nah, having to decide on party composition by being forced to choose which classes to drop, is an RPG mechanic at its core, but is there a reasonable limit?
Skyrim did that. >why yes, I am a professor, master assassin, master armorsmith, master archer, master fencer, master alchemist, and captain of a group of warriors!
Yeah, Fallout did that too. And you had to min-max and metagame pretty hard for your character to be a master of several things.
Maybe, mayhaps, tes is just shit, huh? Perchance?
not really, non-combat skills only need 100% to do everything and the game gives you enough skill points, so you only need to specialize in one or two combat skills and you can do everything else
That's like saying "remove jobs, anyone can be a surgeon". Classes are meant to represent a type of vocation and identity, anon. Your boilermaker buddy isn't going to do a heart cath.
Also, if someone mentions a classless system which many rpgs had done before and your first thought is "egads, skyrim" then I'd like you to leave this board.
E.Y.E despite being a shooter with minimal rpg elements did classes good, they were there to represent how character grew and changed, and didn't restrict game mechanics from the player in any way.
>E.Y.E. >Classes
Everyone's a fricking Gray Master in E.Y.E. you dumb, legless Jian, who're you trying to fool
i didnt think dos2 was bloated. pathfinder on the other hand...
>i didnt think dos2 was bloated. >FOUR (4) kits have the same exact teleport skill >This is without considering OTHER "unique" teleports for pets or NPCs >Half of nearly every skillset is just brainless MMO tier DPS rotations with different colours and a couple of gimmicks that do not matter
You can count the number of unique functions on two hands.
The best (and only good one actually) huntsman ability being practically just a melee burst nuke, in a kit that is supposedly focused on ranged combat says a lot about how bloated and badly designed your system is when your archer needs to be in the enemy's face to do their job, just like any melee toolkit.
>Everyone's a fricking Gray Master in E.Y.E >only if skill points are distributed evenly >after sinking tens of hours in it
It is better to focus on gameplay style that player is most comfortable and create a character for it, than be a jack of all trades master of none
>He doesn't have hundreds of hours on E.Y.E. >He thinks he can escape from the cycles of guilt
Anon I hate to break it to you but those who play E.Y.E. long enough inevitably become Gray Masters at some point because the entire system is accidentally designed to make it happen to the point that staying in any other class is impossible unless you literally stop playing.
Those achievement rates don't lie either, any top class other than Gray Master is straight up at the very bottom of the list with 1% rates because it's actually comically hard to get those classes unless you read a guide and play in the most unnatural way possible to make it happen.
https://steamcommunity.com/stats/EYEDivineCybermancy/achievements/
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, that will happen eventualy, but also
E.Y.E despite being a shooter with minimal rpg elements did classes good, they were there to represent how character grew and changed, and didn't restrict game mechanics from the player in any way.
>(classes) were there to represent how character grew and changed
You get railroaded into one of two guns because of the Mars and onward armor stacking making everything else worthless. Everyone also has to run a lightweight, cloak setup to get past the respawning enemies and do the 4 playthroughs to beat the game.
Ahh, the classic "Everyone is the master of all things then" call of the person who has only played the worst possile implementation of a classless system. This is second only to the "But everyone will just play the same character" in moronic examples against classless system
I can't think of a single good classless system. Not one.
The idea of "complete freedom" is misguided. People think they want it, but in reality the don't. Because in practice it doesn't result in what they think it does.
>But Skyrim, a game that isn't a roleplaying game, sets no limits and lets your character be a master at everything!
Did you consider that there could be limits? A roleplaying game could have a set total on the number of skill increases possible, such that your character couldn't reach the maximum skill rating in every skill, which would determine a maximum level, which would restrict the amount his stats can be raised, meaning he couldn't reach the maximum of all stats, and that there would be a finite number of "feats"/"perks"/whatever that he could obtain.
See[...]
That's like saying "remove jobs, anyone can be a surgeon". Classes are meant to represent a type of vocation and identity, anon. Your boilermaker buddy isn't going to do a heart cath.
>The game should determine your character's job and identity, NOT the player through the actions he has his character take and the skill/s & ability he has his character develop over the course of roleplaying in the game.
kys
Don't you stop progressing at level 81 in Skyrim? Meaning you don't have the time to progress in everything, even without mods that extend the skill trees like Ordinator.
>if mods do it that means it's objectively good for the game
damn guess it's time for CRPGs to feature anime waifu romances, dogshit balance, and feature bloat out the ass
Mostly bad. Take Pathfinder games for instance, it looks huge, but in reality its just obfuscated bloat since more than half of those classes are made obsolete by existance of others. Out of those 150 kits, you'll only most use 20-40.
>you'll only most use 20-40
PKM has 12 companions you'll have to restart the game almost 30 times to get it up to 40
it's going to be under 20 for 90% of players. What a fricking waste of work-hours
To be fair, Pathfinder's massive bloat isn't a bug in the eyes of its fans, it's a feature. It was a system created as a haven for the buildhomosexuals who were deeply upset that 4e wasn't the same broken, bloated dumpster fire that 3rd and 3.5 were. Having dozens of classes and archetypes with varying degrees of overlap that you will never have enough time in your life to play is part of its appeal.
>having options that you are not going to play is the appeal >dating women you are not going to have sex with is the appeal
huh.. the cuck narrative of PF games suddenly makes sense
Also part of the appeal is the great amount of trap options that obviously a enlightened high IQ gamer, like the average 3.pf player, will recognize and avoid therefore feeling superior for doing so.
No that's just cope from designers who were tired of getting called out for the lack of balance among feats, spells, etc.
There's a reason the most common houserule sets in pf are all about removing trap options and feat taxes.
>content is only worth it if every player experiences it, being able to make choices is a waste of work
Mentally handicapped casuals like you are why modern games are shit.
That's not the point.
In Kingmaker I could be a Two Handed Fighter and make each of my hits Crit.
In Wrath I can be a Mutation Warrior and drug myself up to OP levels.
In the 3rd game I can try something else.
In the 20th game I can try something new yet again.
In the 50th game I can try something new yet again and it will be a new experience.
Whatever alternative system you prefer will never be able to achieve anything like this.
You're thinking in terms of single games.
I'm thinking in terms of all the games I will be playing through life.
I don't even understand what argument you are even making.
The point of Pathfinder is you could go on 500 different adventures and never use the same character class twice.
This makes it the more complete system than yours where you select the same Fighter class over and over.
Your argument was poor because you named 1 'class' from each game.
Also the more "options" you have, the more shallow, redundant and indistinct they become. This is especially true for Pathfinder.
This isn't even touching on all the things which are broken, unviable and so on.
It's the same kind of moronic logic devs use when they have procendurally generated contant. >you have a 100 million options!!!
This is not a positive. It means you disregarded quality just to give players more meaningless and worse options.
>Your argument was poor because you named 1 'class' from each game.
If you don't like that class then pick one of the other 200 classes. Was that too difficult to figure out?
>Also the more "options" you have, the more shallow, redundant and indistinct they become
If you're too shallow of a person to reasearch each class then that's not the system's problem.
>This is not a positive. It means you disregarded quality just to give players more meaningless and worse options.
Name 1 class from your system.
Let's see how super special your class is in comparison. I need a good laugh.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If you don't like that class then pick one of the other 200 classes. Was that too difficult to figure out?
I'm talking about how you framed it.
>If you're too shallow of a person to reasearch each class then that's not the system's problem.
Research is utterly and completely irrelevant. I'm talking system design. But you're clearly out of your depth here.
>Name 1 class from your system.
There is not "system". It's simple facts.
The more classes you have, the less distinct they become, the less polished they become, the more prone to bugs they become, the more imbalanced things become, etc.
If you think you can design 1000 unique, super polished, bug free and well balanced classes you're delusional.
I'd say around 50 is where quality really starts to take a nosedive.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>If you think you can design 1000 unique, super polished, bug free and well balanced classes you're delusional.
Owlcat didn't design shit. They relied on an external company who designed those 300 classes across decades. That's your big dishonest fallacy exposed right there.
What the matter? Why are you so afriad of comparing a class from your favourite system to a class from the Pathfinder system?
Why are you so afraid to be laughed at?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Still waiting
If you think the classes in Pathfinder is so inferior to your favourite system, then why are everybody so scared of a comparison?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Because there's no reason to humor a moronic 3aboo.
>In the 50th game I can try something new yet again and it will be a new experience
that's just straight up lying to yourself >hur-dur i'm swapping one char in my party that makes it a whole new experience
no. it's going to be pretty much the same experience especially taking into consideration >a large number of classes -> a lot of classes/kits have no experience-changing differences and play the same >a large number of classes -> some clearly perform poorly compared to others so playing them will feel like a chore after you've already tried more optimized choices
PS please take note that i'm assuming the player isn't autistic, if this assumption is incorrect, then gamedesign doesn't really matter, an autist can play only rush hour board game for entirety of his lifetime for all I care
>that's just straight up lying to yourself
No. You're talking to a system that has 300 different classes and almost 4000 different feats.
You would have to go out of your way to even use the same character twice.
>no. it's going to be pretty much the same experience especially taking into consideration
Only if you're some kind of moron who compulsively choose the same 10 feats again and again and again even though you have a selection of 4000 different feats.
For Example Octavia.
You can turn her into level 19 wizard.
You can turn her into level 19 rogue.
You can turn her into level 18 sword saint.
You can turn her into level 10 Arcane trickster
You can turn her into a 4 Rogue /15 Salyer
You can turn her into anything, her class isn't set in stone. And it's a new experience each time, for all of the NPCs
>system that has 300 different classes
Yeah, like I said, you are not intellectually honest with your own self >OMG I'M TRYING OUT KNIFE MASTER INSTEAD OF THUG THIS IS A WHOLE NEW HECKING E}{PERIENCE NOW!!
Thug can apply D6 sneak to bows and ranged attacks.
Knifemaster does D8 damage with knives. It's also a class that can convert other classes to D8 sneak attacks.
They can be made to play very differently. And they offer different types of of roleplaying flavour.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>these differences could have been a feat, a unique item property, a branching skill
you just proved Pathfinder it to be class-bloat and didn't even understand it
2 years ago
Anonymous
Being the best in the world at knifewielding is an identity. It's perfectly suited to be an archetype of its own.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It could just as easily be an early mutually exclusive feat selection. Like how Rangers decide between two weapon fighting, bows, sword and shield, and intimidation at an early level. If Ranger was a class that wasn't inherited from 3.5 Pathfinder would have made that 5 different archetypes.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>It could just as easily be an early mutually exclusive feat selection.
Nah. Knife is an iconic weapon which everybody thinks of when you ask them about backstabbing. So they made something special out of it.
>If Ranger was a class that wasn't inherited from 3.5 Pathfinder would have made that 5 different archetypes.
Nope, that's old style D&D forcing dual wield down your throat as a Ranger.
In pathfinder you're given an alternative, instead of that specialty, you can opt for Ranged attack feats that bypass hax the attributes requirements, or 2-handed weapons etc.
This. The difference is abysmal at best, to the point where where you could cut 80% of rogue kits and nothing would change. Not to mention the fact that some archetypes and classes are straight out better than others, making the whole point of picking said hypothetical class moot.
Take Barbarian in WOTR as an example. The class has 7 archetypes including vanilla version, and out of those 7 about two are useable, while the rest are unplayable garbage. ON TOP OF THAT, there a class called Bloodrager, which is essentially a barbarian that can cast spells up to level 4 and on top of that is able to get all the same perks vanilla barbarian can. Now AGAIN, there are several useless archetypes within that class as well, and AGAIN out of those 7 Bloodrager archetypes about 2 are useable.
There you have it: 2 classes - 14 archetypes, and only 4 of those archetypes are useable. Let that sink in. And a little spoiler, that thing with Barbarian and Bloodrager? Happens several time with several other classes, which ends with 80% of all archetypes being unplayable because there is a straight upgrade somewhere else.
Now let me ask you a question; is this truly necessary? Why couldn't this mess be reduced to Barbarian as a mainclass, and Bloodrager as an archetype of Barbarian? Why not just make a Barbarian class with 4 different archetypes taken out of old Barbarian and Bloodrager and then call it a day?
And before you go all smug with the whole "well, it's how the system was designed sweetie", take into account that they had the freedom to pick and choose what to have and what to skip out on. There are several archetypes that thankfully didn't make it into the game, meaning that nobody was holding Owlcat at a gunpoint screaming: "ADD. ALL. THE. FRICKING. ARCHETYPES"!!!!
That's not the point.
In Kingmaker I could be a Two Handed Fighter and make each of my hits Crit.
In Wrath I can be a Mutation Warrior and drug myself up to OP levels.
In the 3rd game I can try something else.
In the 20th game I can try something new yet again.
In the 50th game I can try something new yet again and it will be a new experience.
Whatever alternative system you prefer will never be able to achieve anything like this.
You're thinking in terms of single games.
I'm thinking in terms of all the games I will be playing through life.
This applies to you as well
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Now AGAIN, there are several useless archetypes within that class as well, and AGAIN out of those 7 Bloodrager archetypes about 2 are useable.
You're demonstrating how crappy you are at multiclassing.
Bloodragers are a thing because people have asked Paizo why they couldn't multiclass Barbaian with Monk.
A lot of these subclasses exist to give you a new primary attribute which benefits your ability to multiclass with other classes. For example the Scaled Fist Monk uses Charisma instead of Wisdom, so he blends well with other classes that are Charisma based. removing some of these classes would ease your butthurt, but the puzzle system would become poorer if they did that.
within that >Bloodrider
If getting an additional animal companion feels like an "abysmal at best difference" then you're braindead. Getting a free animal companion isn't something you can simply add as a feat which every class can pick. It's something special inherited by the class', in this case because they are riding specialists. >Mixed-Blood Rager
These guys are excellent if you hate the spell casting and just want a level 4 dip with Dual bloodline passive magics. They are extremely unique because you can now select 2 bloodlines that amplify each other in a build. This iscritical in multiclassing because you often want to pack as much punch as possible within a limited levels of 1-4. >Spelleater
Is the opposite of Mixed-Blood Rager and lets you do additional tricks with your spell casting. This completely alters the way you play the class >Reformed Fiend >Steelblood
These two are nice roleplaying options, one converts the spellcasting into Armor class that's added on top of the Barbarian stance and Heavy armour. The other gives you resistances from your demonic bloodline. There is nothing abysmal or pointless about any of these. >Greenrager
It's literally a badass summoner, why wouldn't you want a Bloodrager who specialises his magic powers into summoning animals fighting along him?
2 years ago
Anonymous
Like every other 3aboo you are conflating "gets a feature to do a thing" with "doing the thing has any value or makes an overall difference in your gameplay".
2 years ago
Anonymous
Designing a multiclass is like solving a puzzle. You optimise by cutting corners in a class and remove some features your build doesn't need.
Then you add that essence into another class and achieve a sum that is greater than the parts.
Again, they could pander to you and make your little brain less butthurt about the big amount of selections, but their puzzle system would suffer from it.
3.5 already fricking did that you moron.
So what? It was obviously the correct thing to do. Going backwards to the old school D&D system isn't the answer.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yes, thank you for responding to a post in your head that doesn't actually exist. Multiclassing in Pathfinder is a bad idea most of the time.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Multiclassing in Pathfinder is a bad idea most of the time.
Most of the butthurt towards multiclassing is because they end up too strong, and end up more powerful at very specific tasks
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, it's because they're usually unnecessary.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You don't someone the other guy because you think he is "doing something unnecessary".
You hate him because his build if better at a certain aspect that your single class build.
That's the root of your anal devastation.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, I meant what I said. You don't know what a multiclass being thoroughly superior looks like. Multiclassing is far weaker in Pathfinder than it was in 3.5 because Pathfinder backloaded so many features and because of the prevalence of scaling featuers. No multiclass in PF even remotely compares to dipping a single level of Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>No multiclass in PF even remotely compares to dipping a single level of Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian.
Okay dude, enjoy playing that class 500 times.
Other people prefer the other system that lets you play something else and gives a larger selection.
2 years ago
Anonymous
3.5 has a much, much bigger class selection than Pathfinder does. Yet again, you don't know your own game.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>>3.5 has a much, much bigger class selection than Pathfinder does
Prove it.
2 years ago
Anonymous
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?550696-Truly-Complete-list-of-3-5e-Base-Classes
https://wikiproject-dungeons-dragons.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_prestige_classes
That was hard.
2 years ago
Anonymous
://wikiproject-dungeons-dragons.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_prestige_classes
84 classes. Running that list through a line count isn't hard you know?
How is 84 bigger than 300?
2 years ago
Anonymous
It literally says how many it has in each book listed you absolute moron. 16+18+14+3+9+3+4+20+4+1+10 for 104 is well over 84 and I stopped at Savage Species.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You're right then Pathfinder has fewer classes than 3.5e.
So what were we arguing about again?
>over half of the list is 3rd party
People are free to publish books. Does this surprise you?
2 years ago
Anonymous
3rd party shit is completely irrelevant to a discussion of a system and would stack it even further in favor of 3.5 to the tune of thousands of classes.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>3rd party shit is completely irrelevant to a discussion of a system
No, your main criticism was Owlcat diluting their recourses designing too many classes. And I tore your ass to pieces by pointing out they were designed by someone else.
Does it matter if it was Paizo who designed the class, or some dude who wanted to be mini-Paizo?
2 years ago
Anonymous
No it wasn't. My main criticism is that you don't understand why archetypes only rarely do what you claim they do.
2 years ago
Anonymous
So it's the opposite problem, you're butthurt because multiclassing is too weak in Pathfinder compared to 3.5e.
That still doesn't make your criticism a good one.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, I don't care if multiclassing is powerful or not, I care that you are a moron that thinks multiclassing in PF is good.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Go back to your argument
No, I meant what I said. You don't know what a multiclass being thoroughly superior looks like. Multiclassing is far weaker in Pathfinder than it was in 3.5 because Pathfinder backloaded so many features and because of the prevalence of scaling featuers. No multiclass in PF even remotely compares to dipping a single level of Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian.
That Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian dip just cost you 20% of your EXP earnings. So now you only have 15 levels for your main class. You think that's "strong"?
Get fricked nerd.
inb4 >b-b-b-but Owlcat should just homebrew away that rule
2 years ago
Anonymous
>That Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian dip just cost you 20% of your EXP earnings.
Not unless you were moronic it didn't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah, it did. That's the main cripple in 3.5e. A handicap so big its player opt to coping by pretending it doesn't exist.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No it didn't. The XP penalty only applied if you didn't have all your classes that weren't your favored class at least within 1 level of each other and it also ignored prestige classes entirely.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Barbarian isn't a prestige class.
So now you're restricted to a specific race. Nice roleplaying my dude.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Now only if Human wasn't one of the best races in the game.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Yeah you can keep your old stale system where everybody is a human. But please don't pretend it's a better system.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Pick your classes better.
2 years ago
Anonymous
But then you wouldn't be so overpowered. Now you have nothing to brag about.
2 years ago
Anonymous
An 18th level martial with Pounce is better than a 20th level martial without and that's not even the only thing they get from dipping Barbarian.
2 years ago
Anonymous
But the Pathfunder system has 20 level martials with pounce, and gives it players 20 puzzle pieces to play with. That's clearly the better system.
2 years ago
Anonymous
PF has all of four martials with real Pounce access and it's always gated behind either 10 levels for rage powers or unarmed combat. You also only fall behind on levels if you completely frick up at building your character in 3.5, race aside. Ranger 2/Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/something else 1/PrCs from that point on get no XP penalty no matter what their race is.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>PF has all of four martials with real Pounce access and it's always gated behind either 10 levels for rage powers or unarmed combat
Nope. You can get pounce from just 1 level of Monk. Pummeling charge can be had from any main class simply by having base attack of 12.
>You also only fall behind on levels if you completely frick up at building your character
It's too many restrictions, I prefer the one where you decide exactly where you want to cut the corner. In Pathfinder sometimes I want 8 levels of something.
Sometimes I had 8, of 4 or 3 or 2 or 1 level sof something. There is nothing wrong with that, that's just the better way to mix and match.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Pummeling Charge is worthless if you don't have good unarmed support which is every single martial but Monk and Brawler.
2 years ago
Anonymous
1 level in Monk is more than enough to give you strong unarmed attacks. So what are you even on about?
2 years ago
Anonymous
No it isn't.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's just your shitty opinion dude. Regardless you're hinging your criticism of pathfinder on some very spec things.
Criticising the system because you think muticlassing is too weak is just as crappy as criticising a system because you think multiclassing is too strong.
All you're doing is edition war bullshit, and it has nothing to do with the moronation of OP.
2 years ago
Anonymous
It's not an opinion and you are completely inept when it comes to figuring out what my argument is because you are a moron. 1 level of Monk is not even close to the level of support you need to make unarmed not shit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>1 level of Monk is not even close to the level of support you need to make unarmed not shit.
It actually is, moron. Echancements of your qeapon can easily come from other sources like Angelic blood line.
>when it comes to figuring out what my argument
You never had a point to your argument.
2 years ago
Anonymous
No, it isn't. Unarmed is bad enough that doing it without class support is a huge trap option. 1 level of Monk doesn't get you past DR and it leaves your unarmed attacks at the level of a club.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You can just dual bloodline between celestial and abyssal, now you have large size fist 0 good allignment fists.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Doing 1d8 instead of 1d6 and punching through DR/Good doesn't fix you not being able to punch through most types of DR or not doing enough damage with your punches.
2 years ago
Anonymous
D8 is like standard damage though. Saying D8 isn't strong enough is like saying the Fighter isn't strong enough.
You have don nothing but being moronic.
>DR/Good doesn't fix you not being able to punch through most types of DR
DR Good is the only one that matters in Wrath.
Besides Pummeling strike was designed to frick up your DR to begin with.
2 years ago
Anonymous
D8 is standard for weapons with access to multiple damage types, reach, cheaper enhancement bonuses, two-handed bonuses, increased critical range, and better combat maneuvers. D8 damage does not make a weapon decent on its own.
2 years ago
Anonymous
You can just pick up a monk weapon if you need another damage type.
Reach, no necessary when you can charge.
Just get your enhancement bonuses from gear or bloodline.
Just use Dragon style, there's your two handed bonus .
Frick your critical range.
Monk already is superior at combat manoeuvrers. Especially a large size Monk.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You can just pick up a monk weapon if you need another damage type.
And then you lose your styles. >Just get your enhancement bonuses from gear or bloodline.
Unarmed enhancement bonuses are 3x as expensive as normal ones and enhancement bonuses from features are always limited use. >Just use Dragon style, there's your two handed bonus .
Can't do that at the same time as Pummelling Style without being MoMS or spending another feat. Getting 5 feats in the hole and spending your swift action every turn to catch up to a Barbarian is bad. >Frick your critical range.
A good crit range is almost 30% of your damage. More if you have features to increase your multiplier. >Monk already is superior at combat manoeuvrers.
No they fricking aren't, they don't have a single boost to CMB unless they're a Hobgoblin and it's only to 2 maneuvers. They are hands down the worst combat maneuver martial until their Flurry penalty goes away and they're still not good after.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>>And then you lose your styles.
Nope, you still have the other styles. >Unarmed enhancement bonuses are 3x as expensive
They usually give away those amulets that enhance your fists. >Getting 5 feats in the hole and spending your swift action every turn to catch up to a Barbarian is bad.
No need to catch up if your other classes already are bloodrager.
Frick your critical range. >they don't have a single boost to CMB
Yes they do moron. Read up on Pummeling Bully.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Nope, you still have the other styles.
You don't have the feats for that. >They usually give away those amulets that enhance your fists.
Those are 3x the cost for each enhancement bonus and cap at +5. That's exactly what I was talking about. >No need to catch up if your other classes already are bloodrager.
You gain nothing from Monk if you're playing a Bloodrager. >Yes they do moron. Read up on Pummeling Bully.
Not a boost to CMB.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>You don't have the feats for that.
Yes I do. >Those are 3x the cost for each enhancement
They cost nothing, they lay around waiting to be found. >You gain nothing from Monk if you're playing a Bloodrager.
You said you wanted Pounce. Well there's your pounce. >Not a boost to CMB.
Doesn't matter, you have more attempts to do combat manoeuvrer each round than everybody else. That in itself is a boost.
2 years ago
Anonymous
That's not how XP gain works in 3.5. You gain more XP while you're behind. You're going to be 2 levels behind at best.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Doesn't matter if you only lost 2 levels rather than 4. It's still a shit system which is ignored by its player base.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>over half of the list is 3rd party
2 years ago
Anonymous
Stop giving a game credit for something it wasn't the first to do. Literally the only improvement PF made was making Favored Enemy less shit.
2 years ago
Anonymous
>Stop giving a game credit for something it wasn't the first to do.
That's not what I did, you claimed Paizo would have split the Ranger into 5 different subclasses of oldschool D&D type. I'm pointing out they rather do the opposite of that.
2 years ago
Anonymous
I did no such thing.
2 years ago
Anonymous
Then someone else did and you tried to cover up for your buttbuddy.
Because there's no reason to humor a moronic 3aboo.
It's not humoring, it's a challenge you're too scared to take, because your criticism is fake as shit and wouldn't last in a head to head.
>you make it work
So if there's a pet class where the pet is broken or is so bad that what it's supposed to do can't be done.
Not only isn't the fantasy of the class fulfilled, but mechanically it's not good either.
Challenge by itself is not interesting. Tons of absolute trash games are challenging and that doesn't make them good or enjoyable.
There is such a thing is too many classes.
The Pathfinder games for example perfectly demonstrate this.
When you have so many classes that >too many classes and skills are imbalanced, potentially even unviable or weak/op >redundancy, classes are too similar making having all those classes in the first place moot, making the quality of each suffer >lots of classes means less focus for each, which means more classes are likely to be poorly designed >lots of bugs or just straight up broken skills
I think it depends on the system. For original games it's a complete waste of development time, and the more shit you put in the less attention all of it gets.
If you're adapting dnd/pf material it's alright, since 90% of those systems' appeal is the content bloat itself and 95% of the work (fluff/crunch/balance) was done by other people over 10 year of tabletop content development, so you just have to adapt it >hurr pathfinder games have a lot of shit unbalanced archetypes
Lol yes. Lots of weird choice, but that's hardly an issue with the number of classes as it is with the devs' lack of system (or even just meta) mastery.
Skyrim did that. >why yes, I am a professor, master assassin, master armorsmith, master archer, master fencer, master alchemist, and captain of a group of warriors!
Stupid.
That's like saying "remove jobs, anyone can be a surgeon". Classes are meant to represent a type of vocation and identity, anon. Your boilermaker buddy isn't going to do a heart cath.
>Your boilermaker buddy isn't going to do a heart cath.
Skill trees. Gate the hypothetical heart cath skill behind a few layers of prerequisite skills(medicine).
>Is there such a thing as class bloat?
There can be if it takes far too long to consider the huge amount of classes for no real upside and it increases without a true increase in viable options. At that point it's probably more efficient to ask what major abilities a player wants and then to have those picked abilities given a class name. >14 offensive abilities with far more skills to use, the ability to mix and match, and then also defensive skills and non combat skills = just 14 classes
No, that definitely is not the case.
If your systems cannot fully flesh out the fantasy of the classes available or does not change the player's playstyle outside combat, then it is indeed a case of "class bloat".
>does not change the player's playstyle outside combat
that's like almost all vRPGs
Nah surely a class can be justified if it significantly changes combat playstyle
Then it's an action game with a character building system/skill trees. Combat is very small part of roleplay, a large part of it depends on how the world reacts to the role the player chose. VTMB is a good example.
OK 'you play a role'-morons need not apply
the origins of vRPG were all combat oriented
the origins of pnp RPG were all combat oriented
The whole systems revolved around combat rules, almost in any pre-mid-90s rule-system non-combat related rules looked like an afterthought
genres evolve, and nowadays drama is a part of any self-respecting RPG, but saying combat oriented RPGs are not RPGs is simply stupid
>Is it bad gamedesign?
Also yes. It's not the worst of all evils, but it's definitely something that is better avoided.
My definition of class bloat is when your system has way too many redundant options or overlapping with minor differences.
I do prefer to have too many options than having too few. You can ignore the excess. Fixing the lack by yourself is a lot harder.
>Is there such a thing?
Sure, look at things like Neverwinter Nights 2, Pathfinder, your average NIS game or FFTA2. >Is it bad gamedesign?
Depends entirely on whether you like class systems or not.
If you ask me, class systems are inherently doomed to be horribly bloated and self defeating but clearly a lot of people do not think like that, whether or not you agree with things like the "Consensum Gentium" is again, entirely up to you.
Only trying to get into DOS
well the game features classes, classes are present in the wiki, you choose the class at character creation don't you?
so are you saying that classes in DOS are meaningless? so it's just straight up bloat that shouldn't have been there in the first place?
D:OS doesn't have classes, it has skill trees with nodes you unlock and mix and match however you like, D:OS2 is the same.
That small section you see in the character creation is merely a choice for your character's starting loadout in terms of skills and equipment, it means nothing, a Battlemage, an Inquisitor and a Ranger can all get the same exact stat and skill loadout and be quite literally the same exact character despite their "class".
>Archer
Tell me why your warrior class can't just use all weapons as effectively. 3 classes is correct but your third choice is shit. A generic fighter is both your warrior and archer in one. Choose again.
Regarding a system with a fairly high number of classes,
I just finished SEQUEL: Blight and at first I thought the class choice was bloated. However, despite certain redundancies and classes doing things better than other classes, most classes have at least one mechanic that makes them worth speccing into for certain encounters, strategies, or challenges; these specializations require hefty investment during the mid and even late-game, although you have a lot more freedom in the postgame because you can easily grind out levels.
As an aside, each class has a skill tree. While a character belongs to a certain class, they can spend points on that class's skill tree and they have the stats and benefits of being that class - immunity to a certain ailment, high atk, low defense, etc. When you change classes, you retain the skills you picked from your other classes while gaining the identity of the new class (stats, specific resistances, etc). The flexibility this system allows is actually really fun.
You need three classes. Fighting man, magic man, and clerical worker. Everyone is a thief, so no thief class is needed. Every single other class in any fantasy game is entirely redundant. instead of more classes that do less, have less classes that can do more.
i don't get it
If you want separate classes for magic man and cleric, what's wrong with the classic 4: fighter, rouge, magic user, cleric?
if you want to stick with 3, why not picrel? how is everyone a thief?
>Traditional RPGs are about plundering ancient ruins and tombs for treasure. Every treasure hunter is a thief.
Smoothbrain take.
A thief in this sense is someone adept at picking locks, laying down and disarming traps, being stealthy, sneaking up on people, pickpocketing and such. A skillset emcompasing many things.
Their role was utility and being more of a jack of all trades. This is why typically they tend to not shine in combat (to balance how useful they are outside of it).
Thee more choices you present the player the more likely they are to stall on said choices.
See the average casual trying to build a PF character.
Level up, 9999999 peerks to choose? Uhoh.
Same as how tons of RPGs have people constantly reseting to reroll characters. More options make this only more likely.
It's why I am always inn favor of branching promotions, which trickle in class options over time. Games suck people in the most when they start simple and quickly ramp up in options.
There are four unique primary play styles which are represented in the big 4 classes. If all four are not fully fleshed out, then all additions are automatically bad. If they are fully fleshed out, you may be able to add more.
If the devs have created and implemented a new class that plays uniquely (does not need to be completely different but if a hybrid of big 4 it needs unique features neither base class has); then add more classes until you run out of unique playstyles. No such thing as bloat in this case.
If you are adding classes for marketing reasons, or because you have hit a wall and cannot think of any new content to add so hide behind recycled classes; then it is nothing but bloat.
In terms of recent games -PoE did a good job of doing this properly.
Kingmaker not so much. Sure, since Paizo already did the work, it would be lazy not to just import their dozens of class tables into the game and just let non-autists ignore it. But even the core classes had zero reactivity and, thanks to no companion AI, fought the same way for most encounters.
Pathfinder games are bloated with 95% useless classes because the games just boil down to stacking AC/BAB and any class that doesn't provide these utilities are useless
Neverwinter Nights was pretty bad about it especially considering most of the classes had broken features in them that they just kept in the game to lie to you about it's "truthful adaptation of D&D." Even more annoying if you only do the actual game and find out your crit, poking build can't do any damage because the game is nothing but undead.
If there are more than a few, then the devs are wasting precious effort that could be better spent elsewhere.
nah, having to decide on party composition by being forced to choose which classes to drop, is an RPG mechanic at its core, but is there a reasonable limit?
Yeah and remove classes altogether
Skyrim did that.
>why yes, I am a professor, master assassin, master armorsmith, master archer, master fencer, master alchemist, and captain of a group of warriors!
Stupid.
Yeah, Fallout did that too. And you had to min-max and metagame pretty hard for your character to be a master of several things.
Maybe, mayhaps, tes is just shit, huh? Perchance?
not really, non-combat skills only need 100% to do everything and the game gives you enough skill points, so you only need to specialize in one or two combat skills and you can do everything else
>on-combat skills only need 100% to do everything
That's bullshit, buddy. Try getting the best brain for Skynet with 100 science.
why do you even want to get skynet? he sucks
Not an argument.
Also, if someone mentions a classless system which many rpgs had done before and your first thought is "egads, skyrim" then I'd like you to leave this board.
may be more up to your speed.
E.Y.E despite being a shooter with minimal rpg elements did classes good, they were there to represent how character grew and changed, and didn't restrict game mechanics from the player in any way.
>E.Y.E.
>Classes
Everyone's a fricking Gray Master in E.Y.E. you dumb, legless Jian, who're you trying to fool
>i didnt think dos2 was bloated.
>FOUR (4) kits have the same exact teleport skill
>This is without considering OTHER "unique" teleports for pets or NPCs
>Half of nearly every skillset is just brainless MMO tier DPS rotations with different colours and a couple of gimmicks that do not matter
You can count the number of unique functions on two hands.
The best (and only good one actually) huntsman ability being practically just a melee burst nuke, in a kit that is supposedly focused on ranged combat says a lot about how bloated and badly designed your system is when your archer needs to be in the enemy's face to do their job, just like any melee toolkit.
>Everyone's a fricking Gray Master in E.Y.E
>only if skill points are distributed evenly
>after sinking tens of hours in it
It is better to focus on gameplay style that player is most comfortable and create a character for it, than be a jack of all trades master of none
>He doesn't have hundreds of hours on E.Y.E.
>He thinks he can escape from the cycles of guilt
Anon I hate to break it to you but those who play E.Y.E. long enough inevitably become Gray Masters at some point because the entire system is accidentally designed to make it happen to the point that staying in any other class is impossible unless you literally stop playing.
Those achievement rates don't lie either, any top class other than Gray Master is straight up at the very bottom of the list with 1% rates because it's actually comically hard to get those classes unless you read a guide and play in the most unnatural way possible to make it happen.
https://steamcommunity.com/stats/EYEDivineCybermancy/achievements/
Yes, that will happen eventualy, but also
>(classes) were there to represent how character grew and changed
You get railroaded into one of two guns because of the Mars and onward armor stacking making everything else worthless. Everyone also has to run a lightweight, cloak setup to get past the respawning enemies and do the 4 playthroughs to beat the game.
Ahh, the classic "Everyone is the master of all things then" call of the person who has only played the worst possile implementation of a classless system. This is second only to the "But everyone will just play the same character" in moronic examples against classless system
Good luck pointing out any GOOD examples of one.
Underrail.
original sin is in the OP even
Fallouts, Arcanum, Bloodlines, DOS, Underrail, UO. You dumb zoomer pos.
Shadowrun
I can't think of a single good classless system. Not one.
The idea of "complete freedom" is misguided. People think they want it, but in reality the don't. Because in practice it doesn't result in what they think it does.
>I can't think of a single good classless system. Not one.
>but i dun like em
didnt axe
>But Skyrim, a game that isn't a roleplaying game, sets no limits and lets your character be a master at everything!
Did you consider that there could be limits? A roleplaying game could have a set total on the number of skill increases possible, such that your character couldn't reach the maximum skill rating in every skill, which would determine a maximum level, which would restrict the amount his stats can be raised, meaning he couldn't reach the maximum of all stats, and that there would be a finite number of "feats"/"perks"/whatever that he could obtain.
>The game should determine your character's job and identity, NOT the player through the actions he has his character take and the skill/s & ability he has his character develop over the course of roleplaying in the game.
kys
Don't you stop progressing at level 81 in Skyrim? Meaning you don't have the time to progress in everything, even without mods that extend the skill trees like Ordinator.
That's apparently been patched out.
>Tons of mods that add in more classes
Clearly a lot of players want more of them, even going to the trouble of installing those.
>if mods do it that means it's objectively good for the game
damn guess it's time for CRPGs to feature anime waifu romances, dogshit balance, and feature bloat out the ass
Only if they want to have sales
>damn guess it's time for CRPGs to feature anime waifu romances
YES FINALLY. So tired of roasties.
it's neither good or bad and a lot of that is redundant.
There is Arcane, Divine, Rogue, and Meatshield
>Arcane, Divine, Rogue, and Meatshield
Nuker, Healer, DPS, and Tank
What mmo rot does to a dip.
Mostly bad. Take Pathfinder games for instance, it looks huge, but in reality its just obfuscated bloat since more than half of those classes are made obsolete by existance of others. Out of those 150 kits, you'll only most use 20-40.
>you'll only most use 20-40
PKM has 12 companions you'll have to restart the game almost 30 times to get it up to 40
it's going to be under 20 for 90% of players. What a fricking waste of work-hours
To be fair, Pathfinder's massive bloat isn't a bug in the eyes of its fans, it's a feature. It was a system created as a haven for the buildhomosexuals who were deeply upset that 4e wasn't the same broken, bloated dumpster fire that 3rd and 3.5 were. Having dozens of classes and archetypes with varying degrees of overlap that you will never have enough time in your life to play is part of its appeal.
>having options that you are not going to play is the appeal
>dating women you are not going to have sex with is the appeal
huh.. the cuck narrative of PF games suddenly makes sense
Also part of the appeal is the great amount of trap options that obviously a enlightened high IQ gamer, like the average 3.pf player, will recognize and avoid therefore feeling superior for doing so.
No that's just cope from designers who were tired of getting called out for the lack of balance among feats, spells, etc.
There's a reason the most common houserule sets in pf are all about removing trap options and feat taxes.
>being a fan of 4e
I thought the last of you fat morons had slipped into a diabetic coma years ago?
On the contrary, I'm fully aware of 4e's myriad flaws. Unlike you, though, I don't pretend 3rd and 3.5 were anything other than what they were.
>content is only worth it if every player experiences it, being able to make choices is a waste of work
Mentally handicapped casuals like you are why modern games are shit.
Please die.xtkwh
That's not the point.
In Kingmaker I could be a Two Handed Fighter and make each of my hits Crit.
In Wrath I can be a Mutation Warrior and drug myself up to OP levels.
In the 3rd game I can try something else.
In the 20th game I can try something new yet again.
In the 50th game I can try something new yet again and it will be a new experience.
Whatever alternative system you prefer will never be able to achieve anything like this.
You're thinking in terms of single games.
I'm thinking in terms of all the games I will be playing through life.
That same terrible argument could be even if they just had 4 different classes each time, but they're not the same from game to game.
I don't even understand what argument you are even making.
The point of Pathfinder is you could go on 500 different adventures and never use the same character class twice.
This makes it the more complete system than yours where you select the same Fighter class over and over.
Your argument was poor because you named 1 'class' from each game.
Also the more "options" you have, the more shallow, redundant and indistinct they become. This is especially true for Pathfinder.
This isn't even touching on all the things which are broken, unviable and so on.
It's the same kind of moronic logic devs use when they have procendurally generated contant.
>you have a 100 million options!!!
This is not a positive. It means you disregarded quality just to give players more meaningless and worse options.
>Your argument was poor because you named 1 'class' from each game.
If you don't like that class then pick one of the other 200 classes. Was that too difficult to figure out?
>Also the more "options" you have, the more shallow, redundant and indistinct they become
If you're too shallow of a person to reasearch each class then that's not the system's problem.
>This is not a positive. It means you disregarded quality just to give players more meaningless and worse options.
Name 1 class from your system.
Let's see how super special your class is in comparison. I need a good laugh.
>If you don't like that class then pick one of the other 200 classes. Was that too difficult to figure out?
I'm talking about how you framed it.
>If you're too shallow of a person to reasearch each class then that's not the system's problem.
Research is utterly and completely irrelevant. I'm talking system design. But you're clearly out of your depth here.
>Name 1 class from your system.
There is not "system". It's simple facts.
The more classes you have, the less distinct they become, the less polished they become, the more prone to bugs they become, the more imbalanced things become, etc.
If you think you can design 1000 unique, super polished, bug free and well balanced classes you're delusional.
I'd say around 50 is where quality really starts to take a nosedive.
>If you think you can design 1000 unique, super polished, bug free and well balanced classes you're delusional.
Owlcat didn't design shit. They relied on an external company who designed those 300 classes across decades. That's your big dishonest fallacy exposed right there.
What the matter? Why are you so afriad of comparing a class from your favourite system to a class from the Pathfinder system?
Why are you so afraid to be laughed at?
Still waiting
If you think the classes in Pathfinder is so inferior to your favourite system, then why are everybody so scared of a comparison?
Because there's no reason to humor a moronic 3aboo.
>In the 50th game I can try something new yet again and it will be a new experience
that's just straight up lying to yourself
>hur-dur i'm swapping one char in my party that makes it a whole new experience
no. it's going to be pretty much the same experience especially taking into consideration
>a large number of classes -> a lot of classes/kits have no experience-changing differences and play the same
>a large number of classes -> some clearly perform poorly compared to others so playing them will feel like a chore after you've already tried more optimized choices
PS please take note that i'm assuming the player isn't autistic, if this assumption is incorrect, then gamedesign doesn't really matter, an autist can play only rush hour board game for entirety of his lifetime for all I care
>that's just straight up lying to yourself
No. You're talking to a system that has 300 different classes and almost 4000 different feats.
You would have to go out of your way to even use the same character twice.
>no. it's going to be pretty much the same experience especially taking into consideration
Only if you're some kind of moron who compulsively choose the same 10 feats again and again and again even though you have a selection of 4000 different feats.
For Example Octavia.
You can turn her into level 19 wizard.
You can turn her into level 19 rogue.
You can turn her into level 18 sword saint.
You can turn her into level 10 Arcane trickster
You can turn her into a 4 Rogue /15 Salyer
You can turn her into anything, her class isn't set in stone. And it's a new experience each time, for all of the NPCs
>system that has 300 different classes
Yeah, like I said, you are not intellectually honest with your own self
>OMG I'M TRYING OUT KNIFE MASTER INSTEAD OF THUG THIS IS A WHOLE NEW HECKING E}{PERIENCE NOW!!
Thug can apply D6 sneak to bows and ranged attacks.
Knifemaster does D8 damage with knives. It's also a class that can convert other classes to D8 sneak attacks.
They can be made to play very differently. And they offer different types of of roleplaying flavour.
>these differences could have been a feat, a unique item property, a branching skill
you just proved Pathfinder it to be class-bloat and didn't even understand it
Being the best in the world at knifewielding is an identity. It's perfectly suited to be an archetype of its own.
It could just as easily be an early mutually exclusive feat selection. Like how Rangers decide between two weapon fighting, bows, sword and shield, and intimidation at an early level. If Ranger was a class that wasn't inherited from 3.5 Pathfinder would have made that 5 different archetypes.
>It could just as easily be an early mutually exclusive feat selection.
Nah. Knife is an iconic weapon which everybody thinks of when you ask them about backstabbing. So they made something special out of it.
>If Ranger was a class that wasn't inherited from 3.5 Pathfinder would have made that 5 different archetypes.
Nope, that's old style D&D forcing dual wield down your throat as a Ranger.
In pathfinder you're given an alternative, instead of that specialty, you can opt for Ranged attack feats that bypass hax the attributes requirements, or 2-handed weapons etc.
3.5 already fricking did that you moron.
This. The difference is abysmal at best, to the point where where you could cut 80% of rogue kits and nothing would change. Not to mention the fact that some archetypes and classes are straight out better than others, making the whole point of picking said hypothetical class moot.
Take Barbarian in WOTR as an example. The class has 7 archetypes including vanilla version, and out of those 7 about two are useable, while the rest are unplayable garbage. ON TOP OF THAT, there a class called Bloodrager, which is essentially a barbarian that can cast spells up to level 4 and on top of that is able to get all the same perks vanilla barbarian can. Now AGAIN, there are several useless archetypes within that class as well, and AGAIN out of those 7 Bloodrager archetypes about 2 are useable.
There you have it: 2 classes - 14 archetypes, and only 4 of those archetypes are useable. Let that sink in. And a little spoiler, that thing with Barbarian and Bloodrager? Happens several time with several other classes, which ends with 80% of all archetypes being unplayable because there is a straight upgrade somewhere else.
Now let me ask you a question; is this truly necessary? Why couldn't this mess be reduced to Barbarian as a mainclass, and Bloodrager as an archetype of Barbarian? Why not just make a Barbarian class with 4 different archetypes taken out of old Barbarian and Bloodrager and then call it a day?
And before you go all smug with the whole "well, it's how the system was designed sweetie", take into account that they had the freedom to pick and choose what to have and what to skip out on. There are several archetypes that thankfully didn't make it into the game, meaning that nobody was holding Owlcat at a gunpoint screaming: "ADD. ALL. THE. FRICKING. ARCHETYPES"!!!!
This applies to you as well
>Now AGAIN, there are several useless archetypes within that class as well, and AGAIN out of those 7 Bloodrager archetypes about 2 are useable.
You're demonstrating how crappy you are at multiclassing.
Bloodragers are a thing because people have asked Paizo why they couldn't multiclass Barbaian with Monk.
A lot of these subclasses exist to give you a new primary attribute which benefits your ability to multiclass with other classes. For example the Scaled Fist Monk uses Charisma instead of Wisdom, so he blends well with other classes that are Charisma based. removing some of these classes would ease your butthurt, but the puzzle system would become poorer if they did that.
within that
>Bloodrider
If getting an additional animal companion feels like an "abysmal at best difference" then you're braindead. Getting a free animal companion isn't something you can simply add as a feat which every class can pick. It's something special inherited by the class', in this case because they are riding specialists.
>Mixed-Blood Rager
These guys are excellent if you hate the spell casting and just want a level 4 dip with Dual bloodline passive magics. They are extremely unique because you can now select 2 bloodlines that amplify each other in a build. This iscritical in multiclassing because you often want to pack as much punch as possible within a limited levels of 1-4.
>Spelleater
Is the opposite of Mixed-Blood Rager and lets you do additional tricks with your spell casting. This completely alters the way you play the class
>Reformed Fiend
>Steelblood
These two are nice roleplaying options, one converts the spellcasting into Armor class that's added on top of the Barbarian stance and Heavy armour. The other gives you resistances from your demonic bloodline. There is nothing abysmal or pointless about any of these.
>Greenrager
It's literally a badass summoner, why wouldn't you want a Bloodrager who specialises his magic powers into summoning animals fighting along him?
Like every other 3aboo you are conflating "gets a feature to do a thing" with "doing the thing has any value or makes an overall difference in your gameplay".
Designing a multiclass is like solving a puzzle. You optimise by cutting corners in a class and remove some features your build doesn't need.
Then you add that essence into another class and achieve a sum that is greater than the parts.
Again, they could pander to you and make your little brain less butthurt about the big amount of selections, but their puzzle system would suffer from it.
So what? It was obviously the correct thing to do. Going backwards to the old school D&D system isn't the answer.
Yes, thank you for responding to a post in your head that doesn't actually exist. Multiclassing in Pathfinder is a bad idea most of the time.
>Multiclassing in Pathfinder is a bad idea most of the time.
Most of the butthurt towards multiclassing is because they end up too strong, and end up more powerful at very specific tasks
No, it's because they're usually unnecessary.
You don't someone the other guy because you think he is "doing something unnecessary".
You hate him because his build if better at a certain aspect that your single class build.
That's the root of your anal devastation.
No, I meant what I said. You don't know what a multiclass being thoroughly superior looks like. Multiclassing is far weaker in Pathfinder than it was in 3.5 because Pathfinder backloaded so many features and because of the prevalence of scaling featuers. No multiclass in PF even remotely compares to dipping a single level of Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian.
>No multiclass in PF even remotely compares to dipping a single level of Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian.
Okay dude, enjoy playing that class 500 times.
Other people prefer the other system that lets you play something else and gives a larger selection.
3.5 has a much, much bigger class selection than Pathfinder does. Yet again, you don't know your own game.
>>3.5 has a much, much bigger class selection than Pathfinder does
Prove it.
https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?550696-Truly-Complete-list-of-3-5e-Base-Classes
https://wikiproject-dungeons-dragons.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_prestige_classes
That was hard.
://wikiproject-dungeons-dragons.fandom.com/wiki/List_of_prestige_classes
84 classes. Running that list through a line count isn't hard you know?
How is 84 bigger than 300?
It literally says how many it has in each book listed you absolute moron. 16+18+14+3+9+3+4+20+4+1+10 for 104 is well over 84 and I stopped at Savage Species.
You're right then Pathfinder has fewer classes than 3.5e.
So what were we arguing about again?
People are free to publish books. Does this surprise you?
3rd party shit is completely irrelevant to a discussion of a system and would stack it even further in favor of 3.5 to the tune of thousands of classes.
>3rd party shit is completely irrelevant to a discussion of a system
No, your main criticism was Owlcat diluting their recourses designing too many classes. And I tore your ass to pieces by pointing out they were designed by someone else.
Does it matter if it was Paizo who designed the class, or some dude who wanted to be mini-Paizo?
No it wasn't. My main criticism is that you don't understand why archetypes only rarely do what you claim they do.
So it's the opposite problem, you're butthurt because multiclassing is too weak in Pathfinder compared to 3.5e.
That still doesn't make your criticism a good one.
No, I don't care if multiclassing is powerful or not, I care that you are a moron that thinks multiclassing in PF is good.
Go back to your argument
That Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian dip just cost you 20% of your EXP earnings. So now you only have 15 levels for your main class. You think that's "strong"?
Get fricked nerd.
inb4
>b-b-b-but Owlcat should just homebrew away that rule
>That Whirling Frenzy Spirit Lion Totem Barbarian dip just cost you 20% of your EXP earnings.
Not unless you were moronic it didn't.
Yeah, it did. That's the main cripple in 3.5e. A handicap so big its player opt to coping by pretending it doesn't exist.
No it didn't. The XP penalty only applied if you didn't have all your classes that weren't your favored class at least within 1 level of each other and it also ignored prestige classes entirely.
Barbarian isn't a prestige class.
So now you're restricted to a specific race. Nice roleplaying my dude.
Now only if Human wasn't one of the best races in the game.
Yeah you can keep your old stale system where everybody is a human. But please don't pretend it's a better system.
Pick your classes better.
But then you wouldn't be so overpowered. Now you have nothing to brag about.
An 18th level martial with Pounce is better than a 20th level martial without and that's not even the only thing they get from dipping Barbarian.
But the Pathfunder system has 20 level martials with pounce, and gives it players 20 puzzle pieces to play with. That's clearly the better system.
PF has all of four martials with real Pounce access and it's always gated behind either 10 levels for rage powers or unarmed combat. You also only fall behind on levels if you completely frick up at building your character in 3.5, race aside. Ranger 2/Barbarian 1/Fighter 2/something else 1/PrCs from that point on get no XP penalty no matter what their race is.
>PF has all of four martials with real Pounce access and it's always gated behind either 10 levels for rage powers or unarmed combat
Nope. You can get pounce from just 1 level of Monk. Pummeling charge can be had from any main class simply by having base attack of 12.
>You also only fall behind on levels if you completely frick up at building your character
It's too many restrictions, I prefer the one where you decide exactly where you want to cut the corner. In Pathfinder sometimes I want 8 levels of something.
Sometimes I had 8, of 4 or 3 or 2 or 1 level sof something. There is nothing wrong with that, that's just the better way to mix and match.
Pummeling Charge is worthless if you don't have good unarmed support which is every single martial but Monk and Brawler.
1 level in Monk is more than enough to give you strong unarmed attacks. So what are you even on about?
No it isn't.
That's just your shitty opinion dude. Regardless you're hinging your criticism of pathfinder on some very spec things.
Criticising the system because you think muticlassing is too weak is just as crappy as criticising a system because you think multiclassing is too strong.
All you're doing is edition war bullshit, and it has nothing to do with the moronation of OP.
It's not an opinion and you are completely inept when it comes to figuring out what my argument is because you are a moron. 1 level of Monk is not even close to the level of support you need to make unarmed not shit.
>1 level of Monk is not even close to the level of support you need to make unarmed not shit.
It actually is, moron. Echancements of your qeapon can easily come from other sources like Angelic blood line.
>when it comes to figuring out what my argument
You never had a point to your argument.
No, it isn't. Unarmed is bad enough that doing it without class support is a huge trap option. 1 level of Monk doesn't get you past DR and it leaves your unarmed attacks at the level of a club.
You can just dual bloodline between celestial and abyssal, now you have large size fist 0 good allignment fists.
Doing 1d8 instead of 1d6 and punching through DR/Good doesn't fix you not being able to punch through most types of DR or not doing enough damage with your punches.
D8 is like standard damage though. Saying D8 isn't strong enough is like saying the Fighter isn't strong enough.
You have don nothing but being moronic.
>DR/Good doesn't fix you not being able to punch through most types of DR
DR Good is the only one that matters in Wrath.
Besides Pummeling strike was designed to frick up your DR to begin with.
D8 is standard for weapons with access to multiple damage types, reach, cheaper enhancement bonuses, two-handed bonuses, increased critical range, and better combat maneuvers. D8 damage does not make a weapon decent on its own.
You can just pick up a monk weapon if you need another damage type.
Reach, no necessary when you can charge.
Just get your enhancement bonuses from gear or bloodline.
Just use Dragon style, there's your two handed bonus .
Frick your critical range.
Monk already is superior at combat manoeuvrers. Especially a large size Monk.
>You can just pick up a monk weapon if you need another damage type.
And then you lose your styles.
>Just get your enhancement bonuses from gear or bloodline.
Unarmed enhancement bonuses are 3x as expensive as normal ones and enhancement bonuses from features are always limited use.
>Just use Dragon style, there's your two handed bonus .
Can't do that at the same time as Pummelling Style without being MoMS or spending another feat. Getting 5 feats in the hole and spending your swift action every turn to catch up to a Barbarian is bad.
>Frick your critical range.
A good crit range is almost 30% of your damage. More if you have features to increase your multiplier.
>Monk already is superior at combat manoeuvrers.
No they fricking aren't, they don't have a single boost to CMB unless they're a Hobgoblin and it's only to 2 maneuvers. They are hands down the worst combat maneuver martial until their Flurry penalty goes away and they're still not good after.
>>And then you lose your styles.
Nope, you still have the other styles.
>Unarmed enhancement bonuses are 3x as expensive
They usually give away those amulets that enhance your fists.
>Getting 5 feats in the hole and spending your swift action every turn to catch up to a Barbarian is bad.
No need to catch up if your other classes already are bloodrager.
Frick your critical range.
>they don't have a single boost to CMB
Yes they do moron. Read up on Pummeling Bully.
>Nope, you still have the other styles.
You don't have the feats for that.
>They usually give away those amulets that enhance your fists.
Those are 3x the cost for each enhancement bonus and cap at +5. That's exactly what I was talking about.
>No need to catch up if your other classes already are bloodrager.
You gain nothing from Monk if you're playing a Bloodrager.
>Yes they do moron. Read up on Pummeling Bully.
Not a boost to CMB.
>You don't have the feats for that.
Yes I do.
>Those are 3x the cost for each enhancement
They cost nothing, they lay around waiting to be found.
>You gain nothing from Monk if you're playing a Bloodrager.
You said you wanted Pounce. Well there's your pounce.
>Not a boost to CMB.
Doesn't matter, you have more attempts to do combat manoeuvrer each round than everybody else. That in itself is a boost.
That's not how XP gain works in 3.5. You gain more XP while you're behind. You're going to be 2 levels behind at best.
Doesn't matter if you only lost 2 levels rather than 4. It's still a shit system which is ignored by its player base.
>over half of the list is 3rd party
Stop giving a game credit for something it wasn't the first to do. Literally the only improvement PF made was making Favored Enemy less shit.
>Stop giving a game credit for something it wasn't the first to do.
That's not what I did, you claimed Paizo would have split the Ranger into 5 different subclasses of oldschool D&D type. I'm pointing out they rather do the opposite of that.
I did no such thing.
Then someone else did and you tried to cover up for your buttbuddy.
It's not humoring, it's a challenge you're too scared to take, because your criticism is fake as shit and wouldn't last in a head to head.
It is a great thing unless you are a min-maxing munchkin, then it is shit because the meta says you can only use 4 of the thousand of options.
It's bad for non min-maxers as well. Imagine if there are a lot of classes you like conceptually but they all suck shit and are broken.
You make it work and enjoy the fac that there is even a little challenge because of that.
>you make it work
So if there's a pet class where the pet is broken or is so bad that what it's supposed to do can't be done.
Not only isn't the fantasy of the class fulfilled, but mechanically it's not good either.
Challenge by itself is not interesting. Tons of absolute trash games are challenging and that doesn't make them good or enjoyable.
There is such a thing is too many classes.
The Pathfinder games for example perfectly demonstrate this.
When you have so many classes that
>too many classes and skills are imbalanced, potentially even unviable or weak/op
>redundancy, classes are too similar making having all those classes in the first place moot, making the quality of each suffer
>lots of classes means less focus for each, which means more classes are likely to be poorly designed
>lots of bugs or just straight up broken skills
I think it depends on the system. For original games it's a complete waste of development time, and the more shit you put in the less attention all of it gets.
If you're adapting dnd/pf material it's alright, since 90% of those systems' appeal is the content bloat itself and 95% of the work (fluff/crunch/balance) was done by other people over 10 year of tabletop content development, so you just have to adapt it
>hurr pathfinder games have a lot of shit unbalanced archetypes
Lol yes. Lots of weird choice, but that's hardly an issue with the number of classes as it is with the devs' lack of system (or even just meta) mastery.
There should be no classes only skills.
See
That's like saying "remove jobs, anyone can be a surgeon". Classes are meant to represent a type of vocation and identity, anon. Your boilermaker buddy isn't going to do a heart cath.
>Your boilermaker buddy isn't going to do a heart cath.
Skill trees. Gate the hypothetical heart cath skill behind a few layers of prerequisite skills(medicine).
PoE2 is pretty much the perfect size IMO, a good variety of distinct options with no redundancy nor any trap options.
>Is there such a thing as class bloat?
There can be if it takes far too long to consider the huge amount of classes for no real upside and it increases without a true increase in viable options. At that point it's probably more efficient to ask what major abilities a player wants and then to have those picked abilities given a class name.
>14 offensive abilities with far more skills to use, the ability to mix and match, and then also defensive skills and non combat skills = just 14 classes
No, that definitely is not the case.
Classes should be just a flavor signifying character growth and change organically during game as character grows and learns new things.
Underrated
If your systems cannot fully flesh out the fantasy of the classes available or does not change the player's playstyle outside combat, then it is indeed a case of "class bloat".
>does not change the player's playstyle outside combat
that's like almost all vRPGs
Nah surely a class can be justified if it significantly changes combat playstyle
Then it's an action game with a character building system/skill trees. Combat is very small part of roleplay, a large part of it depends on how the world reacts to the role the player chose. VTMB is a good example.
OK 'you play a role'-morons need not apply
the origins of vRPG were all combat oriented
the origins of pnp RPG were all combat oriented
The whole systems revolved around combat rules, almost in any pre-mid-90s rule-system non-combat related rules looked like an afterthought
genres evolve, and nowadays drama is a part of any self-respecting RPG, but saying combat oriented RPGs are not RPGs is simply stupid
It's true. You're seething because your favorite games are not RPGs. Let that sink in for a bit.
>Is there such a thing?
Yes.
>Is it bad gamedesign?
Also yes. It's not the worst of all evils, but it's definitely something that is better avoided.
My definition of class bloat is when your system has way too many redundant options or overlapping with minor differences.
I do prefer to have too many options than having too few. You can ignore the excess. Fixing the lack by yourself is a lot harder.
>Is there such a thing?
Sure, look at things like Neverwinter Nights 2, Pathfinder, your average NIS game or FFTA2.
>Is it bad gamedesign?
Depends entirely on whether you like class systems or not.
If you ask me, class systems are inherently doomed to be horribly bloated and self defeating but clearly a lot of people do not think like that, whether or not you agree with things like the "Consensum Gentium" is again, entirely up to you.
>class systems are inherently doomed to be horribly bloated
what about the top half of picrel
?
I think it shows that this claim of yours doesn't hold
I wouldn't take anybody who considers D:OS games class based seriously, but you do you.
I'm the anon from
Only trying to get into DOS
well the game features classes, classes are present in the wiki, you choose the class at character creation don't you?
so are you saying that classes in DOS are meaningless? so it's just straight up bloat that shouldn't have been there in the first place?
D:OS doesn't have classes, it has skill trees with nodes you unlock and mix and match however you like, D:OS2 is the same.
That small section you see in the character creation is merely a choice for your character's starting loadout in terms of skills and equipment, it means nothing, a Battlemage, an Inquisitor and a Ranger can all get the same exact stat and skill loadout and be quite literally the same exact character despite their "class".
>Warrior
>Mage
>Archer
Those are the classes. Anything is bloat.
>Warrior
>Mage
>Rogue
>SOVL
>Archer
Tell me why your warrior class can't just use all weapons as effectively. 3 classes is correct but your third choice is shit. A generic fighter is both your warrior and archer in one. Choose again.
It's the Runescape trinity. Therefore it is correct.
WAIT A SECOND, THAT'S JUST DIABLO
No, it's just Dark Alliance.
nah just mage and warrior
>DOS
>DOS2
>classes
Come the fug on. The "classes" in those games are guidelines for newbies. The system is entirely classless.
Regarding a system with a fairly high number of classes,
I just finished SEQUEL: Blight and at first I thought the class choice was bloated. However, despite certain redundancies and classes doing things better than other classes, most classes have at least one mechanic that makes them worth speccing into for certain encounters, strategies, or challenges; these specializations require hefty investment during the mid and even late-game, although you have a lot more freedom in the postgame because you can easily grind out levels.
As an aside, each class has a skill tree. While a character belongs to a certain class, they can spend points on that class's skill tree and they have the stats and benefits of being that class - immunity to a certain ailment, high atk, low defense, etc. When you change classes, you retain the skills you picked from your other classes while gaining the identity of the new class (stats, specific resistances, etc). The flexibility this system allows is actually really fun.
i didnt think dos2 was bloated. pathfinder on the other hand...
yes and yes.
just make a small number of well polished, distinct classes and allow for deep multiclassing. Not the homosexual dip shit 3.X+ dnd does.
>enhanced edition BGs
tree of savior player here, there can never be enough classes
You need three classes. Fighting man, magic man, and clerical worker. Everyone is a thief, so no thief class is needed. Every single other class in any fantasy game is entirely redundant. instead of more classes that do less, have less classes that can do more.
i don't get it
If you want separate classes for magic man and cleric, what's wrong with the classic 4: fighter, rouge, magic user, cleric?
if you want to stick with 3, why not picrel? how is everyone a thief?
Doesn't QFG have "secret" 4th class?
yes it's a paladin
requires importing a character, can't be created
>how is everyone a thief?
Traditional RPGs are about plundering ancient ruins and tombs for treasure. Every treasure hunter is a thief.
>Traditional RPGs are about plundering ancient ruins and tombs for treasure. Every treasure hunter is a thief.
Smoothbrain take.
A thief in this sense is someone adept at picking locks, laying down and disarming traps, being stealthy, sneaking up on people, pickpocketing and such. A skillset emcompasing many things.
Their role was utility and being more of a jack of all trades. This is why typically they tend to not shine in combat (to balance how useful they are outside of it).
Yes
Thee more choices you present the player the more likely they are to stall on said choices.
See the average casual trying to build a PF character.
Level up, 9999999 peerks to choose? Uhoh.
Same as how tons of RPGs have people constantly reseting to reroll characters. More options make this only more likely.
It's why I am always inn favor of branching promotions, which trickle in class options over time. Games suck people in the most when they start simple and quickly ramp up in options.
There are four unique primary play styles which are represented in the big 4 classes. If all four are not fully fleshed out, then all additions are automatically bad. If they are fully fleshed out, you may be able to add more.
If the devs have created and implemented a new class that plays uniquely (does not need to be completely different but if a hybrid of big 4 it needs unique features neither base class has); then add more classes until you run out of unique playstyles. No such thing as bloat in this case.
If you are adding classes for marketing reasons, or because you have hit a wall and cannot think of any new content to add so hide behind recycled classes; then it is nothing but bloat.
In terms of recent games -PoE did a good job of doing this properly.
Kingmaker not so much. Sure, since Paizo already did the work, it would be lazy not to just import their dozens of class tables into the game and just let non-autists ignore it. But even the core classes had zero reactivity and, thanks to no companion AI, fought the same way for most encounters.
Pathfinder games are bloated with 95% useless classes because the games just boil down to stacking AC/BAB and any class that doesn't provide these utilities are useless
Neverwinter Nights was pretty bad about it especially considering most of the classes had broken features in them that they just kept in the game to lie to you about it's "truthful adaptation of D&D." Even more annoying if you only do the actual game and find out your crit, poking build can't do any damage because the game is nothing but undead.
>Kingmaker classes = 29
>Wrath classes = 25
Wait what? This here's saying than Kingmaker has more classes than Wrath.
Just be honest with me.
You're butthurt at Pathfinder because it gives your favourite RPG system an inferiority complex.
>ignoring how party size limit has remained stagnant or even lowered
ngmi
man reading those pathfinder/dnd3e/3.5e autists argue kinda shows how all those classes and kits are crutches to an inherently flawed system