New Base Classes: What do you like?
- Thread starter pawsplay
- Start date
MerrikCale
First Post
Variety is the spice of life, the more base classes and options the better. I do like base classes that generate a new type of character and Paizo's new ones seem like that. Too many of the 3.5 classes seemed to be modifications of existing classes (the swashbuckler) or could be achieved by multiclassing (begulier).
The Spirit Shaman for example is basically a druid with an alertnate class feature. The Shaman from Super Genius however, has a completely different mechanic the class has no spells but instead has infuses totems with powers and has a slew of spirit based powers like a Spirit Walk, Spirit Heal and what not. To me, thats how a new base class should and shouldn't work.
I would like to see Pathfinder versions of Artificers and Warlocks just becuase those classes brought different mechanics to the table. And Paizo seems to do this right. The Oracle comes to mind. WoTCs sponanteous divine caster was little different from the cleric. They even for some strange reason allowed Favored Souls to be proficient in the deities favored weapon, even though the Favored Soul didn't necessarily even worship that god. The Oracle does this so simply (based on domains) its any wonder why this wasn't done before.
The Spirit Shaman for example is basically a druid with an alertnate class feature. The Shaman from Super Genius however, has a completely different mechanic the class has no spells but instead has infuses totems with powers and has a slew of spirit based powers like a Spirit Walk, Spirit Heal and what not. To me, thats how a new base class should and shouldn't work.
I would like to see Pathfinder versions of Artificers and Warlocks just becuase those classes brought different mechanics to the table. And Paizo seems to do this right. The Oracle comes to mind. WoTCs sponanteous divine caster was little different from the cleric. They even for some strange reason allowed Favored Souls to be proficient in the deities favored weapon, even though the Favored Soul didn't necessarily even worship that god. The Oracle does this so simply (based on domains) its any wonder why this wasn't done before.
StreamOfTheSky
Adventurer
Voted New class archetypes..., variant classes..., and setting specific...; listed in order of preference. The new class archetypes being by far the most preferred option.
Aus_Snow
First Post
Once upon a time, I used tons of base classes - the more the merrier!
Nowadays, my perspective is that there are only so many archetypes (i.e., classes) that truly 'exist' (or would exist, in other words). Beyond that, well sure, you can always add more variants, options or whatever to each, and that's fine by me.
I mean, you can go for as few as two classes, or perhaps three (a la OD&D, True20, or Dragon Age). Or yeah, 11 or so, per 3e.
Either way, add too many, and IMO you lose track of what a 'class' even is in the first place. 'A class for everything' is more a nightmare than a good thing, IME.
So, I like the variants and new spins options, for the most part. A couple more base classes might be OK, but case-by-case, and I'd be very sceptical.
Nowadays, my perspective is that there are only so many archetypes (i.e., classes) that truly 'exist' (or would exist, in other words). Beyond that, well sure, you can always add more variants, options or whatever to each, and that's fine by me.
I mean, you can go for as few as two classes, or perhaps three (a la OD&D, True20, or Dragon Age). Or yeah, 11 or so, per 3e.
Either way, add too many, and IMO you lose track of what a 'class' even is in the first place. 'A class for everything' is more a nightmare than a good thing, IME.
So, I like the variants and new spins options, for the most part. A couple more base classes might be OK, but case-by-case, and I'd be very sceptical.
MerrikCale
First Post
that was sort of the 2E idea. Minimal base classes and a whole mess of kits
Nyeshet
First Post
I like variety and new spins, but as one has already stated, too much can sometimes be too much. On the other hand, too little, and the concept becomes too narrow, to unsupportive of similar concepts associated with the archtype.
I never had a chance to play 2e, but its idea of classes and kits [ie: class templates] is very close to how I wish the current systems were set up. If one then wished to highly specialize, focus on multiclassing, or go off in some odd direction, a prestige class can be appended to the latter levels of the class. But for a shift in view of the class - due to setting, etc - or a variant of the class concept should be treated as a - basically - a template upon / over the class, adding somethings, removing others, and subtly altering yet others, but keeping the general concept the same.
When I GM'ed I tended to trade out skills, alter one save at the cost of another, and so forth when a player wanted to play an idea that did not quite match the class. As the number of base classes kept increasing, I eventually found it necessary to restrict more and more of them from my games, but I tended to treat such restricted base classes as a treasure trove of ideas on how to alter classes when a player wanted to follow a certain idea. I could trade out this class feature for another from another class, for example, although if the one traded in was more powerful than the one traded out, I might move it up a level or two.
This is one of the reasons I like the direction Pathfinder has gone in regards to some of the classes: more (and earlier) rogue talents, sorcerer bloodlines, etc. One can create new talents rather than a new rogue-like class; the same is true of sorcerers, etc. I still wouldn't mind the idea of class templates being added to Pathfinder, but I'm not sure that the idea is popular enough to gain any traction these days.
I never had a chance to play 2e, but its idea of classes and kits [ie: class templates] is very close to how I wish the current systems were set up. If one then wished to highly specialize, focus on multiclassing, or go off in some odd direction, a prestige class can be appended to the latter levels of the class. But for a shift in view of the class - due to setting, etc - or a variant of the class concept should be treated as a - basically - a template upon / over the class, adding somethings, removing others, and subtly altering yet others, but keeping the general concept the same.
When I GM'ed I tended to trade out skills, alter one save at the cost of another, and so forth when a player wanted to play an idea that did not quite match the class. As the number of base classes kept increasing, I eventually found it necessary to restrict more and more of them from my games, but I tended to treat such restricted base classes as a treasure trove of ideas on how to alter classes when a player wanted to follow a certain idea. I could trade out this class feature for another from another class, for example, although if the one traded in was more powerful than the one traded out, I might move it up a level or two.
This is one of the reasons I like the direction Pathfinder has gone in regards to some of the classes: more (and earlier) rogue talents, sorcerer bloodlines, etc. One can create new talents rather than a new rogue-like class; the same is true of sorcerers, etc. I still wouldn't mind the idea of class templates being added to Pathfinder, but I'm not sure that the idea is popular enough to gain any traction these days.
Aus_Snow
First Post
You are probably right about that. For what it's worth though, I *heart* class templates (e.g., Paladin.) But yeah, most people see that as a class. . . oh well.
I know, this is not in all likelihood a very useful post. Um, well, bah.
It's posted now.
