For my next campaign, I'm considering limiting the available classes from the ungodly number currently available to a list of 20, but which 20?
It's gonna be a sort of lost world setting (no metropolis's and perhaps only 1-2 large cities). Arcane and Divine Magic mingle freely with Psionics, and while magic items can still be found, they cannot be made by PC's (no item creation feats...at least not in the beginning).
Certain classes (barbarian, druid, ranger, etc...) seem like natural choices, while others (gunslingers, traditional clerics, traditional wizards, etc...) seem like natural exclusions.
So, If it were you, what 20 classes would you allow and why? (3pp and 3.5 classes are allowed...or at least will be considered).
|
Kineticist
Occultist
Medium
Psychic
spiritualist
sorcerer
oracle
fighter (I would give them 6+ skills per level)
ranger
barbarian
magus
inquisitor
rogue (unchained)
cavalier
druid
hunter
skald
shaman
warpriest
bloodrager
I made sure we had caster options for each type of magic (9/6/4) and i picked classes i liked more. I can see magus being a group of mysterious nomads passing down knowledge.
you could limit it to classes that are not "trained" but i dont know of an easy list showing self taught, intuitive, trained classes. it is kinda just in the starting ages.
You could limit magic classes to options not using spell books. that technology has been lost.
Cleric could easily be on the list, as it does not require anything but a deity existing and one worshiper.
Barbarian
Bard
Druid
Fighter
Rogue
Sorcerer
Oracle
Witch
Arcanist
Bloodrager
Brawler
Hunter
Shaman
Slayer
Warpriest
Kineticist
Mesmerist
Occultist
Psychic
Spiritualist
Barb, Bard, Druid, Fighter are all pretty basic choices for the setting you describe. Sorcerer takes the main place of traditional Wizard. Oracle and Witch seem like a pretty good fit as well. Arcanist I was iffy on, but it makes sense for the almost hermit type wizard. Focusing on figuring magic and the way it works. Brawler due to lack of monk. Hunter fits along with Ranger/Druid in the naturalist setting. Shaman is a tradition lost world kind of trope. Slayer because more martial classes, right? Warpriest would take the place of traditional clerics. I imagine that whatever deity worship is left is focused around the more war-like gods, and warpriest fits that bill best. The rest are all of the occult classes. I purposely left Medium out, because I personally hate it.
Really you could make an argument for just about any class though. I honestly like the idea of Gunslinger in that sort of setting, but only with the newly emerging guns. Sort of reclaiming ruins of the past.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Primary Casters
Oracle (But consider making all of their abilities Wisdom-Based)
Psychic
Sorcerer (But consider prohibiting Bloodlines that change their casting Stat or casting type)
Secondary Casters
Alchemist (Although they are both prepared casters and crafters, it actually makes sense for them to be such. In addition, their existence provides an explanation for the prevalence of healing potions if you need one).
Bard
Hunter
Mesmerist
Skald
Spiritualist
Summoner (Unchained)
Martial Classes
Barbarian
Bloodrager
Brawler
Cavalier
Gunslinger (Limited to Bolt-Aces if you ban firearms, otherwise any world that has Alchemists should also have gunslingers.)
Kineticist
Monk (Unchained)
Rogue (Unchained)
Slayer
Swashbuckler
I started by dropping all of the Prepared Casters, but I would consider allowing archetypes of them which are spontaneous. For example, I excluded Magus because they are Prepared, but a Magus (Mindblade) or Magus (Eldritch Scion) might be allowed. Likewise I excluded Rangers, but Ranger (Trapper) or Ranger (Dandy) might be allowed.
I also excluded Fighters, because they suck creek-water and I wanted to save space for more flavorful choices.
|
9-level Casters:
Cleric, Oracle, Psychic, Witch, Wizard/Sorc (pick one)
6-level Casters:
Alchemist, Bard, Hunter, Inquisitor, Investigator, Magus, Mesmerist, Occultist, Warpriest
4-level Casters/Martials:
Barbarian, Bloodrager, Kineticist, Paladin, Ranger, U-Rogue
...hm. I had hoped to fit Sorcerer in here but the things going for it are simply flavor and reduced complexity. One of the 6-level classes could be dropped, probably either Alchemist, Warpriest or Mesmerist. Alternatively, it could replace the Wizard just to slightly lower the power ceiling.
Swashbuckler didn't make the cut because several archetypes just do the same thing but better and it otherwise only sees one-level dips.
Ranger and Barbarian are just cleaner variants of the bog basic fighter, Warpriests have the feat fanaticism covered.
Classes I would 100% always have in any list are: Cleric, Inquisitor, Investigator, Occultist, Barbarian, Bloodrager and Ranger.
I confess to a bias towards divine characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
For my next campaign, I'm considering limiting the available classes from the ungodly number currently available to a list of 20, but which 20?
I have a suggestion. Reduce the number of allowed classes to four.
Whichever four your players want to play.
I'm being sort of tongue-in-cheek here, but I think there's a point worth considering. Whatever hundreds of thousands of feats that aren't on your players' character sheets don't matter. The pages upon pages of spells they don't know or have prepared also don't matter. You don't need to know material that they aren't using. It's sort of like how you don't need to know how the hundreds of monsters that don't appear in your adventure work.
Get your players to pick their classes, general schtick, and learn that. All else is... some other game, some other day.
Twenty is still a fair amount. I generally limit class choice based on capabilities rather than theme.
Arcane:
Bard
Skald
Magus
Alchemist
Bloodrager
Unchained Summoner
Psionic Magic:
Mesmerist
Spiritualist
Occultist
Kineticist
Nature:
Hunter
Ranger
Barbarian (not unchained)
Divine:
Warpriest
Paladin
Inquisitor
Martial/Other:
Slayer
Fighter (with a skill point increase and all options available)
Unchained Rogue
Unchained Monk
..Hmn. It may have been a better question to ask what classes you would have cut. I removed all 9th level casters as high level spells and quick progression are some of the biggest problem-makers.
Other classes I cut based on the theme of your setting. Brawler and Investigator just..feel more city-oriented. While the same could be said for rogues, you always have your forest bandits.
I'd start by saying that I kind of agree with Anguish, in that you could probably just work with your players. There's always an archetype here that fits where the class doesn't, or a build there that can reflavor something but the mechanics fit the theme perfectly. My best advice would be working with your players to have their characters fit the world, and then keeping to it yourself in building NPCs and such. Twenty also strikes me as an arbitrary number that isn't a necessary constraint--maybe only eighteen classes really fit the bill, or you get to twenty and realize there are two more you like.
That said, I suppose it's an interesting exercise, at least, so I'll give it a shot. Ideally I'd like to know a little more about the basis for the setting--is it uncivilized due to some event, or have they simply not reached that level of urbanization? Is the whole world that way, or is this a frontier region? There's also the question of just what sources are available; you mention Psionics, but should we assume Path of War is available too? There are things I'd want to know to have a better idea of the setting, but here's my base list.
Aegis, Barbarian, Bard, Bloodrager, Brawler, Cavalier, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Hunter, Inquisitor, Oracle, Ranger, Rogue, Shaman, Slayer, Sorcerer, Soulknife, Wilder, Witch
This isn't necessarily built with considerations for balance or things like that, it's just going off a rough concept of the theme you're shooting for.
|
I'd say limit the classes, if you are going to, to match the theme of your current game. I'm running Carrion Crown and limited it to occult classes and a few horror archetypes. Its going to be a very interesting game to say the least.
And do a creation session together, consider what the party is and such and it should be much easier without limiting the list. Also it is always okay to ban a few classes, or limit them to particular archetypes if they really don't fit into the story. Like on Paladins in a pirate game, or no barbarians (aside from urban ones) in a city crawling game (also avoid mounted classes here for medium creatures). Use common sense and guide your players towards classes that will be interesting and unique and work great for whatever theme you are going for.
OP
Since you are the one who is the creator of the plot, and the decider that class options should be limited, presumably in support of the plot, what are you hoping to get from posters who don't know what you are trying to accomplish?
Thanks for the responses. I was hoping for more, but I'll take what I can get.
So from the 8 people that actually made a list + my 1 friend from work, these are the top 20 votes so far:
Barbarian, Bloodrager, Hunter, Bard, Oracle, Rogue, Ranger, Sorcerer, Slayer, Druid, Warpriest, Brawler, Monk, Shaman, Skald, Mesmerist, Psychic, Kineticist, Fighter, and Inquisitor.
I'm kinda surprised that there aren't more votes for psionic classes, and kinda disappointed that there aren't more votes for some of the cool third party classes out there, but overall it kinda falls right along the lines I thought it would.
There are 39 classes total, counting the three alternate classes. Here's my reduced list:
Barbarian
Bar
Druid
Fighter
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Oracle
Summoner
Witch
Bloodrager
Brawler
Hunter
Shaman
Skald
Slayer
Kineticist
Medium
Occultist
Psychic
Spiritualist
Okay, so I cheated. That's 21. However, I don't know if I should remove another class. In my mind Bard or Rogue are the most on-the-fence based on setting limitations, but I'll give reasoning later.
First, in a world with low tech Gunslinger is out. That's a gimme. Second, in a world with few major population centers classes that focus on intrigue are not good fits - that cuts out the Vigilante and Investigator. Third, we have to start making assumptions - either this world is huge and has billions of people spread out so far that large cities aren't common, or the population is just low. Given the "Lost World" statement I can guess it's the latter. Therefore, classes which focus on societies and orders are likely so rare as to merit removal - Clerics, Monks, Paladins, Cavaliers, Inquisitors, Antipaladins, Samurai, and Warpriests fall under thus banner. This would also mean that studied classes would be far less common and merit removal, such as the Wizard, Alchemist, Magus, and Arcanist.
Otherwise, I removed the Ninja because it likely won't fit such a setting. In the process of cutting down the last classes I decided to remove Swashbuckler because I couldn't come up with a reason its style of combat would be created in a low-population setting with so few population centers. The Mesmerist was an unfortunate casualty, not due to flavor but to balance. With so few Humanoids in-setting they encounter more animals and magical beasts (who have such pitiful will saves that they'll fail most of the time) and likely more plants, vermin, and undead (which are either largely immune or have such good saves that a Mesmerist will struggle to contribute) - point is the class gets much more swingy when less people are around.
Now for the Bard and Rogue things are more complicated. Both are classes that are traditionally tied to populated areas (bard colleges and street rats) but also fit in less populous areas (the travelling bard and bandits). There's arguments for and against keeping both, and I'm inclined to keep them rather than remove either.
5 days since the last response means that's probably all I'm gonna get, so thanks again to those that took the time to respond.
My final list of 20, and the reasons behind them is as follows (for anyone who cares).
6 psionic classes: cryptic (psionic rogue), marksman (psionic archer), psion (psionic full caster), psychic warrior (psionic combatant), soulknife (psionic combatant), vitalist (psionic healer/full caster).
I'm a huge fan of psionics (especially dreamscarred press's pathfinder update) and wanted it to play a prominent role in the campaign.
3 arcane classes: bard, sorcerer, witch.
wizards and arcanists just don't fit the theme I'm going for & I can't stand summoners or any of the occult classes. bard just barely beat out magus as the 3rd arcane slot, but I decided that the support of the bard was more important than the extra firepower of the magus.
3 divine classes: druid, oracle, shaman [combo of adamant entertainment class & kobold press class, not the paizo hybrid one].
organized religion isn't a thing in this world...yet, so most of the existing divine classes don't really fit. I really like different aspects of both the adament and kobold shaman, so I decided to mix them together into a single class to fill the 3rd divine slot.
8 combat/skill classes: unchained rogue, spell-less ranger (skirmisher archetype only), unchained barbarian, warder [path of war class], warlord [path of war class], stalker [path of war class], shadow assassin (renamed just "assassin"][rogue genius games class], and time thief [rogue genius games class]
unchained rogue and barbarian have become the "official" versions in my games; I've never liked spell casting rangers, so the skirmisher archetype is now my "standard" ranger; the path of war classes add so much more diversity than the [insert standard combat class here]; the shadow assassin has so much flavor and rounds out the sneaky bastard/skill monkey options; and the time thief is IMO the coolest class ever designed and is included here, even 'tho it technically doesn't fit the setting.
Dot.
I'm kinda surprised that there aren't more votes for psionic classes, and kinda disappointed that there aren't more votes for some of the cool third party classes out there, but overall it kinda falls right along the lines I thought it would.
I really don't understand.
The point of the thread is restricting available classes. The only real reason you provide is that there's an "ungodly" number of them. Then you're surprised that people aren't recommending 3rd-party even-more-than-baseline classes? Friend, you seem conflicted here.
I'm personally a huge fan of DSP's psionics and PoW materials. Pretty much every game I'm a part of - player or DM - includes some. So yeah, I'd recommend them. Strongly.
But at the same time, I just finished playing a game as a shaman, 1st through 17th, and quite liked it. I've seen most classes at least tried at the table, and I remain convinced the correct answer is: let your players choose.
Heck, I've seen a malefactor at the table, albeit briefly and as an NPC.
So I dunno how to advise you. There's something good about almost every class, and what your players find attractive might not be what I find attractive. I find it difficult to push psion if a player wants to play wizard, for instance.
I'm personally a huge fan of DSP's psionics and PoW materials. Pretty much every game I'm a part of - player or DM - includes some. So yeah, I'd recommend them. Strongly.
And yet you didn't recommend them or any other classes. Instead you seem to be more worried about why I want to limit the list.
The reasons are irrelevant, but since you seem to be hung up on them...1) Some of the classes don't fit the theme I'm going for for this new campaign.
2) Some of the classes I just don't like and don't allow in any campaign.
3) Some of my players are new and having fewer options initially is better for them. (for instance, if they know upfront that wizards and gunslingers are banned, they don't waste time conceptualizing those types of characters for this game - but save those concepts for a different one).
4) I already had a basic list in mind, but as an experiment I wanted to see what the community at large would choose in this situation. If there were more like-minded people who embrace 3pp classes over the paizo ones, of if there were more purists who prefer "only official product".
I'm sorry that you really don't understand what I'm doing, but I hope this clears it up. If so...cool, If not...cool. Either way, happy gaming to you.