To veer away from the usual discussions of how powerful a class is, let's have a discussion on how what classes you think have the best (and worst) design. This has to do with how the class performs in an adventure, his advantages and disadvantages, the abilities of the class, how effectively the class performs what it's supposed to and so on. I'm going to divide my list into four tiers, but you don't have to
restrict yourself to those by any means. I'll start things off.
Tier 1 - Great design
The bard, the paladin, the ranger, the sorcerer and the witch
I love these classes. They're thematically strong yet very customizable. They have abilities that allow them to shine in at least one area, perform well in others and are most often able to at contribute at least somewhat. They do have their downsides, such as the ranger in social situations, the paladin's lack of skills or the bard's lack of pure combat ability, but those can be mitigated by good thinking and teamwork. They do what exactly what you'd expect them to.
Can you really ask for more?
Tier 2 - Good design
The Alchemist, the druid, the inquisitor, the oracle, the rogue and the wizard. (and the Magus!)
These classes are great. They all have their specific niches and can be customized in various ways, and are for the most part, thematically strong. Their downsides from a design point of view, however, are a bit bigger than those of the tier 1 classes. It's very hard to challenge an optimized wizard as the GM without resorting to unfair measures or punishing the rest of the party as well. The rogue can be a bit too
dependent on the rest of the party, moreso than other classes. I'm very opposed to the alchemist's bombs being on a limited daily usage when you can expect him to use them as often as he does, and so on. Despite this, a good player can make great use of these classes and more often than not they'll deliver exactly what you want them to.
Tier 3 - Average design
The barbarian, the cavalier and the fighter.
Interestingly enough, these are all martial classes with full base attack! Anyways, these classes are very strong thematically and have ties to a great deal of characters from history and pop culture. However, whereas they might sometimes work out, their flaws are almost as hefty as their benefits. The fighter has a steep learning curve; you will have to wade through a ton of feats and analyze which ones will give you any benefit at all, and if you make a few mistakes you'll end up with a disappointing character. The uses of a fighter outside of combat have also a very popular discussion, and I'm not sure we should go into that right now. The barbarian and cavalier have problems at their higher levels. Whereas other classes have new and exciting class abilities to look forward to, the barbarian and cavalier will mostly see their old abilities scaling as you'd expect them to keep up with the rest of the classes. The barbarian is also a bit too dependent on its rage ability, while the cavalier has a few too many abilities that are situational bonuses. In addition, they'll spend a lot of their time doing full attacks which aren't especially exciting when compared to some of the cool stuff the other classes get. Despite their shortcomings, a skilled player can make good use of these classes and even though unskilled players might create subpar characters, they will rarely be unplayable.
Tier 4 - Poor design
The monk and the summoner.
I'd like to begin by saying I'm happy here are only two classes in this section when pathfinder offers so many to choose from. Well, where to start? The monk is horribly dependent on multible attributes, his abilities are counter-inituative (a very mobile character that depends on full-round actions) and there is little customization to be had. I have two main problems with the summoner: It's a class that utilizes point buy abilities in a system where no other class does, which I feel is extremely clunky and allows for serious powergaming. The other one is the sheer power of the class. While the eidolon alone might not seem too gamebreaking (that's putting it lightly), one can't forget the summoner himself which can cast spells without taking up actions from the eidolon and can even be a formidable warrior on his own. He also has access to some of the best arcane spells, and can even get some of them earlier than the master of the arcane arts; the wizard! Top that off with the ability to summon countless times a day as a standard action if you happen to lose your eidolon, and you've got a class that I pretty much hate.
And those are my two cents. What's your take on the class designs in Pathfinder?
*dons asbestos suit*
I think you make some excellent points. For my own part, I think that Pathfinder addressed several older problems in simple, elegant ways which are often overlooked.
As far as fighters function outside of combat, they're definitely no rogue, but I've always favored the skill monkey, and between armor mastery and the new way cross-classing works, it's at least a class I'd consider playing now.
I also think that they've changed a lot of the martial-oriented feats to give them amore "activated" feel, so that the martial characters aren't simply spending every round making four attack rolls then waiting for their turn to come round again. In any case, these characters definitely have better feat support in Paizo.
I hear a lot about the summoner being OPed, but I haven't had a chance to see one in action yet. My games tend be kind of RP heavy (and usually set in Golarian). In such a game, would some flavor restrictions/stigmas help to balance out their apparent power? I've been thinking about adding a "non-good" alignment restriction to the Summoner and saying that they're all devil-binders from Cheliax. In such a case, they'd be extremely mistrusted outside that nation.
What about having them make an opposed charisma check to control theiri eidelon in combat? On a failed check, it does nothing (like pokemon!). Fail by 5 or more and it will attempt to attack the caster or their allies until they can re-establish control - which simply takes another check the following round.
The chief turnoff of the monk to me has always been that it's a somewhat "selfish" class. They're a warrior like a fighter or barbarian but without the staying power. They get a few skills along the lines of a rogue or a ranger, but they don't find and disable traps or read the field. Just about every spellcaster has buffs he can offer the part or other spells to generally make things easier. The monk just seems to kind of do their own thing.
To veer away from the usual discussions of how powerful a class is, let's have a discussion on how what classes you think have the best (and worst) design.And this is going to be different than any other class tier/power debate thread how???? You may be using different terms but you're still starting the same kind of tired pointless debates.
I started this thread because I'm interested to see what different people look for in a class.
the oodball thing is that the monk (ans an example of your "bad" design) has been "MAD" since first edition. I've seen people play damm effective monks in every incarnation of D+D since they first came out. If you can't make a monk work effectively, don't feel bad. They've been called an "advanced" class since day one. Which meant that more effort needs to be taken to make them work.
This is not a design flaw... this is a class that's working as intended. Paizo has continued the flavor and intent of the monk class in a manner that's very faithful to it's core design concept. They're not going to be making any changes so if you want to rework these classes you should be taking this to the HomeBrew section.
I'd appreciate if you dropped the indirect insults. I never said I had a problem with creating a monk. My point was that even with a lot of work and knowledge of the class, the monk has little payoff. That's not advanced, that's sloppy.
And since Paizo has already released the rules and won't be changing them, we can't discuss them? Please.
It IS weird how the monk is a "selfish" class. When I think of a monk, I picture a holy dude who is charitable and self-sacrificing, but the opposite is true for the monk class.
I guess they're good at getting into a flanking position....
I'm not saying the don't contribute to a combat. They just don't have any abilities that mesh with the rest of a party, which is a little dissapointing in a game oriented towards cooperative play.
I know that for my own part, most of my monk players are newer guys who look over the classes, spot the monk, and think to themselves "This guy can do everything."
I'm not making accusations against anyone who plays monks, by any means. I happen to think the class is pretty nifty. The monk's mechanics simply don't have too much team play built into them.
I completely agree with your assessment that Monk is a "selfish" class:I'm not saying the don't contribute to a combat. They just don't have any abilities that mesh with the rest of a party, which is a little disappointing in a game oriented towards cooperative play.
I know that for my own part, most of my monk players are newer guys who look over the classes, spot the monk, and think to themselves "This guy can do everything."
- They offer none of the healing, buffing, control, or utility that an arcane or divine caster does.
- They require more of those exact kinds of support than other fighting classes.
- They offer no noncombat benefits to the party like charisma skills, traps & locks, or crafting.
- When they do have any noncombat abilities, they're stealth and/or perception, which frequently steps on the rogues toes.
I too have frequently seen them as a first character for new players. (In fact, in the game I'm currently playing the only person who has never played D&D has a monk. And, in the last long-term campaign I played, the only person who had never played D&D also had a monk.) I think this is especially unfortunate for a class that is both difficult to build well and difficult to play well compared to other fighting classes.
*dons asbestos suit*
I don't know how I missed this thread, but since I am here I will watch the flames. I am glad I am already covered in fire. <begins to read the thread>
Stunning Fist + Deadly Stroke or Stunning Fist + Dastardly Finish don't scream selfish, IMHO :)
I think that almost every class can be played in a more selfish or in a more teamwork oriented way.
I guess there are selfish BUILDS, not selfish classes.
Stunning Fist + Deadly Stroke or Stunning Fist + Dastardly Finish don't scream selfish, IMHO :)
I think that almost every class can be played in a more selfish or in a more teamwork oriented way.
I guess there are selfish BUILDS, not selfish classes.
There you go bringing up new stuff. ;)
Stunning Fist + Deadly Stroke or Stunning Fist + Dastardly Finish don't scream selfish, IMHO :)
I think that almost every class can be played in a more selfish or in a more teamwork oriented way.
I guess there are selfish BUILDS, not selfish classes.
+1
This is an interesting post to determine effectively what classes are more complicated than they are worth. In that, i would say that some people prefer their classes complicated with many options so that the class can feel as customized as possible. In regards of complications i agree with your post. In terms of power or enjoyment i would definitely disagree.
Also, i think many people view monk as a selfish class because they are generally designed to be loners (mechanically) they are good at running faster than the people with horses, curing themselves, occasionally making themselves better and hitting things (however not being able to take a hit back as a fighter or barbarian would). Of course there are exceptions but the complications come with the fact that they don't fill a typical niche.
The chief turnoff of the monk to me has always been that it's a somewhat "selfish" class. They're a warrior like a fighter or barbarian but without the staying power. They get a few skills along the lines of a rogue or a ranger, but they don't find and disable traps or read the field. Just about every spellcaster has buffs he can offer the part or other spells to generally make things easier. The monk just seems to kind of do their own thing.
Strange, the monk in my group has the best perception followed only by the rogue. He spots ambushes first, and sometimes traps first. ( rogue is marginally better on traps ) And I admit, I never really compared the monk with a spell caster. But really, I guess I need to hear your interpretation of selfish. That seems more like a personality quirk than a class feature.
Greg.
The chief turnoff of the monk to me has always been that it's a somewhat "selfish" class. They're a warrior like a fighter or barbarian but without the staying power. They get a few skills along the lines of a rogue or a ranger, but they don't find and disable traps or read the field. Just about every spellcaster has buffs he can offer the part or other spells to generally make things easier. The monk just seems to kind of do their own thing.Strange, the monk in my group has the best perception followed only by the rogue. He spots ambushes first, and sometimes traps first. ( rogue is marginally better on traps ) And I admit, I never really compared the monk with a spell caster. But really, I guess I need to hear your interpretation of selfish. That seems more like a personality quirk than a class feature.
Greg.
The base class(before APG) really does nothing that another class can't do or do better for the party. I think that is why it is looked at that way. The monk has high saves, and can get a high AC, but that does not help anyone else. It normally has a high perception, but many people will point to class X and say "well why not take that class".
The base class(before APG) really does nothing that another class can't do or do better for the party. I think that is why it is looked at that way. The monk has high saves, and can get a high AC, but that does not help anyone else. It normally has a high perception, but many people will point to class X and say "well why not take that class".The chief turnoff of the monk to me has always been that it's a somewhat "selfish" class. They're a warrior like a fighter or barbarian but without the staying power. They get a few skills along the lines of a rogue or a ranger, but they don't find and disable traps or read the field. Just about every spellcaster has buffs he can offer the part or other spells to generally make things easier. The monk just seems to kind of do their own thing.Strange, the monk in my group has the best perception followed only by the rogue. He spots ambushes first, and sometimes traps first. ( rogue is marginally better on traps ) And I admit, I never really compared the monk with a spell caster. But really, I guess I need to hear your interpretation of selfish. That seems more like a personality quirk than a class feature.
Greg.
Oh, okay. So it is not best option for a team build. I can see that. Currently my group consists of Barb,rogue,monk,pally, and wizzie. The barb felt really guilty because he was the last to make a character, he felt he was supposed to make a cleric, druid, or bard since we were low on divine casters ( yes, I know bard isnt divine but is back up arcane and can use cure wands) He however had been talking about how much fun it would be to play a barbarian halfling that had been a gladiator. I told him play what makes him happy. The game is about playing for fun. If he isn't having fun...then why would he stay. So I do not worry about team builds. Sometimes the worst team makes for the best RP stories.
But I can understand the meaning of "selfish" now.
Greg
Barbarian – Great concept, mediocre execution. I’d prefer a version that does not limit the amount of time spent raging, and instead offered a tradeoff between being rage-on or rage-off modes. Also, adding a few movement-related bonus feats would round them out nicely as the mobility fighter.
Bard - A very well-conceived and designed class that suffers a little from not being a specialist. It's frequently pasted with the epithet "best 5th party member" for good reason. The alternate class features from the APG helped significantly by allowing a little more specialization toward either melee or spellcasting.
Cleric – Good concept, good execution. Taking away heavy armor was a bold move by Pathfinder, and a good one. Spontaneous casting saves the cleric from strict adherence to Vancian magic.
Druid – Solid concept, solid execution. With the changes Pathfinder instituted, I’ve got nothing but good things to say about the druid. Like the cleric, the druid is much aided by spontaneous casting.
Fighter – Necessary and sufficient. The Pathfinder updates (Weapon Training, Armor Training) are excellent. While the fighter is in danger of being too generic, a wide variety of options allows each fighter build some uniqueness.
Monk – Monk is a good concept, but has always suffered from relying on rules that are just a little too different from the game standard (no armor, multiple attributes, etc.). Monk is very attractive to new players, yet difficult to build and play effectively.
Paladin – Classic concept, good execution. Giving the paladin abilities beyond just fighting, but requiring one additional attribute (Charisma) keeps the combat focus solid enough to be effective. The addition of cavalier and inquisitor steps on the paladin’s role somewhat, but I think that’s a good thing, because the new classes have lighter alignment requirements.
Ranger – Like the paladin, the ranger is a solid fighting class with a dash of other abilities. No complaints.
Rogue – Excellent concept, good execution, a touch weak on combat abilities. Since the rogue has significant non-combat abilities, a small lack in combat is not a major problem. I like the customization added by the addition of Rogue Talents. I’d like to see some of the combat talents improved. For example, Bleeding Critical stacks, why doesn’t Bleeding Attack?
Sorcerer – Great concept, mediocre execution. Bloodlines are an outstanding addition, although giving bonus spells known with a level delay is an unnecessary frustration. By removing the stutter between acquiring 2nd and 3rd level spells that makes them lag behind all the other full-casting classes and making a slight tweak to item creation rules, they could pretty much replace the Wizard.
Wizard – Great concept, poor execution. School specialization abilities were a great addition. The wizard is a great idea, saddled by an outdated system. Unfortunately, that outdated system is so baked into the bones of D&D it would be very difficult to change. In the meantime, wizard is extremely skill intensive (not a bad thing!) blessed with near infinite options, cursed with near infinite bookkeeping.
Alchemist – Good concept, needs development. The alchemist splits it’s powers between melee, spells, bombs, and poison, diversifying a bit too much to be fully effective at any single strategy. I’d love to see alternate class feature sets and/or prestige classes focusing on each, because I think that would really bring alchemist into it’s own.
Cavalier – Good concept, good execution. I’m happy that there’s a focused mounted warrior in the game, and full-level druid animal companion is a great way to do it. Unfortunately, it still suffers from the problem of being able to bring a mount everywhere.
Inquisitor – Excellent concept and execution. I was very happy to see the this addition to the game.
Oracle – An excellent parallel to the cleric, and an excellent addition to the game.
Summoner – Good concept, poor execution. The addition of a dedicated pet class was a good idea, but pet classes are notoriously difficult to balance. The eidolon is a little too flexible on some ways, too strong at some levels and too weak in others. Summoner is the only new class that I feel needs a rewrite rather than just a tweak or a few extra options.
Witch – Although very similar to with wizard, I feel that hexes make enough difference to warrant a separate class.
It's funny, I always thought of the monk very much as a "team player". Specifically a lawful team player. Monks can do great things, but they generally need a little help and planning to make it happen. I don't buy the idea that monks are bad because "they can't move and flurry, and that's like all they can ever do" stuff.
I find Barbarian to be the "selfish" class because by design, they take a ton of damage, and have no way to self heal. (Note this is less true in Pathfinder, then 3.5) If you are playing with cure light wounds wands for sale at every checkout counter, this isn't a problem, but otherwise the cleric becomes the barbarians heal-boy. I would prefer that barbarians had DR instead of getting HP from a temp Con boost.