Zhayne |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Generally, yes, though I also tend to avoid overpowered classes as well. I might dip a couple levels of monk or fighter, but they each have classes that do their schtick but better.
The benefit of an overpowered class, though, is that you can hold back until you actually need to go crazy; you can't take an underpowered class and abruptly stop sucking.
Deadmanwalking |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally? I've played Fighters briefly a couple of times, and more Rogues than any other single Pathfinder class. I even did pretty well as a Rogue, since I'm pretty good at optimization when I put my mind to it.
But honestly, especially by the time I played the second relatively long-term Rogue, there were so many better, more fun, ways to do more or less the exact same character as a different class that I felt like I was playing with a handicap, and not the fun kind that makes things more challenging in a cool or interesting way, the painful kind where you feel like accomplishing anything is just harder and more frustrating than it needs to be.
Which would be why I strongly feel that playing such classes is a bad call barring Lore Wardens, Ninjas, or extensive House Rules. And even Lore Wardens and Ninjas are really only ideal for specific niches. So...I don't generally do that any more.
Oh, and for the record, my list of such classes is real short (Fighter, Rogue, non-Archetype Monk...the third I've never even considered playing having seen someone else do it, with good rolled stats, and suck anyway).
Riuken |
Yes, because it doesn't matter how "underpowered" or "overpowered" the class may or may not be. All that matters is that you're playing a character you enjoy without detracting from the fun of the GM or other players. If the character I want to play fits best as a rogue, I don't care what else I could play that's better. I don't care if another class has all the same benefits and then more if I simply don't want the "more" the other class offers. It's a matter of vision and intent.
EDIT: yes to your title, since your post and your title are asking opposite questions.
Pan |
I do play them though I tend to multi-class the crap out of underpowered classes. The underpowered classes seem to synergize well with other classes as dips. Its been ages though since I went single class with a rogue or fighter.
With all the supplement additions and options its not a huge pain point for me that underpowered classes exist. It would be nice if they didnt for the folks who are bothered by it. Though, I am certainly not begging for a new edition.
Donald Robinson RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 32 |
Chemlak |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Since my non-optimised fighter regularly out-damages the party's non-optimised wizard and non-optimised paladin, with the non-optimised rogue having an absolute blast and our non-optimised bard buffing us all nicely, and we all completely outshine the cleric cohort, I'd say that I do.
Lemmy |
7 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue, Cavalier, Fighter and vanilla Monk? Barring house-rules, No. I don't. I did in the past, on multiple occasions... But not anymore. Never again. I just don't see the point.
I don't give a damn about the "official" fluff of each class. I role play whatever character concept I want with whatever class I want. I don't need "Rogue" written on my character sheet to play a sniveling scoundrel, just like I don't need the word "Fighter" to role play an armored warrior.
While I don't usually try to build and play the most powerful character ever, I won't take an obviously limited and ineffective choice just because its name happens to match a description of what I want my character to be, even though its mechanics fail to deliver.
Fergie |
I generally play in a group with three players and the GM, and we use Adventure Paths and occasional Paizo modules with very little alteration. Due to the small party size every character is expected to contribute significantly in most situations, especially combat.
I find that a fighter works very well (great AC, damage output, and nice bits like armor training). Rogues on the other hand don't do well due to lack of defense, and difficulty getting flanks in such a small group (even with a flank, damage output is meh).
I tend to enjoy designing characters in a slightly different way then the class intended. Greataxe wielding bard, archery cleric, tower shield barbarian, etc.
We also have an unofficial agreement to not focus on action-denial/Save-or-Suck builds. Even if a character is playing a full caster, they don't spam color spray or blindness all the time.
Artanthos |
3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much as title says.
Every now and then we see someone showing how class X is rubbish (rogues for example)and how other classes outpace them later on. But does this stop you guys from playing these classes which are considered to be under-powered?
No.
Every character I play, regardless of class, is as powerful as I choose to make it.
As a corollary statement: no class I play is overpowered unless I choose to make it so.
Zhayne |
6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Rogue, Cavalier, Fighter and vanilla Monk? Barring house-rules, No. I don't. I did in the past, on multiple occasions... But not anymore. Never again. I just don't see the point.
I don't give a damn about the "official" fluff of each class. I role play whatever character concept I want with whatever class I want. I don't need "Rogue" written on my character sheet to play a sniveling scoundrel, just like I don't need the word "Fighter" to role play an armored warrior.
While I don't usually try to build and play the most powerful character ever, I won't take an obviously limited and ineffective choice just because its name happens to match a description of what I want my character to be, even though its mechanics fail to deliver.
This. So much this. Infinite this.
Class is not concept, concept is not class.
Raymond Lambert |
There was a time in 3.0 that Psychic warriors were considered weak buy I still enjoyed it very much. For a lo.g time though, that class had moved up to tier 3, do not the dame thing amore.
I can agree to play one, two, maybe even more levels of fighter, but only as a multiclass. Even then, it would mot be long before deadicating more to the casting class.
I would love to play the psychic rogue, a full class intemed for the 3.5 expanded Psionics handbook, but left on the cutting room floor. You can find it for free in wizards 3.5 archive of web enhancements. But I am incredibly unlikely to play a rogue again.
Kjeldor |
I have played some classes that were considered "under-powered" as most of the time being powerful is not the point of my groups games. That said I did play a monk and built him to specifically be the most powerful character in a campaign, taking advantage of rules that people in my group don't know or care about to understand. That was lots of fun...
swoosh |
Rogue is one of my favorite classes and on more than a few occasions I've played monk and cavalier. I play fighter and gunslinger on and off too.
They can be a lot of fun. Have to be careful because it's so easy to just find another class to do it twice as good and it's very easy to be "cheesy" with something like a rogue in an attempt to make it effective and my experience seems to indicate that people hate cheese more than power. Even if that cheese doesn't do anything impressive.
Gingerbreadman |
I played a monk/fighter at the start of Carrion Crown. It was not fun.
Neo2151 |
I'm in the, "Fighter, Rogue, core-Monk" camp, and I can honestly say that I've totally given up on Rogue and core-Monk.
But I have a weak spot in my heart for Fighters.
Not because they're good; they're not.
Not because I particularly enjoy what the class does; I don't.
But simply because this game is SUPER-loaded with a ton of feats that are absolute trash, but required to get to the feats I do want, and Fighter is simply the easiest way to perfectly build the "feat build" that I want to play.
If they'd redesign feats and thresh the wheat from the chaff? I'd give up on Fighters entirely too.
Artanthos |
I play fighters and rogues as needed, but honestly have never seen a cavalier or monk in any of my games.
In fact, my group wonders why the cavalier was even made.
I've seen halfling and gnome cavaliers labeled as horribly overpowered, one-shotting nearly everything they hit.
I am currently playing a monk in one of my games, with no issues.
Dragonchess Player |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Pretty much as title says.
Every now and then we see someone showing how class X is rubbish (rogues for example)and how other classes outpace them later on. But does this stop you guys from playing these classes which are considered to be under-powered?
Yes, I'll play "under-powered" classes if it fits the character concept. Frankly, player skill and how well the character is developed to suit the campaign/specific scenario has more to do how "powerful" the character is than what class they are. Also, how often a character can meaningfully contribute has a lot to do with certain perceptions; many of the people who blather on about "under-powered" classes tend to pigeon-hole them into being "one-trick-ponies" because they focus on doing only one thing with them. However, there are usually options available where "under-powered" classes can consistently contribute, even if they aren't always "the star" of a given encounter.
That said, classes do have level ranges where they have an easier time shining relative to other classes. Once you get past 9th/10th level or so, 9-level casters ("Tier 1" classes) start to take over the game. However, depending on the party and the campaign, either this may not be much of an issue (due to the campaign ending around that time; PFS, for example, stops at 12th level) or the party emphasizes teamwork more (where the "most efficient" solution is often to buff the non-casters and send them against the BBEG, while the casters take out the minions to clear the way).
EvilPaladin |
Personally I've never felt like I was useless, not contributing, or not having fun playing these Underpowered classes[which I have played on more than one occasion]. Heck, I'm not sure I can recall ever not having fun in a game before[really, if you don't have fun, why play?]. But I have seen my character be weaker then others at the table, and that I could have changed my class and been more effective while fulfilling the same concept. Never enough to regret the class I chose, nor enough to consider retraining though.
MagusJanus |
1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Personally I've never felt like I was useless, not contributing, or not having fun playing these Underpowered classes[which I have played on more than one occasion]. Heck, I'm not sure I can recall ever not having fun in a game before[really, if you don't have fun, why play?]. But I have seen my character be weaker then others at the table, and that I could have changed my class and been more effective while fulfilling the same concept. Never enough to regret the class I chose, nor enough to consider retraining though.
The people I typically see having the least amount of fun are the people who "demonstrate system mastery," to use the lingo on here. In other words, the powergamers. Mainly because my group does a lot of noncombat roleplay.