But we didn't complain. :-)
Bah, old timers these days, always going on about how they were too lazy to innovate. :)
Heh. If you think my Pathfinder House Rules are bad, you should have seen what I did to AD&D before I was done. I stripped it down to its frame and rebuilt it, from the combat rules to the class system.
Are you sure? I mean, maybe not about those specific things, but I find it hard to believe there was nothing you complained about.
Demi-human level caps, for one.
I never complained about demihuman level caps. I just removed them. Fixed their class restrictions, too-- didn't remove them, but I reassigned them the way I saw fit. Much more flavorful, in my opinion.
Paladin - hate playing one and hate playing with one. Most hate!!
Magus - I resent them because I wish Wizards were good blasters like they were in early editions. But now wizards are bad at direct damage but great at everything else. And along comes the magus and they can fight and blast and look cool and be all emo and crap and cast damage spells when the crit and I hate them because they make me resent my wizards because of what they used to be. Kinda.
Gunslinger - bleh. Get your chocolate out of my peanut butter.
Honorable mention - monks, bards
ninja and samurai. I don't feel like either class is needed at all. Everytime I hear someone talk about wanting to play a ninja all I hear is a buzz that speaks of lame munchkinness.
1: Summoner - I wish this class had never been introduced. It's fun having 2 characters run by a single person. But not really. At all.
2: Magus - Overly complex silly mechanics. Feels like it should be a prestige class (EK) instead of a full class.
3: Paladin - It's not that I dislike the class in general. I'm just sick of the Lawful Good requirement. I don't see why a Paladin couldn't follow good alignment in general and enjoy the other gods who cover those areas.
Honorable mention: Those other classes with alignment restrictions. Monk/Barbarian.
I'm not a fan of the monk or the gunslinger, alchemists are interesting so i don't think they'd be in my least favourite but that kind of depends on flavour. I don't like the summoner, its definately my least favourite class as it just stole all the best wizard spells some at a lower level and got a full customisable but better animal companion, what the hell?
Stop don't liking what I like, guys
I dislike all archetypes and prestige classes. Every time one appears, it's like a reminder to me that the base classes aren't broad enough. It seemed like they were going to get it right with the rogue, when rogue talents were introduced -- but then we got rogue archetypes and PrCs, too, instead of just an expanding list of talents and advanced talents.
|
Hate Samurai, hate Ninja.
Ninja should=Rogue with Japanese flavoring.
Samurai should= Expert/Fighter/Cavalier w/Japanese flavoring.
Don't need flavor built into class. Yes, you could try to avoid it however, once people find out that your gnomish rogue is a 'Ninja' some players start suspending disbelief.
Making them separate classes=pointless mechanics. At most, they should have been archtypes.
Hate Samurai, hate Ninja.
Ninja should=Rogue with Japanese flavoring.
Samurai should= Expert/Fighter/Cavalier w/Japanese flavoring.
Don't need flavor built into class. Yes, you could try to avoid it however, once people find out that your gnomish rogue is a 'Ninja' some players start suspending disbelief.
Making them separate classes=pointless mechanics. At most, they should have been archtypes.
To be fair the rogue needed a re-do and the ninja is that re-do, sure i am of those that don't like the eastern flavor that came with it but the fact remains that the rogue needed a re-do and the ninja is a pretty good one.
To be fair the rogue needed a re-do and the ninja is that re-do, sure i am of those that don't like the eastern flavor that came with it but the fact remains that the rogue needed a re-do and the ninja is a pretty good one.Hate Samurai, hate Ninja.
Ninja should=Rogue with Japanese flavoring.
Samurai should= Expert/Fighter/Cavalier w/Japanese flavoring.
Don't need flavor built into class. Yes, you could try to avoid it however, once people find out that your gnomish rogue is a 'Ninja' some players start suspending disbelief.
Making them separate classes=pointless mechanics. At most, they should have been archtypes.
To be fair the ninja is a rogue archetype that took all the cool rogue talents because ya know it had to be better because it was a ninja and all.
As a counterpoint to this thread, let's talk about which classes you just don't care for.
1: Gunslinger. It upsets a setting, which is upsetting.
2: Rogues. They're such a great concept, but their specialties just don't belong in most games! They're also sidelined, mechanically, into being almost an NPC class. It hurts.
3: Oracle. Over and over again, I think they're cool, then one glance at the class write up and can't bring myself to get into it at all. Can't put my finger on why it seems so ... disappointing.
4: Ninja. It should have been a Rogue archetype, instead of the Rogue's younger, better brother, who everyone loves more, causing the Rogue to go cry in a corner and die of humiliation.
5: Samurai. Again... helllooooo we have plenty of similar warrior classes to archetype here... stop reinventing the wheel already.
|
|
To be fair the rogue needed a re-do and the ninja is that re-do, sure i am of those that don't like the eastern flavor that came with it but the fact remains that the rogue needed a re-do and the ninja is a pretty good one.Hate Samurai, hate Ninja.
Ninja should=Rogue with Japanese flavoring.
Samurai should= Expert/Fighter/Cavalier w/Japanese flavoring.
Don't need flavor built into class. Yes, you could try to avoid it however, once people find out that your gnomish rogue is a 'Ninja' some players start suspending disbelief.
Making them separate classes=pointless mechanics. At most, they should have been archtypes.
Here, is my underlying arguement. I agree rogue needed help. Caviler needed help for that matter. However,Caviler could have been a fighter so it goes on the list of classes that shouldn't have been made.
I still wish they had come up with a different solution for rogue.
To be fair the rogue needed a re-do and the ninja is that re-do, sure i am of those that don't like the eastern flavor that came with it but the fact remains that the rogue needed a re-do and the ninja is a pretty good one.Hate Samurai, hate Ninja.
Ninja should=Rogue with Japanese flavoring.
Samurai should= Expert/Fighter/Cavalier w/Japanese flavoring.
Don't need flavor built into class. Yes, you could try to avoid it however, once people find out that your gnomish rogue is a 'Ninja' some players start suspending disbelief.
Making them separate classes=pointless mechanics. At most, they should have been archtypes.
Here, is my underlying arguement. I agree rogue needed help. Caviler needed help for that matter. However,Caviler could have been a fighter so it goes on the list of classes that shouldn't have been made.
I still wish they had come up with a different solution for rogue.
Being an OOTS fan myself i know what you mean but by introducing the re-do or the help or how you want to call it in a new book in a new-ish form means more sales which means more money, i can understand that and accept it since the quality seems good.
By the way i thought that the cavalier was ok after the beast rider archetype, was i wrong?
Not a fan of the Summoner, or Inquistitor or anything in Ultimate Combat, but if I had to create a top ten list, it would be full completely with Paladins and the over-zealous players that continually play them.
The class fighter makes me angry. It seems to have no flavor when it comes to other classes. I fight because I like to fight and that's why I fight. I fight things pick up loot and then fight bigger things.
I dislike every class that is in any way connected with that ridiculous thing called "Europe". Really, how am I to take seriously some idiot in plate armor? Who's swinging some barbaric piece of metal only incidentally called "a sword"? European swords were a a pale shade of what glory Japanese smiths could bring forth with their katanas. It doesn't fit with my anime-inspired vision of fantasy at all, and I would really prefer for all those "western" elements to be excised forever. Sadly, there are far too many folks out there who are hung up on their outdated "sword and sorcery" ideas, or even worse, that Tolkien guy. Sheesh. Bring on my guns and katanas!
Have you seen the nothingness a katana can do to any decent type of armor, and I'm talking about REAL armor, not bamboo strung together.
I guess you also didn't know a katana will snap if it parries even a couple of decent blows or if it is used to even try to break something like chainmail.Katana just can't stand up to the durability nor the striking power of western weapons, I mean sure it can sever unarmored limbs but so can the broadsword, except the broadsword can be used against armor and survive.
#1 Gunslinger - I just find that they don't really belong in the game looking like they do, instead of being a wild western themed vagrant they should've been a slow firing but extremely deadly napoleonic sharpshooter.
whoops, forgot to post the others
#2 Alchemist - I just find it kind of boring and a bit weak at times
#3 anything that explicitly states the word Katana - I just always hear about people claiming the katana to be so amazing yet it was used only for single blow honour duels and not much actual combat.
|
#1- Rogues. There's always one in just about every group I play, and they're always there to just gloat over how many D6's of sneak attack damage they do and steal anything that isn't nailed down, blissfully ignoring the fact that they only get that sneak attack damage once every ten rounds if they're lucky because they refused to move out of stealth and flank.
#2- Paladins. They're not the only class with a code of conduct, but they are the only class whose code of conduct applies to the entire group, and the only one whose code of conduct the GM is likely to enforce. When was the last time you saw a monk lose his monk powers for failing to be lawful? Plus, the class reinforces its own stereotype. Occasionally you'll find someone willing to attempt to play a paladin who isn't a hardass self-righteous zealot, only to have the rest of the group raise an eyebrow and ask why they're not losing their paladin powers for it.
#3- Alchemists. For as long as there's been D+D, there's been the wizard or sorceror who roleplayed as a pyromaniac and threw fireballs around indiscriminately, unconcerned about catching their comrades in the radius. Alchemists seem designed to not only pull that stunt off at Level 1 when your fellow PCs are still weak enough to die from it, but to outright murder any party member who attempts to engage in melee. At least wizards and sorcerors redeemed themselves as a class by having plenty of other tricks besides "magical grenade in close combat". Alchemists have it as their primary tactic.
I hate any class that somebody plays at my table & thinks that it is untouchable. So really, I hate cocky munchkin players. I have classes that I am not allowing in my games, but I have no problems with people playing just about any class. I should say so lang as it is chosen for roleplaying reasons than for some misguided thought that I won't lay the smackdown on them if I so decide.
I hate any class that somebody plays at my table & thinks that it is untouchable. So really, I hate cocky munchkin players. I have classes that I am not allowing in my games, but I have no problems with people playing just about any class. I should say so lang as it is chosen for roleplaying reasons than for some misguided thought that I won't lay the smackdown on them if I so decide.
Just curious. If you're confident you can control any class why do you disallow certain ones in your games?
|
|
By the way i thought that the cavalier was ok after the beast rider archetype, was i wrong?
This is one I wish there were more options at first level. I want pig, llama, dinosaur, whatever riding cavilers that ride the same thing levels 1 on. Basically, the list of options should be as long as the list for familiars. Either that, or keep it a horse riding fighter.
This is one I wish there were more options at first level. I want pig, llama, dinosaur, whatever riding cavilers that ride the same thing levels 1 on. Basically, the list of options should be as long as the list for familiars. Either that, or keep it a horse riding fighter.
By the way i thought that the cavalier was ok after the beast rider archetype, was i wrong?
Ok i can see that problem, but the archetype looks good over the course of a few levels right?
I hate any class that somebody plays at my table & thinks that it is untouchable. So really, I hate cocky munchkin players. I have classes that I am not allowing in my games, but I have no problems with people playing just about any class. I should say so lang as it is chosen for roleplaying reasons than for some misguided thought that I won't lay the smackdown on them if I so decide.Just curious. If you're confident you can control any class why do you disallow certain ones in your games?
Most of what I don't allow changes from one campaign to another. It has to do with the flavor of the setting. I like Gunslingers just fine, but in my present campaign they are not allowed for the PCs. There are no firearms in the world. We are playing in Eberron. I don't allow the Alchemist for much the same reason, but mainly because I am saying that Eberron has taken a different approach to alchemy, as a PrC for the Artificer. I am invading Eberron from Spelljammer, so those classes will come in as being used by the invaders.
When I get a munckin player, which at present I do not have, I tend to piss them off when I don't allow the muchkinism. I don't allow willy nilly multiclassing. If you want to multiclass, have it part of character development. Hang out with the party wizard if you want to take a level as wizard next level. Don't make 5th level THEN tell me your taking a level of Bard when there aren't in Bards in the party & you haven't met any bards on the adventure, or even claimed to have any musical talent in your past.
Also, I tend to limit classes based on cultural lines. If you come up with a really good background reason to start as a halfling Paladin from the Talenta Plains, I can accept that. Otherwise, Paladins are unheard of there. Most Oracles are Halfling, Valenar Elf, Orc/Half-Orc, and Hobgoblin (very few).Cavaliers are mainly from the Five Kingdoms. Ninjas are mainly Elves from the Mark of Shadow. Inquisitors are from Thrane.
Wizard!
I think that wizards and sorcerers should have gotten together prior to the release of the book and created a merger.
And also; every time I try to play a wizard/witch I am completely destroyed by a sorcerer/spontaneous caster. Every. Time. Granted, I know many people will tell me that I'm just not that good at utilizing the advantages of being a wizard, but I don't think this is the case as the wizard and the witch are the two classes I have had these problems with.
1. The New Hybrid Classes: Alchemist, Inquisitor, Summoner, Magus. It's my belief that core classes shouldn't be hybridized. Leave that for multi-classing and prestige classes imo.
2. Bards as written: They should have performance based abilities (like master pieces) and whatnot rather then just being another hybrid caster class.
3. Paladins: They just always seemed like they should be a prestige class to me. The whole LG only thing for a base class doesn't make sense either. If you're going to have Pallies then why bot also have champions of CG ideals?
4. Monks: Cavaliers can be redone as knights of different cultures. Druids can be called Shamans for non-european based settings. Monks while alright seem too specifically east asian to me. Sure you can say other cultures have martial artists but as written everything is of an east asian flavor.
|
|
When I get a munckin player, which at present I do not have, I tend to piss them off when I don't allow the muchkinism. I don't allow willy nilly multiclassing. If you want to multiclass, have it part of character development. Hang out with the party wizard if you want to take a level as wizard next level. Don't make 5th level THEN tell me your taking a level of Bard when there aren't in Bards in the party & you haven't met any bards on the adventure, or even claimed to have any musical talent in your past.Also, I tend to limit classes based on cultural lines. If you come up with a really good background reason to start as a halfling Paladin from the Talenta Plains, I can accept that. Otherwise, Paladins are unheard of there. Most Oracles are Halfling, Valenar Elf, Orc/Half-Orc, and Hobgoblin (very few).Cavaliers are mainly from the Five Kingdoms. Ninjas are mainly Elves from the Mark of Shadow. Inquisitors are from Thrane.
*opens mouth*
*closes mouth*
Y'know, it doesn't matter. I hope your games are fun every time.
|
|
Antimagic fields suppress magic, they don't dispel it.
An invisible barrier surrounds you and moves with you. The space within this barrier is impervious to most magical effects, including spells, spell-like abilities, and supernatural abilities. Likewise, it prevents the functioning of any magic items or spells within its confines.
An antimagic field suppresses any spell or magical effect used within, brought into, or cast into the area, but does not dispel it. Time spent within an antimagic field counts against the suppressed spell's duration.
Since a prepared spell's duration has not started, it cannot end.
The spell system acts like Vancian casting.The 3.x magic system is as Vancian as Taco Bell is Mexican.
ROFLMAO
|
|
Once again: hating the wizard because he forgets spells after he casts them is nonsensical because wizards do not forget spells, as they never memorized them in the first place. In this, the game is far more Amber than Dying Earth.
There's nothing nonsensical about hating the wizard's spellcasting system. Hatred is a subjective emotional response that we can't always control or give a reason for, much less a good reason. And arguing against the reason a person gives is flawed isn't going to make that hatred go away, especially if you call it "nonsensical"
And the entire "memorization vs. preparation" debate seems to me to be pedantry that misses the whole point of the discussion. Does it really matter how the fluff describes the casting? It's obvious that people who hate that the wizard "forgets" spells aren't complaining about the fluff, they're complaining about the seemingly arbitrary restriction on what a wizard can cast in a given day. Wizards learn spells from spellbooks. The rules require wizards to carry their spellbooks with them if they want to cast spells. These are the same spellbooks into which they've copied EVERY spell that they "know". If they've got the book right there with them and they still have spells per day left of the appropriate spell level, why can't they cast any spell of that level that's in their book?
I too have come to hate dealing with this system of spellcasting. I've never read Vance or Amber (and my experience with D+D leads me to believe I wouldn't like them much) and I don't really care what the in-game explanation is for why wizards (and clerics, druids, etc.) have to pick a specific subset of their spell list each day and restrict themselved to it. I just know that I don't want to play a character that has to do that.
The 3.x magic system is as Vancian as Taco Bell is Mexican.
No No No TOZ tell me it isn't true tell me its mexican LIE TO ME.
|
|
Ok i can see that problem, but the archetype looks good over the course of a few levels right?This is one I wish there were more options at first level. I want pig, llama, dinosaur, whatever riding cavilers that ride the same thing levels 1 on. Basically, the list of options should be as long as the list for familiars. Either that, or keep it a horse riding fighter.
By the way i thought that the cavalier was ok after the beast rider archetype, was i wrong?
yes
1. Cleric-just don't like them or want to play them, if I'm playing divine Druid or Oracle will do.
2. Barbarian-let someone else fly off the handle, it's just not my style.
3. Cavalier-just no real appeal to me here. If I wanted to do something similar, I'd play a Fighter or Paladin.