How can flavor be a dealbreaker when you can flavor the class however you want?Gunslinger has guns. Magus doesn't seem organic to me.Change "Gunslinger" to "Boltslinger", give him crossbows and exchange a few of his Deeds so they don't deal with the misfire mechanics, and you've actually got a really cool class with no real issues.
I'm surprised Magus doesn't feel "organic" to you; it's probably one of the best blendings of martial and arcane I've seen. About the only piece that feels tacked on and unnecessary is their 10th level Fighter Training. It just feels like they had a hole to fill and took the easy way out.
I love the playstyle, and I love how balanced it is. I just don't like the fluff around it. It doesn't feel like a thing to me - like, who trains these guys? And then... "Magus"? That's the least evocative name this class could have. It's just a word in Latin with no particular connotation.
Again, it's a personal thing. I love how the class plays though.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Considering how I refuse to play those classes now that would make me a munchkin too :P
According to some posters here, yeah.
Apparently, if you see any problem with any class, even it has glaring flaws, you're a munchkin who only cares about DPR (they cleverly ignore the fact that Fighters have nothing but DPR and AC going for them)
Considering how I refuse to play those classes now that would make me a munchkin too :PAccording to some posters here, yeah.
Apparently, if you see any problem with any class, even it has glaring flaws, you're a munchkin who only cares about DPR (they cleverly ignore the fact that Fighters have nothing but DPR and AC going for them)
The thing is. I played each of those classes in order from low to mid levels in separate campaigns. First Treantmonk core-monk, then rogue, then fighter.
The core monk lasted for the length of the campaign. The rogue lasted until 7 as a TWF went away for a bit, came back at 10 as feint rogue, and then left at 12 after a party wipe, replaced by a magus. The fighter went ten levels then retrained completely as an Aegis at level 11.
Sure many other who see the flaws also played the classes, but I just want to point out that this isn't theorycraft. Most of my PF/D&D time has been spent playing these classes and I just can't anymore. The crushing failure of the rogue almost drove me away from this hobby.
Witch: Mandates familiar, though familiars are easily enough ignored to move from "Do not want." to If only...
There is a half-elf witch archetype that trades away the familiar for a bonded item instead.
I refuse to play anything that won't make the DM retreat to the corner to rock and cry. I mean, that's the whole point of the game, isn't it?
Ranger: MADDEST of the MAD classes (Pal's too, but they're funner). CLR is bad with 3 MAD's, but ranger needs 4 if he's gonna be ranged!
Well, nigh everyone needs CON, and yes, Rangers need Dex & STR. Wis, yes, you can't dump, I'd want a 12.
You can dump CHA and Int only needs a 10.
But the same could be said of just about any martial class, except the Paladin, who can't dump CHA, and only needs a 10 in Wis.
Cleric to me has only two - WIS & CHA. (Other than Con, which nearly every class needs).
Design Manager
|
Ranger: MADDEST of the MAD classes (Pal's too, but they're funner). CLR is bad with 3 MAD's, but ranger needs 4 if he's gonna be ranged!Well, nigh everyone needs CON, and yes, Rangers need Dex & STR. Wis, yes, you can't dump, I'd want a 12.
You can dump CHA and Int only needs a 10.
But the same could be said of just about any martial class, except the Paladin, who can't dump CHA, and only needs a 10 in Wis.
Cleric to me has only two - WIS & CHA. (Other than Con, which nearly every class needs).
I always thought Ranger and Paladin were two of the least MAD of the martial classes. Paladin gets heavy armor, swift action self-healing, and adds CHA to saves so he really only needs STR and CHA, and the Ranger's ability to skip prereqs can be really helpful in reducing the important of either STR or DEX to his build.
Cleric is the one that I always think of as MAD because I always want them to have enough STR and CON to wear medium armor and swing a weapon, as well as good CHA and WIS, but I suppose they're really just one of those classes where they can do so much you need to take a deep breath, pick two, and focus on that.
Ranger: MADDEST of the MAD classes (Pal's too, but they're funner). CLR is bad with 3 MAD's, but ranger needs 4 if he's gonna be ranged!Well, nigh everyone needs CON, and yes, Rangers need Dex & STR. Wis, yes, you can't dump, I'd want a 12.
You can dump CHA and Int only needs a 10.
But the same could be said of just about any martial class, except the Paladin, who can't dump CHA, and only needs a 10 in Wis.
Cleric to me has only two - WIS & CHA. (Other than Con, which nearly every class needs).
I always thought Ranger and Paladin were two of the least MAD of the martial classes. Paladin gets heavy armor, swift action self-healing, and adds CHA to saves so he really only needs STR and CHA, and the Ranger's ability to skip prereqs can be really helpful in reducing the important of either STR or DEX to his build.
Cleric is the one that I always think of as MAD because I always want them to have enough STR and CON to wear medium armor and swing a weapon, as well as good CHA and WIS, but I suppose they're really just one of those classes where they can do so much you need to take a deep breath, pick two, and focus on that.
True, but we were talking archer builds, some folks like pally archers, and then they need DEX, and some str.
But yeah, a basic Pally can max out CHA, put a decent # (14? 16? later 18) in STR, and a 12 in CON, not dump others and is good to go. I suppose a 12 DEX and maybe Dodge is good in games where you might face a lot of touch attacks.
Right about clerics, you have casters, channelers and melee. Caster & Channelers are a different cleric than melee.
In find that as soon as the cleric can cast mid- level spells, the caster is best. Leave the melee to the BBn.
|
Design Manager
|
I'm running a gnome archer paladin right now, with a boar mount. Mounted archery is great and can also help relieve some of the MADness since you can reduce the absolute necessity of CON and lower your STR a bit. Paladins make very interesting archers because you really have a lot of flexibility in how you actually array your build.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction? (Yes, I am a creature of the Cold War.)
|
MAD? Mutually Assured Destruction? (Yes, I am a creature of the Cold War.)
Heh. In Pathfinder circles it's usually used for Multiple Ability Dependent. Y'know, classes that need high ratings in multiple stats to be effective, like a Monk, for example.
SAD is the reverse, Single Ability Dependent...like a Wizard, for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Heh. In Pathfinder circles it's usually used for Multiple Ability Dependent. Y'know, classes that need high ratings in multiple stats to be effective, like a Monk, for example.
SAD is the reverse, Single Ability Dependent...like a Wizard, for example.
(Vanilla) Monks make everything confusing, though. They are as MAD as possible, but they're a sad, sad class...
Casts Minor Thread Derailment
So, I was watching some wuxia films yesterday and was thinking about the various martial arts philosophies that were discussed. None of them involved an emphasis on strength, none. Every single master preached the importance of grace and agility, and the art of using these traits to defeat your opponent...I wish the Pathfinder monk had a way to reflect these concepts.
*Ready's anti-flamewar shield* I think Dex to damage might fix a lot of monk issues...not that I've given it any analytic thought, I'm just pipe-dreamin'
Not a fan of Wizards or Sorcerers (or any variation thereof). I'm usually the kind of person that builds a character that can go it alone and make it through without HAVING to rely on my party (this generally comes from having a lot of parties that squabble and bicker and won't help you if you don't give them some of your Cheetos).
Everybody touts that Wizards and Sorcerers are OMG Uber McAwsomesauce, but there are too many variables for them to ever get that way. If your DM plays rules as written (RaW) and doesn't use any splat books (not even sure how many there are now. NO, this is not an invitation to post a list. I also really don't care to know) then the Wizard and Sorcerer, at low levels are screwed. They HAVE to have a party in order to survive. I don't take that chance.
I have played at least one of the other in every incarnation of the game from AD&D to Pathfinder and haven't found them to be very fun to play.
Bards are just useless. Yes, they can theoretically fill any niche in the group, but they don't really seem to be GREAT at any one of them. Like showing up at a Nascar race in an '86 Dodge Aries. Yeah, you can race, and yeah, you might finish, but you sure as hell ain't gonna be any good at it.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Not a fan of Wizards or Sorcerers (or any variation thereof). I'm usually the kind of person that builds a character that can go it alone and make it through without HAVING to rely on my party (this generally comes from having a lot of parties that squabble and bicker and won't help you if you don't give them some of your Cheetos).
Everybody touts that Wizards and Sorcerers are OMG Uber McAwsomesauce, but there are too many variables for them to ever get that way. If your DM plays rules as written (RaW) and doesn't use any splat books (not even sure how many there are now. NO, this is not an invitation to post a list. I also really don't care to know) then the Wizard and Sorcerer, at low levels are screwed. They HAVE to have a party in order to survive. I don't take that chance.
I have played at least one of the other in every incarnation of the game from AD&D to Pathfinder and haven't found them to be very fun to play.
Bards are just useless. Yes, they can theoretically fill any niche in the group, but they don't really seem to be GREAT at any one of them. Like showing up at a Nascar race in an '86 Dodge Aries. Yeah, you can race, and yeah, you might finish, but you sure as hell ain't gonna be any good at it.
That may be your opinion but there is a... staggering amount of misinformation here. For starters Wizards/Sorcerers are both perfectly fine at level 1. A level 1 Fighter may be able to drop a single enemy with a Greatsword, but a Wizard/Sorcerer can drop an entire *encounter* at level 1 with Color Spray. Furthermore the stat differences between level 1 characters are largely negligible.
Bards are the best at skills. They make every other skill class look like a joke. Furthermore, they excel at making everyone else better, which is something that no other class is really as capable of doing at low levels. And they get even better at it as they level up. And that's not even mentioning how powerful they can be offensively if built correctly.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bards are just useless. Yes, they can theoretically fill any niche in the group, but they don't really seem to be GREAT at any one of them. Like showing up at a Nascar race in an '86 Dodge Aries. Yeah, you can race, and yeah, you might finish, but you sure as hell ain't gonna be any good at it.
I don't understand. You say you like classes that can go it alone, but then you don't like the bard.
Not a fan of Wizards or Sorcerers (or any variation thereof). I'm usually the kind of person that builds a character that can go it alone and make it through without HAVING to rely on my party (this generally comes from having a lot of parties that squabble and bicker and won't help you if you don't give them some of your Cheetos).
Everybody touts that Wizards and Sorcerers are OMG Uber McAwsomesauce, but there are too many variables for them to ever get that way. If your DM plays rules as written (RaW) and doesn't use any splat books (not even sure how many there are now. NO, this is not an invitation to post a list. I also really don't care to know) then the Wizard and Sorcerer, at low levels are screwed. They HAVE to have a party in order to survive. I don't take that chance.
I have played at least one of the other in every incarnation of the game from AD&D to Pathfinder and haven't found them to be very fun to play.
Bards are just useless. Yes, they can theoretically fill any niche in the group, but they don't really seem to be GREAT at any one of them. Like showing up at a Nascar race in an '86 Dodge Aries. Yeah, you can race, and yeah, you might finish, but you sure as hell ain't gonna be any good at it.That may be your opinion but there is a... staggering amount of misinformation here. For starters Wizards/Sorcerers are both perfectly fine at level 1. A level 1 Fighter may be able to drop a single enemy with a Greatsword, but a Wizard/Sorcerer can drop an entire *encounter* at level 1 with Color Spray. Furthermore the stat differences between level 1 characters are largely negligible.
Bards are the best at skills. They make every other skill class look like a joke. Furthermore, they excel at making everyone else better, which is something that no other class is really as capable of doing at low levels. And they get even better at it as they level up. And that's not even mentioning how powerful they can be offensively if built correctly.
I'll admit, spell casters such as wizards and sorcerers have their place. Every class does. And yes with the right spells a Wizard or Sorcerer (again, not getting into the splat books, of which I, sadly, see the Advanced Players Guide as being, despite some of it's good points) can drop an entire encounter. But they can't do it endlessly. They run out of spells, it's over. A martial class can continue to fight ENDLESSLY without need to stop to get his spells back. Now, the case could be made that he has to stop and rest, I'll grant you that, but he doesn't suffer a BLARING handicap after her makes 4-5 actions in a 24 hour period. The Wizard, at low level, isn't a constant. The martial classes are. Fighter/Barbarian types can do a host of damage with that Greatsword/Great Axe all day long. They don't have attack slots.
Now, before this roars into a huge debate of this class vs that class (lord knows the internet is full of enough of those) it's about two things. DM preference and player preference. I am certain that you can cite quite a few instances where your Wizard/Sorcerer has been able to hold his own and gained mad powers and levels. It's safe to say anyone can say this about their favorite classes. I think we can all agree on, at the very least, that much.If the DM really likes spellcasters, then he's going to build his games with favorable conditions for said individuals in mind.
To give you a quick and dirty example of how I allow my players to utilize Wizards. 1) I don't make you memorize spells. Anything that your level says you can cast, you can cast. You don't have to prepare them ahead of time and HOPE you picked the right spells. 2) You run out of spells that you can cast for the day, I allow you to cast straight out of your spellbook (though their is a chance of destroying the book in the process), 3) I don't make you have to LEARN your spells. As soon a you level up, the appropriate spell list is in your brain and BOOM you know all of those spells. 4) If a spellcaster wants to get a metamagic feat, I allow them to get 2 without there being a spell slot or spell level tax.
So, as you can see, I'm actually very kind to my casters.
I am, sadly, a victim of DM's that have cut their teeth on AD&D and Second Edition. Most of the DM's that have run games in these particular systems (at least in my experience) have always had the mentality of 'It's the DM's job to kill his party'. This has been the bulk of my gaming experience. Imagine how frustrating that is. I learned early on that to survive a DM like this, you need a tank. Someone that isn't dependent on getting a solid 8 hours of sleep.
If your DM isn't a douche, then yeah, a Wizard or Sorcerer could be a great way to go.
Hell, one of the best Sorcerer builds I've ever seen was a straight up Sorcerer that took two levels in fighter, picking up shield bash, two weapon fighting, weapon focus and double slice. He was devastating after that.
The Bard...I don't know. I mean, in an urban campaign where it's less about the combat and more about the role playing and subterfuge, I can see where you're coming from. His skills are damned impressive (second maybe to the rogue), but the Bardic Knowledge does make up for that. And yes, he does do a lot of buffs for the party, but that depends on how he's played.
If you could get a party where everyone played each class as they were MEANT to be played, then you'd have the most epic party in the world, but sadly, not everyone does. Thus, I have the opinions that I do.
Playing with you, I'd probably think the Bard is epic.
So no argument meant, just clarifying why I feel the way I do.
Opinions vary, and this is mine. Thanks for listening.
A martial class can continue to fight ENDLESSLY without need to stop to get his spells back. Now, the case could be made that he has to stop and rest, I'll grant you that, but he doesn't suffer a BLARING handicap after her makes 4-5 actions in a 24 hour period. The Wizard, at low level, isn't a constant. The martial classes are. Fighter/Barbarian types can do a host of damage with that Greatsword/Great Axe all day long. They don't have attack slots.
A few clarifications to the discussion:
They have HP slots though. And those tend to run out faster for them then Spell slots. In my experience at least. At later levels, sure you have Wands of Cure Light Wounds, but at higher levels, when the casters are out of slots it's time for the party to retire for the day.
Also whether DM likes or dislikes spellcasters is a poor way to consider whether a class is good or not. Nothing beats GM bias, but that's not a good way to judge any class. Honestly, you seem very generous regarding casters, more so then I am and they are extremely effective in my campaigns despite my very strict rulings.
I enjoy most classes to some degree. I've become really taken with full casters now that I've tried (never did back in 3.0). Rangers and rogues were always something I enjoyed (stealthy characters in general appeal to me), even if rogues are difficult to work with.
As for classes I don't really care for...
Fighters - just nothing interesting to me. Lots of feats are nice, but still, they seem rather restricted. I'd rather play a ranger or barbarian as a full martial.
Alchemist - just an odd concept. Mad scientists never appealed to me too much, and their pseudo-casting/extracts confuse me at times.
Gunslinger - not my thing.
Paladin - LG isn't usually my thing. Though I find myself wanting to try out the idea, but usually doing something different with it, like mixing it with monk or gunslinger, or a Paladin of Erastil for the 'nature paladin' feel.
~"Bard" - I actually really like the idea of bards, I just find them difficult to build for some reason. I have an archaelogist that I love playing though, she's just not great in combat, especially without support. In any other situation though, she's pretty useful.
Almost any ACG class - most of them seem like mashups of different class features. I was hoping for more new/unique classes like the magus. The arcanist seems kind of interesting though, and the swashbuckler finally makes a dex-fighter into an pretty effective combatant. Honestly, the swashbuckler is what the fighter should be (with less flourish and more strength-based abilities). The rogue should probably have something more similar to the swashbucklers damage bonus than sneak attack. Investigator might be interesting as well.
Cleric - seems great, but for some reason just doesn't inspire me a whole lot. I prefer inquisitors and oracles.
Speaking of oracles, I love the flavor. Trying to finally build one recently, though, I realized that not a lot of the mysteries/revelations appeal to me as I thought they would. I do like the stone mystery though.
Flavor mainly. Bard for example. The whole I will perform to inspire the group does not work for me. That being said my GM once saddled me with a gnome bard cohort and I played him up to level 18 and he ended up being a lot of fun.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are very few things that turn me away from a class.
1: Does it let me turn the game into single player mode where, with the right build, I am the only one playing and the other players are essentially extras? (Wizard, since it has been argued they can fill any role and do them better.)
2: Did I already play it recently?
3: Does it make sense in the current setting?
4: Does it appear to have so much power in a fight that it can, by itself, end an encounter in a round or two and thus remove all challenge?
5: Is someone else in the group already playing essentially the same thing?
6: Did the group munchkin yammer constantly about how X class sucks to the point where the only way to shut them up is to not play it?
you rock.. though i would add
7: just to annoy those that strongly dislike a class due to inferior mechanic. then do it well,
One of the things that I always liked about Hârnmaster is that magic users are expected to invent their own spells. Sure they know a few spells right out of the starting gate, but after that they're pretty much on their own. So the magic using classes in PF are less interesting to me. Also, in HM, the thing that limits has many spells you can cast is fatigue. Every spell makes you more fatigued. Eventually, you'll pass out. :-)
Second this and it also made each caster unique as well as possessive of their secrets.
Yes indeed! :-)
|
|
I hate racial favored class options. These should be something that anyone from that class can take. The role player in me wants to play a halfling sorcerer because I have more fun playing small races but the roll player wants to play a human, half-elf or half-orc for the extra spells known. This is half a class problem so I think I'm ok saying this here.
Any of following elements will generally turn me off a class:
* Nonsensical or overly limiting Alignment/code restrictions. The cleric restriction is fine, the druid restriction is nonsensical, and the paladin restriction is overly limiting.
* Excessive MAD syndrome. The Monk springs to mind.
* (imo) Uninteresting or bland class mechanics. The fighter is a prime offender.
* Overly specialized, or struggles to contribute when working outside the class niche. Cavaliers, fighters and gunslingers.
* Perhaps an odd one, but a class with generally bad saves. I don't enjoy playing characters that will spend their fights stunned, blind, petrified, charmed etc. I generally look for at two good saves, and/or class features that put a focus on dex/con/wis. I find that rogues are a good example of a class that struggles to keep his saves on par.
Everything above is my personal opinion, feel free to (dis)agree. :)
