Class Elements: what are the atomic components of the class system?

[exelsisxax]

So classes have a bunch of features. Usually, they form a small number of major thematic abilities or qualities that define that class, and removing it would make it not the same class in most people's minds, in the same way that a classless d6 dice pool game "wouldn't be D&D".

So if we grind down every class, discard the impurities, and examine the pure and unadulterated components, what do we get?

As an example, the druid has three elements: shapeshifter, major casting, and beastmaster. A fighter has one: armsmastery, as does a barbarian: berzerking.

It is interesting that these three show part of the reason that martials tend to be bad: they don't get to do much, even if their element is a good one(both fighter and barb elements are stronger than each of shapeshifter and beastmaster in my estimation). The number disparity doesn't always follow, in any case.

So let's try to figure out the elemental composition of the classes. What meta-features shine through when you try to group things together? If you want to bring up a 3.5 class that doesn't appear in PF, go ahead - but the reason this is tagged pathfinder is because PF made an attempt of unsucking classes, (i.e. 3.5 fighter has no element) so they probably don't compare well. I'll start with a core class chart and update things as I get convinced that past me was wrong.



Barbarian: berzerker
Bard: expert, minor casting, marshal
Cleric: major casting, divine servant
Druid: shapeshifter, beastmaster, major casting
Fighter: armsmaster
UMonk: chi
Paladin: minor casting, divine servant
Ranger: minor casting, beastmaster, slayer
Rogue: assassin, expert
Sorcerer: bloodline, major casting
Wizard: major casting, bonded

[Ruethgar]

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/rogue-genius-games/adept-godling/archetypes/rogue-genius-games-adept-godling-archetypes/spellhammer

Is something similar to what you are looking for with their Archetype Packages. Perhaps not as succinct as you’re looking for, but certainly a good starting point. The book that introduces them says that they can be interchangeable between classes(as opposed to using the new ones they present in the books), but that doing so should be used with caution and gives a few suggestions if implemented. Such as low casting only on anything with full BaB and only ever one spellcasting package(so no on the double bardic spell progression paladins).

[exelsisxax]

https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/3rd-party-classes/rogue-genius-games/adept-godling/archetypes/rogue-genius-games-adept-godling-archetypes/spellhammer

Is something similar to what you are looking for with their Archetype Packages. Perhaps not as succinct as you’re looking for, but certainly a good starting point. The book that introduces them says that they can be interchangeable between classes(as opposed to using the new ones they present in the books), but that doing so should be used with caution and gives a few suggestions if implemented. Such as low casting only on anything with full BaB and only ever one spellcasting package(so no on the double bardic spell progression paladins).

Yeah, that's a vaguely similar idea. But that is some attempt at making things balanced while offering customization options. I'm looking to figure out and discuss what the units of classes actually are, not making any attempt to balance them. This is like a "let's make a tier list" but talking about class elements and ignoring the more practical aspects like power and playability(looking at you, monk). This is all theory about the game really.

[Rynjin]

This was sort of the basic thing I tried to figure out when tinkering with this (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n8-emDAoVGEBLiNua6W55NOBgsXllcHmTGy9jrVuqVA/edit?usp=sharing) a few years back.

Every class has a primary feature, or features that defines it, and then some supplementary features to bolster those. The Barbarian's primary feature is Rage, obviously, while the Monk's is its entire physical boost package: Flurry, AC bonus, scaling Unarmed damage, and Stunning Fist (or the archetype equivalent; a pseudo-magical limited per day fisticuffs boost).

Spellcasting is less a defining feature and more of an Uber feature; a class is defined by what kind and how much spellcasting it gets more than ANY other feature, at the ultimate extreme with the "primary" features for full casters (Arcane Schools, Bloodlines, Mysteries, etc.) largely defining the class in what it does when it ISN'T spellcasting; these features are largely interchangeable with each other without any real balance tinkering. Changing the Wizard's spell list is a FAR huger change than swapping Arcane School for a Mystery, as an example.

Eventually, these are what I came down to as the features that largely determine a class' identity and party role. A Barbarian without Rage is not really a Barbarian any more. though a Fighter without Weapon training is functionally indistinguishable from an outside sense than one that does.

You could very easily use this as a "tier list" for Defining class features by simply looking at the dichotomy of certain features above: how much does each class change in flavor, effectiveness, or both if the feature is removed or changed. If you replace Weapon Training with Studied Target, power goes up and flavor doesn't change. If you replace it with almost ANY other martial feature, power goes up, and flavor may change or not. So Weapon Training is a lackluster defining feature because it defines NOTHING (and is in fact anti-flavor, opposite of what the Fighter's written fluff makes it out to be).

[exelsisxax]

This was sort of the basic thing I tried to figure out when tinkering with this (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1n8-emDAoVGEBLiNua6W55NOBgsXllcHmTGy9jrVuqVA/edit?usp=sharing) a few years back.

Every class has a primary feature, or features that defines it, and then some supplementary features to bolster those. The Barbarian's primary feature is Rage, obviously, while the Monk's is its entire physical boost package: Flurry, AC bonus, scaling Unarmed damage, and Stunning Fist (or the archetype equivalent; a pseudo-magical limited per day fisticuffs boost).

Spellcasting is less a defining feature and more of an Uber feature; a class is defined by what kind and how much spellcasting it gets more than ANY other feature, at the ultimate extreme with the "primary" features for full casters (Arcane Schools, Bloodlines, Mysteries, etc.) largely defining the class in what it does when it ISN'T spellcasting; these features are largely interchangeable with each other without any real balance tinkering. Changing the Wizard's spell list is a FAR huger change than swapping Arcane School for a Mystery, as an example.

Eventually, these are what I came down to as the features that largely determine a class' identity and party role. A Barbarian without Rage is not really a Barbarian any more. though a Fighter without Weapon training is functionally indistinguishable from an outside sense than one that does.

You could very easily use this as a "tier list" for Defining class features by simply looking at the dichotomy of certain features above: how much does each class change in flavor, effectiveness, or both if the feature is removed or changed. If you replace Weapon Training with Studied Target, power goes up and flavor doesn't change. If you replace it with almost ANY other martial feature, power goes up, and flavor may change or not. So Weapon Training is a lackluster defining feature because it defines NOTHING (and is in fact anti-flavor, opposite of what the Fighter's written fluff makes it out to be).

Yeah, this is also in a similar vein more zoomed in. But still, this is attempting to balance things without regard to real clustering. I want to do clustering without regard to power.

Fighters are about being good at weapons and armor. They don't need either training feature to do that: you can make (ex) versions of judgement, sacred armor, or just an expansion of the custom arms/armor and modification rules to replace them, and the fighter retains its sole identity: armsmaster (as far as that is an actual identity, at least). You are left with nothing(3.5 fighter) only when you rip them out and not replace them.

And this is where you first point is wrong: you can switch the cleric and wizard lists and both classes keep their identities. Mechanically it's a big change, but the functional identities of each class is exactly the same. The lists of each fullcaster are too broad and all-encompassing to be differentiated at the level i'm talking about. The lists do not have an identity. In this way, swapping arcane schools for divine servant is a far larger change: the identity of the class is altered, even if the mechanical functionality might not.

Mystery and school are also different: arcane school is fundamentally bound to casting, while the mystery is mechanically related to it but the identity is fully separate. You can have mystery without casting, you can't have school without casting. That's why I didn't list a separate thing for wizard: arcane school is not an independent element. It's just part of the mechanical features within major casting.

[Rynjin]

I think in terms of spell lists so much of the mechanics is tied into the theming that it's hard to distinguish them. The Cleric spell list does not provide very much "Wizardy" stuff, as far as the classic things. Clerics don't shoot Fireballs and Lightning Bolts; they don't Teleport, or shield themselves with invisible walls of force. The inverse is also true. A Cleric is not a Cleric without the essential healing and condition removal spells the Wizard list does not provide. Swapping the spell lists entirely alters their roles in the world; people would not go on grand quests to find a Cleric to raise their fallen companion any more: they'd look for a Wizard. Because a Wizard with the Cleric list is a Cleric with a different name.

[upho]

Hmm... I think I get what your trying to do here, but I fail to see the purpose/gain of the exercise. I mean, AFAICT this kind of categorization of class features/focus areas/elements will inevitably end up defined by completely arbitrary parameters and will thus also ultimately be at least as misleading as informative, at least when taken beyond perhaps the most broadly sweeping and general (which in turn virtually any moderately experienced player can do - and does - in seconds).

To illustrate what I mean, look at for example what you consider the barb's sole defining feature:
So if we grind down every class, discard the impurities, and examine the pure and unadulterated components, what do we get?

As an example, the druid has three elements: shapeshifter, major casting, and beastmaster. A fighter has one: armsmastery, as does a barbarian: berzerking.And what exactly is "berzerking" in PF? Going by your instructions and trying to weed out the "elemental composition" of the barb, "berzerking" obviously allows for numerous very different things on a conceptual fluff level as well as a purely mechanical one. Merely looking at the various barb's I've seen in actual play, the only components their different kinds of "berzerking" have shared are "grants X bonus to X physical ability scores", "primarily benefits X non-casting combat style" and "limited to X rounds per day". The label "berzerker" doesn't seem to be a more appropriate label of these components than a huge number of other labels, as the class feature/element is simply way too variable to be meaningfully categorized.


It is interesting that these three show part of the reason that martials tend to be bad: they don't get to do much, even if their element is a good one(both fighter and barb elements are stronger than each of shapeshifter and beastmaster in my estimation). The number disparity doesn't always follow, in any case.This touches on the problems I see with this exercise. For example, while you may view both the fighter and barb elements as stronger than each of the druid's shapeshifter and beastmaster features, I fail to see why an opposite view would have to be less objectively correct.

TL/DR: What is the purpose of this categorization?

[Rynjin]

It's a helpful exercise if someone plans to try making their own game, or an extensive houserules document.

If you really want to break down each class into just its singular, core concept(s) you can identify issues with class balancing at a metaconceptual level, and work to fix that.

For example, martial characters have very NARROW concepts, while casters generally have very BROAD concepts.

Fighter: weaponmaster
Barbarian: berserker (in the sense of Viking or Celt near-naked rage beasts). Could also be classed as "reckless fighter".
Monk: wuxia, martial artist

These describe very specific types of characters. Now look at the basic conceptual ideas behind:

Druid: nature (in all its forms; they deal with plants, animals, minerals, and the weather, and have class features that control or manipulate all three)
Cleric: miracles (classic deific interventions in easy to digest spell forms)
Wizard: arcane magic (really, a catch-all for every mage, sorcerer, warlock, or other magic user not defined by any other specific specialty in other media)

Or the partial casters, broader than martials, narrower than full casters:

Bard: dabbler, jack of all trades, with a side of actual Bards (msuical storytellers)
Inquisitor: divinely empowered monster slayer
Alchemist: mad scientist

These evoke specific images, but not SO specific as the completely non-magical classes.

There is little practical value to breaking them down this way beyond absolute top level planning for something important, but you can see the DNA of this kind of thinking in games like Godbound, which allow you to choose multiple of the NARROWER concepts that martials tend to have here (Sword, Speed, Darkness, Deception, Light, Flame, Wind, etc.) and conglomerate them into something akin to the final category (a character with the Words Deception, Light, and Passion can come out very similar to a Bard, for example). Its an interesting exercise for viewing stuff through the lens of basic game design, in other words.

[upho]

It's a helpful exercise if someone plans to try making their own game, or an extensive houserules document.

If you really want to break down each class into just its singular, core concept(s) you can identify issues with class balancing at a metaconceptual level, and work to fix that.Yes? This is precisely what I meant by (with emphasis):
AFAICT this kind of categorization of class features/focus areas/elements will inevitably end up defined by completely arbitrary parameters and will thus also ultimately be at least as misleading as informative, at least when taken beyond perhaps the most broadly sweeping and general (which in turn virtually any moderately experienced player can do - and does - in seconds).And even this very generalized categorization of class concepts - which you've provided a good example of IMO - risk being highly misleading as soon as one assumes their respective widths are equally reflected in the actual features and build variations the related classes allow for.

The conceptual bit is easy, while properly translating those concepts into meaningful, fun and balanced mechanics is hard. IOW, a hypothetical game having exactly the same class concept labels as PF is not in any way also guaranteed to have mechanical balance issues, much less the same such issues as PF.


For example, martial characters have very NARROW concepts, while casters generally have very BROAD concepts.I certainly don't think this is true across the board. More importantly, it appears your definitions of these concepts, as well as the width you expect from their related actual mechanics, are first and foremost dependent on what you've seen in the existing game.

Example:
Fighter: weaponmaster
Barbarian: berserker (in the sense of Viking or Celt near-naked rage beasts). Could also be classed as "reckless fighter".
Monk: wuxia, martial artist

These describe very specific types of characters.I'd say the far most narrow and specific of these class concepts is the barb's "berserker". Yet in PF, the barb class allows for a pretty significantly greater number of mechanically distinct viable character concepts than the fighter or monk classes do.


Now look at the basic conceptual ideas behind:

Druid: nature (in all its forms; they deal with plants, animals, minerals, and the weather, and have class features that control or manipulate all three)
Cleric: miracles (classic deific interventions in easy to digest spell forms)
Wizard: arcane magic (really, a catch-all for every mage, sorcerer, warlock, or other magic user not defined by any other specific specialty in other media)With the exception of the wizard, I think you're taking for granted these concepts are broader than those you defined for the martial classes first and foremost because that's true when looking at the respective existing classes' actual features. A person with no prior knowledge of the PF classes's features would be much less likely to come to the same conclusions just by looking at the above concepts.


Or the partial casters, broader than martials, narrower than full casters:

Bard: dabbler, jack of all trades, with a side of actual Bards (msuical storytellers)
Inquisitor: divinely empowered monster slayer
Alchemist: mad scientist

These evoke specific images, but not SO specific as the completely non-magical classes.I disagree. For example, I don't see what makes "mad scientist" an inherently broader concept than "wuxia, martial artist". In fact I'd say the "wuxia, martial artist" concept is significantly broader than the "mad scientist" one, at least in the broad context of the fantasy genre.


There is little practical value to breaking them down this way beyond absolute top level planning for something important, but you can see the DNA of this kind of thinking in games like Godbound, which allow you to choose multiple of the NARROWER concepts that martials tend to have here (Sword, Speed, Darkness, Deception, Light, Flame, Wind, etc.) and conglomerate them into something akin to the final category (a character with the Words Deception, Light, and Passion can come out very similar to a Bard, for example). Its an interesting exercise for viewing stuff through the lens of basic game design, in other words.Sure, but in order to do this you should start at the other end. That is, you need to first define the concepts, then look at/develop their related features.

As another example, my work currently involves two different fantasy TTRPG systems, and despite many of their player options having similar/same labels and/or mechanics, the connections between a certain name and a certain mechanic is surprisingly rarely the same. Yet I don't think readers feel these connections are particularly weak or surprising in either game, because they tend to make sense in their respective contexts.

[Rynjin]

I disagree. For example, I don't see what makes "mad scientist" an inherently broader concept than "wuxia, martial artist". In fact I'd say the "wuxia, martial artist" concept is significantly broader than the "mad scientist" one, at least in the broad context of the fantasy genre.

Here's a quick breakdown.

Wuxia, Martial Artist: Region locked (Asia), physical feats and light mysticism, focused on combat. The two terms evoke a very specific image, and have very specific definitions. Most characters that fall into the definition are similar in capability. Is Guo Jing significantly different in theme and ability than Nameless, or even Iron Fist for a western wuxia tale? Not really.

Mad Scientist: Could be any kind of science. Chemistry, biology, engineering, computer science. No two mad scientists in media are exactly alike; is Dr. Jekkyl the same as Dr. Wily? Or Frankenstein the same as Bonesaw? No, because the trope encompasses a wide variety of different character archetypes.

[Prime32]

I disagree. For example, I don't see what makes "mad scientist" an inherently broader concept than "wuxia, martial artist". In fact I'd say the "wuxia, martial artist" concept is significantly broader than the "mad scientist" one, at least in the broad context of the fantasy genre.

Including archetypes, Monk's thematic elements include:

Being a tough as nails toughguy who punches through bricks
Being a precise as nails preciseguy who doesn't look strong but can make people die by poking their pressure points
Mastering your own metabolism so that you never get sick or age
Fighting without armour or other expected equipment (either because of religious vows, to look harmless, or because you're an everyman who doesn't have access to it)
Using weird weapons or fighting styles that make you stand out from everyone else
Moving and attacking at high speed
Jumping impossibly high and balancing on narrow surfaces
Being really wise and spiritual and able to notice things others can't
Using your internal energies to fly and shoot fire

Some of these are supported better than others, and different players put emphasis in different places (Brawler is there for players who care mainly about the first item).

[exelsisxax]

Hmm... I think I get what your trying to do here, but I fail to see the purpose/gain of the exercise. I mean, AFAICT this kind of categorization of class features/focus areas/elements will inevitably end up defined by completely arbitrary parameters and will thus also ultimately be at least as misleading as informative, at least when taken beyond perhaps the most broadly sweeping and general (which in turn virtually any moderately experienced player can do - and does - in seconds).

To illustrate what I mean, look at for example what you consider the barb's sole defining feature:And what exactly is "berzerking" in PF? Going by your instructions and trying to weed out the "elemental composition" of the barb, "berzerking" obviously allows for numerous very different things on a conceptual fluff level as well as a purely mechanical one. Merely looking at the various barb's I've seen in actual play, the only components their different kinds of "berzerking" have shared are "grants X bonus to X physical ability scores", "primarily benefits X non-casting combat style" and "limited to X rounds per day". The label "berzerker" doesn't seem to be a more appropriate label of these components than a huge number of other labels, as the class feature/element is simply way too variable to be meaningfully categorized.

This touches on the problems I see with this exercise. For example, while you may view both the fighter and barb elements as stronger than each of the druid's shapeshifter and beastmaster features, I fail to see why an opposite view would have to be less objectively correct.

TL/DR: What is the purpose of this categorization?

This is nearly pointless design analysis on its own. It can feed into other things(two different character building variant rulesets with similar structure were posted above) but it indeed doesn't have much practical application or anything like that. It is super general armchair analysis.

I also can't agree that experienced players can do this. Players experienced in the particular way of forumites, with plenty of information on optimization and interactions in this particular game lineage seem to be able to do this. "normal" experienced players, the ones with years of playing various editions but not having this style of game discussion do not come up with the same ideas I do. The people that think druids needed buffs from 3.5 and that monks are versatile probably aren't going to be bringing up new things, but someone might.

Again, this is a discussion on thematics and particular mechanics are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you change rage to last forever and move the bonuses around - the only relevant thing is that it informs a particular theme. Gaining offense at the cost of defense fits a theme appropriately described as "berserker". Barb features all feed into that theme, interpreted broadly. You could change the label, but you can switch the labels on milk and OJ. We need ones that work, not unique and absolutely precise ones.

[Cosi]

Wuxia, Martial Artist: Region locked (Asia), physical feats and light mysticism, focused on combat. The two terms evoke a very specific image, and have very specific definitions. Most characters that fall into the definition are similar in capability. Is Guo Jing significantly different in theme and ability than Nameless, or even Iron Fist for a western wuxia tale? Not really.

I think the Cradle series is sufficient as a counterexample to this. It postulates an entire world (substantially larger than our own) full of people doing various Wuxia (or broadly Anime) martial arts stuff at power levels that range from "slightly superhuman" to "casually destroy entire worlds".

[Rynjin]

I think the Cradle series is sufficient as a counterexample to this. It postulates an entire world (substantially larger than our own) full of people doing various Wuxia (or broadly Anime) martial arts stuff at power levels that range from "slightly superhuman" to "casually destroy entire worlds".

The issue isn't power levels, but theming. Dragonball could be considered a wuxia tale (though after the timeskip/start of Z it could be considered similar to modern Xiaxia stories), but even then the difference between that basic theme of "martial arts grants power" in Dragonball, Iron Fist, Journey to the West, etc. is a matter of SCALE, not type.

[Cosi]

The issue isn't power levels, but theming. Dragonball could be considered a wuxia tale (though after the timeskip/start of Z it could be considered similar to modern Xiaxia stories), but even then the difference between that basic theme of "martial arts grants power" in Dragonball, Iron Fist, Journey to the West, etc. is a matter of SCALE, not type.

Sure, but within that theme you can have basically arbitrary diversity of ability. Fire powers, water powers, death magic, magic item crafting, minionmancy, teleportation, anything you care to name, all while being recognizably magical martial artists.

[Florian]

Just musing a bit....

AD&D understood four basic classes and variations of them as sub-classes, I´ll expand the list for PF core and base.

Those that fight:
Fighter
- Barbarian
- Cavalier
- Paladin
- Ranger
- Summoner

Those that have skill:
Thief
- Alchemist
- Bard
- Inquisitor
- Monk

Those that do miracles:
Cleric
- Druid
- Oracle

Those that do arcane magic
Wizard.
- Sorcerer
- Witch

[Rynjin]

Sure, but within that theme you can have basically arbitrary diversity of ability. Fire powers, water powers, death magic, magic item crafting, minionmancy, teleportation, anything you care to name, all while being recognizably magical martial artists.

Except none of those fall into the wuxia genre. Even ki blasts push it. The Core Monk as well has none of those abilities. Those are more of a xianxia thing.

[Cosi]

Except none of those fall into the wuxia genre. Even ki blasts push it. The Core Monk as well has none of those abilities. Those are more of a xianxia thing.

I don't think people care that much about the distinction between various genres of Eastern/Eastern-inspired magical martial arts fantasy. I certainly don't.

[Rynjin]

I don't think people care that much about the distinction between various genres of Eastern/Eastern-inspired magical martial arts fantasy. I certainly don't.

*shrugs*

If you use terms without understanding their meaning, don't be surprised if somebody calls you out on it. Especially when you're saying I'm not properly defining my terms.

Wuxia is a very specific thing, with a very specific aesthetic and list of expected capabilities. I chose that designation for Monk for a reason; it is the closest genre to the class capabilities and flavor. It is the primary springboard for everything about the class features, from the features themselves (a martial arts theme, Stunning Fist, High Jump, etc.) to the Lawful alignment restriction (wuxia implies heroics, and requires a code of honor of some kind for a character to qualify) and other trappings of the class, including many of the Feats available primarily to monks only (Wind Step is the best example).

[Cosi]

You seem to have missed the point. I'm saying that the Monk's "magical martial artist" concept is bigger than "Wuxia", and that you're artificially limiting it. I wasn't misusing the term, I was not using it, because it isn't the right term. To say that Monks only represent magical martial artists from Wuxia stories is like saying the Wizards only represent mages from low fantasy stories.

[exelsisxax]

You seem to have missed the point. I'm saying that the Monk's "magical martial artist" concept is bigger than "Wuxia", and that you're artificially limiting it. I wasn't misusing the term, I was not using it, because it isn't the right term. To say that Monks only represent magical martial artists from Wuxia stories is like saying the Wizards only represent mages from low fantasy stories.

He's right about this particular point, though. Monks are wuxia-tier, and although other fiction has magic martial artists of god-tier, d20 monks do not expand to fill those concepts. But yeah, in the end, both ideas are basically the same theme and only different in scale.

[Cosi]

He's right about this particular point, though. Monks are wuxia-tier, and although other fiction has magic martial artists of god-tier, d20 monks do not expand to fill those concepts. But yeah, in the end, both ideas are basically the same theme and only different in scale.

Power level isn't really a part of concept though. Hulk's "get stronger and tougher when you're angry" is recognizably the same "get stronger and tougher when you're angry" as a Barbarian, even though the amount of strong and tough Hulk gets is larger than the amount of strong and tough a Barbarian gets. Xianxia and Wuxia characters are doing the same basic thing, if with admittedly different power levels and genre tropes. It's like saying that Quick Ben from Malazan is a fundamentally different kind of character than Bayaz from the First Law because the former is substantially more powerful than the latter. They're both Wizards. One is simply a higher level Wizard.

[HouseRules]

The difference between WuXia and XianXia is that WuXia must be limited to Extraordinary, but not Supernatural. XianXia could reach Supernatural levels.

[Rynjin]

The difference between WuXia and XianXia is that WuXia must be limited to Extraordinary, but not Supernatural. XianXia could reach Supernatural levels.

Pretty much, sort of. More to the point, a wuxia story can get pretty insanely OP (you could consider Sun Wukong the Ur example of a wuxia character, and he can do **** like hold up the sky, similar to how CuChulainn is probably the inspiration for the Barbarian), but it is almost entirely physical feats. You won't see people throwing fireballs or ki blasts in a wuxia tale; well, not martial artists (since there are sometimes wizards and whatnot in these stories). People might air walk, run on water, or seem to teleport, but it's all internal improvements on normal human movements, which is the basic premise of kung fu as a martial art that makes someone "more than human".

In short it's not power SCALE but power TYPE. Some minor elements crept in over time (with the Qinggong monk), but not much in the grand scheme.

[HouseRules]

Sun Wukong is an example of XianXia!

[Rynjin]

Sun Wukong is an example of XianXia!

Yeah, you're probably right on that. I mostly avoid the genre because most of the stories are so very badly/choppily written. Finding overall info on the overall genre conventions is relatively difficult right now, so I'm mostly going on the few chapters of a manhua I read and the skims I've done of the popular ones on TopWebFiction.

[upho]

Here's a quick breakdown of your quick breakdown of "Wuxia, Martial Artist": :smalltongue:


Region locked (Asia),Obviously not, since Asia doesn't exist in Golarion and also obviously wasn't intended to exist in the kinds of fictive fantasy worlds PF games is designed to take place in. Dwarven monks, Ulfen human monks and Cheliaxan halfling monks are all perfectly fine, and I also think any of these could certainly take on the role of lead protagonist in a wuxia story despite not hailing from a region or culture which stand out as more "Asian". This is simply to point out that many stylistic elements of a concept aren't necessarily applicable at all in this context.

Besides, I believe you could certainly make a wuxia story set in, say, Scandinavia during the viking era, or even a region in a fictive fantasy world without any clearly recognizable RL counterpart.


physical feats and light mysticism, focused on combat.I'll agree here, although I question the term "light mysticism". I'd say "physical feats and combat abilities ranging from the subtly supernatural to the overtly superhuman and fantastic". For example, I think spells like burning hands, greater invisibility, chain lightning, air walk, haste, prismatic orb, dimension door, ironskin, ray of enfeeblement, fly, bull's strength, greater magic weapon or earthquake, just to name a few, wouldn't be out of place in many wuxia stories.

The same goes for virtually all abilities of full bab classes and non-casters in PF, including more supernatural stuff like rage, smite evil, 4th level casting, bloodline powers and intelligent celestial mounts. I don't even think there's anything stopping a clearly wuxia story from including characters with abilities similar to those of Magi (which certain existing wuxia stories arguably also does).


The two terms evoke a very specific image, and have very specific definitions. Most characters that fall into the definition are similar in capability.As Cosi pointed out, I don't think this is true. Or rather, I certainly agree it's true in the sense that many of the defining components of wuxia are indeed narrow and specific, it's just that I believe very few or none of those defining components are applicable in this context. Perhaps most importantly, wuxia is to my knowledge first and foremost narrow in terms what kind of story it is and the type of lead characters it contains (typically "righteous hero of the people learns secret martial arts to fight oppressive tyrant kind of villain").

But AFAIK it's certainly not narrow in terms of what the lead characters are capable of.


Is Guo Jing significantly different in theme and ability than Nameless, or even Iron Fist for a western wuxia tale? Not really.I think there's quite a huge difference between say the items and abilities of the lead characters in Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon and those of the characters in Weapons of the Gods or Dragon Ball Z.


Mad Scientist: Could be any kind of science. Chemistry, biology, engineering, computer science.Except it can't in PF, because it's first and foremost a medieval high fantasy RPG and many of these scientific fields are simply magic. Which means a large chunk of the these concepts and their related scientific fields aren't best portrayed by the abilities of the alchemist, or they simply cannot be portrayed at all.

But I may be wrong here. Perhaps you could explain how the alchemist is ideal for making say a believable hacker in PF?


No two mad scientists in media are exactly alike; is Dr. Jekkyl the same as Dr. Wily? Or Frankenstein the same as Bonesaw? No, because the trope encompasses a wide variety of different character archetypes.I think for example Frankenstein and his monster, Dr Jekyll/Mr Hide, and perhaps Dr Moreau and Bruce Banner/Hulk could all fit the "Mad Scientist" label and also largely work as characters in PF, but I also think they'd either be very similar (Mr Hide/Hulk) or far better portrayed with all or most of their levels in classes other than the alchemist (Dr Moreau/Frankenstein).


Except none of those fall into the wuxia genre. Even ki blasts push it. The Core Monk as well has none of those abilities. Those are more of a xianxia thing.
If you use terms without understanding their meaning, don't be surprised if somebody calls you out on it. Especially when you're saying I'm not properly defining my terms.

Wuxia is a very specific thing, with a very specific aesthetic and list of expected capabilities. I chose that designation for Monk for a reason; it is the closest genre to the class capabilities and flavor. It is the primary springboard for everything about the class features, from the features themselves (a martial arts theme, Stunning Fist, High Jump, etc.) to the Lawful alignment restriction (wuxia implies heroics, and requires a code of honor of some kind for a character to qualify) and other trappings of the class, including many of the Feats available primarily to monks only (Wind Step is the best example).Huh? I think it seems your definition of "Wuxia" is different from the most common and generally accepted one, which at least to me seems closer to what Cosi said when it comes to the potential abilities of characters in wuxia stories. For example, here's what Wikipedia says (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wuxia) on this subject (my emphasis):

"Skills and abilities
The martial arts in wuxia stories are based on wushu techniques and other real life Chinese martial arts. In wuxia tales, however, the mastery of such skills are highly exaggerated to superhuman levels of achievement and prowess.

The following is a list of skills and abilities a typical fighter in a wuxia story possesses:

Martial arts (武功): Fighting techniques in a codified sequence called zhaoshi (招式), which are based on real life Chinese martial arts.
Weapons and objects: Combatants use a wide range of weapons in combat. The most commonly used ones are the dao (broadsword or saber), jian (sword), gun (staff), and qiang (spear). Everyday objects such as abaci, benches, fans, ink brushes, smoking pipes, sewing needles, or various musical instruments, are also used as weapons as well.
Qinggong: A form of real Chinese martial arts.[19] In wuxia fiction, however, its use is exaggerated to the point that characters can circumvent gravity to fly, cover tremendous distances in a single stride, run across surfaces of water, mount trees, and jump over or scale high walls.
Neili (内力; lit "internal force" or "internal strength")/Neigong (內功; literally "internal skill" or "internal function"): The ability to build up and cultivate inner energy known as qi and utilise it for attack and defensive purposes. Characters use this energy to attain skills such as superhuman strength, speed, stamina, durability and healing as well as the ability to project energy beams and elemental forces from their bodies.
Dianxue (點穴; literally "touching acupuncture points"): Characters use various acupuncture techniques to kill, paralyse, immobilise or even manipulate opponents by attacking their acupressure points with their bare hands or weapons. Such techniques can also be used for healing purposes, such as halting excessive bleeding. Real life martial artists do use such techniques to paralyse or stun their opponents, however, their effectiveness is highly exaggerated in wuxia stories.

In wuxia stories, characters attain the above skills and abilities by devoting themselves to years of diligent study and exercise, but can also have such power conferred upon them by a master who transfers his energy to them. The instructions to mastering these skills through training are found in secret manuals known as miji (秘笈). In some stories, specific skills can be learned by spending several years in seclusion with a master or training with a group of fighters."

And for example characters in Weapons of the Gods (both the original comic and the RPG) - which I believe is commonly regarded as a very good example of the genre - can also have abilities both significantly more overtly magical and non-combat focused than the above.

(Also nitpick: AFAIK the reason the monk must be Lawful has nothing to do with the wuxia "xia" code of conduct (which I'd say is closer to that of the pally code but typically more CG in nature), but with the monk's abilities resulting from strict adherence to ancient philosophies and martial disciplines (which non-lawful characters apparently wouldn't cope with):

"These monks (so called since they adhere to ancient philosophies and strict martial disciplines) elevate their bodies to become weapons of war, from battle-minded ascetics to self-taught brawlers. Monks tread the path of discipline, and those with the will to endure that path discover within themselves not what they are, but what they are meant to be."

And nothing stops a PF monk from being LE, but a wuxia hero most definitely cannot be. Likewise, I believe a wuxia hero is more often CG than LG, and a wuxia martial arts villain can definitely be NE or CE.)

[Cosi]

The notion that the differences between Wuxia and Xianxia are meaningful is simply absurd in the context of the differences between other kinds of media that include characters that are obviously the same class.

Hulk and Logen Ninefingers are both clearly Barbarians. Marvel Comics and The First Law seem dramatically more different from each other than Wuxia and Xianxia. Harry Potter and Anasurimbor Khellus are both clearly Wizards. Harry Potter and The Second Apocalypse seem dramatically more different from each other than Wuxia and Xianxia.

I could go on like that, but I assume you get the point. Or even look at Wuxia and Xianxia characters. If you cut things off at the end of the second book, the protagonist of Cradle is basically Iron Fist. There just isn't the difference there that Rynjin wants there to be between the two genres. It's like claiming an irreconcilable difference between Lord of the Rings and Dresden Files that means Gandalf and Harry Dresden can't both be Wizards.

[HouseRules]

The notion that the differences between Wuxia and Xianxia are meaningful is simply absurd in the context of the differences between other kinds of media that include characters that are obviously the same class.

As meaningful (and less absurd) as the difference between SciFi and Fantasy.

[upho]

This is nearly pointless design analysis on its own. It can feed into other things(two different character building variant rulesets with similar structure were posted above) but it indeed doesn't have much practical application or anything like that. It is super general armchair analysis.Fair enough. And I obviously also really like doing pointless super general armchair design analysis, not to mention bickering about the purpose as well as the conclusions... So I'm not complaining! :smallbiggrin:


I also can't agree that experienced players can do this. Players experienced in the particular way of forumites, with plenty of information on optimization and interactions in this particular game lineage seem to be able to do this. "normal" experienced players, the ones with years of playing various editions but not having this style of game discussion do not come up with the same ideas I do. The people that think druids needed buffs from 3.5 and that monks are versatile probably aren't going to be bringing up new things, but someone might.Maybe you're right about this. But my point was more that even the people who are dead wrong when comparing the potential of various player options can still usually put generalized concept labels on the classes, and you and I would most likely also find those labels to be largely correct.

For example, I don't think many players, game design nerd forumites or not, would disagree much with Rynjin's labels:
Fighter: weaponmaster
Barbarian: berserker (in the sense of Viking or Celt near-naked rage beasts). Could also be classed as "reckless fighter".
Monk: wuxia, martial artist
Druid: nature (in all its forms; they deal with plants, animals, minerals, and the weather, and have class features that control or manipulate all three)
Cleric: miracles (classic deific interventions in easy to digest spell forms)
Wizard: arcane magic (really, a catch-all for every mage, sorcerer, warlock, or other magic user not defined by any other specific specialty in other media)
Bard: dabbler, jack of all trades, with a side of actual Bards (msuical storytellers)
Inquisitor: divinely empowered monster slayer
Alchemist: mad scientistBut of course, if people were also asked to describe the actual execution of those concepts, I'd expect a much greater variation and far less insight from the "normal" players than from the forumites.


Again, this is a discussion on thematics and particular mechanics are irrelevant. It doesn't matter if you change rage to last forever and move the bonuses around - the only relevant thing is that it informs a particular theme. Gaining offense at the cost of defense fits a theme appropriately described as "berserker". Barb features all feed into that theme, interpreted broadly. You could change the label, but you can switch the labels on milk and OJ. We need ones that work, not unique and absolutely precise ones.And I'm not disagreeing with this in any way if we're simply doing the kind of super-general superficial labeling I described above. But again, if we expect our labels to provide us with new useful insights or design tools for PF, I believe such labels are highly unlikely to produce them.

That said, I think discussing why and how these general labels are insufficient could be very interesting. Looking at Rynjin's general labels again, as I touched upon in previous posts I both agree with them and simultaneously believe they have a high risk of being grossly misleading. Meaning I think these labels are likely very fitting for the general concepts which guided the original design of the classes, but by themselves they're misleading and/or largely meaningless labels of the actual abilities of the classes as they exist in PF today.

For example, I can imagine anything from super-specific and one-dimensional to very broad and diverse class abilities that would fit the concept "weaponmaster" equally well. I can also imagine anything from super-situational and largely pointless to incredibly flexible and powerful class abilities that would fit the concept "nature" equally well. And as mentioned, I similarly find the actual abilities of the barbarian class are much broader and variable than what the narrow "berserker" concept label conveys. And while I find that label fitting with the concept I'm certain the designers of the 3.0 barb class aimed for, I'd find something along the lines of "supernaturally empowered close combat expert" a much more fitting label for the current PF barb's actual abilities.