Pathfinder 1E Could Pathfinder take D&D's place...

[gamerprinter]

This isn't a new layer....its just codifying a word for something that allready exists....and in 4E, it assists the designers in developing the abilities for a class whose focus is Role X.

Sure it is, you're applying a new defined word 'on top' of the existing concept of a given class. Us older players don't need added complexity, we already perfectly understand the role - we don't need to add a further definition.

A fighter for instance, if I choose a heavily armored one, might fit your defender role. However, if I build a mobility based fighter, armor isn't going to be one of the factors to creating one, so shoehorning a fighter as always being a 'defender' forces me to have to use mechanics (armor) that I didn't plan on. I might not want to be the defender in our player team, as a fighter, I might want to be more a striker and let somebody else play the 'tank'.

The roles are in fact a further complication - I don't think like that, and don't need to learn, as it does nothing for my game.

Even with the explanations provided in this thread, I have to stop and think - which role is my class X supposed to be again? If it were so obvious, why would it be such a problem for me to work on these new class definitions? It is an added (and unnecessary) complication.

 

[ahayford]

[MENTION=21076]IronWolf[/MENTION] No sorry, it was directed at gamerprinter

[MENTION=50895]gamerprinter[/MENTION]

I don't really understand how you are seeing it as added complexity. In your mobility fighter example, if you wanted a mobility based fighter in 4E, you would find the martial striker. I believe its called Swashbuckler or something like that. For a new player, it makes it easier for them to select a class that clearly specifies what it does mechanically, and its easier to give it abilities that have the flavor of a mobility fighter. Its less intimidating then having a giant spreadsheet of stats, abilities/feats and gear and thinking, now how do I build an effective mobility fighter out of this.

I don't really see it as shoe horning so much as breaking up fighter specs into individual classes. Maybe thats what you don't like.

 

[technoextreme]

A fighter for instance, if I choose a heavily armored one, might fit your defender role. However, if I build a mobility based fighter, armor isn't going to be one of the factors to creating one, so shoehorning a fighter as always being a 'defender' forces me to have to use mechanics (armor) that I didn't plan on. I might not want to be the defender in our player team, as a fighter, I might want to be more a striker and let somebody else play the 'tank'.

Uhhh... There is a mobility based fighter which emphasises mobility at the cost of a slightly lower armor class.

 

[gamerprinter]

Uhhh... There is a mobility based fighter which emphasises mobility at the cost of a slightly lower armor class.

Yeah, that's why I said it.

But doesn't a lesser armor class take away from the 'defender' role? What about no armor - this is how I prefer to play fighters. Jump in strike, jump back - this makes me think of a fighter as a striker (actually it just makes me think of a fighter, since I don't think in terms of striker/defender) - this is why using those terms only confuse or force roles onto classes.

Keep your classifications out of my classes...

 

[gamerprinter]

@IronWolf No sorry, it was directed at gamerprinter

@gamerprinter

I don't really understand how you are seeing it as added complexity. In your mobility fighter example, if you wanted a mobility based fighter in 4E, you would find the martial striker. I believe its called Swashbuckler or something like that. For a new player, it makes it easier for them to select a class that clearly specifies what it does mechanically, and its easier to give it abilities that have the flavor of a mobility fighter. Its less intimidating then having a giant spreadsheet of stats, abilities/feats and gear and thinking, now how do I build an effective mobility fighter out of this.

I don't really see it as shoe horning so much as breaking up fighter specs into individual classes. Maybe thats what you don't like.

Exactly as my previous post. If I want to play a swashbuckler, I do. I build a base fighter, then I look to armor choices, weapon choices, where to put my stats and finish the build. I don't go looking at the martial striker reference, as that is unnecessary for me to build a swashbuckler.

The title fighter covers it all, all in one place under fighter, not in a different section under defender, or martial striker or whatever. On top of that those different references are completely different books and I have to buy 2 or 3 books just to get the concept of fighter. And IMO, that should be in ONE players handbook under fighter, not a dozen different books - this alone proves that the role concept is too complicated. You need an entire different book just to look at building a fighter differently.

In Pathfinder I don't need to do that. Granted 'archetypes' didn't show up until APG, so I do need both the Core and the APG, but that's it.

I think your last line in the quoted post, describes what I say above - and I agree, yes, I don't like it.

 

[technoextreme]

But doesn't a lesser armor class take away from the 'defender' role? What about no armor - this is how I prefer to play fighters. Jump in strike, jump back - this makes me think of a fighter as a striker (actually it just makes me think of a fighter, since I don't think in terms of striker/defender) - this is why using those terms only confuse or force roles onto classes.

A lightly armored fighter who darts and weaves between his enemies. Congratulations you just described a rogue.

On top of that those different references are completely different books and I have to buy 2 or 3 books just to get the concept of fighter.

There is no single concept of fighter though. 4E does a good job of differentiating between the different concepts.

 

[gamerprinter]

A lightly armored fighter who darts and weaves between his enemies. Congratulations you just described a rogue.

There is no single concept of fighter though. 4E does a good job of differentiating between the different concepts.

No, actually I just described 'tengubushi' an archetype build from my In the Company of Tengu supplement for Pathfinder, which is a mobility based fighter. My build is full BAB, low skill points, lots of feats, no tricks - doesn't sound like a rogue at all, at least not a PF one.

 

[Androrc]

A lightly armored fighter who darts and weaves between his enemies. Congratulations you just described a rogue.

Not at all: a rogue isn't merely a "lightly armored fighter who darts and weaves between his enemies", a rogue is also defined by other skills, like opening locks and attacking from behind...

 

[ahayford]

Regardless, 4E has an app for that so to speak.

 

[gamerprinter]

A lightly armored fighter who darts and weaves between his enemies. Congratulations you just described a rogue.

There is no single concept of fighter though. 4E does a good job of differentiating between the different concepts.

And I don't need multiple concepts for any given class, I can conceptualize them on my own. It's unneccessary to diffentiate them by concept - I just build it. If I want mobility, I take away armor, and improve its Dex, or give it a movement advantage - and do this from the standpoint of an archetype. I don't need a book of archetypes. Since I understand the concept - I can build any class flavored to any design I want at the time.