Have you stopped caring about new classes?


Pathfinder Society

1 to 50 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
1/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

So what inspired this thread was a question posed in the PbP recruitment thread. It was simple enough, " Why so much interest in CORE?" I tried to answer the question with my usual ill advised attempt at wit and humor. (I had obviously just posted a recruitment for a CORE scenario.) I answered truthfully and managed not to bash traditional PFS (which I like to play and GM).

However, it got me thinking...is there another reason I like to run CORE?
The answer obviously has something to do with the subject line of this thread.
I found out...almost by accident...that I've stopped caring about new Pathfinder classes.

It's the weirdest thing, sometime after Advanced Class Guide, I checked out. I own a hard copy of Occult adventures and have even read a few of the classes, but I haven't made any for PFS or any other games. Ultimate Intrigue is suppose to be a pretty good book; but if anything..I must admit part of the reason I haven't picked it up is because I care nothing about the Vigilante. To be fare, I'll probably pick up Ultimate wilderness...but do I care about the Shifter...?

This happened to me in 3.5 at some point as well; I stopped caring what the new shinny toy was and decided enough..It had less to do with balance than it did bloat. I just felt there was enough to have fun with already in the game..how many ways can you re-skin a Wizard or a Ranger? (apparently a lot)
Besides I sometimes feel with all the options presented it took away(suppressed) some of the roll-play opportunities from existing classes.
I mean why play a mystical mind control wizard when you can play the Mesmerist?

Don't get me wrong I still enjoy welcoming these players to my PFS tables..and if one of my home game players truly wanted to play one of these classes I probably wouldn't forbid it....But, as for me I'm burnt out..I don't care if they ever release a new class. What a character does mechanically is less interesting than how the player plays that PC. So I bring it back to the question at hand..

Do you care about the new (or newer) classes? If not when did you check out?

Grand Lodge 5/5 5/55/55/5 Venture-Captain, Online—PbP aka Hmm

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I actually enjoy the newer classes. The occult classes, while somewhat complex, are interesting. The vigilante is endlessly fascinating. While not my cup of tea, there are a lot of people I think who are looking forward to the Shifter.

None of them are bards of course... But not every class can be as awesome as BARDS!

Hmm

PS That is another reason to read the new books as they come out. Just about everyone has a new bard archetype! Heaven!

Liberty's Edge 1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
lucklesshero wrote:

So what inspired this thread was a question posed in the PbP recruitment thread. It was simple enough, " Why so much interest in CORE?"

It's the weirdest thing, sometime after Advanced Class Guide, I checked out.

I feel that there more classes than rare really necessary already.

I am more of an occasional player. All the effort to produce a planet crushing player build bores me. Prestige classes bored me in 3.5, and they bore me now. I get that other players like this stuff, but I don't.

Classes that have special pools (Grit, Inspiration, etc.) don't do much for me either. It's just another complication.

All of these factors are a burden on the PFS judge, who has to know how all this stuff works, or he can't reign in abusive/illegal builds/combos.

The Exchange

The advanced class guide was fantastic. Most of those classes are welcome staples in PFS games.

I cared enough about Psychic to read about it but it was very straightforward.

I don't really care about the vigilante or the shifter.

Prestige classes continue to be one of my favorite additions to the game. Sadly its turning into a very.. very long time without the Paths of the Righteous options.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gyre Glenross wrote:
All of these factors are a burden on the PFS judge, who has to know how all this stuff works, or he can't reign in abusive/illegal builds/combos.

Weirdly enough I don't find this a burden (though I've admitted not reading some of the newer classes). I almost always play with internet access available (either through wi-fi or 4g) so any questions that I arise are a google query away. (though admittedly with players I'm familiar with, I mostly let them police themselves.) I guess it's kinda fun for me not knowing exactly what a class does. I kinda like the reveal, when a player says..."and my Mystic does This!!"

If I find a class I don't recognize in a scenario I'll of coarse re-search it. But to be honest...I'm only a 1 star GM so I'm still having a lot of fun with seasons six through 0 right now.

Anyway..yeah I don't find it a big burden..for complicated class here's a link to a helpful cheat on the Gunslinger
I used to have one bookmarked for the Alchemist but I can't find it now.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

1 person marked this as a favorite.
lucklesshero wrote:

I just felt there was enough to have fun with already in the game..how many ways can you re-skin a Wizard or a Ranger? (apparently a lot)

Besides I sometimes feel with all the options presented it took away(suppressed) some of the roll-play opportunities from existing classes.
I mean why play a mystical mind control wizard when you can play the Mesmerist?

The mesmerist is a class which actually supports a specific playstyle with unique mechanics. Far more interesting design than the wizard and enables some bizarre combinations that work.

1/5

MadScientistWorking wrote:
lucklesshero wrote:

I just felt there was enough to have fun with already in the game..how many ways can you re-skin a Wizard or a Ranger? (apparently a lot)

Besides I sometimes feel with all the options presented it took away(suppressed) some of the roll-play opportunities from existing classes.
I mean why play a mystical mind control wizard when you can play the Mesmerist?
The mesmerist is a class which actually supports a specific playstyle with unique mechanics. Far more interesting design than the wizard and enables some bizarre combinations that work.

Not disagreeing with you MadScientistWorking....I believe (and Sales support) that many players like to have mechanics more in line with the particular concept they have. My preference would be to roll-play most of the flavor in order to keep rules bloat down. It's not a right or wrong debate..just bringing up a question of preference..

I would add...when does it stop? How many new mechanics (which is just another way of saying rules) can or will they introduce? No amount of books could ever replace a single person's capacity to imagine new and creative character concepts....so why try? Point is: I believe they've given us enough skins (or at least I'm satisfied with what they've given us)..I can work with the rest.

But I acknowledge and respect that others feel differently.


lucklesshero wrote:
If not when did you check out?

Occult. There are a couple interesting pieces in there- the ectoplasm version of the spiritualist (except for the ectoplasm, which is sadly typically anachronistic for pathfinder), the medium in concept (but the attempt at multirole really doesn't work, neither does the hour downtime in the random assortment of places to be bad substitute for the basic classes), and the occultist (which is too heavy with _things_, as if equipment wasn't more important than the character already).

But generally the classes from then on (including the vigilante) are cloying mixes of junk that don't really fit. Anachronistic and needlessly referential- the last thing the game needs is more referencing at the table as to what special snowflake ability #32 does precisely, and if it will work exactly in bizarre scenario #87.
Or in the case of the psychic, a copy/paste of the sorcerer with some wacky class features penciled in.
They're also overmuch 'do everything' classes, which contrasts poorly with the limited role classes that came before.

I was interested in the shifter, until it was actually released, and somehow 'Claw Girl' fit exactly nothing I wanted from the concept of a shapeshifter. Go pick up a two handed weapon and we'll talk in 10 levels, ok? Feel free to get in line behind the monk and warpriest.

----

At this point what pathfinder needs is a culling. Way too many classes are occupying the same conceptual space, and far too many are demonstrably worse at the same basic role, and others (or sadly, the same ones, see sorcerer/oracle spellcasting progression) suffer from drawbacks for no reason other than 'but 3rd edition...'

And it isn't even a pure mechanical problem. Its also a conceptual problem: if someone wants help making a basic concept (like a holy warrior or a conniving thief, or a powerful warrior), I need more information. A lot more. And there is a huge mix of classes (old and new) that I'd just axe and move on with a tighter group of coherent themes and mechanics.

But yeah. Bloat is definitely an issue. I'd straight up cut the number of classes in half with no regrets. Possibly lower, but I'd have to think about it. If all archetypes could be set on fire and redone in a consistent manner, I'd settle for half.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.
lucklesshero wrote:
o you care about the new (or newer) classes? If not when did you check out?

Not at all. I've already got far too many classes.

I checked out with Occult Adventures. Too many classes with mechanics deliberately chosen to be as different as possible from what came before.

Particularly a problem in PFS. This made preparing for PFS scenarios a chore as I had to do far too much preparation. And the classes all have far too many "fiddly bits" to be good for organized play. This problem greatly exacerbated by several extremely poor choices in PFS scenarios as the new book was crammed down our throat.

Also far too much change to the world caused by these classes.

Occult Adventures dropped my buying of Paizo product to next to zero. Made me realize that I already have far too much material with no need for new material.

Vaguely checked in again in Ultimate Wildeness, to the extent on reading about the Shifter. Which made me decide to check out again :-)

4/5

I checked out after the ACG. Too much craziness for me after that.

I've gone back to the CRB, APG, ISWG (my favorite three) and starting making Prestige Classes I never got around to playing the first time through. I have a Master Chymist, Rage Prophet, Stalwart Defender, and Core Dragon Disciple. They are lots of fun.

I also enjoy playing Core more than anything now. More Core!

4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Depends on the new classes. Occult wasn't my thing, and I would be more interested in vigilante in a home game than for PFS. I do like some, but not all, of the ACG classes. If something new hit a theme I liked, I'd read up on it and play one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like some of the new classes and archetypes, but I'd also like to see class and archetype compression at the same time as new ones come out. Figure out what different classes can be streamlined into archetypes of one class, and what different archetypes (including those from class streamlining) can be streamlined into one archetype, in both cases by making different choices into class talents. Do this simultaneously with releasing new choices. That way, you can get more choices into a smaller space. Of course, I wouldn't at all mind a teamup between Paizo and Green Ronin to make an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds . . . .


3 people marked this as a favorite.
UnArcaneElection wrote:

I like some of the new classes and archetypes, but I'd also like to see class and archetype compression at the same time as new ones come out. Figure out what different classes can be streamlined into archetypes of one class, and what different archetypes (including those from class streamlining) can be streamlined into one archetype, in both cases by making different choices into class talents. Do this simultaneously with releasing new choices. That way, you can get more choices into a smaller space. Of course, I wouldn't at all mind a teamup between Paizo and Green Ronin to make an unholy hybrid of Pathfinder with Mutants & Masterminds . . . .

Heh I'm actually kind of working on that.


^Would love to see it when you're ready.

Actually, now that you mention it, from my limited reading of it, Spheres of Power does this a bit on the magic side, and Spheres of Might (Wiki'd at the same link) is working on this a bit on the martial side. (After this, will we get Spheres of Skill or something like that?)

Scarab Sages 3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I stopped caring with Ultimate Wilderness, the shifter shows that they can't do a closes playtest and give us something unique and good. The nerfs showed me that the way I play and the way the designers want me to play don't really line up as much as I'd like.

Aside from that the Vigilante just looked like an update to several classes with a second identity ability that could have been a story feat. It's a patch and it played on the superhero craze, I love some mechanics of it - like how I have a not dumb fighter for Society games - but on its own I find it lacklustre.

Occult really hit the spot for me, aside from the psychic everything was new, unique enough and allowed for me to play a way I hadn't before.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

I love options.

Like, a lot of options.

A LOT of options.

This is why I tend to love pathfinder, because there are rules for everything.

More classes, please.

Just preferably not nerf classes like unchained summoner.

Unchained summoner still makes me mad to this day.


At this point Its closer to starfinder rules. But I do still have my original work up which was meant for pathfinder. I'm about done with writing and ready for formatting and editing I"ll try to remember to keep you posted when It gets closer.

Silver Crusade

3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I still get hype for new classes that fulfill fantasy niches. I was excited about the shapeshifter, and I think the backlash is partially due to execution not meeting expectation, due to missing versatility in the class.

There are still some class concepts I’d like to see as base classes, but if paizo winds down on new classes I can totally understand that decision too.

I always enjoy learning new classes especially if my players present me with a concept they want to fulfil and I can find them the perfect class and archetype to make them excited about the game.

Silver Crusade

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Also I love the Unchained Summoner. I love classes with strong flavour and built-in roleplay hooks.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

The Unchained Summoner partly made some adjustments that were probably needed, but it partly went too far in restricting options unnecessarily. I would have preferred something in between.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Also I love the Unchained Summoner. I love classes with strong flavour and built-in roleplay hooks.

I can't stand how restirctive the eidolons are.

Summoner was enjoyable because you could really build your own abberation, while unchained summoner restrcts you to outsiders that actually exists normally in game.

Unchained summoner bothers me less because of the nerf, more because it commits ths crime of being boring.

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Companion Subscriber

I didn't like that I couldn't build existing outsiders, so I'm glad the unchained summoner exists as an option. I can always use/allow the other one if I need it. (Yes, I know about PFS. Don't @ me.)

EDIT: Apparently this thread is in the PFS subforum. So, yeah, unfortunate for PFS. But I understand why it became default.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

The APG Summoner still exists.

But now if you’re like me and want to build an Angel Summoner who actually summons an angel, instead of a vaguely angel-shaped ball of protoplasm the you have the Unchained Summoner.

I don’t see how being able to create an outsider that exists in the lore of the game, and interacts with the rules of the game is a problem instead of a feature. But I always hated vaguely defined Eidolons.

You can even make a tentacled aberration if you like.


Im not a fan of new Paizo classes but I love seeing the new stuff third parties put out. They do some crazy stuff.

Edit: only noticed this was PFS forum, but still...


lucklesshero wrote:
MadScientistWorking wrote:
lucklesshero wrote:

I just felt there was enough to have fun with already in the game..how many ways can you re-skin a Wizard or a Ranger? (apparently a lot)

Besides I sometimes feel with all the options presented it took away(suppressed) some of the roll-play opportunities from existing classes.
I mean why play a mystical mind control wizard when you can play the Mesmerist?
The mesmerist is a class which actually supports a specific playstyle with unique mechanics. Far more interesting design than the wizard and enables some bizarre combinations that work.

Not disagreeing with you MadScientistWorking....I believe (and Sales support) that many players like to have mechanics more in line with the particular concept they have. My preference would be to roll-play most of the flavor in order to keep rules bloat down. It's not a right or wrong debate..just bringing up a question of preference..

I would add...when does it stop? How many new mechanics (which is just another way of saying rules) can or will they introduce? No amount of books could ever replace a single person's capacity to imagine new and creative character concepts....so why try? Point is: I believe they've given us enough skins (or at least I'm satisfied with what they've given us)..I can work with the rest.

But I acknowledge and respect that others feel differently.

I do agree that theyve certainly given us more than enough to at least partially represent everyones ideal character, but every new concept put out might bring new abilities that are slightly more in line with what a player wants.

My signature character has gone through at least 20 iterations over the 5 years hes existed, at least 3 times of which ive said "This is the perfect class for my concept"

Right now its the Dread with the Nightmare archtype, because its a fear based melee combatant. But hes also a necromancer and uses a whip, and I need to multiclass and spend feats wisely to make that work. Will a class come out thats better? Who knows, I look forward to finding out.


DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:

The APG Summoner still exists.

But now if you’re like me and want to build an Angel Summoner who actually summons an angel, instead of a vaguely angel-shaped ball of protoplasm the you have the Unchained Summoner.

I don’t see how being able to create an outsider that exists in the lore of the game, and interacts with the rules of the game is a problem instead of a feature. But I always hated vaguely defined Eidolons.

You can even make a tentacled aberration if you like.

Because people, and pfs, ban old summoner, so it may as well not exist in those cases.

2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Gyre Glenross wrote:
All of these factors are a burden on the PFS judge, who has to know how all this stuff works, or he can't reign in abusive/illegal builds/combos.

This! A thousand times this!

This problem is only compounded by the proliferation of feats and archetypes and all the resulting combinations and interactions which are possible.

I returned to "D&D" about a year and a half ago, and, for the most part, I've hugely enjoyed it. However, my absolute least favorite aspect of PFS is GMing for hyper-complicated PCs designed to squeeze every last little bit of combat power out of all the available class, archetype, and feat options.

1) Many of these builds don't fully follow the rules. In my experience, there is no deliberate cheating. However, folks over-optimistically throw things together without fully researching the legality of their creations.

2) Hyper-powerful builds trivialize content, particularly earlier seasons, removing any sense of risk or danger. Such builds also reduce the opportunities for other characters, particularly those created by new/inexperienced players, to participate meaningfully in adventures.

3) I think the focus on creating such builds can also reduce the role-playing aspect of the game as players concentrate far more on developing the mechanics instead of the character of their PCs.

4) Finally, I'm concerned that all this may deter new players from GMing because they don't feel they understand the system well enough to do a good job as a GM.

1/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I like new classes that bring interesting mechanics to the table. I was hyped and later disappointed for the shifter.

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, France—Paris

Players should keep their expectations at a low level instead of dreaming sky high and feeling disappointed. Is selecting what one want to read that difficult ?

It's possible to make good PCs round-wise without having to read 100 books. Why blaming the excessive content when it's up to the users ?


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

You can stick me in the like the newer classes camp.

3/5 Venture-Agent, Massachusetts—Boston Metro aka MadScientistWorking

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Paul Jackson wrote:


Also far too much change to the world caused by these classes.

Really???? The occult classes were cited as existing from the beginning. The vigilante predates the system itself. The ACG classes maybe but even then they aren't that divorced from the world.

Quote:
My preference would be to roll-play most of the flavor in order to keep rules bloat down. It's not a right or wrong debate..just bringing up a question of preference..

Core is the most rules bloat that ever did bloat. If you can run that convoluted of a hodgepodge of a system then most of the other mechanics are relatively minor.


New options mean you don't have to make as much compromises to implement your character idea. Sure, you can build a shapeshifter based on CRB wizard or CRB druid. But these classes have so many other stuff attached that you actually don't want for the character idea.

So I was happy to see the metamorph archetype for the alchemist: It's really focused on what it's doing. Maybe it's weaker than the normal alchemist - I don't care, I will get along. With some luck, the same might apply to the shifter - didn't buy Ultimate Wilderness yet, because the short-term ban of critical voices bugged me.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
lucklesshero wrote:
If not when did you check out?

Unchained.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Are hybrid classes really "new"? I mean, they are, but do they really affect the feel of the game? I don't think so, and I do like some of the options. I think the ACG classes are a way to finally move away from the legacy classes without becoming too unfamiliar, and I like that.

I had high hopes for Occult Adventures, but the mechanics are just too complex for me to get excited about. (That's probably as much a factor of me aging as anything - I know a lot of folks love them.)

Personally, I'm more interested in archetypes for existing classes, and other options like traits. New classes are just too much effort when there's already lots of choices. New feats are even more so.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
lucklesshero wrote:
If not when did you check out?

After the APG. :)

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I, for one, have NOT stopped caring about new classes. MOAR!

Experiment more! More weirdness! Break molds! Step back from this long trend of increasing rigidity in both concept and mechanics! Stop kowtowing to the cheesemongers and whining-enthusiasts, and be CREATIVE again!


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I, for one, have NOT stopped caring about new classes. MOAR!

Experiment more! More weirdness! Break molds! Step back from this long trend of increasing rigidity in both concept and mechanics! Stop kowtowing to the cheesemongers and whining-enthusiasts, and be CREATIVE again!

I agree, except for one thing: I love me some good cheese, provided it doesn't stink up the place so much nobody else can enjoy it.

1/5 5/5

Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

I was uncertain about Unchained and Occult Adventures after the ACG misadventure.

However, they did redeem the line a bit, but with the subsequent issue surrounding the Shifter (poor, poor expectation management MAY be to blame here, or... just a horrible case of 'overselling') I'm rapidly sliding into the ¡No mas! camp.

5/5 5/5

Personally, my big issue with the newer classes is how the design philosophy differs from older classes. The CRB/APG classes are all chassis that you can build whatever you want out of. With the newer classes, after you pick a specific sub-option (archetype, etc), then there's only one right way to play the class.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

lucklesshero wrote:
Do you care about the new (or newer) classes? If not when did you check out?

There are some classes I don't care about. Partly because I have so many concepts that I am working on now that I can't really add more and still enjoy my current characters.

Liberty's Edge 3/5 5/5 Venture-Captain, Nebraska—Omaha

TOZ wrote:
lucklesshero wrote:
If not when did you check out?
Unchained.

Would Unchained count as "new classes" or just alternatives of existing classes?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Cut my teeth on AD&D 2nd Edition, but really got into 3.0 and 3.5 and Pathfinder has been my game of choice since it launched. I've dabbled with the newer class releases in Pathfinder, just to get an understanding of them, but haven't enjoyed any (save for the Slayer*) since Ultimate Magic.

I haven't even bothered with the Vigilante and don't plan on looking at the Shifter either.

Core classes and core races build off of and feed the nostalgia I have built up from near to 20 years of playing the same system. The newer pathfinder classes are different enough that they break that connection for me. That's enough on its own for me to stick to the first 3 books (Core, APG, and UM), but many of the classes after UM are either too complicated or require more bookkeeping than I care to perform.

*I like the Slayer because it's the pet-less ranger (less bookkeeping!) that I always wanted =)

2/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

When did I check out? Occult Adventures. The occult classes involve a LOT of dense text and special rules, even more than the Advanced Class Guide. I wouldn't even own the book if a friend hadn't given me the duplicate copy he acquired, because I'm still getting my head around Ultimate Magic, Ultimate Combat, and the ACG. I've only owned these four books for about a year, and have yet to use or allow any of them in my home game, beyond giving an occasional NPC an archetype, feat, or spell from UM or UC. Almost all my experience with seeing them in play is through PFS.

pjrogers wrote:
Gyre Glenross wrote:
All of these factors are a burden on the PFS judge, who has to know how all this stuff works, or he can't reign in abusive/illegal builds/combos.

This! A thousand times this!

This problem is only compounded by the proliferation of feats and archetypes and all the resulting combinations and interactions which are possible.

I returned to "D&D" about a year and a half ago, and, for the most part, I've hugely enjoyed it. However, my absolute least favorite aspect of PFS is GMing for hyper-complicated PCs designed to squeeze every last little bit of combat power out of all the available class, archetype, and feat options.

1) Many of these builds don't fully follow the rules. In my experience, there is no deliberate cheating. However, folks over-optimistically throw things together without fully researching the legality of their creations.

1) I'm pretty sure there is one glaring example of these among the regulars in our local group, but none of the GMs want to take time away from everyone else's fun to audit the character. (For that and other reasons, it was rather satisfying to hear that the player's cockiness got his PC killed recently, even if he did have the PP to raise him.)

pjrogers wrote:

2) Hyper-powerful builds trivialize content, particularly earlier seasons, removing any sense of risk or danger. Such builds also reduce the opportunities for other characters, particularly those created by new/inexperienced players, to participate meaningfully in adventures.

3) I think the focus on creating such builds can also reduce the role-playing aspect of the game as players concentrate far more on developing the mechanics instead of the character of their PCs.

4) Finally, I'm concerned that all this may deter new players from GMing because they don't feel they understand the system well enough to do a good job as a GM.

4) It has certainly been contributing to my stalling about running anything for PFS. (Sorry, James!)

I strongly dislike the very real prospect of being blindsided by classes and builds from books that I'm still assimilating, or those that I've never read at all (like Intrigue, Unchained, and those dozens of thin little splatbooks).

It seems like playing Core would mitigate that a great deal. The GM will still have to do some research when preparing scenarios employing content from more recent books, but that can all be done ahead of time (assuming you don't get drafted to run something cold). I'm just not sure how much interest there is in Core in my area--I never hear anybody discuss it, and the regulars seem to enjoy their endless fiddly bits too much.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
I'm Hiding In Your Closet wrote:

I, for one, have NOT stopped caring about new classes. MOAR!

Experiment more! More weirdness! Break molds! Step back from this long trend of increasing rigidity in both concept and mechanics! Stop kowtowing to the cheesemongers and whining-enthusiasts, and be CREATIVE again!

See, I find the 'new' classes to be the opposite of creative. The vast majority of the new classes hit exactly the same mold: hybrid warrior-spellcasters that can do a bit of everything and rely on self-buffs to be better than fighters. Light to medium armor and the blah of sameness. They're all vaguely fluffed to be pseudo druids or pseudo clerics or magi-sorcer-zards, but it doesn't matter, they're just going to stack buffs at roughly +1/4 levels and do exactly the same things, but with just enough difference in mechanics to be annoying.

1/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Glad this thread took a life of it's own. Seems there's near a 50/50 split on whether or not the Pathfinder community (at least the part of the community that pays attention to these boards)...is pro or con New classes.

To be clear I absolutely am not arguing that, there is a demand for new options and classes. Furthermore, it pleases me that so many players get so much pleasure in reading, playing, and making builds with the new classes and archtypes.

I started this thread with only one thing in mind..to ask the question..
"Am I the only one tired of all the new classes and options?"
The answer seems pretty clear. There are a great many of us that, have had enough and are perfectly happy with the game we have.

Does this mean we Paizo should consider slowing down (as they already have) the release of new classes and options. Probably not. Paizo is a business..as long as there's a demand, they should produce product if it's profitable for them to do so.

But looking back at the History of D&D...it seems to me bigger doesn't always equal better or in TSR's case...even profitable. I know Mrs. Stevens is all to familiar with the not too distance past. Still, the state/bloat of our current game sometimes make me nervous.

I like this game...don't want it or the people who create it to go away. But sometimes the way forward...may be to take a few steps back.
Just a thought..

Venture-Agent, Utah—Provo aka Chess Pwn

Before the magus there wasn't a way to fight and cast spells seamlessly together.
Before the medium there wasn't a class that was actually playing as the ghost in his body for the day.
Before the kineticist there wasn't a class that could blast all day from lv1.

Like there are TONS of classes that are fitting things and design ideas that couldn't be done before.

But yes, there are some like the hunter and shifter that are more of a refocus of an existing class than a new class.

Silver Crusade 2/5

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Generally, I think after APG, we had enough classes. A great many points were made above about reskinning, and along the way I'd say some pretty broken things have happened. So much so that my final attempt at a campaign is 15 point build core only.

I'd rather Paizo had doubled down of society and hardback adventures rather than just bloat

Scarab Sages 4/5

I didn't check out, but I think there were enough classes after the ACG, and more time could have gone by before introducing so many additional ones.

I'm giving the Occult classes a try, slowly. Have an Occultist dip on a character, and made a Spiritualist not too long ago. I've got a theorycrafted Kinetic Knight, but I haven't picked up the book that's in yet. And I'm looking at making a Shaman.

Vigilante ended up being a lot more interesting than I thought it would, and I've made one. Mainly because of the Guise of Life Social Talent, which lets my Dhampir have a Human social identity, and that seemed like something fun to play with from a conceptual standpoint. But there are many, many good Vigilante Talents for more mechanically inclined characters. My main issue with the class is that many of the archetypes are so different from the main class that they essentially added another 10 or so classes and labeled them "Vigilante." Like, it's not a spell casting class, but it can be a spell casting class. It can be arcane or divine. It can channel. It can be sneaky. It can be a tank. The versatility is cool, but It's not really a single class.


As a player it is really a non-issue. All you need to know is exactly how your class works inside and out...let's have more!

As a GM I stopped at the APG because I haven't the time or the enthusiasm to learn how another dozen or more classes work inside and out...I've had enough!

Grand Lodge 4/5 Venture-Agent, France—Paris

I take time to study as most classes as possible as I know as a GM I can encounter obscure builds, regardless of if I like it or not. I enjoy regular campaign more than Core because of the content.

1 to 50 of 183 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / Have you stopped caring about new classes? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.