Pathfinder 1E Are the older melee classes getting less attractive/obsolete?

[gamerprinter]

If you think damage isn't something to base a melee character around, than your conception of the game is different enough from mine that your opinion not very useful to me, especially if it comes with condescension as above.

There is no condescension in my post (you're reading in something that is not there). I was answering as straight forward as I could - without any kind of intent nor emotion. I didn't suggest that you were a min/maxer or overly concerned with optimization, rather that I am not nor are my players (I was qualifying my answer only). I have no idea what the bulk of gamers think in regards to this or any issue. Not only have I been playing the game for over 30 years, but I am a freelance game designer for Pathfinder 3PP (mostly for Rite Publishing). When I mentioned if I buy the Advanced Class Guide means that we don't need every PF book to play our game and the likelihood that I'll be purchasing that book is pretty low in priorities. My players don't want it

We don't play Paizo Adventure Paths, so perhaps the level of need for consistent damage just to survive a dungeon doesn't happen in our homebrewed games. The power level of APs in general is probably above the power level we run in our games - that could be the difference between you and I. I don't know.

Damage is a big deal, certainly, but the Swashbuckler concept doesn't fit my players, they like big armored guys not pirates when playing melee classes. My players like paladin for instance, not because of smite evil, rather for access to divine spells to self buff in and for the concept of religious warrior. They enjoy hitting stuff with success, but don't build the characters specifically for that - at least not by itself.

Your thread implies that since basic classes don't deal as good of damage consistently as the ACG classes are that somehow they are obsolete. Without any condescension implied, I'm simply stating that good damage alone doesn't make for a melee class. If it did, perhaps only one class would be necessary. I've got guys who consistently play rogues - obviously damage alone isn't what drives them to play, if it were they probably wouldn't be playing rogues, but they are (and I did state that they never play barbarians - so playing rogues and not barbarians has to mean that causing damage isn't their first priority). Concepts are what drives my players to pick the classes that they do - not how much damage or how many spells they can cast.

 

[Remathilis]

Well, I wouldn't say every class, but the general trend seems to be in that direction, yes.

Certainly. A few classes are only moderately better than the CRB choices (cavalier is a prime example) but on the whole they seem to be stronger, or at least more versatile, than the CRB classes.

What makes it more noticeable in ACG is how close many of the classes are in concept to some of the previous ones. The inquisitor seems about as powerful as the warpriest, but I liked it a lot more because it seemed to open up new character concepts. But the warpriest is a holy spellcasting warrior, and we already have the cleric. The slayer is a a stealthy agile assassin, and we already have the rogue. The hunter is an archer with a pet, and we already have the ranger. Any Advanced Player's Guide classes' power creep seemed unintentional, the ACG classes in many ways seem to intentionally go for the existing concepts, only better.

While they don't come out and say it, many of the ACG classes smell more of "replacement" rather than additional choices. Most of the classes in APG and UM/UC seemed like they were filling an open niche (spontaneous divine caster, gish class) or had a strong archetype (cavalier, summoner, witch). With maybe a few exceptions (shaman, swashbuckler) I don't see much need for any of them. They feel like expanded archetypes for other classes that got turned into full classes.

I don't think that's even open for debate, considering the classes that are getting rehauled are barbarian, monk, rogue, and summoner, and the monk, rogue, and summoner seem to be getting the most complaints (admittedly, that would mean Unchained will be bringing the summoner down to standards).

Yeah, Summoner doesn't even need revising as much as the eidolon system needs an overhaul. I fully suspect the others are going to get major power boosts.

Going for 5E?

Yup. I'm liking the simpler system.

Yes, the APs can be a bit unforgiving, and certainly aren't shy about using the new more unusual classes as opponents, which might prod the players into feeling they have to "keep up".

I've noticed even the monsters in the later Bestiaries are tougher than similar monsters in the first ones. Not necessarily more hp or damage, but a lot more abilities and resistances.

 

[jasin]

Correct me if this has changed in the final draft, but does not Precise Strike require a swift action to use and is precision damage?

It's precision damage, but it's a non-action, just a bonus as long as you have at least 1 panache.

 

[jasin]

I've noticed even the monsters in the later Bestiaries are tougher than similar monsters in the first ones. Not necessarily more hp or damage, but a lot more abilities and resistances.

Near the end of 3.5, someone said that the precise CRs for all WotC Monster Manuals can easily be obtained by 1) taking the listed CR; 2) adding 1d4-2; 3) adding the number of the Monster Manual where the monster is listed.

 

[Eirikrautha]

It's precision damage, but it's a non-action, just a bonus as long as you have at least 1 panache.

OK, that's good to know. Now I'd rate the damage as "barely adequate for a frontline fighter," as opposed to the previous "almost barely adequate."

 

[Starfox]

Yup. And not just Melee.

Because, as a player, I want Options. A Fighter can hit things, but that's that. Sure you've got Feat chains to customize, but now with Brawler, they feat chain better and Swashbuckler is simply Cooler. I want to play the game doing adventurous, heroic, active things.

The fighter is an armored man-at-arms, always has been. We now have the option to play a more lightly armored fighter. That seems to be your preference. Shouldn't you be happy about that?

I feel this is the point with all the additions Pazio made; you used to be able to able to play AA, BB, and CC. Now you can also play AB and AC.

There are fighter archetypes with less armor, but a fighter without armor is stretching the concept ofd the class considerably.

 

[Interjection Games]

Pathfinder took the base classes and pushed them up to 11. Every class since has been edging toward 12. Summoner, Gunslinger, etc were bad enough, Arcanist and most of the ACG are downright broken. (So much so, I wager part of Pathfinder Unchained is there to bring some of the legacy classes UP to later PF standards. Again).

As much as I love Paizo, I'm glad I'm jumping off their train. There just seems to be an arm's race mentality going on between monsters and PCs (esp in their APs) and I'm growing weary of watching them spiral upwards.

Eh, don't worry. Wizards of the Coast will do the exact same thing to 5th in the next few years or so. In 3.5, it was prestige class stacking. In Pathfinder, there's this urge to normalize the tiers with respect to their best stuff rather than nerf existing classes. In the former, the absolute power level went up and up. With Pathfinder, you can still make the argument that the god-wizard is unbeaten and the power ceiling is more or less stable. Unchained might blow everything up with one blow, though.

 

[Remathilis]

Eh, don't worry. Wizards of the Coast will do the exact same thing to 5th in the next few years or so. In 3.5, it was prestige class stacking. In Pathfinder, there's this urge to normalize the tiers with respect to their best stuff rather than nerf existing classes. In the former, the absolute power level went up and up. With Pathfinder, you can still make the argument that the god-wizard is unbeaten and the power ceiling is more or less stable. Unchained might blow everything up with one blow, though.

Yeah, the disadvantage to releasing new stuff is the desire to make it "more interesting" than the old stuff, where "more interesting" usually equals "more powerful" or "better focused".

The core rulebook of Pathfinder is more or less balanced (I still have a hard timing seeing the monk and druid in the same book and calling it "balanced") but later books have started to invalidate other classes (much like how later 3.5 classes invalidated the PHB classes). While some of the previous classes have nibbled on the heels of other classes (such as cavalier being a great fighter replacement), my sense/fear is that the ACG straight up can out-gun the PHB classes in their respective niches (an arcanist is equal to or better than a sorcerer, a warpriest replaces a cleric, a brawler outfights a monk, etc) and that mixed with the APG and UC/UM, you don't even NEED the core rulebook classes anymore so much so you need the unchained book to up the power of some of those classes and the power level further climbs.

With 5e, I think subclasses will be the primary "expansion" area which makes it easier to work since it only has a half-dozen expansion areas and doesn't invalidate the core of the classes. I'm hopeful that gives a wide variety of expansion without making classes like warblade or bloodrager or seeker ever again.