes are covered

I do like the idea of a couple more steam punk like characters to go along with the gun slinger

Many people, particularly those who are fond of the rogue, would say it is not defined by sneak attack.

I don't see why the archaeologist does not fit. It fights decently well and does roguish things.


I'm not sure how you can say the Rogue is defined by anything else. It has no other significant class features.

Liberty's Edge

Sentinel: A class that's all about the D: He wears heavy armor, gets benefits from wearing heavy armor, can bodyguard the party (by granting his shield bonus to an adjacent ally, Swap Places, Antagonize, can redirect an attack on an adjacent ally onto himself), can mark foes like the 4e fighter.

Thaumaturge: A blaster mage; only, y'know, making evocation actually useful. I kinda see this class as like the arcanist, except that you don't get any spells. Instead, you get much more arcanist exploits that you can use.

Jobber: I sincerely doubt that there's a class in Pathfinder that's high risk/high reward, so here we are. This guy gets more powerful as he gets more hurt. I can see him as having a Sneak Attack Lite (he gets sneak attack when two allies are in melee with the target, but only does d4s instead.)

Grenadier: You have a bomb launcher. You get a limited amount of chemicals per day to make bombs with. (You choose "Okay, I'm getting two Organics, two Crystals, two Soft Metals today; tomorrow, I think I'll go three Organics, one Radioactive, one Inert Gas, and one Crystal." and you combine two chemicals to make a particular bomb.) You get to meet the folks at Ye Olde Burnne Warde when you roll a natural 1 on your ranged bomb attack and experience your quality worksmanship firsthand. (Heh heh heh.)

*sigh* This makes me want to look at the Book! of NINE Cheese~! again and work on that some more. =(


I notice there's a lot of requests that are mechanical holes, like d6 divine casters and spontaneous druid, as opposed to general concepts.


A martial debuffer would be nice. A class to play when you want to be the anvil but you don't want to be a wizard.


chbgraphicarts wrote:

That's basically like taking the Leadership Feat, which is a wholly unique level of BS.

Maybe an Archetype of the Summoner would work, but other than that, it's practically impossible without treading on really insane ground that plenty of people actively try to avoid

I'd see it more on the level of a familiar, that way you don't give the weapon feats, and it would have no combat power outside of being a weapon, making the humanoid form more a roleplay and stealth tool than a giant power increase.


Rynjin wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say the Rogue is defined by anything else. It has no other significant class features.

It USED TO BE also defined also by Talents and lots of skill growth room, but Investigator and Slayer have stolen its thunder.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

It USED TO BE also defined also by Talents and lots of skill growth room, but Investigator and Slayer have stolen its thunder.

I don't think rogues are defined by their talents, unless you mean that the same way ex soviet-bloc cars are defined by their quality workmanship.

It is telling that the best rogue talents are the ones that give a bonus feat. Contrast to classes like the barbarian and witch. Those classes have class specific options so good that they happily spend extra feats for more of them.

The rogue was always overshadowed by a core bard as a skill monkey anyway. The only thing a rogue has over a bard is a situational half level bonus to perception, 2 more skill ranks per level and disable device as a class skill (and swim I guess?). The bard has a half level bonus on all knowledge skills (equivalent to 5 skill ranks per level, or 2.5 if only "useful" skills that ID monsters are counted), all knowledge skills and spellcraft as class skills and can make perform count as several skills (worth between 2 and 10 ranks per level, not including having the perform skill itself).

The kicker is that the bard also has spells.


wraithstrike wrote:


A concept may be so good that it forces a divine caster to be a D6, however the reason for existing is entirely different.

And I think youre getting wound up / bogged down in semantics and pedantics....

Whenever you see reference to D6 divine... you are basically talking up about an armourless, weaponless (or maybe just a staff), frail looking holy / unholy man who in terms of contact with a deity is at a higher level than other divine casters...


Malwing wrote:
I notice there's a lot of requests that are mechanical holes, like d6 divine casters and spontaneous druid, as opposed to general concepts.

As someone who posted both a general concept (warmage) and a request for what you describe as a mechanical hole (D6/poor BAB divine caster), I simply didn't add a "concept writeup" because the concept for a D6 divine caster should be obvious.


Kudaku wrote:

As someone who posted both a general concept (warmage) and a request for what you describe as a mechanical hole (D6/poor BAB divine caster), I simply didn't add a "concept writeup" because the concept for a D6 divine caster should be obvious.

Couldn't have put it better myself sir! ;)


Arachnofiend wrote:
A martial debuffer would be nice. A class to play when you want to be the anvil but you don't want to be a wizard.

Sensei Monk, son.


Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Secret Wizard wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
A martial debuffer would be nice. A class to play when you want to be the anvil but you don't want to be a wizard.
Sensei Monk, son.

Sensei seems much more like a buffer (Arm) than a debuffer (Anvil) to me. Or am I missing something?

Scarab Sages

Xethik wrote:
Secret Wizard wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
A martial debuffer would be nice. A class to play when you want to be the anvil but you don't want to be a wizard.
Sensei Monk, son.
Sensei seems much more like a buffer (Arm) than a debuffer (Anvil) to me. Or am I missing something?

A sensei is going to be one of the most effective users of stunning fist, scorpion style, and any other common monk debuffs thanks to being wisdom based and having bonus accuracy from inspire courage.

Edit: although flowing monk and harrow warden do a better job at debuffing.


Rynjin wrote:
I'm not sure how you can say the Rogue is defined by anything else. It has no other significant class features.

Some say the rogue is defined by its defined by skills, and is not a combat class.

I am sure they will be in here soon enough.

It has trapfinding. <--I don't see this as significant, but the more I type the more I realize that a general concensus may be part of the problem with this class, and it treatment as desired in this thread.


Silver Surfer wrote:
wraithstrike wrote:


A concept may be so good that it forces a divine caster to be a D6, however the reason for existing is entirely different.

And I think youre getting wound up / bogged down in semantics and pedantics....

Whenever you see reference to D6 divine... you are basically talking up about an armourless, weaponless (or maybe just a staff), frail looking holy / unholy man who in terms of contact with a deity is at a higher level than other divine casters...

That is a concept. D6 divine caster could be quiet a few things.


Kudaku wrote:
Malwing wrote:
I notice there's a lot of requests that are mechanical holes, like d6 divine casters and spontaneous druid, as opposed to general concepts.
As someone who posted both a general concept (warmage) and a request for what you describe as a mechanical hole (D6/poor BAB divine caster), I simply didn't add a "concept writeup" because the concept for a D6 divine caster should be obvious.

If it can be any number of things, that makes it not obvious by nature.


wraithstrike wrote:


That is a concept. D6 divine caster could be quiet a few things.

Like I said.... pedantics and semantics

Like someone else said its pretty obvious what a D6 divine class will end up like..... the fact that you cant see it doesnt make it not so.


To be honest, and I'm probably going to get struck by a multitude of smites, rants and angry retorts for this, I think we need considerably -fewer- classes.

It's already gotten to the point where new classes released make older classes redundant or at least removes part of what makes that class have a point (I still fail to see why anyone would bother rolling a sorcerer nowadays, after the release of the arcanist-class to name an example).

I'm sure some people will disagree and hey, that's no skin off my back ... but I just think "more classes for the sake of more classes" is really, seriously redundant.

Focus on the dozens of classes already there instead, OR if one absolutely -must- have more classes then make them setting-specific, to add unique flavours to specific settings, or release them as prestige-classes.

More classes with more features that GMs must plan for only adds to the possibility of confusion, annoyance and angry exchanges across the game board.

Flame away ...

Scarab Sages

I agree that the arcanist was unnecessary. I don't agree that it's obsoleted the sorcerer. The spells prepared per day sucks, and they have less slots per level. They are still tied to a spellbook in exchange for spell versatility. While they have the best parts of both sorcerer and wizard, they share the worst parts as well.


I believe it's one spell less per level per day for an arcanist, who then trades that off to get access to arcane resevoir and a list of associated abilities as long as my leg, including abilities which basically doubles as bloodline-abilities.

Since the arcane resevoir is calculated as 3 + arcanist level, this means that they can combine these abilities and their actual spells per day to cast spells or create effects -at least- as many times a day as a sorcerer can cast spells. More in fact.

Unless one wants to play a sorcerer simply and specifically for the flavour, I really believe there's no point in it anymore.

In any case, that's just one example. The duelist prestige class, for example, has also been made redundant with the introduction of the swashbuckler.

Don't get me wrong. It's not that I'm saying that arcanists aren't good characters, or that swashbucklers should somehow be banned to protect those sad, rather time-worn duelists out there.

All I'm saying is that we are currently receiving "flavour of the month"-classes and I don't see a point in it.

A system I'd prefer would be to expand on the idea that some, very specific classes are only available to certain races or nationalities within the game.

Again, I'm well aware I'm probably in the extreme minority on this issue but I really do not see what 100 different character classes accomplishes, that isn't accomplished -just- as well with 20 classes and some adept handling of traits and feats.


^A lot of this could be solved if class abilities would be available more a-la-carte (with prerequisite chains, of course). This would cut WAY down on the number of archetypes needed, and cut down substantially on the number of classes needed (converting some of them into archetypes in the process).


Secret Wizard wrote:
Arachnofiend wrote:
A martial debuffer would be nice. A class to play when you want to be the anvil but you don't want to be a wizard.
Sensei Monk, son.

Sensei is good, but not great (really, REALLY great if you want to be a martial arm, though). Stunning Fist can only be used on one target per turn, while a Wizard is sporting AoE debuffs. Dirty Fighters can AoE debuff but can't target anything other than CMD.

UnArcaneElection wrote:

^A lot of this could be solved if class abilities would be available more a-la-carte (with prerequisite chains, of course). This would cut WAY down on the number of archetypes needed, and cut down substantially on the number of classes needed (converting some of them into archetypes in the process).

I disagree with taking a more modular approach to abilities, mainly because the presence of archetypes and classes lowers the skill floor. Archetypes that tell you what they're supposed to do upfront make building for a concept much simpler.


I have no idea. It seems like all the bases are covered between the classes and archetypes. Occult Adventures will add another slew of classes so we should be covered for a while.


I suspect all the vacancies in classes I can think of have probably been mentioned, but here seem to be the most obvious "holes"

1. Engineer/Gadgeteer/Artificer class = There are a ton of 3pp options, and I think even some of the Paizo folks have said this is the most obvious "hole" in concepts. I could see something like this easily working as a hybrid class between a alchemist and a summoner.

Basically give the class bombs, a mechanical companion that can be built with something like the evolution point system, and some sort of "discovery" functions, that could be used to buff himself/his companions/party.

2. Related to that, a sort of "mechano-synthesist" Tank would be an excellent class. Basically, Iron Man, the class; A high BAB class oriented around defense and protecting allies, via armor

3. Full BAB dedicated Shapeshifter class. No spells, just scaling ability to take the form of specific animals and monsters, and maybe a way to steal the natural abilities of them

4.Master Spy, the class. Basically a Rogue/Bard Hybrid. I know both classes can emulate this role to some extent, but both have certain degrees of baggage associated with them that as a player I don't want to deal with. Basically...lets have James Bond, the class. Sneak attack, maybe very limited spellcasting, and class functions oriented towards infiltration and deception.

5. The D6 priest class. I think this might be a nightmare to create, since the cleric already has full divine spells, but I really want a "less fighty" priest, and something more scholarly. I would give it full 9/9 spellcasting abilities, and maybe class features similar to an arcanist, letting it get greater use of out spells/channelling at the cost of offense.

6. Telepath. With occult adventurers, I was expecting something like this, and surprised I didn't see it. I would basically use the chasis of a kineticist, only instead of doing elemental damage, I would focus it on spells and abilities focused on mind-reading, mind control, and mental combat.

7. Other ideas that I could work could be a super-soldier class (Alchemist/Fighter hybrid) and making Mystic Theurge and Arcane Trickster full 20 level classes. Also specialist casters that focus on specific schools, such as Necromancers, etc.


UnArcaneElection wrote:

^A lot of this could be solved if class abilities would be available more a-la-carte (with prerequisite chains, of course). This would cut WAY down on the number of archetypes needed, and cut down substantially on the number of classes needed (converting some of them into archetypes in the process).

I don't think there is anything wrong with such an a-la-carte approach, but I think the Class approach is iconic to DnD, and it makes leveling a lot more easier and less likely to result in non-functional characters.


I think it makes more sense to take the archetype system to the next level and divorce class abilities from the base character chassis.

An example might be, if you wanted to play a martial oriented character, you first choose the martial chassis (full bab, d10 HD, 4 skills) and then choose whether you want your character to be magical or not. If you do, your character gets fourth level spell progression. If not, you get five combat feats that ignore prerequisites instead.

Once that's out of the way, you choose a couple of archetypes that suit your character idea. One archetype would focus on combat and would grant special abilities at levels noted for the base martial template, another archetype would focus on out of combat features(extra skill points perhaps, some abilities like bardic knowledge, etc.) and would progress at different level intervals than the combat features(obviously).

I feel as though this would be the best way to approach a LA carte style gaming without running into a lot of the problems that stem from having access to all the abilities.

Incidentally, it also makes designing classes easier because you just have to ensure that the specific archetype track your making is equivalent to tracks of the same type instead of trying to figure out whether your out of combat stuff balances against in combat stuff.


Well, the a la carte approach might be good for veteran players who know what they're doing, but for casual players it's a nightmare.

The only real gripe with the archetype system is that it is blatantly interior to the alternate class feature system of 3.x because you had more control over exactly what class features got replaced with what.

Personally, the only niches I care about filling are mechanical ones because the fluff can be changed based on what's appropriate for the player or the game.


Yeah, that's my beef with a la carte as well, thus the post above.


IMO, the best approach would be allowing use of the pre built archetypes for lazy and/or inexperienced players, but still allow cherry picking for the power gamers.


master_marshmallow wrote:
IMO, the best approach would be allowing use of the pre built archetypes for lazy and/or inexperienced players, but still allow cherry picking for the power gamers.

I dunno, that sounds like the best way to make your players wildly different power levels. The granularity of being able to choose class abilities without structure is very potent.


Trogdar wrote:
master_marshmallow wrote:
IMO, the best approach would be allowing use of the pre built archetypes for lazy and/or inexperienced players, but still allow cherry picking for the power gamers.
I dunno, that sounds like the best way to make your players wildly different power levels. The granularity of being able to choose class abilities without structure is very potent.

I suppose sample size matters, different groups will yield different results. Ymmv


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Off the top of my head:

1) Eberron style Artificer. Focus on magic item crafting and use of crafted magical gear.

2) 3.5 style Warlock, without the silly flavor restrictions. Ability to make ranged energy attacks as a standard ability.

3) Final Fantasy style Blue Mage that can copy monster abilities.

4) Mage Monks. Class that can be used for DragonBall Z style combat, or Avatar style bending.

5) Dread Necromancer, 3.5 style.


A battle companion focused class. I think summoner was supposed to be this, but got too wrapped up in other facets of summoning.


Edymnion wrote:

3) Final Fantasy style Blue Mage that can copy monster abilities.

4) Mage Monks. Class that can be used for DragonBall Z style combat, or Avatar style bending.

These. Right here.


The mage monk is mostly the Kineticist from the upcoming Occult book.


Yeah the Kineticist also kind of covers similar mechanical ground to the Warlock as well.


Melkiador wrote:
The mage monk is mostly the Kineticist from the upcoming Occult book.

Unless the Kineticist is roughly 10x more powerful than the Playtest version, I really hope this isn't the case.


Rynjin wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
The mage monk is mostly the Kineticist from the upcoming Occult book.
Unless the Kineticist is roughly 10x more powerful than the Playtest version, I really hope this isn't the case.

Whatever the power level, this is clearly the flavor they were going for.

RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32

A melee magic-user. Someone who uses magic to tank, not necessarily a spellcaster that novas like a magus. Maybe using auras, swift action buffs and immediate action counters.

Full-BAB shapeshifter.

A non-magic-user battlefield controller. Maybe using reach, maneuvers, movement like Combat Patrol, Spring Attack, etc.

A spontaneous druid.

A magic-using scoundrel.

3.5 warlock.

8 classes based on the schools of magic, like dread necromancer, beguiler, warmage, seer, exorcist, charlatan, transmuter, summoner....

Speedster.

EDIT:

Telekinesis master.

Self-buffer.


Melkiador wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
Melkiador wrote:
The mage monk is mostly the Kineticist from the upcoming Occult book.
Unless the Kineticist is roughly 10x more powerful than the Playtest version, I really hope this isn't the case.
Whatever the power level, this is clearly the flavor they were going for.

I mention the power level because if it sucks, we now have a mechanically poor option "filling that niche" so we won't get another iteration of it that DOESN'T suck.

So if it sucks I'd rather Paizo ignore the fact that it can technically fulfill that role.


This is paizo. There will totally be an overpowered archetype that does the same thing better.


Pathfinder Companion, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
The Alkenstarian wrote:

I believe it's one spell less per level per day for an arcanist, who then trades that off to get access to arcane resevoir and a list of associated abilities as long as my leg, including abilities which basically doubles as bloodline-abilities.

Since the arcane resevoir is calculated as 3 + arcanist level, this means that they can combine these abilities and their actual spells per day to cast spells or create effects -at least- as many times a day as a sorcerer can cast spells. More in fact.

Unless one wants to play a sorcerer simply and specifically for the flavour, I really believe there's no point in it anymore.

Actually, arcanists wind up with 2 fewer spells per level per day than a sorcerer, maxing out at 4 spells per day per spell level, though of course there are bonus spells per level based on casting modifiers. Still, at level 20, a sorcerer can cast eighteen more spells per day than an arcanist, with all else being equal.

Also, while the arcane reservoir is 3 + the arcanist's level, without consuming spells or magic items, they only have 3 + 1/2 the arcanist's level in the actual pool. Leaving alone that some bloodlines also offer effects that a sorcerer can use in addition to spellcasting (though the usefulness of these effects vary widely from bloodline to bloodline). Of course, an arcanist can access these benefits via an exploit or an archetype, but that's spending resources to get it.

Speaking personally, I would never play an arcanist over a sorcerer. It might be slightly nicer to play than a wizard with their spontaneous casting offering a little more flexibility (which perhaps even makes up for effectively getting fewer spells per day than virtually all wizards), though I suspect most people who prefer to play wizards would rather have another spell slot to micromanage. I guess I would pick an arcanist over a wizard if someone was forcing me to play one or the other. Probably at gunpoint. Blech. I'd far rather just choose my spells known intelligently and have some actual staying power as a caster.


Can someone explain what D6 means?


I take it you've never had somebody cast Fireball?


Now you have completely lost me. Everyone is talking about a D6 divine caster. Are you saying that is a cleric who casts fireballs?

And I have been casting fireballs since before the 1st edition books came out.

51 to 100 of 409 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Classes that are still needed All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.