If there was one class you'd wish Paizo to drop from PFS legality, which one would it be and why?


Pathfinder Society

51 to 100 of 453 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
TetsujinOni wrote:
I would wish to remove the class of players who call for the removal of character classes from PFS.

Given enough time, and enough terrible table experiences, this class of players will eventually leave the campaign. I would imagine your issue will likely solve itself, Oni!

-Matt

5/5

andreww wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
I'd remove multiclassing.
Why do you hate martial characters?

**searches post**

Didn't see that statement. Thanks for making that leap.

Shadow Lodge 2/5

Andrew Christian wrote:
I'd cut the Witch.

Likely my fault... The Extra Hex feat should be banned.

Silver Crusade 4/5

Mattastrophic wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:
I would wish to remove the class of players who call for the removal of character classes from PFS.

Given enough time, and enough terrible table experiences, this class of players will eventually leave the campaign. I would imagine your issue will likely solve itself, Oni!

-Matt

You are dead-on correct my friend! I've heard "rumors" of other gaming systems imploding due to issues of table/gaming mechanics that killed the experience for all. Let's hope this doesn't happen with PFS.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
TetsujinOni wrote:
Looking at the repetitive posts decrying the non-open races, or non-open archetypes, and wondering why we would ever contemplate adding non-open Paizo base/core classes.... No.

Well, luckily no one in this thread so far has any power to enforce their whims.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

I would say Summoner because the Eidolon rules are poorly written and because all of the additional creatures they add to the encounter slows down play. A summoning Druid with an animal companion isn't really that different except for the fact that you can make viable Druids that don't do this and still be effective.

I deliberately am not making this decision based on power level. You can make an over powered character with ANY class so removing classes that do this more easily than others wouldn't stop the problem.

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber

I love the class, but the most disruptive class that I've seen played is Druid. The pounce-kitty companion has wrecked games.

Summoners could undoubtedly be worse, but I haven't seen one built well enough yet for that to have happened.

Silver Crusade 5/5 5/5 **

1 person marked this as a favorite.
pH unbalanced wrote:

I love the class, but the most disruptive class that I've seen played is Druid. The pounce-kitty companion has wrecked games.

Summoners could undoubtedly be worse, but I haven't seen one built well enough yet for that to have happened.

The worst pet classes in my experience are Sylvan Sorcerers and, of course, Summoners. Not denying that my druid was VERY powerful when I pulled out the stops, mind (the druid was a crazy cat lady so most of the time the lion did literally nothing :-)).

As long as doubled barreled guns remain, my vote is for gunslinger. Just eliminating them would greatly reduce gunslingers efficacy

Shadow Lodge 1/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
TetsujinOni wrote:
Looking at the repetitive posts decrying the non-open races, or non-open archetypes, and wondering why we would ever contemplate adding non-open Paizo base/core classes.... No.
Well, luckily no one in this thread so far has any power to enforce their whims.

And truthfully, I don't think anyone realistically believes any class would be banned. I see this as a thought exercise more than anything, and something that is meant friendly.

I say this as the biggest summoner lover you can find, one who would be passionately arguing for the class if this were really serious (and would argue for more summoner npcs since I just thought of it).

5/5 *****

Kyle Baird wrote:
andreww wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
I'd remove multiclassing.
Why do you hate martial characters?

**searches post**

Didn't see that statement. Thanks for making that leap.

OK, I was being a little bit hyperbolic but really, the removal of multi classing mostly impacts on non full spellcasters as spellcasters have the greatest incentive to stay in class. Given the disparity between, say, a well played straight druid and a well played fighter/rogue/barbarian I am not seeing the benefit in removing multiclassing.

Grand Lodge

I probably wouldn't ban any class. Some options in an individual class may be slightly overpowering, but the classes themselves are fine. Some are stronger than others, but none is broken as a class alone in my opinion. The option I would take out first would probably be Persistent Spell from personal experience. Dazing Spell might be more powerful, but comes online late in the game. Even early, Persistent enchantments are super powerful. It doesn't matter how much hp/ac/defensive abilities something has, if you have a viable save or suck, they have a very high chance of dying.

Double-Barreled guns are also probably a bit strong, although I feel some here are discounting how often misfires happen. 1-4 is a lot of possible misfires.

Augment and Surperior Summoning are also very strong.

5/5 *****

Hmm, if I wanted to ban something then the Staff of the Master Necromancer would probably be up there. It probably doesn't come on line until the late game, a little earlier if you use Arcane Bond, but the ability to freely add persistent/dazing/quicken spell to your highest level spells is incredibly powerful. It is better than any metamagic rod you might pick up at the price it has.

In a home game it isn't so much an issue as you bit the recharge issue. In a PFS game though it starts each scenario at maximum charges giving you full use of it in every adventure.


Haven't seen the ACG classes at all, so can't comment on that. Of the current (non-playtest) ones, Gunslinger, for thematic reasons (no killing dragons with guns in my fantasy game, thank you). Or Summoner, for cluttering up combat reasons.

The former I actually do ban in my home games.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Probably the Gunslinger, though more because firearms themselves are such a mess than for problems actually inherent to the class. I've seen a new player get so frustrated because his gun kept blowing up that he decided the whole game was just stupid and stalked away. A player at another table ran a dwarven gunslinger using a Glove of Storing to TWF with a pair of double-barreled pistols with no misfire chance and absolutely destroyed encounters, Leeroying his way through and never suffering any consequences himself thanks to his high AC and great saves.

A class or subsystem that's so bad it drives off new players isn't a good thing to have around. A class or subsystem that's so good it ruins the game for the other players also isn't a good thing to have around. The fact that the Gunslinger encompasses both would be the primary reason I'd pick it as the class that I would drop from PFS legality if I had to drop one. (In home games we toss misfires and touch mechanics out the window along with the Pistolero and Musket Master, add those archetypes' deeds as options that can be selected at appropriate levels, and the class works great).

5/5 *****

Kurthnaga wrote:
I probably wouldn't ban any class. Some options in an individual class may be slightly overpowering, but the classes themselves are fine. Some are stronger than others, but none is broken as a class alone in my opinion. The option I would take out first would probably be Persistent Spell from personal experience. Dazing Spell might be more powerful, but comes online late in the game. Even early, Persistent enchantments are super powerful. It doesn't matter how much hp/ac/defensive abilities something has, if you have a viable save or suck, they have a very high chance of dying.

Personally I rate persistent spell as basically the best metamagic feat in the game nowadays, especially for PFS where quicken will see little use. There are so many different save or suck spells which target each save that it really isn't difficult to make the right choice and take that 30% chance to save down to 9%. It is just incredibly potent when applied to anything from colour spray, glitterdust or suggestion (all will) to create pit or aqueous orb (reflex) to ear piercing scream or blindness (fort).

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd remove Summoners.

In all the PFS tables I've been at, the class has been the most responsible for the "unhappy face" worn by fellow PCs when they are sitting next to a summoner with a souped up eidolon, especially at low levels.

No other class has created as many player-to-player questions about "how" or "where" when you can almost see other players trying to work to limit the summoner and his eidolon's capability, despite being part of the same player team. You know there's a problem with the class when other players are auditing a summoner player about having legal materials present at the table.

It's also partly at low level play, they slow down the in initiative cycle around the table, meaning all the other players get less of a share of time. This happens with druids with multi-attack companions as well. I think it would be less of an issue if everyone picked animal companions with a single basic attack (i.e. just a bite or a single claw).

To be fair, this problem extends to clerics of certain domains and sylvan sorcerers as well. The animal companions seem even more guilty of show-stealing (again at 1-5 play) when there's a bard or inspiring cleric archetype present.

So in talking this aloud - maybe a revision on the rules of eidolons and animal companions in PFS, limiting which animals/evolutions can be taken.

Sovereign Court 5/5

personally from exp in my region id toss the alchemist. thier bombs get to powerful, add in discoveries that say u hit even if u miss, u exclude all allies from ur attacks, u can splash up to 10 feet away. the list goes on, so id either limit the discoveries/feats or drop the class.

on a side note id rewrite combat maneuvers so that they do not count as a melee attack. that will limit alot of monk cheese

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

3 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I just think that some tweaking should be done by the designers to "fix" a few of the glaring issues with a few of the classes, but that would require a not-insignificant amount of time investment with little return as it would not lead to increased book sales, just FAQ/errata.

In my experience, the most "hated" classes are alchemists, gunslingers, summoners, and witches. All have what abilities that break fundamental game rules and therefore lend them to OP builds. Originally, the designers developed rules that seemed necessary to maintain the balance of the system, only to later develop classes that specifically broke those rules. That makes it extremely difficult to produce ancillary content that is "fair" for core classes, without being manipulated by "advanced" classes.

Other classes like paladin receive some hate, but that is more due to the way players interpret/implement the alignment rules and less to do with the class rules.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ***

andreww wrote:
Personally I rate persistent spell as basically the best metamagic feat in the game

It would seem to be an excellent way to finally get that phantasmal killer to work a bit more often.

Scarab Sages

Summoners, just because the eidolon rules are poorly done. It's way too easy to make a mistake, and they are much more powerful than a Durid's Animal Companion.

Dark Archive 2/5

Fighter. They get too many feats, making them overpowered.

Note: I'm playing two different characters which are multiclassed fighters. One a bard, the other an inquisitor. ;)

1/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

maybe the gm can just hand players pre-made characters to play. seems the easiest way to solve the "my gaming style is the best and anything else isnt fun" problem.

to me it seems half the complaining against overpowered is actually against experienced players. in my area ive seen vanilla core classes rip through a scenario. heaven help the gm if the players actually work as a team. every class can shine, even the rogue, if the player is half way good.

as a player and a gm, i dont see half the OP problems that the forums complain about. maybe the gamers in my area are just better at character building than players else where. either way, what people complain about doesnt seem that bad to me. sure some games a character or two can own everything, but other games they might have trouble. rejoice in the good decisions your players make and laugh at their follies, you dont have to tpk to enjoy gming.

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
andreww wrote:
spellcasters have the greatest incentive to stay in class.

Fix the root cause and close that gap between early and late play for both types of classes.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I am less interested in seeing any options banned than I am in seeing problem mechanics revisited by the developers. So far Mark is doing a pretty good job addressing those. How about next we admit double-barrel firearms were a mistake and do something about that?

5/5 *****

Kyle Baird wrote:
andreww wrote:
spellcasters have the greatest incentive to stay in class.
Fix the root cause and close that gap between early and late play for both types of classes.

Sure but that is going to take far more than tinkering around the edges. Unchained *might* help but not much short of a new edition which throws off the 3.x backwards compatibility mantra is going to really achieve it.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Lormyr wrote:
I am less interested in seeing any options banned than I am in seeing problem mechanics revisited by the developers. So far Mark is doing a pretty good job addressing those. How about next we admit double-barrel firearms were a mistake and do something about that?

Firearms in general just need to be completely reworked. It's funny because you hear about the Gunslinger being OP/broken/what-have-you all the time, but the reality is that if he used crossbows instead of firearms, he'd be a great class. You could keep almost all of his abilities with very minor changes and no one would bat an eye. They'd just say "Cool, a Fighter alternate class that makes crossbows awesome!"

So to amend my earlier statement, there isn't really a class I'd want to see banned, just a poorly designed subsystem that one class is unfortunately chained to.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

andreww wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:
andreww wrote:
spellcasters have the greatest incentive to stay in class.
Fix the root cause and close that gap between early and late play for both types of classes.
Sure but that is going to take far more than tinkering around the edges. Unchained *might* help but not much short of a new edition which throws off the 3.x backwards compatibility mantra is going to really achieve it.

I'm very curious about how much from Unchained will actually be made PFS legal. Since it seems like some of the things they're doing are going to be straight up buffs to core classes, my initial thought was "none", but.... It'll be interesting to see what tack they take with this. I could see them avoiding allowing Unchained to avoid confusion at the table about which Rogue or Monk a player is actually using, but I could also see them allowing it as a way to continue to draw in new or returning players.

Lantern Lodge 3/5

Ssalarn wrote:

Firearms in general just need to be completely reworked. It's funny because you hear about the Gunslinger being OP/broken/what-have-you all the time, but the reality is that if he used crossbows instead of firearms, he'd be a great class. You could keep almost all of his abilities with very minor changes and no one would bat an eye. They'd just say "Cool, a Fighter alternate class that makes crossbows awesome!"

So to amend my earlier statement, there isn't really a class I'd want to see banned, just a poorly designed subsystem that one class is unfortunately chained to.

While I too am not a fan of the touch AC aspect of them, I could shrug and move on if it was 6 attacks per round vs. 12 per round (on average). Up Close and Deadly with Signature Deed also needs addressed.


Belafon wrote:

Mystic Theurge. (Well, MT with spell-like early entry, at least.)

Honestly it's more certain items I'd like to remove than classes.

True, the SLA early-entry is something that really made me question things. We should ban the aasimar and tiefling.

Oh! Well, then, good on you, PFS.

Shadow Lodge

Ssalarn wrote:
Firearms in general just need to be completely reworked.

I'd say it's just double-barreled firearms that needs to be reworked; doubling the number of attacks per round you can make is extremely powerful, and the -4 penalty to hit is pretty weak, considering they (usually) target touch AC with a bonus on par with people who don't. Not even the (significantly) higher misfire chance makes up for that.

In my opinion, double-barreled firearms should have operated like Rapid Shot, at best; -2 on attack in exchange for ONE additional attack.

5/5 *****

Wrong John Silver wrote:
Belafon wrote:

Mystic Theurge. (Well, MT with spell-like early entry, at least.)

Honestly it's more certain items I'd like to remove than classes.

True, the SLA early-entry is something that really made me question things. We should ban the aasimar and tiefling.

Oh! Well, then, good on you, PFS.

Why? Early entry doesn't do much more than bring Mystic Theurge and Eldritch Knight into the heady realms of maybe perhaps taking levels in whereas before they were very much traps for the unwary.

Silver Crusade 4/5 5/55/55/55/5 ****

I should note/comment that my answer far above was to the original question - from the standpoint of a GM running a game, rather than just playing/general-opinion. I think that's why this post was originally in the GM section but then got moved...

Grand Lodge 4/5

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
SCPRedMage wrote:
In my opinion, double-barreled firearms should have operated like Rapid Shot, at best; -2 on attack in exchange for ONE additional attack.

Nah, they should have been like Vital Strike. An extra damage die and nothing else.

Shadow Lodge

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Nah, they should have been like Vital Strike. An extra damage die and nothing else.

Also acceptable.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

Wrong John Silver wrote:
Belafon wrote:

Mystic Theurge. (Well, MT with spell-like early entry, at least.)

Honestly it's more certain items I'd like to remove than classes.

True, the SLA early-entry is something that really made me question things. We should ban the aasimar and tiefling.

Oh! Well, then, good on you, PFS.

Even with that, I am still not sure Mystic Theurge is worth it. In 3.5 it was barely worth it, but Pathfinder added so many more cool and useful class abilities that were level dependent that extra spells just don't seem worth it. Especially when I seldom run out of spells by the time I am high enough to be a Mystic Theurge in the first place.


Its funny the only class I see with real issues is the summoner. Its complex and easilyvprone to errors. A large chunk of the pfs gm in my area are not huge rules experts and a incorrectly made eidolon would be a problem.

That said after I thought about it I realized no one in my local area actually plays one.

In regard ro gunslingers.. every thread I've ever seen complaining involves double barreled pistols. They are a fun class with a lot of options but for some reason a lot of players want to play a very narrow parr of what the class does.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Sarvei taeno wrote:
personally from exp in my region id toss the alchemist. thier bombs get to powerful, add in discoveries that say u hit even if u miss, u exclude all allies from ur attacks, u can splash up to 10 feet away. the list goes on, so id either limit the discoveries/feats or drop the class.

Wow! Yea, throw in all those Discoveries and he is almost as powerful as a Fireball chucking Sorcerer with Selective Spell. That's just broken.

Grand Lodge 4/5 5/55/5 ** Venture-Lieutenant, Florida—Melbourne

4 people marked this as a favorite.
TriOmegaZero wrote:
SCPRedMage wrote:
In my opinion, double-barreled firearms should have operated like Rapid Shot, at best; -2 on attack in exchange for ONE additional attack.
Nah, they should have been like Vital Strike. An extra damage die and nothing else.

Simple fix. It is a Standard Action to fire both barrels. The gun is still useful when you can't take a full attack action and is no longer broken during full attack actions.

3/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'd get rid of the summoner (obvious reasons) and errata the gunslingers touch ac and/or full bab. Witches to tame the hexes should be more mad making cha/wis it's hex stat.

Shadow Lodge

trollbill wrote:
Sarvei taeno wrote:
personally from exp in my region id toss the alchemist. thier bombs get to powerful, add in discoveries that say u hit even if u miss, u exclude all allies from ur attacks, u can splash up to 10 feet away. the list goes on, so id either limit the discoveries/feats or drop the class.
Wow! Yea, throw in all those Discoveries and he is almost as powerful as a Fireball chucking Sorcerer with Selective Spell. That's just broken.

And all they have to give up is their ability to "cast" anything other than direct-damage and self-buff spells.

Seriously, real spellcasters like the sorcerer have SO many better options than direct damage.

Also, keep in mind that Precise Bombs explicitly states that it doesn't work if you miss, meaning it is still possible to hurt your allies; the only ways I know of to completely eliminate that is to combine Precise Bombs with Explosive Missile, which, as a standard action, means you can't full attack, or by eliminating splash damage altogether using targeted bomb admixture.

4/5 5/5 Venture-Lieutenant, Finland—Tampere

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I wouldn't remove any classes, because by my experience, it's possible to tweak almost any class to the point where it can solo 85% of PFS encounters. (Warning: this post may contain traces of nuts, milk, and hyperbole.)

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

There are three classes that are needed to be limited in PFS.

The first, of course, is the Summoner. It isn't that the Eidolon is so difficult to the point that every player has something wrong with it, even using herolab, but the fact that the class has a second character that is supposed to be like an animal companion, but the actual power curve goes far beyond any other animal companion, though the Druid comes close if done right.

Add the addition of summoning creatures in a standard action instead of a 1 round casting time and it gets silly. (Some forget that the Eidolon being out would prevent summoning, but most GM's catch that little trick)

The second, The Samurai. Not that it is powerful or anything, but when my character dies because one is busy in the room below decks taking 10 rounds to put on armor tends to make one a bit biased on this.

The third is the witch. I just don't like having a living creature represent your spellbook, personally, but the Slumber hex can knock out a scenario real quick.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Lots of people are complaining about the Summoner because the class is a) more powerful than any class not named Wizard, Sorcerer, Cleric, Druid, Witch, or Oracle, b) able to summon lots of things (imagine that) which slows down the game if the player isn't competent enough... just like a conjuration Wizard, and c) requires a lot of bookkeeping, leading to players making mistakes.

So with a) obviously there are plenty of powerful classes other than Summoner, I don't see why it's an issue. With b) that's kinda the whole point, the Summoner summons things. Plus thanks to the Eidolon blocking Summon Monster X while its out and Master Summoner being banned, the Summoner is going to be summoning a lot less than a conjuration Wizard.
With c) yeah, it's a legitimate point. But is it really worth banning the entire class just to save the GM a little bit of auditing work?


I used to say it be a gunslinger, but then in my home game i took away the misfire and the touch ac and its working out great. Im beginning to see the touch ac shoulda been left at a grit spend than automatic.
so id say the summoner. Mainly because of my bias with summoning spells summoning multiple monsters that eat up time and action economy along with my bias of tricked out animal companions.

5/5 5/55/55/5

The difference is that the summoner doesn't even burn spell slots to summon things, he can do it more often than there are encounters.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Maps, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Maps, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber

I would not ban a core class from Pathfinder society.

With that said, I have made Gunslingers off limits for home "Golarion" games - mostly for thematic reasons rather than mechanical ones.

Alkenstar guns are fine, yet I prefer players to spend a feat on exotic weapon proficiency to use them (gives a fighter something to spend a feat on, and other classes have to really think if they want to use guns or not).

Point is, my personal bias shouldn't sway PFS unless something very, very wrong exists. Gunslingers are minor violations of my suspension of disbelief, nothing more and nothing to get upset about in PFS.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
The difference is that the summoner doesn't even burn spell slots to summon things, he can do it more often than there are encounters.

And has access to a lot less spells and slower spellcasting progression.

Liberty's Edge 5/5 5/5 *** Venture-Lieutenant, Indiana—Martinsville

PrinceRaven wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
The difference is that the summoner doesn't even burn spell slots to summon things, he can do it more often than there are encounters.
And has access to a lot less spells and slower spellcasting progression.

Which is offset by the meat shield called Eidolon.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Which stops them from doing all the summoning stuff people are complaining about.

3/5

Here is a post which does a much better job of evaluating the Summoner than any back-and-forth series of one-sentence posts could.

51 to 100 of 453 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Organized Play / Pathfinder Society / If there was one class you'd wish Paizo to drop from PFS legality, which one would it be and why? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.