| 11 people marked this as a favorite. |
First, a food for thought question: Why would you choose to build a class-based system over a class-less system which just has a bunch of talents to choose from?
There can be many answers to this question, but I think the most useful is that a class-based design lets you introduce a sub-system that defines a given class in a way that you would struggle to make both balanced and deep if you were limited to only using talents. Spells are the flagship example of such a system, but we can see other uses in PF1. Consider the barbarian's rage. Every aspect of the class is built around manipulating rage with rage powers in various ways. When someone says "What is the barbarian class about? The answer is rage." Or consider the Magus. The Magus is defined by the existence of spell combat and spellstrike; from level 1 to level 20.
Heck, even the fighter had an identity. It was "I get to take feat chains real fast."
I contend that the classes that really captured people's imagination in PF1 were those with a strong defining feature or features that brought the class together from a mix of mechanics into a coherent concept.
I think that many non-spellcasters (and even some spellcasters) in PF2 are not about anything. Consider the fighter; he gets 4 abilities that are not static number boosters or part of the standard progression:
1. An attack of opportunity
2. A flexible feat
3. Critical specialization
4. Another flexible feat
Are any of those features so exiting that you would say "I want to play a fighter because I get a flexible feat!"?
"But Knight", you might say, "the classes define which list of talents you have access to." Well my hypothetical friend, this does create an identity, but I think it makes for a weak and negative identity. Since many classes don't have any meat to build on in the actual class table their class feats necessarily stand alone. That means that you can't say "a monk is defined by his combat styles" because half of all monks actually use swords or something like that. I also say that this identity is negative because the classes are defined by what they can't do almost as much as by what they can. And psychologically it feels bad to have to say "Well I want to play an archer so I guess I have to be a fighter because they are the only ones with archery feats..."
| 12 people marked this as a favorite. |
Whelp, you just wrote exactly what I was going to, almost eword for words.
I think the developers need to double down on class identity, go big, go bold. The death of level-based multiclassing is a huge opportunity to create classes that feel unique from the bottom up.
I think boldness and front-loading is the answer here.
For example, consider if the Fighter started with this:
Swift Grip – [1st Level]
Fighters can effortlessly flow with the tide of battle. They gain the Swift Grip action.
This would be pretty powerful, as it can save the Fighter a lot of actions over the course of battle, but at the same time, it would solidify the identity of the Fighter as someone who masters the versatile use of weapons.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Swift Grip – [1st Level]
Fighters can effortlessly flow with the tide of battle. They gain the Swift Grip action.
...it would solidify the identity of the Fighter as someone who masters the versatile use of weapons.
See, this is the kind of thing that works with making a class distinct. It plays with the baseline mechanics of the game, and tells you that there is some element of nuance to playing a fighter. Sure, you could just pick up a two-hander and go to town (and there should be fun options for doing so), but it conveys to the player that fighter benefits the most from being able to switch combat styles on the fly, and those flexible Fighter Feats MEAN something when you can flow seamlessly from one combat style to the next. For what it's worth, feats like Reactive shield are neat for precisely this reason: They give you interesting choices. "Do I give up my AoO for this shield block?" Is a great question to have to ask yourself, and it makes gameplay more engaging.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
YES. Yes yes yes, this so much.
I didn't realize how much this needs to be a thing until I read it.
Classes really need to have serious, identity-defining "wow" features in their first couple levels. Features that say "this is what this class IS". Sneak attack and barbarian rage are good examples.
I love that fighter class feature idea. I've always thought of fighters as the versatile martial class that responds to each threat with an appropriate weapon, but it's very hard to build that.
I would love to see each class being more strongly defined, and then doubling down on that class identity as they grow. 1e Summoner and Alchemist both felt that way, and they were two of my favorite classes.
EDIT: I think this gets back to "people say they want more options, but most studies show they are actually happier with fewer". The classes that had a really strongly defined ~thing~ in 1e, like Barbarians, Paladins, Summoners... Even though there weren't a million ways to build them, they were very popular choices because everyone understood what they were.
And when someone did find a way to subvert the typical build it made it stand out more.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
you heard the people, Paizo, you guys are gonna need to hire me and sponsor US citizenship while doing so
I like this class identity slang... and the idea. I was just wondering which classes in PF1 come to mind that lack class identity? Or mechanical class identity?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm not sure. Three of the biggest classes in this playtest with strongest mechanical identities are armored class, crossbow class, and throwing junk class, and they're also the worst ones.
The better, more interesting classes open up choices for players, rather being ridiculously tied to a narrow mechanical identity.
I don't know if I agree or not. Ultimately, I do want classes to feel distinct, but I also don't want to further pidgeonhole existing classes. There are some things that I think can be done to do both things, like Swift Grip that SW mentioned (wouldn't be what I'd do with the fighter, especially since switch-hitting seems more ranger-y to me, but it's a decent example), where it's not contingent on a specific type of build, but gives a neat unique ability or several.
Now, for fighter, I do think that they could have an identity based around what they already have going for them, but it'd require a bit of a shift in some abilities and feats. Because I think fighter as a class that's based on flexibility and reactivity could work, but it needs more breadth to work as a concept, which means I'd rather see AoO as a feat, but something else based on reactions given the feature spot, like maybe shift quick shield block and Combat reflexes from 8th and 10th level feats, respectively, to a 9th level feature granting an extra reaction. And add some reaction feats for ranged characters, like maybe one that allows you to ready an attack with a ranged weapon for 1 action instead of 2 (being a spiritual successor to the crossbowman archetype's benefits on readied actions), or a reaction to being hit with a ranged attack to fire in return, or something like that.
I would agree both with Class Identity and expand it to say that certain paths within a class should have a distinct identity as well. Just like a Fighter should have a separate identity from the Barbarian, a Cleric of Pharasma should have a separate identity from a Cleric of Gorum, and an Evocation Specialty Wizard should have a separate identity from an Enchantment Specialty Wizard or a Universalist Wizard.
The two classes I'd say have the worst identities are actually the Fighter and the Wizard, despite traditionally being on opposite ends of the power spectrum. Fighters are "generic martial guy who uses weapons," while Wizards are "generic caster guy who uses spells." I imagine this is partially a legacy problem, where early D&D editions had so few classes that excessively broad definitions were needed to cover concepts. But now we have 12 classes as part of core alone and are practically guaranteed to have at least a half dozen more in the future. With both martials and casters having multiple options to pick from, the Fighter and Wizard classes desperately need something added to their identity to help distinguish themselves. Wizards could easily do this by doubling down on the arcane focus and specialty school mechanics, but I'm not sure
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know if I agree or not. Ultimately, I do want classes to feel distinct, but I also don't want to further pidgeonhole existing classes. There are some things that I think can be done to do both things, like Swift Grip that SW mentioned (wouldn't be what I'd do with the fighter, especially since switch-hitting seems more ranger-y to me, but it's a decent example), where it's not contingent on a specific type of build, but gives a neat unique ability or several.
My thinking is that a classes' defining/non-feat abilities need to be build-independent. For example, barbarian rage and monk flurry work with all weapons and are pretty distinct.