What Classes to not allow

[Blackhawk748]

Im planning a PF campaign for the near future and its set in a sort of Universal's Dracula style Transylvania, you know "magic is real, but most people dont understand it/have seriously wrong ideas about it". Now what i need help with is picking what classes and races should be allowed. Guns exist here so the Gunslinger is good to go as well as all the Core Classes as well as the Witch. Race wise Core again as well as a few "normal" monsters (goblins, Kobolds, orcs etc.)

Any recommendations you guys have would be great.

[T.G. Oskar]

Im planning a PF campaign for the near future and its set in a sort of Universal's Dracula style Transylvania, you know "magic is real, but most people dont understand it/have seriously wrong ideas about it". Now what i need help with is picking what classes and races should be allowed. Guns exist here so the Gunslinger is good to go as well as all the Core Classes as well as the Witch. Race wise Core again as well as a few "normal" monsters (goblins, Kobolds, orcs etc.)

Any recommendations you guys have would be great.

I'd say a big NO to Summoner, because you're fighting against monsters, not summoning them. The Eidolon goes against the feel of the setting (it's an unknown something that takes the form you want, and evolves as you want), and that way you avoid the Synthetist Summoner.

Obviously, Ninja and Samurai are out, because of being Asian-flavored classes. Same with the Shaman, particularly as the Druid takes over that aspect in an European-flavored setting.

A bit ambivalent about Oracle: people with knowledge of the supernatural are fair play, but their methods don't really work so well. Same with Magus, but they fit a bit better than the Oracle (they're people who combine sword with spell, and a Fighter/Wizard certainly exists, so why not the Magus?)

As for what to allow: Inquisitor (tremendous feel), Swashbuckler (melee Gunslinger, and it fits the period as well), Warpriest (particularly for a religion that has as its goal to hunt monsters), Investigator (again, really good), Alchemist (what else was Dr. Victor von Frankenstein but one?), Hunter (the name pretty much says it all). I'd also consider, if your group is willing to accept playtest content, some of the classes from Occult Adventures (maybe sans the Kineticist); the Medium and the Spiritualist are dead-on for that kind of setting, and so does the Occultist.

As for Core...I'm not so sure about the Druid, unless you have a really good reason why to add it. A Ranger is fine; a setting that evokes Transylvania will like Rangers (it's a region of forests, after all), and they can make undead their Favored Enemies. The Druid, on the other hand, while it can serve as a protector of nature, has a very strong fluff that makes it somewhat undesirable on that kind of setting, particularly if the monsters don't threaten nature. Or, most likely, the Monsters hunted the Druids to extinction, and they're extremely rare (thus, allowing a PC to be a Druid, but without that much support and with Druid-related magic items being the reason for adventuring).

[Psyren]

Any of them work, it's just a matter of how powerful you want the players to be. The only one I consider problematic is Summoner because they can fill every party role they want with little investment.

As for ideas, Golarion has a Transylvania analogue (Ustalav) that you might be able to glean some inspiration reading up on.

[Azurefenrir]

I would allow every class with the caviat that some of the more unusual ones (Asian themed classes, summoners, etc.) must submit a backstory with adequate explanation on how they ended up in the setting and where they obtained their abilities. If your players are excellent roleplayers, you might be surprised at how amazing the concepts they can come up with can be with a bit of out-of-the-box thinking, and how perfectly they fit into your setting despite seeming "strange" at first glance.

[Honest Tiefling]

Actually, I'd boot the druid. Wrong time and place for this sort of European Fantasy. Same with bards. Also, the wilderness is the domain of the unknown, the savage, and that which dwells outside of civilization. The Barbarian might also get the axe for a similar reason.

I would actually allow the Summoner if you can refluff it as some sort of Angel Summoner. This...I admit is probably inaccurate, but for some reason the idea appeals to me and makes sense to summon agents of goodness against vampires. The Summon Monster ability would have to be reworked to fit into this theme quite heavily.

I would also axe the wizard. They gain power by understanding the arcane, so if magic is not understood, I would say they don't exist. Maybe allow for other magic users if people like that play style (Sorcerers for instance).

And tell Witch players that they get to pick a patron, but you decide what it really is. This is probably a case where using it against them makes a good deal of sense, if you think your party will like it.

As for races, I think Skinwalkers and Dhampirs are the first ones you need to look at. Perhaps allow people to make these sorts of characters if their first one bites the dust.

[Psyren]

An urban-flavored druid, protecting the slums and downtrodden from the city's elite, could work. Or even just protecting what little wildlife remains in the city like the rats and plants.

I'll second azure's suggestion - anything you think might feel out of place, give the player a chance to change your mind.

[Honest Tiefling]

I'll second azure's suggestion - anything you think might feel out of place, give the player a chance to change your mind.

+1 here as well. We're pressuring you to be pressured.

As for druid, I guess I find it weird that a class based on an Celtic iron-age priestly order showing up in what I assume a Victorian-esque setting based on another land...Somewhat jarring. Maybe fluff them up as some sort of priest.

[Blackhawk748]

We're pressuring you to be pressured.

Oh god the pressure!!!

What book is Ustalav and the Inquisitor in? (im assuming they are in separate books)

As for the Playtest content, how complete is it?

[Psyren]

Ustalav is detailed most in Inner Sea World Guide and probably some APs that take place there, but the wiki (http://pathfinder.wikia.com/wiki/Ustalav) has a chunk of info.

The playtest stuff is a free download; check it out yourself! (http://paizo.com/paizo/blog/v5748dyo5lgna?Uncover-the-Truth-Occult-Adventures-Playtest)

Inquisitor is in Advanced Player's Guide or you can simply get it off the SRD. (http://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/base-classes/inquisitor)

[Blackhawk748]

wonderful, now i need to do a bit of reading..... and maybe a bit of updating. Gonna have to go digging through my Ravenloft stuff again.

[squiggit]

I would generally allow everything from the start. Calling the Samurai and Ninja "too eastern" feels a bit silly because that doesn't really extend past their name. That's the same for the Shaman as well.

Summoner and Witch I actually think work pretty well, as the Witch's Patron and Summoner's Eidolon both have mysteriousness and plot hook potential baked into them by default. Inevitably in any setting with some eldritch dark power there's someone who wants to fight fire with fire and both those classes fill that niche pretty well.

I can't really see any reason to drop the Bard or Barbarian so not sure what else to say on those two.


+1 here as well. We're pressuring you to be pressured.

As for druid, I guess I find it weird that a class based on an Celtic iron-age priestly order showing up in what I assume a Victorian-esque setting based on another land...Somewhat jarring. Maybe fluff them up as some sort of priest.

You're getting too hung up on a name. The druid is ultimately a slightly kooky naturalistic hermit at its base. Nothing that requires celtic iron age anything.

Really D&D druids don't even have much to do with real druids in the first place other than the name from what little we know about latter anyways.

[Prince Raven]

Obviously, Ninja and Samurai are out, because of being Asian-flavored classes. Same with the Shaman, particularly as the Druid takes over that aspect in an European-flavored setting.

I loathe this line of reasoning, there is no reason a Ninja has to be any more "Asian" than a Rogue.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

I would, after presenting the world and the type of campaign you plan to run, and let players decide what they want to play based on that. Since you seem like a new GM, I would present that as well, saying that you are not as familiar as them outside of the core book. As people have said earlier, they might surprise you. Someone might come up with something that fits the setting.

[deuxhero]

A bit ambivalent about Oracle: people with knowledge of the supernatural are fair play, but their methods don't really work so well. Same with Magus, but they fit a bit better than the Oracle (they're people who combine sword with spell, and a Fighter/Wizard certainly exists, so why not the Magus?)



Remember that being possessed is one of the official fluff option for an Oracle and that would probobly fit in such a setting.

Paladin is the only base class with non-mutable flavor anyways, so banning classes for fluff reasons always seemed odd to me.

[T.G. Oskar]

I loathe this line of reasoning, there is no reason a Ninja has to be any more "Asian" than a Rogue.

By the same line, there's no reason why to have a separate Ninja class when, by definition, the Rogue does all the Ninja is supposed to do. However, the class exists. It has to have something that makes it distinguish from the Rogue beyond the mechanical aspect (the ki, which is by itself also Asian-flavored). That, of course, is being "foreign".

If the line of reasoning you loathe is "being too Asian", then consider it's being too foreign to the setting. In very simple terms: how can you make a Ninja that fits a supernatural Eastern European setting without making reference to a fantastical "Asian" setting nor stepping on the flavor of the Rogue? Note that the Assassin is a Prestige Class already (two, if you count the Red Mantis Assassin). By the same line, the Samurai (and the Monk, which I didn't consider up until now) are also too foreign to reconcile with the setting.

If the line of reasoning you loathe is "it's too foreign; it won't fit", then consider how refluffing the class won't step on the lines of the Rogue. As it stands, the Rogue can do all the Ninja can do, aside from some of the illusive tricks (and that is debatable). Likewise, the Cavalier can do all the Samurai can do, aside from one or two things (namely, mounted archery). There's a reason why I mentioned the two "alternative classes" the game has aside from the Antipaladin.

In any case, the idea is that the OP is looking for classes that fit the fluff, and those classes don't, at least IMO, because they're too foreign.

[Prince Raven]

By the same line, there's no reason why to have a separate Ninja class when, by definition, the Rogue does all the Ninja is supposed to do. However, the class exists. It has to have something that makes it distinguish from the Rogue beyond the mechanical aspect (the ki, which is by itself also Asian-flavored). That, of course, is being "foreign".

Why? Why does the Ninja have to be pigeon-holed into a certain flavour of character because the Rogue class exists? Can I not make a bookish Wizard because the Archivist exists? Can I not make a dashing, swashbuckling rapier-wielding Bard because the Swashbuckler exists? Would you shoot down a noble, religious Fighter because you're worried that's "stepping on the toes" of the Paladin?


If the line of reasoning you loathe is "being too Asian", then consider it's being too foreign to the setting. In very simple terms: how can you make a Ninja that fits a supernatural Eastern European setting without making reference to a fantastical "Asian" setting nor stepping on the flavor of the Rogue? Note that the Assassin is a Prestige Class already (two, if you count the Red Mantis Assassin). By the same line, the Samurai (and the Monk, which I didn't consider up until now) are also too foreign to reconcile with the setting.

If the line of reasoning you loathe is "it's too foreign; it won't fit", then consider how refluffing the class won't step on the lines of the Rogue. As it stands, the Rogue can do all the Ninja can do, aside from some of the illusive tricks (and that is debatable). Likewise, the Cavalier can do all the Samurai can do, aside from one or two things (namely, mounted archery). There's a reason why I mentioned the two "alternative classes" the game has aside from the Antipaladin.

A Ninja is just a Rogue with some class features swapped out for different ones, it's more of an archetype than a class, really. there's no reason you can't make a character that would otherwise be a Rogue using the Ninja class just because they don't happen to be from some foreign land. As for how it won't step on the lines of the Rogue, Rogue's get Trapfinding and Evasion at level 2, Ninjas get a ki pool and No Trace. similarly, there are things Cavaliers have that Samurai don't, and there are things Samurai have that Cavaliers don't.


In any case, the idea is that the OP is looking for classes that fit the fluff, and those classes don't, at least IMO, because they're too foreign.

And what I'm saying is there are no classes you should ban for fluff reasons, as you shouldn't force your players to play to the stereotypes of their class. Restrict backgrounds, not classes.

[The Insanity]

Refluffing is a thing. Banning classes for flavor is stupid and unnecessary. It's also funny how there's no mention of banning Monk, the most Asian class of them all.

[Prince Raven]

There were actually a fair few monasteries in eastern Europe.

[Taveena]

A refluffed druid could work - do something similar to what WoW did and make them 'harvest witches' or the like. I think Oracle is pretty appropriate. (You may want to cut down on the more obviously magical spells, dumb as that sounds - something like Flamestrike is a bit over-the-top but Cure Light Wounds probably isn't.) Also, to be fair, those monks weren't really... y'know, Chinese Buddhist monks, which are the martial artists. (Those monks are best statted up as 3.5e's Cloistered Cleric or Archivist, but I digress.) Still, there WERE unarmed combat specialists in Europe then. REFLUFFING. Basically just use the Brawler fluff with a bit of Charles Atlas Superpower. (HIS KNOWLEDGE OF PUNCHES IS SO STRONG HE CAN WALK ON WATER)

[Gemini476]

There were actually a fair few monasteries in eastern Europe.
Ah yes, the legendary Boxing Monks of Romania. How could I forget.

If you really want to assume class-as-character then you should probably ban something like 90% of the classes. Because Celtic priests and Viking berserkers and Kung Fu mystics and Wizards and magical woodsmen and a bunch of other classes seem like the fit perfectly in fantasy Transylvania.

Please don't assume that a player's class is anything more than a set of mechanics with optional fluff attached, though. Maybe the guy with the Monk class is just a tavern brawler, or the guy with the Lawful Good Cleric wants to play his character more like you'd expect a Paladin to be. Maybe the guy playing the Summoner is actually playing a poor soul who tries to fight fire with fire by summing infernal spirits to do his bidding, maybe the Barbarian is a civilised guy who just gets really angry and smashes stuff in the pub but quickly tires out. Maybe the Cavalier doesn't actually belong to any knightly order, but is a holy warrior on a Mission from God to get the band together smite evildoers. Maybe the guy with Dragon's blood flowing through his increasingly magical veins is playing a Psion, not a Sorcerer. Maybe the Oracle is just a blind Cleric. Maybe the Viking chief who relishes in one-on-one combat is a Samurai.

Class as character is a horrible concept.

[The Insanity]

There were actually a fair few monasteries in eastern Europe.
Were they Asian monasteries?

[Honest Tiefling]

A refluffed druid could work - do something similar to what WoW did and make them 'harvest witches' or the like. I think Oracle is pretty appropriate. (You may want to cut down on the more obviously magical spells, dumb as that sounds - something like Flamestrike is a bit over-the-top but Cure Light Wounds probably isn't.)

I guess my problem with this refluffing is that wouldn't the peasants try to light the druid/witch on fire? I guess that is also true of the normal Witch, admittedly. I do admit I like the idea of a harvest witch, but I do assume anyone turning into a wolf will get mistaken for a lycanthrope with all attached issues.

Maybe the idea is what concepts to ban? My first vote would be racist 'gypsy' archetypes, because gypsy is a derogatory term and many people make very uncomfortable characters when they refer to it.

[Jigawatts]

Refluffing is a thing. Banning classes for flavor is stupid and unnecessary.
Some people also prefer to use classes in the vein of Gygaxian style literary archetypes, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Our main DM has no firearms in his setting, it just doesn't fit the flavor he wants for his world. Therefore the Gunslinger class is technically banned, no one throws a hissy fit about it.

[(Un)Inspired]

There were actually a fair few monasteries in eastern Europe.

My guess is that very few of them taught crane style though.

[T.G. Oskar]

Why? Why does the Ninja have to be pigeon-holed into a certain flavour of character because the Rogue class exists? Can I not make a bookish Wizard because the Archivist exists? Can I not make a dashing, swashbuckling rapier-wielding Bard because the Swashbuckler exists? Would you shoot down a noble, religious Fighter because you're worried that's "stepping on the toes" of the Paladin?

Since when does Pathfinder has an Archivist class? If it's the 3.5 Archivist, you're talking about an entirely different class with entirely different fluff (if the Archivist had Wizard spells, then...maybe, but it has access to all Divine spells, no familiar and no free bonus feats/specialization; their only similarities are the chassis). Second: if you're referring to the Archivist archetype (the one from the Bard, which certainly isn't the "bookish" type.

Second: you can certainly make a dashing rapier-wielding Bard; the Swashbuckler lacks spells, Bardic Inspiration and whatnot; even in 3.5, the Swashbuckler stepped on the toes of the Rogue, and even then, it managed to distinguish somewhat. Pathfinder made them distinguish even more by making the Swashbuckler a mix of the Fighter and the Gunslinger by making them specialize on a power point pool based on Charisma (rather than the Wisdom-based power point pool of Gunslingers) and an existing set of melee weapons (rather than the new and exotic weapons of the Gunslinger); again, different class (even if 3.5 had Daring Outlaw because the Swashbuckler wasn't

As for a "noble and religious" Fighter; of course I wouldn't step it down. The Paladin has things the Fighter lacks, and viceversa. The Paladin loses those powers if they do something against their Code; the Fighter doesn't (unless you're roleplaying that you also follow a stringent Code, and that you lose your Bravery and Weapon/Armor Masteries if you break them; alternatvely, you chose a Vow and you plan not to break it, using the feats from 3.5's [I]Book of Exalted Deeds) Not to mention you can play a "noble and religious" Ranger (also has spells and "mount"), a "noble and religious" Cavalier (1e's Unearthed Arcana had the Paladin as a sub-class of Cavalier, after all; on PF, though, it's still different as it lacks divine power and instead gains the ability to lead people). You can even play a Cleric and refluff it as a Paladin if you choose a deity with the War domain, and one or two others; it would still miss key things, but it has better spellcasting in the end.

Before I continue, there's one thing I want to point out that makes your comparisons pretty much moot:


A Ninja is just a Rogue with some class features swapped out for different ones, it's more of an archetype than a class, really. there's no reason you can't make a character that would otherwise be a Rogue using the Ninja class just because they don't happen to be from some foreign land. As for how it won't step on the lines of the Rogue, Rogue's get Trapfinding and Evasion at level 2, Ninjas get a ki pool and No Trace. similarly, there are things Cavaliers have that Samurai don't, and there are things Samurai have that Cavaliers don't.

Note that I aimed at the Alternate Classes, which by definition are "like Archetypes, but they change so much they're almost classes of their own", and that have no Archetypes of their own (at least the Ninja doesn't; the Samurai has one or two official archetypes). I would like to point out that the Rogue can choose to have a Ki Pool, and both the Rogue and the Ninja can take tricks/talents of their own. Both the Ninja and the Rogue are stepping on each other's toes, and what makes it different is that they have a few things the other lacks (and even then, stuff like Poison Use is a Rogue Advanced Talent, so it's a matter of when). Thus, in that case (where two classes are purposedly extremely similar to each other), I need something to make them distinguish beyond some class features that one has and the other doesn't, or that one gains earlier than the other. The main distinction, beyond any other, is the Ki Pool (the Rogue can also get it), Poison Use (Rogue Advanced Talents), No Trace (a scaling bonus), Light Step (the ONLY thing a Rogue can't replicate that isn't a bonus like No Trace), the capstone (Hidden Master, a thing the Ninja has it easier to do than a Rogue), and its flavor. As you can see, many of the Ninja's unique things are things the Rogue can get (I probably didn't mention the weaponry, but there are ways to get those as well, and they probably don't fit the setting), and they only lack two that doesn't. In exchange, the Ninja has things the Rogue gets by default or gets through talents (and for Trapfinding, you can get it via a Trait), so its truly MAIN difference is Light Step vs. Trap Sense, the capstones and the flavor. The OP asks what classes not to allow: what are the chances that a player's build depends absolutely on walking through light surfaces, becoming invisible by your own means at 20th level, getting the ability to poison your weapons without risk before 10th level, a set of agricultural weapons and not spend a talent on getting a pool of points, but still spend a talent to get something like Evasion at 10th level? If you choose a "Ninja", you choose it for its flavor, and in this case, the flavor doesn't fit.

The Samurai suffers the same situation, except their unique things differ a lot more than the Cavalier: they lack Teamwork feats and the way to spread them, or improved charges, and instead get Resolve (which IS a non-descript effect, unlike the Ki Pool), a free feat, improvements to a specific weapon (one out of four, all foreign weapons) and Honorable Stand/Last Stand. Unlike the Ninja, few of these things can truly be replaced, but unlike with the Ninja, this could have been an Archetype and the Cavalier wouldn't have lost a thing (look at what it replaces; more things have been replaced by other classes). The Samurai has only ONE archetype the Cavalier lacks; the Samurai can get in the same orders as a Cavalier does, after all (even Ronin! ...Except as a "Knight Errant"). In THIS case, a Samurai could exist on its own, but it begs the question of why not make it as a Cavalier archetype because the changes aren't so much (or at least more than those of a typical archetype).

Now, I don't see them any different from their alternate counterparts, unlike the difference between the Paladin and the Antipaladin, which is a Paladin with its powers inverted towards Evil in order to make it a CE champion: the changes are radical...and while it fits the fluff of the setting, it probably doesn't fit the purpose of the setting (you expect an Antipaladin to be the servant of the Monsters, not one questing against them...and even then, it MAY be viable, but difficult; less "fight against monsters" and more "become their master/replace them with your master"). Their main difference is their intended fluff, and unlike with the Rogue or Cavalier, they are quite different. Note that I also mentioned the Druid, who has powers unique to them and is one of the most powerful classes, and the Summoner, which is also unique (well, until the Spiritualist comes, and the Spiritualist isn't intended to be a Summoner alternate class as far as I can see), and I didn't saw you opposing those on the same ways. Nor with the Oracle, which has troubles mostly with execution.

It may come as a surprise to you, but I'm generally not one to ban classes. In fact, the best answer to my suggestions were given by Honest Tiefling and supported by Psyren: if you feel they don't fit, then inquire the player as to why they want to be one. If it's because they want to play a Ninja, then alert them. If they insist, then allow. However, what the OP asked was ideas on what classes (and races) should be banned, and I complied, even if I generally don't, because the nature of the question wasn't to question the OP's decision. That bit with the Paladin, that's a low blow, but at least I've gone very strictly with the mechanics on why they're different from other classes, particularly the Crusader. That doesn't mean people won't ban Paladins on their tables because they don't work mechanically under the perception of the GM, no matter my argument; however, in this case, I found there was a reason why this had to happen, and I merely gave my suggestions.


And what I'm saying is there are no classes you should ban for fluff reasons, as you shouldn't force your players to play to the stereotypes of their class. Restrict backgrounds, not classes.

Unfortunately, in the case of the Ninja AND the Samurai (and most specifically the Antipaladin), people will play them because of their archetypes, not despite them. Honestly: if the OP mentioned in the first place that the setting would have an "Asian" counterpart (or, alternatively, a foreign counterpart that would allow for Ninjas and Samurai), the point would have been moot. After all: why not refluff Samurai as Mongols, and suggest they are honorable raiders? However, the OP didn't mention there were Mongols on the setting, so the point is still valid; that said, Eastern Europe had to face the advance of Mongols for a long time. Here's a better one: how about refluffing Ninjas as mystic hashasshin? They are historically fitting (the legend of Vlad the Impaler was of a ruthless warlord trying to halt the advance of invaders to his land, but history turned him into a monster), but unless the OP mentions this is valid, such refluffs are not available. Thus, you need to refluff harder, MUCH harder, to justify this, and this is a lot of pressure on the OP's part. Thus, the OP is asking what to ban, and these are the most sensible answers. If a player can find a way to help the OP refluff the class into something that fits the setting, then the OP is completely free to accept...or deny. The OP can simply say "no" to the Paladin, not because of fluff but because of something else (the OP wants its players to experience a dark setting, and the Paladin runs counter to that because it will easily overpower its challenges; in this case, it's a mechanical AND fluff restriction). Or say "no" to Necromancers because, in the OP's setting, they are undoubtedly corrupted into Evil. That's also against the fluff of the setting, but its completely viable.

The reason I mentioned those classes was because the question was "what classes I should/n't allow?", not "what classes I should refluff?" Posters here mentioned (just like you) that refluffing is an option in both sides (refluff existing classes to meet your build or refluff existing classes' fluff to meet the setting).

And, regarding another response: I mentioned the Monk later on as another class that didn't fit. Another poster even mentioned its replacement (the Brawler). Monk, like Druid, is a class whose flavor and abilities can rarely be replaced, but also one of the classes that people choose not because of the flavor, but because of the mechanics (I want to be better at unarmed combat and fighting without armor), and the Brawler fits that. If you can refluff the Monk into the setting, though, then more power to you; see if the GM approves of it.

[Psyren]

My guess is that very few of them taught crane style though.

Wrestling is plenty western though (Greco-Roman) so we could still have grappling monks if not the other kind. You could also have "monks" that are actually tribesmen from the heart of a nearby forest/jungle who have learned things like capoeira, or an obscure fighting school that teaches (kick)boxing.

There are tons and tons of ways to have unarmed combatants without a wutai theme. There's no need to call them "monks" or to call the energy they use "ki."

[T.G. Oskar]

Wrestling is plenty western though (Greco-Roman) so we could still have grappling monks if not the other kind.

That depends. If it's classical Wrestling, sure.

If it's Wrestling, then that's mostly American. Though the idea of an ascetic standing before a monster and saying "I shalt open a spoiled bag of trail rations on thee, and the bottom line that shall be, for Irori says so!" seems mighty fun. Unarmed combat, focus on grapple, and devotion in one nice package.

Boxing monks are also a thing, probably. Say that the Monk is from a monastery where a famous Brawler found faith, and you combine faith with good ol' knuckles. But then again, that's recognizing the Brawler came before the Monk, and in that case...

Hmm...Hungry Ghost Monk with Grappling focus = Deadman? That could be interesting.

[Psyren]

I would have thought explicitly saying "Greco-Roman" meant I was referring to the pre-America kind...

[Jeff the Green]

Boxing monks are also a thing, probably.

Sure. Something like 60% of Irish Catholic priests boxed in their youth and a fair number teach kids boxing to get them off the street.*

*Source: Twenty-odd years of watching TV, which of course is entirely reliable would never stereotype a profession or ethnicity.

[Prince Raven]

Of course, a Monk doesn't have to be a monk, or even religious.

[Thillidan]

Of course, a Monk doesn't have to be a monk, or even religious.

It 100% DOES have to be a monk... Read the description of the class. You cannot logically find a work around for that. And if you can, it won't make sense to most people, or it'll be ridiculous, and most likely make you a Mary Sue.

[torrasque666]

It 100% DOES have to be a monk... Read the description of the class. You cannot logically find a work around for that. And if you can, it won't make sense to most people, or it'll be ridiculous, and most likely make you a Mary Sue.

But don't you know? Refluffing is the answer to all the problems in this thread!

[Anlashok]

No need to get nasty if you don't like refluffing. If being tied to narrowly defined and contrived character archetypes is your thing, more power to you. Doesn't change the fact that a character can only have one interpretation based on what's in the "class" box on their character sheet, because all that denotes is mechanics. If you're a big fan of prepackaged fluff and dislike the idea of someone trying to create their own narrative in an RPG, that's fine, but acting like it's the only way is just silly.

[torrasque666]

Given how generic and nonbinding Pathfinder's fluff is for classes, there shouldn't be a reason to refluff a class, except to cram it into a build it otherwise thematically wouldn't fit into.

[Jigawatts]

If being tied to narrowly defined and contrived character archetypes is your thing, more power to you. Doesn't change the fact that a character can only have one interpretation based on what's in the "class" box on their character sheet, because all that denotes is mechanics. If you're a big fan of prepackaged fluff and dislike the idea of someone trying to create their own narrative in an RPG, that's fine, but acting like it's the only way is just silly.
Player: I want to play this Druid who is like all about technology and stuff, and turns into animals encased in metal like F'in Colossus.
DM: But Druids are all about balance with nature and harmony wi...
Player: STOP KILLING MY FUN YO!

:smallwink:

[Prince Raven]

It 100% DOES have to be a monk... Read the description of the class. You cannot logically find a work around for that. And if you can, it won't make sense to most people, or it'll be ridiculous, and most likely make you a Mary Sue.

"Alignment: Any lawful"

That is the only restriction to being a Monk. The flavour text is, well, flavour text. Obviously there needs to be some sort of reason they're capable of the abilities granted to them by the monk text, but I don't see why you should automatically discard any reason that doesn't include a monastery.


Player: I want to play this Druid who is like all about technology and stuff, and turns into animals encased in metal like F'in Colossus.
DM: But Druids are all about balance with nature and harmony wi...
Player: STOP KILLING MY FUN YO!

:smallwink:

If a) that level of technology exists in the setting, b) that character concept is appropriate for the sort of game I want to run and c) they can find some way to actually pull that off I would allow it. Obviously divine classes are more limited than others because they draw their power from a deity, so you'd need a deity that would grant a druid like that power in the setting.

[Psyren]

Player: I want to play this Druid who is like all about technology and stuff, and turns into animals encased in metal like F'in Colossus.
DM: But Druids are all about balance with nature and harmony wi...
Player: STOP KILLING MY FUN YO!

:smallwink:

This is a pretty blatant strawman - no one is advocating for fluff that (a) would have mechanical implications (turning into a metal animal would likely have effects similar to iron body as well as cause some spells like Chill Metal or Shocking Grasp to work differently on you) and (b) is directly counter to a class' theme (druids are forbidden from even wearing metal, so transforming into it would be right out.)

"Monk" boiled down simply means "spiritually-inclined, unarmed and unarmored combatant." Shaolin may be the most traditionally visible representation of that concept but it is hardly the only one; there are plenty of western martial arts to choose from if you don't want wutai flavor. Capoeira was born in the jungles of South America, created by escaped slaves in Brazil; Savate was invented in Europe by French sailors who needed their hands free to hold onto the rigging at sea; Sambo was created in Russia by travelers to the east who came home and put their own spin on the judo they learned abroad. Any of these would be fine for this campaign. Believing that you need a dedicated "Asian" element in the setting in order to have a character who is focused on turning their body into a weapon is patently ludicrous.

[Zubrowka74]

For those still arguing about the "orientality" of the monk class, please remember there was a slew of monastic fighting orders (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_order_(monastic_society)). The Templars were the first and most widely known. (As a side note I think there is too much overlapping between western mon, cleric, paladins and in PF, warpriest but this is another subject)

If we go back to first ed, the monk class was actually the euro version. There was the asian monk in the OA book.

Also, on the Oracle I think it could really fit the "gypsie" theme. There's also a class called the Harrower, or is it a PrC ? Anyhow, it's specifically from Ustalav.

[Ninjaxenomorph]

The Harrower is a PrC, and it's specifically Varisian, not Ustalavian.

[Zubrowka74]

The Harrower is a PrC, and it's specifically Varisian, not Ustalavian.

I stand corrected!

[Psyren]

A good chunk of the Ustalav population is Varisian however so you could easily be a Harrower from one of their enclaves; similar to Romani gypsies living in Russia and Bulgaria.

[Mjollnir075]

Man, people get really snippy when arguing fluff vs. crunch!

Personally, I don't mind pc's refluffing a bit. I mean, I think there are certain limits to what can be refluffed, (looking at the snarky comment about druids a few posts up..) but for the most part I think of classes as paths to achieve the character that the pc has envisioned. If someone wanted to play as more of a knightly character, but without the holier-than-thou Paladin and more focused than a fighter, I would suggest the Samurai. Call him a Knight, maybe change the weapons they focus on and bam.

As to answer the Op, (seeing as most of the thread got pretty heavily derailed with people taking shots at each other) I would say that most of the classes can be pretty well dropped in without too much work. At most, perhaps limit some of the classes to certain archetypes that better fit? If looking for some cool story/world fluff, you could check out the Innistrad lore from Magic the Gathering. Lots of Angels, Demons, Werewolves and Vampires in there in a totally Transylvanian world. They had characters and creatures from all walks floatin' about in there. For some personal ideas, I might try something like this.

A roving band of travellers (a la fantasy gypsies, but without the stereotype): Oracles, Barbarians, Druids, Shamans, Bards and Rogues could fit in here. They survive on the outskirts of civilizations and as such rely a bit more on the natural/supernatural to get by. They don't necessarily having to be gypsies, tramps and thieves, but perhaps more like.. natures way of fighting back against undead abominations tainting the earth.

A militant church dedicated to destroying evil: Pretty obvious, I know, but whatevs.. Throw in Paladins, Fighters, Clerics, Oracle (perhaps some sort of prophet?), Rangers, Monks (perhaps reflavor KI as some kind of divine insight? If the fighting styles is a big deal, you could just try renaming em. Like Psyren said, there have been plenty of different martial arts out there. Making the class less kung-fu isn't really hard)

An occult order: This is where the arcane classes may fall into. Just make said order small and secluded, and limit their interactions with outside factions. Perhaps their interest in the darker forces are just, or perhaps they simply see adventuring here as a way to find artifacts and beings of great power to increase their own influence.

These are just some ideas off the cuff. Hope some of this helps!

[Jigawatts]

This is a pretty blatant strawman - no one is advocating for fluff that (a) would have mechanical implications (turning into a metal animal would likely have effects similar to iron body as well as cause some spells like Chill Metal or Shocking Grasp to work differently on you) and (b) is directly counter to a class' theme (druids are forbidden from even wearing metal, so transforming into it would be right out.)
Oh, I knew it was a strawman, but it just popped into my head and I felt like sharing. I used the smiley as an indicator of jest. :smallbiggrin:

[Blackhawk748]

Wow this exploded. Firstly i am usually all for refluffing, my lack of Pathfinder Knowledge is what propped this question. Honestly i figured from the get go that the Ninja was out, but i was thinking it would be like the 3.5 Ninja and only slightly Rogue like. Secondly i wasnt sure what casters would really fit in a lower magic setting so i was curious about everyones opinions.

So now that we have sufficiently beaten the crap out of the "Fluff vs Mechanics" argument shall we discuss races? I was thinking the usual suspects with the usual monster races plus maybe a few quirky ones.

[Honest Tiefling]

I assume this is a custom setting? Then might I ask what sort of tone you are going for?

[Blackhawk748]

I assume this is a custom setting? Then might I ask what sort of tone you are going for?

You are correct, for tone im going for is Dark Fantasy, kinda Ravenloft-esque. I just want more races than Ravenloft had as i found it a tad limiting.

[Psyren]

What do you consider to be the "usual monster races?" (or "quirky" for that matter?)

[Barbarian Horde]

Warhulk combined with Hulking Hurler. Separately I don't mind.
artificier if they start trying to cheese up the cost reduction. Unless you want your pcs all to have a 100,000g item for under 15k
Id bann Impure Prince prestige class
bann Dragon Shaman
bann this guyhttp://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yIG0Eexhyd8/SRulwNE-g9I/AAAAAAAAC9M/CGcAtrkITGI/s320/party3.jpg
Really there is to many to list. It's when characters start dipping into prestige classes that it becomes cheese and hard to manage.

[Blackhawk748]

What do you consider to be the "usual monster races?" (or "quirky" for that matter?)

Well the "normal" monster races are Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orcs, Kobolds and maybe Gnolls. I guess im just looking for a few races that wont blow out the semi-Gothic vibe.

[T.G. Oskar]

Well the "normal" monster races are Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orcs, Kobolds and maybe Gnolls. I guess im just looking for a few races that wont blow out the semi-Gothic vibe.

Dhampir, Strix and Tieflings can be used as the "dark and brooding races"; one is part-Vampire, the other is a misanthropic race of flying creatures that serve even worse creatures, and the latter are the children of fiends. They are dead-on for the setting. I'd also say Wayangs, because of their connection to the planes of Shadow.

Races that won't fit...beyond Core, I would say purely aquatic races like the Merfolk, since in most occasions they'll be a liability. That may also extend to the Gillmen, if only because their flavor is less Gothic horror and more pulp horror. Your call about the Elemental races (Ifrit, Oread, Sylph, Undine), although they can represent manifestations of wild, uncontrollable magic.