Is it just me or does Pathfinder overdo it with the class options? Is complexity necessarily good?

[Greywolf]

I mean seriously the amount of options here is kind of superfluous, for instance take Barbarian and Bloodrager for instance.

Barbarian:
Barbarians are melee warriors who plunge themselves into rage to deal the enemies a lot of damage.

Bloodrager:
Bloodragers are beserkers who succumb to rage to increase their power in a melee fight

Or even Hunter

Hunter:
Hunters fight side by side with their animal companions, they can use both melee and ranged weapons and employ some divine spells to empower them and their companion, you know like a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ RANGER who is also a class in this game?

Then you have Wizard, Witch, Arcanist and Sorcerer, all of which are arcane spellcasters and could probably be put under one heading, Oracle and Cleric who I have no idea what the difference is between at first glance as they both seem to be divine spellcasters.

I do get that many modern RPGs dumb down their mechanics to the point where they lose any semblance of the thing that made them interesting but this just seems like complexity for the sake of complexity, I really can't see any good reason why the archetype "Beserker melee fighter" needs 2 separate classes that each have their own subtypes as well? Even if you have an idea of what type of character you want to create their are multiple different classes that can fit that archetype with no discernible difference between them from a glance, in 5E the classes are simpler but there is more freedom to interpret them in different ways to fit the character you want to create, in Pathfinder not only are the classes more rigid in what they want you to be but also more confusing as multiple classes seem to fill the same archetype and role.

[Frostfeather]

Publicado originalmente por malkavius77:

Let's not even get into how 90% of the prestige classes are bad.

Hm, I don't think I can agree there. The broken ones and the ones implemented poorly (Winter Witch) are, but many of the others are extremely commonly used in min/max builds/groups (DD, EK, AT, etc). And others like Mystic Theurge have never been better, thanks to spellbook merging and certain mythic Feats. Not that MT was even bad to begin with, it's more a case of not fitting into a group and/or using them poorly.

Publicado originalmente por malkavius77:

You can make good themed groups and builds with literally 1/4th the classes (which is about as many classes and subclasses that are needed) and I know because I used to love doing it in icewind dale 1 and 2.

I often did that, too, and always felt incredibly restricted compared to how it feels in Pathfinder. I guess it's a matter of perspective.

[phadin]

Some of this is just years upon years of splat and expansion over the near decade long life of PF 1e. Bloodrager, for example, was a class designed to splice Barbarian and Sorcerer so you have a bit of both. It plays very similar to barbarian, yet a bit distinct as well. The problem is some classes, particularly hybrid classes, are demonstrably better then base classes. That is one example. There are very few things a Barbarian can do better then a Bloodrager or one of it's archetypes. Within tabletop, there is even a Bloodrager archetype to let them get Barbarian rage abilities instead of their bloodline abilites, the one thing Barbarians had that Bloodragers didn't.

Keep in mind that the 'core' classes for PF that it originally started with are pretty much the same as they were for D&D 3e or 5e (minus 5e's warlock, which doesn't exist in PF). Everything beyond those core classes was added via splat and expansions over the years.

That said, I like all the choices in WotR. I tried going back to Kingmaker and felt a bit handicapped because of the loss of some of the more interesting classes and archetypes. If it were just capped at the original core it'd feel bad.

Original Core:
Barbarian, Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Monk, Paladin, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard

Unique expansion classes:
Alchemist, Cavalier, Hunter, Inquisitor, Kineticist, Magus, Oracle, Witch

Hybrid classes
Arcanist (Wiz/Sorc)
Bloodrager (Barbarian/Sorc)
Shaman (Oracle/Witch)
Skald (Barbarian/Bard)
Slayer (Ranger/Rogue)
Warpriest (Fighter/Cleric)

[malkavius77]

Publicado originalmente por night4:

Publicado originalmente por malkavius77:

Let's not even get into how 90% of the prestige classes are bad.

Hm, I don't think I can agree there. The broken ones and the ones implemented poorly (Winter Witch) are, but many of the others are extremely commonly used in min/max builds/groups (DD, EK, AT, etc). And others like Mystic Theurge have never been better, thanks to spellbook merging and certain mythic Feats. Not that MT was even bad to begin with, it's more a case of not fitting into a group and/or using them poorly.

Publicado originalmente por malkavius77:

You can make good themed groups and builds with literally 1/4th the classes (which is about as many classes and subclasses that are needed) and I know because I used to love doing it in icewind dale 1 and 2.

I often did that, too, and always felt incredibly restricted compared to how it feels in Pathfinder. I guess it's a matter of perspective.

DD is a very restricted prestige that is only ever good for 4 levels and even then it delays spell progression so that's hit or miss. EK is good but does require a very specific build and game knowledge. AT can work yes I will give you that one. MT is worse than in kingmaker but yes passable but you have to make your own.

[ARG]

Publicado originalmente por malkavius77:

Publicado originalmente por tempest.of.emptiness:

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or shape your words into something that they are not. My comment was a direct response to your comment that I quoted. To clarify, allow me to rephrase my response so that I can say the same thing without rewording anything you said:


I can't imagine how you could think that having fewer options would equate to more freedom, but you are entitled to your (bizarre) opinion.

Let me make it easier. You go to a new buffet and there are 50 different things you can eat! "Wow so many great options!" . But literally half the food in the trays are turds and the rest are just the same good foods mixed with something else. Think orange chicken but they put some seeds on it and call it something else.

Then you go to a different buffet and there are only 20 trays of food. But each one has it's own unique taste and flavor and all are 100% different.

Now I'm not a huge 5e player and have only dabbled in it but each class feels strong and distinct from every other class.

Your analogy is very bizarre. You can never truly appreciate a meal until you've actually savored it. Some things that look plain or similar to each other can greatly vary in flavor with the simple use of spices.

It's your take, and I respect it. I will, however, be the guy trying some of the dishes even if they look similar, because I'm bound to enjoy at least some of them anyway.

[Greywolf]

Publicado originalmente por tempest.of.emptiness:

Publicado originalmente por Greywolf:

Please don't strawman me, I never said more choices equate to less freedom but in Pathfinder despite the game giving you more choice in class options it does feel that they are more restricted in allowing characters to interpret the class to suit their character, for instance in Pathfinder the Paladin is lawful good with no room for deviation where in 5E they do not have that restriction, far more freedom to play a dark Paladin especial with oath of vengence, conquest or Oathbreaker subclassess.

I'm not trying to put words in your mouth or shape your words into something that they are not. My comment was a direct response to your comment that I quoted. To clarify, allow me to rephrase my response so that I can say the same thing without rewording anything you said:

Publicado originalmente por Greywolf:

in 5E the classes are simpler but there is more freedom to interpret them in different ways to fit the character you want to create, in Pathfinder not only are the classes more rigid in what they want you to be but also more confusing as multiple classes seem to fill the same archetype and role.

I can't imagine how you could think that having fewer options would equate to more freedom, but you are entitled to your (bizarre) opinion.

Don't know if your misunderstanding of the point is deliberate but let me try again, it is not the fact that 5E offers less class choice that gives the player more freedom to define their character it is the fact that the class choices that they do offer allow more freedom within the context of that archtype for the player to define their character.

For example the Paladin in Pathfinder is lawful good and can't be anything other than a lawful good boyscout type character, however the Paladin in 5E can be your typical lawful evil boyscout or an overzealous religious zealot who cares only about order or even a servant to dark gods who cares only about furthering the will of the master. It does not need to offer multiple slightly different variations of the same class because the core idea of the class is more open to the player to interpret to fit their character.

[malkavius77]

Publicado originalmente por ARG:

Publicado originalmente por malkavius77:

Let me make it easier. You go to a new buffet and there are 50 different things you can eat! "Wow so many great options!" . But literally half the food in the trays are turds and the rest are just the same good foods mixed with something else. Think orange chicken but they put some seeds on it and call it something else.

Then you go to a different buffet and there are only 20 trays of food. But each one has it's own unique taste and flavor and all are 100% different.

Now I'm not a huge 5e player and have only dabbled in it but each class feels strong and distinct from every other class.

Your analogy is very bizarre. You can never truly appreciate a meal until you've actually savored it. Some things that look plain or similar to each other can greatly vary in flavor with the simple use of spices.

It's your take, and I respect it. I will, however, be the guy trying some of the dishes even if they look similar, because I'm bound to enjoy at least some of them anyway.

I mean I've played thousands of hours in PFK and a few hundred in this and a few sessions of TT. So I have savored the every loving hell out of these games. But that doesn't change the fact there are still too many turds in my damn game!

[Lexoid]

A lot of options in character creation and progression in RPG games is sort of a corner stone for good representation of the genre. But when in comes to this game, they could present it a little more elegantly, without trying to conceal what are hybrid classes actually made of.

If say there is a Bloodrager, they could just tell us that it's a multi class Barbarian/Sorcerer in some way. In fact, all abilities could have little pictogram icons indicating which base class they came from, so that, when you open 'Class' tab you could easily see what classes Bloodrager consists of, and which levels he gets those perks at. Sneak Attack - little Rogue icon, Favorite Terrain - little Ranger icon and etc. Spellcasting levels and extra spells could be represented by icons of the Class they came from as well. Only truly unique abilities would have a Bloodrager icon, so you can easily pin point what's so special about that class.

But then again, devs use Pathfinder pen and paper as source material, so they can only go so far in changing it.

P.S. What devs really could do, is add up saving throws and BAB for us into actual numbers, instead of giving us +1 pictograms above each level in 'Class' tab.

[Miskatonic]

Publicado originalmente por malkavius77:

Publicado originalmente por ARG:

Your analogy is very bizarre. You can never truly appreciate a meal until you've actually savored it. Some things that look plain or similar to each other can greatly vary in flavor with the simple use of spices.

It's your take, and I respect it. I will, however, be the guy trying some of the dishes even if they look similar, because I'm bound to enjoy at least some of them anyway.

I mean I've played thousands of hours in PFK and a few hundred in this and a few sessions of TT. So I have savored the every loving hell out of these games. But that doesn't change the fact there are still too many turds in my damn game!

It isn't a good analogy though. There are turds in systems like 5e as well. Many classes in 5e have subclasses that are strictly superior. There are subclasses that act in a hybrid fashion similar to the hybrid classes of pathfinder. In any game with choice you will have to learn how to avoid eating the turds. Also I'm sure there are players who enjoy eating turds, don't kinkshame.

[tempest.of.emptiness]

Publicado originalmente por malkavius77:

Let me make it easier. You go to a new buffet and there are 50 different things you can eat! "Wow so many great options!" . But literally half the food in the trays are turds and the rest are just the same good foods mixed with something else. Think orange chicken but they put some seeds on it and call it something else.

Then you go to a different buffet and there are only 20 trays of food. But each one has it's own unique taste and flavor and all are 100% different.

Now I'm not a huge 5e player and have only dabbled in it but each class feels strong and distinct from every other class.

I'm not saying Pathfinder classes are better than 5E classes, nor am I saying Pathfinder is better than 5E. What I am saying is that Pathfinder gives you more options for character building than 5E does. I'm also not saying that more options is always a good thing, nor am I saying all the options available are good ones.

Furthermore, I am not saying that every concept you can imagine and build with 5E can be precisely replicated in Pathfinder. It is possible for system #1 to have options that are not available in system #2 and yet for it to be true that system #1 has fewer total options. That is the case when comparing 5E and Pathfinder.

I'm sorry the op can't build his antipaladin (in part because that is a lacking option that I would use myself if it was available) but that inability does not equate to Pathfinder having less character build options than 5E.

[malkavius77]

Publicado originalmente por Miskatonic:

Publicado originalmente por malkavius77:

I mean I've played thousands of hours in PFK and a few hundred in this and a few sessions of TT. So I have savored the every loving hell out of these games. But that doesn't change the fact there are still too many turds in my damn game!

It isn't a good analogy though. There are turds in systems like 5e as well. Many classes in 5e have subclasses that are strictly superior. There are subclasses that act in a hybrid fashion similar to the hybrid classes of pathfinder. In any game with choice you will have to learn how to avoid eating the turds. Also I'm sure there are players who enjoy eating turds, don't kinkshame.

Except it is because of the sheer amount of turds in PFK compared to 5e or any rpg system I have played. And it is especially bad for an rpg with massive bloat that rewards optimizing and penalizes people who don't. And when so many classes are crap for optimizing it is much more pronounced.

[[SWE]Junker]

Publicado originalmente por Greywolf:

I mean seriously the amount of options here is kind of superfluous, for instance take Barbarian and Bloodrager for instance.

Barbarian:
Barbarians are melee warriors who plunge themselves into rage to deal the enemies a lot of damage.

Bloodrager:
Bloodragers are beserkers who succumb to rage to increase their power in a melee fight

Or even Hunter

Hunter:
Hunters fight side by side with their animal companions, they can use both melee and ranged weapons and employ some divine spells to empower them and their companion, you know like a ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ RANGER who is also a class in this game?

Then you have Wizard, Witch, Arcanist and Sorcerer, all of which are arcane spellcasters and could probably be put under one heading, Oracle and Cleric who I have no idea what the difference is between at first glance as they both seem to be divine spellcasters.

I do get that many modern RPGs dumb down their mechanics to the point where they lose any semblance of the thing that made them interesting but this just seems like complexity for the sake of complexity, I really can't see any good reason why the archetype "Beserker melee fighter" needs 2 separate classes that each have their own subtypes as well? Even if you have an idea of what type of character you want to create their are multiple different classes that can fit that archetype with no discernible difference between them from a glance, in 5E the classes are simpler but there is more freedom to interpret them in different ways to fit the character you want to create, in Pathfinder not only are the classes more rigid in what they want you to be but also more confusing as multiple classes seem to fill the same archetype and role.

First of all , are we really complaining when we get more ? Normally these games has far few options !! My guess is that it was little work to actually port all these classes to the PC game since they got the engine and just had to add them or something!!

I guess there is a reason why PAIZO created all these classes , there is even more of them not present in Wrath and that was " to sell books" before they created Starfinder and Pathfinder 2 the sales for the materials went down and they had to invent new things to have the buisness afloat..

Finaly , I like to adress the thing you said about 5E , you see Pathfinder has these options aswell if you like , create a Bard and just picture him as you like, the thing with WotC is just they are simply so SLOW to release material for their game and It's just silly , Pathfinder 2E has already more material released for their new game than the 10 Year old 5E ... You make it sound like it's a feature for their game to only release few classes so the players can figure out things by themselves but it's not !! They are just terrible at releasing stuff and on top of that they are also re-releasing old things , like Ravenloft (Curse of Strahd) etc It's mostly old material in new packages !!

[Frostfeather]

Publicado originalmente por malkavius77:

DD is a very restricted prestige that is only ever good for 4 levels and even then it delays spell progression so that's hit or miss. EK is good but does require a very specific build and game knowledge. AT can work yes I will give you that one. MT is worse than in kingmaker but yes passable but you have to make your own.

10 levels of DD is great for martial heavy builds that couldn't access Dragonkind II otherwise. It's a perfect example of misleading information ("it's only ever good for 4 levels") I was talking about. EK is extremely generic and doesn't require a specialized build at all, nor does it require high knowledge. And MT is so much better in Wrath it's not even close.

You have to remember that just because a class doesn't work for your group or strategy doesn't mean it can't work great in another group or strategy. These forums, Reddit, etc tend to become a bit of a "InEffect echochamber", where people who approach the game like he does assumes it's the only/best way to play. It's not.

[tempest.of.emptiness]

Publicado originalmente por Greywolf:

Don't know if your misunderstanding of the point is deliberate but let me try again, it is not the fact that 5E offers less class choice that gives the player more freedom to define their character it is the fact that the class choices that they do offer allow more freedom within the context of that archtype for the player to define their character.

For example the Paladin in Pathfinder is lawful good and can't be anything other than a lawful good boyscout type character, however the Paladin in 5E can be your typical lawful evil boyscout or an overzealous religious zealot who cares only about order or even a servant to dark gods who cares only about furthering the will of the master. It does not need to offer multiple slightly different variations of the same class because the core idea of the class is more open to the player to interpret to fit their character.

You not being able to translate your 5E character concept directly into a Pathfinder analog is not the same thing as 5E giving more freedom to design a character.

Yes, 5E allows antipaladins and Pathfinder does not. If you want that to change, then say that Pathfinder should have an antipaladin class, subclass, or prestige class. If instead you say something like "the class choices that they do offer allow more freedom within the context of that archtype for the player to define their character" it obfuscates your actual point and makes you sound like you don't know what you are talking about.

Obviously you are free to say whatever you want and word it however you like... my point is that if you had entitled the thread "Why can't I make an antipaladin?" then it would have saved us both this conversation.

[malkavius77]

Publicado originalmente por night4:

Publicado originalmente por malkavius77:

DD is a very restricted prestige that is only ever good for 4 levels and even then it delays spell progression so that's hit or miss. EK is good but does require a very specific build and game knowledge. AT can work yes I will give you that one. MT is worse than in kingmaker but yes passable but you have to make your own.

10 levels of DD is great for martial heavy builds that couldn't access Dragonkind II otherwise. It's a perfect example of misleading information ("it's only ever good for 4 levels") I was talking about. EK is extremely generic and doesn't require a specialized build at all, nor does it require high knowledge. And MT is so much better in Wrath it's not even close.

You have to remember that just because a class doesn't work for your group or strategy doesn't mean it can't work great in another group or strategy. These forums, Reddit, etc tend to become a bit of a "InEffect echochamber", where people who approach the game like he does assumes it's the only/best way to play. It's not.

Eww 10 levels of DD is just okay I guess if ya want to. Why would you go dragonkind II as a martial heavy build in the first place? Unless going battle bard. I do agree that EK is generic but also good though. And 4 levels DD been a thing since neverwinter nights. Ineffect didn't create that dynamic.

[Farsha]

Ranger has favored enemy mechanic and quarry.
Hunter has team feat choises and gives them to companion.
Hunter is thus better used with companion in melee as they support each other with pretty strong buffs like outflank, precise strike, back to back and others.

On surface Ranger is same as Hunter (flavor wise pretty similar) but they play and lvl differently.