Pathfinder 1E I have been asked to try this again

[TwoSix]

Obviously, the only way to cut this gordian knot is to trim it all back to four classes. Fighter is fighter is fighter!

Warblade, swordsage, healer, warmage would be an awesome version of 3.X.

 

[Halivar]

Warblade, swordsage, healer, warmage would be an awesome version of 3.X.

Nah, let's go all out and replace fighter with warblade, thief with ranger, cleric with paladin, and wizard with 20 levels of abjurant champion.

"You get a +1 BAB! And YOU get a +1 BAB! EVERYONE GETS A +1 BAB!!!​ [cheers]"

Ok.... I kinda want to play this game.

 

[gamerprinter]

Wow, playing D&D must be very frustrating for you, what with all those wizards (and others magical types) running amok!

No, I only hate playing them as a character class as a player only. I'm fine with wizards, especially when I am running them as NPCs as a GM for a game. I don't want to run one as my only character class when I am playing, I prefer to play martial characters. I run NPC wizards all the time without a hitch or problem - I just don't identify with one when I am in character.

It's funny, 'caster' is a short, simple, and accepted word to describe spell-using classes. But 3.x has no comparable word for warrior-types. In 2e you can say 'warrior' to encompass all those classes, but in 3.x someone's sure to think you're referring to the NPC class. Similarly in 4e you can use 'warrior,' though the distinction between warriors and casters isn't terribly relevant in mechanical discussions.

I think martial class covers the concept of the non-caster just fine, so I don't need to use a character class's name to describe martial class, that does it just fine. Its pretty simple and acceptable.

@GMforPowergamers - yeah, we're on the same page now, we both know what we mean in our definitions of terms. We've already come to that conclusion on your and my last response to each other. We're fine, now if we could just get the others responding to my posts to be on the same page as you and I, and not rehash the definition of terms issue again, and again.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

No, I only hate playing them as a character class as a player only. I'm fine with wizards, especially when I am running them as NPCs as a GM for a game. I don't want to run one as my only character class when I am playing, I prefer to play martial characters. I run NPC wizards all the time without a hitch or problem - I just don't identify with one when I am in character.

I play both, or atleast I want to. I have a few concepts for swordsmen of archers and get board playing with so few options...

 

[gamerprinter]

Obviously, the only way to cut this gordian knot is to trim it all back to four classes. Fighter is fighter is fighter!

In the last short campaign I ran, none of the base classes were allowed - no fighter, cleric, wizard, etc. More an experiment on seeing the other new classes put into play. So our group's traditional fighter is playing a cavalier, the cleric an oracle, the wizard as a witch, etc.

And for further clarification here, I am almost always, only the GM, I hardly ever participate as a player - not in the last 10 years anyway. We do switch out GM roles now and again, and then I am playing, but it's usually one month out of every four, the rest of the time, I am just the GM. (Though the character I am running is a magus right now, and while similar to a wizard, I am having less of a problem with magus for some reason.)

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

I think martial class covers the concept of the non-caster just fine, so I don't need to use a character class's name to describe martial class, that does it just fine. Its pretty simple and acceptable.

'Martial class' is a great umbrella term! Except of course that it's longer than 'fighter.' Which may not bear any weight with you, but it does for a chunk of the community. I'm not saying that 'fighter' is better; I'm saying that expecting others to always be as precise as you are has no doubt led to quite a bit of irritation. Which is why I don't have that expectation.

 

[gamerprinter]

'Martial class' is a great umbrella term! Except of course that it's longer than 'fighter.' Which may not bear any weight with you, but it does for a chunk of the community. I'm not saying that 'fighter' is better; I'm saying that expecting others to always be as precise as you are has no doubt led to quite a bit of irritation. Which is why I don't have that expectation.

So use "martials" all by its self, we don't need to qualify that by including "class". Non-caster actually works too - both are better than "fighter" (they wouldn't be, if there wasn't already a Fighter class.)

As to the latter part of your post, I always, always give the definition of what I mean in any terminology I use, once I realize there may be a misinterpretation to what I say. As long as I qualify any described term, there should be no irritation. One might not agree with my use of a given term, but once I explain what I mean by using it - there should be no problem with being precise.

 

[Tequila Sunrise]

So use "martials" all by its self, we don't need to qualify that by including "class". Non-caster actually works too - both are better than "fighter" (they wouldn't be, if there wasn't already a Fighter class.)

'Martial' is an adjective, which is probably why...

You know what? Forget it. Enjoy nitpicking random internet people who don't meet your expectations of concision!

 

[billd91]

edit: oh and a new red flag... Ross is one of those players that made me hate Kenders... and that race was droped in pitch... DANGER DANGER DANGER WILL ROBINSON

Yeah, yeah, we get it. Another reason you're not going to like the game. But if you're going to continue to bear the cross of driving so everyone can make it to the game and keep the gang together (I do hope they're all pitching in for gas as best they can), I think that's the price you're going to have to pay.

That said, I think you'd be entirely justified to ask that, in return for playing this game, that the other players agree to help you scratch the itch you have for the games you prefer. Tell them that you need to get your gaming fix served as much as they do and that you want to play a game of your choice periodically. At good holding points in the Pathfinder campaign's narrative, work in a break where you all play the game you prefer in short episodes. You get the game you want every once in a while, they get the game they want, everyone makes a trade-off they can live with.

 

[Halivar]

That said, I think you'd be entirely justified to ask that, in return for playing this game, that the other players agree to help you scratch the itch you have for the games you prefer.

This sounds like the best idea. Endure this game as best you can, be there for your friends and be social, and make the most of it you can.

And then get them to agree to that World of Synnibar/Rifts mashup you know you have just been dying to run.