Why not make every class full BAB? Then you don't need fractional BAB, and you don't have to worry about so much self-buffing or having some classes have some abilities that target Touch AC.
^Uh . . . Caster/Martial disparity . . . ?
^Uh . . . Caster/Martial disparity . . . ?
But it would make it easier to set monster ACs and stuff? Everyone would have an equal chance of hitting. Have iterative attacks not be reduced, and martials can hit multiple times per round, casters will hit once per round, and it will be balance itself out.
Not really, that really screws with the math of the game
^I disagree about prestige classes. Some prestige classes should be converted into archetypes/etc., but the reverse is also true in some cases. (Arcane Trickster, Eldritch Knight, etc. are good candidates for conversion into base class options.) Hellknights are a perfect example of a pair of prestige classes with Prestige (as opposed to just a training path), although mechanically the Hellknight prestige classes need to be updated to work well with newer material. Paladin/Antipaladin and Inquisitor(*) are examples of base classes that should be made into prestige classes -- what religion in their right mind is going to trust some random 1st level warrior or priest to be their exemplary Holy Warrior or to work behind the scenes going above church rules? These roles should be reserved for characters that have proven themselves beyond basic training.
(*)However, I like the Inquisitor chassis, so save this for remixing with Warpriest to make the Cleric Reloaded, and then put 9/9 deity-bound divine casting on a new d6, 1/2 BAB Priest class.
I quite like Paladin as a base class. My go-to image of a Paladin is Jeanne D'arc, who in classic D&D fashion goes directly from simple villager to divinely empowered warrior. It's not the church that is entrusting a Paladin with power and authority, it is the deity.
BAB
Actually, one of the problems with bab (and saves) is that the disparity between high bab and low bab grows larger at higher levels. Making everyone have same bab removes that disparity but also is bad in making everyone the same. I'd suggest making bab equal level plus/minus a class modifier. Thus martial classes might be level +3, while caster classes are level -2 (for a static -5 between casters and martials), then mid-bab classes can be +1. Same with saves.
Paladins.
Paladins should only ever be lawful, and not evil. Though admittedly, that depends on my reading of the rules. I have always felt that the rules on alignment were not well written (like the author didn't know how to adequately describe them), but my understanding of them is that
Lawful = dedicated and disciplined,
good = selfless and generous,
evil = selfish and greedy, and
chaotic = carefree and undirected.
It is the only definition set that is really followed through out the rules and actually makes sense for why paladins have to be lawful good, because the entire concept of a paladin is someone who is extremely dedicated to something other than themselves to the point of sacrificing themselves and their own lives in order to serve that something, which is not only neither chaotic nor evil but is very dedicated and very selfless. Having paladins of chaos and evil go against that entire concept. Chaotic folks lack the dedication, and evil folks care too much about themselves.
It is also a definition that fits other cases, such as monks requiring lawful, because only extreme dedication can achieve the level of mastery that a monk achieves.
That definition also allows far more moral grey area as well, and also does not include the "lawful stupid" concept.
|
Lawful = dedicated and disciplined,
good = selfless and generous,
evil = selfish and greedy, and
chaotic = carefree and undirected
This is in general how I tend to break down the alignments as well, though I generally think of them less as:
"a Lawful character is (or must be) dedicated and disciplined"
and more like:
"a Lawful character tend to be dedicated, and/or disciplined, (and/or orderly, and/or likes to follow a specific code of beliefs)"
BAB
Actually, one of the problems with bab (and saves) is that the disparity between high bab and low bab grows larger at higher levels. Making everyone have same bab removes that disparity but also is bad in making everyone the same. I'd suggest making bab equal level plus/minus a class modifier. Thus martial classes might be level +3, while caster classes are level -2 (for a static -5 between casters and martials), then mid-bab classes can be +1. Same with saves.Paladins.
Paladins should only ever be lawful, and not evil. Though admittedly, that depends on my reading of the rules. I have always felt that the rules on alignment were not well written (like the author didn't know how to adequately describe them), but my understanding of them is that
Lawful = dedicated and disciplined,
good = selfless and generous,
evil = selfish and greedy, and
chaotic = carefree and undirected.It is the only definition set that is really followed through out the rules and actually makes sense for why paladins have to be lawful good, because the entire concept of a paladin is someone who is extremely dedicated to something other than themselves to the point of sacrificing themselves and their own lives in order to serve that something, which is not only neither chaotic nor evil but is very dedicated and very selfless. Having paladins of chaos and evil go against that entire concept. Chaotic folks lack the dedication, and evil folks care too much about themselves.
It is also a definition that fits other cases, such as monks requiring lawful, because only extreme dedication can achieve the level of mastery that a monk achieves.
That definition also allows far more moral grey area as well, and also does not include the "lawful stupid" concept.
By this standard non-LGs can't have divine power like a Paladin, which begs the question: What alignment is required to be a dedicated, self-sacrificing, zealot of Lamashtu?
In other words, your logic is sound, within the definitions of alignments and how that reflects character behavior, but, the world has to work. There are chaotic gods with dedicated servants. We really can't make them Lawful. It's one of the foibles of the alignment system, but I think it's best to let every corner have it's divine champions.
On the other hand, one could look at paladins as such;
Individuals who are trained in martial weapons, heavy armor, have a high BAB, can cast spells up to fourth level, have an aura, can lay on hands, and can smite an opposing alignment.
If one considers paladins as a skill set with a set of powers bestowed on them by a higher power, it begs the question as to why gods who aren't LG or within one step there of, would want champions in their ranks who possess such effective, potent powers.
One could counter that non-LG forces have things like rangers, barbarians, and bards on their side, but rangers have no alignment restrictions at all, they're just usually cast in chaotic alignment for "reasons", and in pathfinder, neither bards nor barbarians have to be chaotic, they just can't be lawful, and neither are divine agents in the way paladins are.
In 5e, there is LG fluff (or CG fluff or LN fluff), but no actual alignment requirements.
Why not make every class full BAB? Then you don't need fractional BAB, and you don't have to worry about so much self-buffing or having some classes have some abilities that target Touch AC.
How could you explain a 20th level fighter and 20th level wizard having the same basic martial skills?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not make every class full BAB? Then you don't need fractional BAB, and you don't have to worry about so much self-buffing or having some classes have some abilities that target Touch AC.How could you explain a 20th level fighter and 20th level wizard having the same basic martial skills?
There's always the explanation given for the High Elf Loremasters from Warhammer Fantasy: If you're so brilliant that you can truly master magic, mastering swordplay is childishly easy.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why not make every class full BAB? Then you don't need fractional BAB, and you don't have to worry about so much self-buffing or having some classes have some abilities that target Touch AC.How could you explain a 20th level fighter and 20th level wizard having the same basic martial skills?
By uncoupling the number of attacks from BAB.
A wizard and Fighter both attack as the same base bonus, a 20th level Wizard makes 1 attack at the bonus, a 20th level fighter makes 4.
In other words martial skill isn't really the bonus you make to attacks, martial skill is being able to attack 4 times in the amount of time it takes the other guy to attack once.
Why not make every class full BAB? Then you don't need fractional BAB, and you don't have to worry about so much self-buffing or having some classes have some abilities that target Touch AC.How could you explain a 20th level fighter and 20th level wizard having the same basic martial skills?By uncoupling the number of attacks from BAB.
A wizard and Fighter both attack as the same base bonus, a 20th level Wizard makes 1 attack at the bonus, a 20th level fighter makes 4.
In other words martial skill isn't really the bonus you make to attacks, martial skill is being able to attack 4 times in the amount of time it takes the other guy to attack once.
Yeah, I would like to see Extra Attack be a class ability gained at levels 5, 10, 15, and 20. Then multi-class martials would have to decide if they want to dip and lose extra attacks, or commit in 5 level chunks.
Or just make it a class feature called Martial Training, that you get extra attacks every so often, which might be less often for classes that traditionally have a lower BAB.
What alignment is required to be a dedicated, self-sacrificing, zealot of Lamashtu?
Lawful neutral.
Neutral can be two types of neutral, undifferentiated and androgynous (for lack of better term). Basically, someone can be neutral by not being strongly aligned to either extreme,or neutral can mean being significantly aligned to opposing extremes.
In this case, being dedicated to an evil god is basically wishing well for one's in-group, but holding no value for those outside of one's in-group (which could mean that one values the pleasure of causing pain more than they value the well-being of strangers, but not always known associates).
There are chaotic gods with dedicated servants. We really can't make them Lawful.
Why not? Are there not many stories filled with loyal servants dedicated to their whimsy guided masters? (Jeeves anyone?)
Though, you can also say that their champions take a different tack than those of lawful sort, perhaps neutral like above, or simply they they live chaotically, responding to issues they encounter rather than searching for issues that require attention.
For example, a classic concert violinist is lawful, while a fiddler is chaotic. The former practices a lot and trains technique and spends time not simply playing but in studying and practicing support for their playing. A fiddler on the other hand, doesn't study much, and doesn't worry about technique or accepted practices, or proper form, instead they simply play and make it sound right, and what they lack in the dedicated violinist's advantages, they gain their own, such as having less stress and are more likely to be able to play by ear and memorize songs rather than reading from sheet music that they likely never learned to read.
Either way, both can play the violin.
Skills, magic, feats, and combat tend to scale at different rates. It'd be nice to see them scale the same.
Magic,
I agree with taking out the damage scaling in magic, though some other things need to actual gain a slow scaling or be improvable. For example, stat buff spells shoukd start smaller, then scale up at higher levels. How this scaling is achieved need not be based on caster level though.
Get rid of slots. Right now magic is "balanced" by scarcity. Instead, allow "infinite" castings of spells (perhaps limited by fatigue and exhaustion), but require a spellcraft check to succeed, much like an attack roll. Metamagic and other affects that hinder casting can raise the spellcraft DC.
In this way, magic becomes uncertain, and without scaling, damage can be set to be less than a martial puts out, thus magic gains in versatility but loses combat potency compared to martials.
I'd separate range, area, etc from spells, working these as choices into the casting DC.
I'd make fewer simpler spells, then add feats to casters to buy spell enhancing feats. For example, the illusion series of spells would start as a single fooled sense, but a feat might allow fooling an extra sense with illusions, then a shadow illusion feat can be taken up to 4 times, each time making the illusion 20% more real. Another feat to improve charm person to charm monster. Etc.
This would reward specializing without requiring it. A generalist wizard is still viable and possible, but their spellwork could never match a specialist's in their speciality, and not just in terms of the numbers, but also in terms of the power of the effects.
What alignment is required to be a dedicated, self-sacrificing, zealot of Lamashtu?Lawful neutral.
Neutral can be two types of neutral, undifferentiated and androgynous (for lack of better term). Basically, someone can be neutral by not being strongly aligned to either extreme,or neutral can mean being significantly aligned to opposing extremes.
In this case, being dedicated to an evil god is basically wishing well for one's in-group, but holding no value for those outside of one's in-group (which could mean that one values the pleasure of causing pain more than they value the well-being of strangers, but not always known associates).
There are chaotic gods with dedicated servants. We really can't make them Lawful.Why not? Are there not many stories filled with loyal servants dedicated to their whimsy guided masters? (Jeeves anyone?)
Though, you can also say that their champions take a different tack than those of lawful sort, perhaps neutral like above, or simply they they live chaotically, responding to issues they encounter rather than searching for issues that require attention.
For example, a classic concert violinist is lawful, while a fiddler is chaotic. The former practices a lot and trains technique and spends time not simply playing but in studying and practicing support for their playing. A fiddler on the other hand, doesn't study much, and doesn't worry about technique or accepted practices, or proper form, instead they simply play and make it sound right, and what they lack in the dedicated violinist's advantages, they gain their own, such as having less stress and are more likely to be able to play by ear and memorize songs rather than reading from sheet music that they likely never learned to read.
Either way, both can play the violin.
My point was that you would not expect every 13th to 20th level Cleric of a CE god to be NE, let alone LE (as they cannot be). As I said, it is one of the foibles of team jersey alignment. Honestly, this is a great argument to get rid of alignment, but there are other reasons to use it.
The same issue arises with whole societies of Chaotic creatures, such as Orcs. Why do Orcs follow tradition? The answer is partially that alignment doesn't describe every thought and action of a being. Just the beliefs, or goals, or intent.
I do, however, favor using true alignment only for typed creatures. Outsiders, dragons, etc. Then the followers need only be dedicated, not actually lawful.
@TheAlicornSage:
The RPG "Splittermond" uses an interesting way to handle it:
Each character has a pool of Spell Points to cast and/or scale spells that will refresh after each encounter. You can cast and maintain long-term buffs or conduct ritual magic outside of combat, but that will block parts of your Spell Points later. You can go beyond that, but you´ll start getting penalties, similar to the Horror Adventures Corruptions.
The second interesting part is that "martial" builds have to learn to access magic at some point, too, as things like getting your flaming greatsword is done via self-buffing, etc.
That sounds great. Anyone have a line on English sources for this? I can't seem to find any.
Why not make every class full BAB? Then you don't need fractional BAB, and you don't have to worry about so much self-buffing or having some classes have some abilities that target Touch AC.How could you explain a 20th level fighter and 20th level wizard having the same basic martial skills?
Alteration wizard turns into a dragon and says hi!:)
You could just say, in a magical world, Magical +1 to hit and damage every 4 levels, then +6 after 20th level. Abjuration fighters get other benefits.
Why not make every class full BAB? Then you don't need fractional BAB, and you don't have to worry about so much self-buffing or having some classes have some abilities that target Touch AC.How could you explain a 20th level fighter and 20th level wizard having the same basic martial skills?Alteration wizard turns into a dragon and says hi!:)
You could just say, in a magical world, Magical +1 to hit and damage every 4 levels, then +6 after 20th level. Abjuration fighters get other benefits.
The dragonmage might not have any magical bonuses to hit, but the 20th level fighter probably has a +5 weapon. Plus cool fighter feats and class features.
I'm still hoping for a Pathfinder 2nd edition to bring me back into the fold, but it would need to look very, very different from the current game. For me, it would be more like 5 things to keep, which would probably be:
* AC
* classes
* hit points
* Vanican magic
* d20s
I actually think building on the Beginner Box would be a viable strategy. I like much of what has come out about Starfinder mechanics, too (though the genre doesn't do anything for me).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
2) More class or class-combo oriented feats, possible game-style defining combos. (Let´s face it, the whole Magus could have been a feat chain, for example)
As someone who has played several magi as well as other gish classes, I completely disagree with you.
2) More class or class-combo oriented feats, possible game-style defining combos. (Let´s face it, the whole Magus could have been a feat chain, for example)As someone who has played several magi as well as other gish classes, I completely disagree with you.Reread my point number one. While I think that the game has a place for a "Knight Roland", "Conan" or "Garrett the Thief", those are also concepts that cannot or should not progress beyond a certain point.
I don´t say "Everybody has to be a Wizard", but I disagree with martial classes being able to stay pure martial in the long run, as that makes no sense with that system (and setting).
So, yes, you can do the pure function with feats. TWF as prerequisite for Spell Combat, as prerequisites for Spellstrike, and so on.
Maybe instead of making everyone a magic-user, there could be martial "special effects" that are similar to spells, but mundane, if cinematic, in origin. Similar to the Combat Maneuvers the 5th Edition Battlemaster fighters get, or the Book of the Nine Swords stuff. Maybe every martial gets ki, but monks get twice as much? Maybe they get some "rule-breaking" abilities, like being able to make a full attack as a swift action once per hour? Maybe they can get some free skill unlocks, like being able to jump through the air and throwing two daggers at once or bouncing up a perfectly smooth wall at full speed or just glaring at a lock and making it pop open?
Or just give martials magic, but instead of spellcasting, their magic is activated differently, such as battlecries for sonic and party buffs. Other effects might be magically enhancing their weapons, adding elemental damage by running their finger down the blade/haft, bull's strength and bear's endurance type effects by flexing ala body builder style. Or even purely mental activation for effects like dimension door, expeditious retreat, spider climb, etc.
Call them Battle Techniques.
|
|
2) More class or class-combo oriented feats, possible game-style defining combos. (Let´s face it, the whole Magus could have been a feat chain, for example)As someone who has played several magi as well as other gish classes, I completely disagree with you.
If they ever do a PF 2nd Ed, this is actually one of the things I really hope they implement. Cut down on the number of Base Classes, and make some of them, (such as the Alchemist, Summoner, Magus, and Cavalier) options that different classes can go into through Feat Chains and maybe Prestige Classes/Archetypes.
To me this would escalate the number of options without it being so overwhelming, and help to cut down A LOT on the sort of thing that kind of goes lie:
Q: I want to play <INSERT CLASS>, but that can do <SOMETHING ARBITRARILY NORMALLY RESTRICTED TO ANOTHER CLASS OR THEME>
A: Just play this other class instead.
Maybe instead of making everyone a magic-user, there could be martial "special effects" that are similar to spells, but mundane, if cinematic, in origin. Similar to the Combat Maneuvers the 5th Edition Battlemaster fighters get, or the Book of the Nine Swords stuff. Maybe every martial gets ki, but monks get twice as much? Maybe they get some "rule-breaking" abilities, like being able to make a full attack as a swift action once per hour? Maybe they can get some free skill unlocks, like being able to jump through the air and throwing two daggers at once or bouncing up a perfectly smooth wall at full speed or just glaring at a lock and making it pop open?2) More class or class-combo oriented feats, possible game-style defining combos. (Let´s face it, the whole Magus could have been a feat chain, for example)As someone who has played several magi as well as other gish classes, I completely disagree with you.Reread my point number one. While I think that the game has a place for a "Knight Roland", "Conan" or "Garrett the Thief", those are also concepts that cannot or should not progress beyond a certain point.
I don´t say "Everybody has to be a Wizard", but I disagree with martial classes being able to stay pure martial in the long run, as that makes no sense with that system (and setting).
So, yes, you can do the pure function with feats. TWF as prerequisite for Spell Combat, as prerequisites for Spellstrike, and so on.
The Fonzerelli touch would be easier to accept.
Just tapping on the door and having it spring open.
Maybe instead of making everyone a magic-user, there could be martial "special effects" that are similar to spells, but mundane, if cinematic, in origin. Similar to the Combat Maneuvers the 5th Edition Battlemaster fighters get, or the Book of the Nine Swords stuff. Maybe every martial gets ki, but monks get twice as much? Maybe they get some "rule-breaking" abilities, like being able to make a full attack as a swift action once per hour? Maybe they can get some free skill unlocks, like being able to jump through the air and throwing two daggers at once or bouncing up a perfectly smooth wall at full speed or just glaring at a lock and making it pop open?2) More class or class-combo oriented feats, possible game-style defining combos. (Let´s face it, the whole Magus could have been a feat chain, for example)As someone who has played several magi as well as other gish classes, I completely disagree with you.Reread my point number one. While I think that the game has a place for a "Knight Roland", "Conan" or "Garrett the Thief", those are also concepts that cannot or should not progress beyond a certain point.
I don´t say "Everybody has to be a Wizard", but I disagree with martial classes being able to stay pure martial in the long run, as that makes no sense with that system (and setting).
So, yes, you can do the pure function with feats. TWF as prerequisite for Spell Combat, as prerequisites for Spellstrike, and so on.
The Fonzerelli touch would be easier to accept.
Just tapping on the door and having it spring open.
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I like that!
I think there should be some magic for martials, for martials that want to use magic, and I want there to be non-magical special abilities, for martials that don't want to use magic.
Some might be Captain America-like morale-enhancing tactical teamwork, some might be swashbuckling environment manipulation, some might be special combat training and techniques, some might be natural badasses, some might have mystical physical enhancements, some might just be in peak physical condition, some might have Jedi powers, some might have spirits or elementals bonded to them, some might have actual magical training, some might have bloodline magic, some might be divine scions or just really devoted to a cause or power, and some might be cursed.
Captain America barely rates as a level 6, and he reached that through means other than training. How is that supposed to be representative of a level 20?
The physical mundane world has limitations. Going beyond those limitations is the work of magic. Jedi powers, mystical enhancements, spirit/elemental bindings, etc are all magic, just accessed in different ways.
Training is what makes a level 5 a level 5. Also, to use an analogy, having the training to hit a target perfectly with a rock every-time, still has the limit of how far the rock can be thrown.
#
You could always go the alternate route, and reduce magic to within the realm of the mundane, and thus the best of the best actually must train both the mundane and the magical to reach the highest heights. In this scheme, magic could give at best a +5, and mundane can gain get at best a +5, but someone who masters both mundane and magic get a +10.
#
Or have magic as an enabler. It enables you to do something, but some mundane actively must still be undertaken to make use of it. For example, flying is only achievable via magic but it could require one to basically swim, just through the air rather than the water, thus to be a really good flyer one must practice swimming through the air rather than the spell alone being enough.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I wonder, with information on Starfinder slowly leaking out...are people finding there requested fixes for Pathfinder popping up in the new game?
2) More class or class-combo oriented feats, possible game-style defining combos. (Let´s face it, the whole Magus could have been a feat chain, for example)As someone who has played several magi as well as other gish classes, I completely disagree with you.If they ever do a PF 2nd Ed, this is actually one of the things I really hope they implement. Cut down on the number of Base Classes, and make some of them, (such as the Alchemist, Summoner, Magus, and Cavalier) options that different classes can go into through Feat Chains and maybe Prestige Classes/Archetypes.
To me this would escalate the number of options without it being so overwhelming, and help to cut down A LOT on the sort of thing that kind of goes lie:
Q: I want to play <INSERT CLASS>, but that can do <SOMETHING ARBITRARILY NORMALLY RESTRICTED TO ANOTHER CLASS OR THEME>
A: Just play this other class instead.
I don't agree with that mindset. Classes are NOT just a bag of loose abilities. Usually classes have one or two unique game mechanics that set them apart and then have the rest of the class revolve around it. Having many classes is not a bad thing as long as each class has something interesting to bring to the table. Even the hybrid classes in ACG had unique and interesting features to support them.
I agree that classes getting overhauled to be more multiclass friendly would be beneficial. However, the system you propose would lead to the exact same problems you have with the current class system: overwhelming amount of options and secondary systems for character building.
TheAlicornSage, I think there are some players who want their martials to be non-magical, but still be on par with magic-using characters.
They want the mechanical benefits that traditionally magical sources provide.
They want the fluff of being "just a martial," but they don't want to fall behind the power level, utility, versatility, and fun that spellcasters bring to the table.
I think there is room in the game for there to be pure martials that get special effects AND martials the use a variety of different types of magic (bloodragers, magus, monks, eldritch knights, paladins, rangers, hunters, inquisitors, bards, etc.).
I'm still hoping for a Pathfinder 2nd edition to bring me back into the fold, but it would need to look very, very different from the current game. For me, it would be more like 5 things to keep, which would probably be:
* AC
* classes
* hit points
* Vanican magic
* d20sI actually think building on the Beginner Box would be a viable strategy. I like much of what has come out about Starfinder mechanics, too (though the genre doesn't do anything for me).
Meanwhile, keeping Vancian would give me a good reason to skip version 2.
Meanwhile, keeping Vancian would give me a good reason to skip version 2.I'm still hoping for a Pathfinder 2nd edition to bring me back into the fold, but it would need to look very, very different from the current game. For me, it would be more like 5 things to keep, which would probably be:
* AC
* classes
* hit points
* Vanican magic
* d20sI actually think building on the Beginner Box would be a viable strategy. I like much of what has come out about Starfinder mechanics, too (though the genre doesn't do anything for me).
I really, really like the way 5E handles wizards (though I suppose one could argue that isn't really Vancian).
One could argue that the primary reason the Arcanist exists is to imitate (somewhat, at least) 5e's casting mechanics when Paizo caught wind of what they'd be competing against for the foreseeable future.
I don't know (or care) who copied whom, or why. No snarkiness intended; that's just not a debate I care to have.
I'm just less interested in the Arcanist, because, in my opinion, has no conceptual niche whatsoever. It exists solely for mechanical reasons. I'd much prefer it become the core arcane spell-caster.
|
|
2) More class or class-combo oriented feats, possible game-style defining combos. (Let´s face it, the whole Magus could have been a feat chain, for example)As someone who has played several magi as well as other gish classes, I completely disagree with you.If they ever do a PF 2nd Ed, this is actually one of the things I really hope they implement. Cut down on the number of Base Classes, and make some of them, (such as the Alchemist, Summoner, Magus, and Cavalier) options that different classes can go into through Feat Chains and maybe Prestige Classes/Archetypes.
To me this would escalate the number of options without it being so overwhelming, and help to cut down A LOT on the sort of thing that kind of goes lie:
Q: I want to play <INSERT CLASS>, but that can do <SOMETHING ARBITRARILY NORMALLY RESTRICTED TO ANOTHER CLASS OR THEME>
A: Just play this other class instead.
I don't agree with that mindset. Classes are NOT just a bag of loose abilities. Usually classes have one or two unique game mechanics that set them apart and then have the rest of the class revolve around it. Having many classes is not a bad thing as long as each class has something interesting to bring to the table. Even the hybrid classes in ACG had unique and interesting features to support them.
I agree that classes getting overhauled to be more multiclass friendly would be beneficial. However, the system you propose would lead to the exact same problems you have with the current class system: overwhelming amount of options and secondary systems for character building.
I realize it may not be a popular idea, but one thing I really dislike is those one or two unique abilities being reserved for a single class.
Why shouldn't there be, for instance, a druid type class that channels magic spells through their weapon? Or a Monk that focuses on using guns and grit? Or a Bloodpriest that finds spirituality in their Rage?
So pure fighters should not have vancian magic but can have non vancian magic including incantations or magical mutations. Also rituals that give them combat powers.
The super soldier serum gave Captain America a 20 dex and later exposure to super villain powers gave him super strength. Possibly 20 or more.
Vancian
D20 never had true vancian, but arcanist is the closest. Not sure about 5e as I don't know it.
Captain America
An ability score of 20 is barely supernatural, like 110% of normal human maximum. Level 20 is like 400% of normal human maximum.
Classes
Why have classes? These are my biggest complaint about d20. I really don't like classes. The sole purpose of a class is to limit players for the sake of "balance" and "niche protection," but they are an excellent example of how seeking balance stifles certain types of creativity.
If you want freedom in character creation, get rid of classes.
The only other benefit I've ever actually heard for classes was that they provided inspiration and made creation of npcs faster, both of which can be done with premade "kits" of choices in a classless system with equal ability and none of the drawbacks.
By uncoupling the number of attacks from BAB.
A wizard and Fighter both attack as the same base bonus, a 20th level Wizard makes 1 attack at the bonus, a 20th level fighter makes 4.
In other words martial skill isn't really the bonus you make to attacks, martial skill is being able to attack 4 times in the amount of time it takes the other guy to attack once.
I fail to see how a wizard could ever attack with the same proficiency as a warrior could do.... it just doesnt make any thematic sense.
It doesnt matter whether the wiz gets 1 attack and the fighter gets 4.
By the same logic all classes should get some kind of magical ability.
One of my huge beefs with Paizo at the mo is that in the never ending quest for options..... classes are beginning to lose their meaning. Too many classes treading on too many toes....
I don't agree with that mindset. Classes are NOT just a bag of loose abilities. Usually classes have one or two unique game mechanics that set them apart and then have the rest of the class revolve around it. Having many classes is not a bad thing as long as each class has something interesting to bring to the table. Even the hybrid classes in ACG had unique and interesting features to support them.
I agree that classes getting overhauled to be more multiclass friendly would be beneficial. However, the system you propose would lead to the exact same problems you have with the current class system: overwhelming amount of options and secondary systems for character building.
I realize it may not be a popular idea, but one thing I really dislike is those one or two unique abilities being reserved for a single class.
Why shouldn't there be, for instance, a druid type class that channels magic spells through their weapon? Or a Monk that focuses on using guns and grit? Or a Bloodpriest that finds spirituality in their Rage?
It sounds like you're saying "I want to play a druid but use the game mechanics of the magus class" or "I want to play a monk that uses the game mechanics of the gunslinger class." You're talking flavor and themes here -- not game mechanics. You don't need to have levels in druid to play a druid character. You can just play a magus and reflavor them as a druid.
They could, but as someone who asks a lot, most GMs are very limited in how far they are willing to go.
To use your magus-as-druid example, not many gms would allow that simple reflavor, even fewer would do it right by having your spells be divine instead of arcane, even if they keep the same spell list. Of course, really doing it right would mean giving the character the druid spell list.
As of late, gms hate making changes and judgement calls for a single character to be different or to break the rules. DnD constantly encouraged it, and I still rarely find a gm willing to even accept example changes described in the core rules.
I've mostly switched over to 5th Edition, which actively encourages you to customize things.
When I played PF, one of the big challenges was making sure everything was official. When I GMed, I always had to make sure the monster and NPC math was correct, even though the players never got to examine the monster and NPC character sheets.
It was a fun challenge, but it's more fun to make sure all the players are having fun by running fun encounters, even if the math isn't "official." It took me a while to wrap my head around the idea that it's not cheating to change some numbers if it's done to enhance everyone's fun.
As of late, gms hate making changes and judgement calls for a single character to be different or to break the rules. DnD constantly encouraged it, and I still rarely find a gm willing to even accept example changes described in the core rules.
I would guess that novice GM's, and even experienced ones who have had bad experiences with players in the past, are wary of allowing players to "get away with" houseruling something because they think it'll upset the balance of the game, or at least the balance within the party. After all, balance (no need for scare quotes) is important to most people's games (maybe all games, but that's an argument over the definition of "game").
It's also possible that the GMs want to use the rules as close to as-written as possible to avoid having to keep track of their houserules. GM'ing is enough work as it is, and letting one player houserule one thing leads to other players asking to houserule other things.