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


Pathfinder Society

301 to 350 of 453 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Silver Crusade 2/5

"but the bloodline abilities are just better than existing rage powers"

At least this is a subjective matter. The bloodrager is not STRICTLY better; it is better because those abilities are perceived to be better. I find this to be the case of many comparisons, however.

For example, I prefer arcane casters that cast a lot of buffs and utility spells that don't require SR checks. This does not make those spells strictly better than blasting spells. Just better in my estimation.

Of course, martials are more locked in with what they can do than casters are, but there is a large diversity of builds through feats and things like rage powers.


PrinceRaven wrote:
I like that you based your choice off of something other than "this class is more powerful than the power limit I've arbitrarily decided is acceptable", Christopher.

It's because I've read WAAAAAAY too many Fantasy Novels growing up, and while mechanically some classes in PFRPG (and D&D) are (at least I believe are) grossly overpowered, they're still within the theme most Western Fantasy stories. The only class that isn't as well represented is the Cleric, which is mostly a D&D construct, but like I said, the Priest is a common archetype, even if very few stories make him/her to be good, or especially magically trained.

The Monk on the other hand has one singular focus, and that' 'Punch People INNA FACE! BOOYAH!'. Most players don't actually care that the Monk class has other powers, all they want or know of the Monk is the Punching for JUSTICE part. Which frankly, can be done better elsewhere.

It's a bad class to me not because of the mechanics (that can be changed, even D&D magic can be changed, there's been how many editions of D&D and derivative out by now? At least 20? And many of them have changes) but because of what it represents. And I don't mean the 'Faux-Asian' thing it assumes by default (the barehanded fighting monk is a purely Eastern thing, you find various versions of it in China, Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Tibet and most of the other nations in that region.) It's the strict focus into one thing, not even a niche, but ONE single idea.

And a Fantasy game should allow you to make as many things as an archetype allows. The Fighting Man covers the Knight, the Talented Peasant Hero, the Strongest Bare Fisted Brawler, the Professional Mercenary (or just Hero for Hire) among others. Monk is not.

This is my issue with it. System and mechanics can be changed, preconceived notions about a 'class' is much harder to.


David Bowles wrote:
Slacker2010 wrote:

Remove Gunslingers.

Or fix them by not allowing them to hit touch AC.

Guns should be adept at penetrating armor. Besides, if we get rid of gunslingers or their touch AC shenanigans, what will I template my NPCs with in home games with lots of pets?

Why should black powder guns be adapt at penetrating armor?

3/5

Slacker2010 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Slacker2010 wrote:

Remove Gunslingers.

Or fix them by not allowing them to hit touch AC.

Guns should be adept at penetrating armor. Besides, if we get rid of gunslingers or their touch AC shenanigans, what will I template my NPCs with in home games with lots of pets?
Why should black powder guns be adapt at penetrating armor?

Because armor does not deflect the bullet. That force has to go somewhere.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:
Because armor does not deflect the bullet. That force has to go somewhere.

So if the attack hits touch but not regular AC it should do half damage?

Why don't we also apply this to incredibly large weapons like huge greatswords? After all, the force has to go somewhere.

Liberty's Edge 3/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Because armor does not deflect the bullet. That force has to go somewhere.

So if the attack hits touch but not regular AC it should do half damage?

Why don't we also apply this to incredibly large weapons like huge greatswords? After all, the force has to go somewhere.

What would you know about incredibly large weapons, TOZ? XD

On a more serious note, I do enjoy systems (and variants of this system) where armor acts as DR.

3/5

TriOmegaZero wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
Because armor does not deflect the bullet. That force has to go somewhere.

So if the attack hits touch but not regular AC it should do half damage?

Why don't we also apply this to incredibly large weapons like huge greatswords? After all, the force has to go somewhere.

Well at short range in puches through the armor(ideally)

Larger weapons can be deflected if the armor is used correctly. Armor has to be learned how to use.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Finlanderboy wrote:
Larger weapons can be deflected if the armor is used correctly.

And so can bullets be deflected.

talbanus wrote:
What would you know about incredibly large weapons, TOZ? XD

I shall demonstrate at our next session. ;)

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder PF Special Edition, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Illeist wrote:
trollbill wrote:
LazarX wrote:
I've been playing a Paladin in Wrath of the Righteous. I'm armed with Radiance and yet I'm far behind Mr. Enlarging Oread Monk when it comes to damage, unless I'm using one of my limited smites, which puts me just about even.
Ummm...how exactly is the Oread Monk enlarging himself?
If I had to guess, a Mythic did it. (Scroll down to "Titan's Rage.)

That's the one. On the other hand, I'm far more durable than said monk, having taken the Guardian Path. (split patched with Heirophant) Now I'm becoming a Summoning Paladin having taken the Summon Guardian thingy Hierophant power.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Slacker2010 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Slacker2010 wrote:

Remove Gunslingers.

Or fix them by not allowing them to hit touch AC.

Guns should be adept at penetrating armor. Besides, if we get rid of gunslingers or their touch AC shenanigans, what will I template my NPCs with in home games with lots of pets?
Why should black powder guns be adapt at penetrating armor?

Because they were?

5/5 5/55/55/5

David Bowles wrote:
Slacker2010 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Slacker2010 wrote:

Remove Gunslingers.

Or fix them by not allowing them to hit touch AC.

Guns should be adept at penetrating armor. Besides, if we get rid of gunslingers or their touch AC shenanigans, what will I template my NPCs with in home games with lots of pets?
Why should black powder guns be adapt at penetrating armor?
Because they were?

Not any more than arrows were, and those don't get to make touch attacks.


Here's the thing.

You can make an archer that is just as good as if not better than the most hyperoptimized gunslinger.

The major difference is... the archer will likely have some leftover feats or other options allowing the character decent flexibility if they also want to do other stuff. And the archer has FAR more rules support for their chosen weapon.

The majority of optimized gunslinger builds? They have little to no variance. They can't. They have to spend nearly all their feats, points, and other character options on a strict progression. Most will be either one of two cookie cutter builds: Musket master or two-gun pistoleer.

Hell, Musket Master has to use a feat, a class ability, and special expensive equipment just to do... what an archer gets to do automatically, use their iterative attacks.

I have seen archers destroy scenarios too. But then again, I have seen nearly every class played smart "destroy scenarios". It's more a function of the player, and their level of system mastery and tactical reasoning skills, than the classes they play.

And yes, a player running roughshod over the GM and the other players can be a violation of the "don't be a jerk" mandate as well. Regardless of class.

-j

5/5 5/55/55/5

I have rarely, if ever, seen the oft vaunted tactics overcome sheer number crunching. Whenever I ask for examples of these tactics, they're usually a rather minor bonus.

3/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

I have rarely, if ever, seen the oft vaunted tactics overcome sheer number crunching. Whenever I ask for examples of these tactics, they're usually a rather minor bonus.

When you mix in spells it becomes very easy to bypass encounters with a creative mind.

4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Summoner. The eidolon needs 30 minutes of acountinig to catch an error alone, is probably built right anyway, and even if you kill it the summoner gets stronger by bringing in almost a party's worth of summoned critters every. single. round.

Nope, So very wrong!

it's a Standard Action to dismiss a spell in effect.
another Standard Action cast again, and the PC is only able to have one Eidolon or Summon Monster in play at any point in time.

So if the Summoner was summoning a low level group and they got wiped out every round, then sure Summon Monster every round... otherwise.

*This* is the problem with the summoner; players and jGM's don't know the rules well enough to run them at the table..

Grand Lodge 4/5

lastblacknight wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Summoner. The eidolon needs 30 minutes of acountinig to catch an error alone, is probably built right anyway, and even if you kill it the summoner gets stronger by bringing in almost a party's worth of summoned critters every. single. round.

Nope, So very wrong!

it's a Standard Action to dismiss a spell in effect.
another Standard Action cast again, and the PC is only able to have one Eidolon or Summon Monster in play at any point in time.

So if the Summoner was summoning a low level group and they got wiped out every round, then sure Summon Monster every round... otherwise.

*This* is the problem with the summoner; players and jGM's don't know the rules well enough to run them at the table..

While a Summoner cannot use his Summon Monster SLA while his Eidolon is out, he can use it while he has another Summon Monster active. It just ends the previous one.

Silver Crusade 2/5

"*This* is the problem with the summoner; players and jGM's don't know the rules well enough to run them at the table.."

I know them. That's why I say the druid is more abusive in the wrong (or right) hands.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Jason Wu wrote:

Here's the thing.

You can make an archer that is just as good as if not better than the most hyperoptimized gunslinger.

The major difference is... the archer will likely have some leftover feats or other options allowing the character decent flexibility if they also want to do other stuff. And the archer has FAR more rules support for their chosen weapon.

The majority of optimized gunslinger builds? They have little to no variance. They can't. They have to spend nearly all their feats, points, and other character options on a strict progression. Most will be either one of two cookie cutter builds: Musket master or two-gun pistoleer.

Hell, Musket Master has to use a feat, a class ability, and special expensive equipment just to do... what an archer gets to do automatically, use their iterative attacks.

I have seen archers destroy scenarios too. But then again, I have seen nearly every class played smart "destroy scenarios". It's more a function of the player, and their level of system mastery and tactical reasoning skills, than the classes they play.

And yes, a player running roughshod over the GM and the other players can be a violation of the "don't be a jerk" mandate as well. Regardless of class.

-j

But "don't be a jerk" is a non-rule since it is purely subjective. Who is the final authority? The GM? What if they are the one being the jerk?

5/5 5/55/55/5

lastblacknight wrote:


*This* is the problem with the summoner; players and jGM's don't know the rules well enough to run them at the table..

Eidolon dies.

Summoned critters come in

Enemies die.

Combat ends you stop counting rounds.

Next fight starts.

Summoned critters enter combat. Summoner holds action. Summoned critters die, Summoner brings in more!

5/5 5/55/55/5

David Bowles wrote:

"*This* is the problem with the summoner; players and jGM's don't know the rules well enough to run them at the table.."

I know them. That's why I say the druid is more abusive in the wrong (or right) hands.

Yeah, no. I've had a pouncing four legged weapon wielding eidolon thing to to my velociraptor what my velociraptor normally does to rogues by leaving it in the dust in terms of damage.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I have rarely, if ever, seen the oft vaunted tactics overcome sheer number crunching. Whenever I ask for examples of these tactics, they're usually a rather minor bonus.

When you mix in spells it becomes very easy to bypass encounters with a creative mind.

Vauge, non specific, and mildly insulting. The standard response.

3/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Finlanderboy wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

I have rarely, if ever, seen the oft vaunted tactics overcome sheer number crunching. Whenever I ask for examples of these tactics, they're usually a rather minor bonus.

When you mix in spells it becomes very easy to bypass encounters with a creative mind.
Vauge, non specific, and mildly insulting. The standard response.

Narrow sighted, oblivious to the endless posts about how with my spell I did this, attempt to look cool and smart. A sarcastic response is not worth the effort to write my personal examples up.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
I have rarely, if ever, seen the oft vaunted tactics overcome sheer number crunching. Whenever I ask for examples of these tactics, they're usually a rather minor bonus.

Three words. Preparedness, Positioning, and Control.

Preparedness goes into system mastery. Knowing the rules well means knowing likely opposition and counters. A bit meta-gamey, I admit, but even the 8 Int barbarian can be advised to carry things like golembane scarabs, snapleaf, flasks of acid, and anti-swarm tools "just in case".

Positioning is stuff like moving as a unit and covering each other. Two or more characters moving as a team can be a considerable force multiplier over two guys fighting as individuals. Even stuff as simple as "let the melee NPCs move first so they can at best get one attack off while we get to full attack." seems obvious, but I don't know how many times I've seen PCs charge the raging barbarian and get a full round attack of massive pain to the face.

Control is short for Battlefield Control. Using your environment or other factors to force opponents where you want them. Doors and hallways can limit party exposure to attacks and funnel enemies. Obscuring enemy vision can completely shut down ranged attacks and most direct attack spellcasting. Vials of oil/alchemical grease. Positioning a nearby cart of vegetables in a critial narrow space. Creative tacticians see everything on the maps as a potential tool or weapon. Wizards aren't the only ones who can do it.

I am actually inspired now to try and figure out what is considered the weakest class and make it a combat monster. Just because.

-j

2/5

Three of the four summoner players in our area, myself included, have basically independently retired our summoners to GM credit sponges after finding them so good as to be boring. And we play in a pretty optimized area.

That being said I find witches unfun to play with and to run for. Spamming save or lose effects is my least preferred method of play as they either trivialize a fight and leave a very anticlimactic feeling or they are basically noncontributors. Not to even mention being basically resource less. I would legitimately rather play with double barrel toting gunslingers.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Finlanderboy wrote:


Narrow sighted, oblivious to the endless posts about how with my spell I did this, attempt to look cool and smart. A sarcastic response is not worth the effort to write my personal examples up.

Or I've seen them and I'm not impressed about how well they worked vs just jacking the DC. Pointing out that your answer was vaguely insulting was not an invitation to be more overtly insulting.

3/5

Jason Wu wrote:


I am actually inspired now to try and figure out what is considered the weakest class and make it a combat monster. Just because.

Rogue.

On the thread topic:
While my least favorite class is the gunslinger, I'm not certain I'd want it removed. Just because I don't enjoy them doesn't mean other people don't.

Silver Crusade 2/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

"*This* is the problem with the summoner; players and jGM's don't know the rules well enough to run them at the table.."

I know them. That's why I say the druid is more abusive in the wrong (or right) hands.

Yeah, no. I've had a pouncing four legged weapon wielding eidolon thing to to my velociraptor what my velociraptor normally does to rogues by leaving it in the dust in terms of damage.

You forgot all the extra help that druids can summon in.

Liberty's Edge 2/5

I have always been the type who would rather see "weaker" options get brought up to par rather than see certain classes get "nerfed" or removed.

That said, however, I do think there are a few mechanics that need to be tweaked. Double barrel shenanigans and touch AC for guns are near the top of that list. I like the Gunslinger class... even though in general I do not like guns in my 'High Fantasy'... I just twitch a little when black powder weapons are being loaded and fired like Gatling guns, and when said black powder shots can ignore the magical scaled hide of a Dragon or the Adamantine armor of an evil knight.

I think Summoners are fine, so long as the Eidolon is checked to be legit and the player is prepared so that their summoning doesn't bog down the game... but that applies to any class that summons in allies. The Pokemon wars really can suck the fun out of a session when they drag on.

Otherwise all I am not fond of seeing are the "broken" builds of any class, where the player has picked and pecked to build an abomination that often trivializes the encounters and the rest of the group. Sure, having some system mastery is great and having a potent character is fun, however, over-optimization is a real problem. This is a group game not a game about a "main" character and some supporting cast, and any character that makes it that way usually ruins the fun for everyone else and eventually becomes the guy no one wants to play with.

Liberty's Edge 2/5

David Bowles wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
David Bowles wrote:

"*This* is the problem with the summoner; players and jGM's don't know the rules well enough to run them at the table.."

I know them. That's why I say the druid is more abusive in the wrong (or right) hands.

Yeah, no. I've had a pouncing four legged weapon wielding eidolon thing to to my velociraptor what my velociraptor normally does to rogues by leaving it in the dust in terms of damage.

You forgot all the extra help that druids can summon in.

Not quite certain but, I get the feeling that you have some problem with Druids and their animal companions... just a guess...

On a serious note I will say that an Eidolon is more powerful than any AC (unless the player of the summoner lacks a degree of system knowledge). But on the flip side, without the Eidolon or AC, the Druid is more powerful than the summoner.

Liberty's Edge

Animal Companions also don't share the weaknesses of not being able to use any equipment slots the Druid uses, disappearing when the Druid is knocked unconscious or fall asleep, vulnerability to banishment spells, and inability to wear armour. That last one is big, Eidolons usually end up being pretty fragile.

Granted, some of these weaknesses are less apparent in Society play compared to home games.

Scarab Sages 5/5

PrinceRaven wrote:

Animal Companions also don't share the weaknesses of not being able to use any equipment slots the Druid uses, disappearing when the Druid is knocked unconscious or fall asleep, vulnerability to banishment spells, and inability to wear armour. That last one is pretty important, Eidolons usually end up being pretty fragile.

Granted, some of these weaknesses are less apparent in Society play compared to home games.

Animal companions (without spending feats) don't have many slots to put items so that is not good comparison.

I only have a 7th level summoner, and I chose a hide-able eidolon form (not quadruped - the symbol is hide-able with a mundane means, such as a hat), but he is AC 32 without armor (but with mage armor) and he can be AC 36 when he uses his shield wand - which is perhaps easier to hit in upper tier 7-11, but is decent in the low tier 7-11. And while eidolons might not have a lot of hit points, the summoner can supplement them to prevent the eidolon from dying. The evolution spells also means that extra powers needed can be added - such as adding wings to fly. Animal companion who are not winged can have difficulties flying (though I have a sylvan sorcerer who has high enough handle animal (with all bonuses) to push a wounded AC on a 1).

Also, there is a feat the summoner can take that allows the eidolon to stick around for the summoner's level in rounds, so taking out the caster isn't really enough [my summoner has con as his highest stat because I suspected that he might be the target].

Animal companions are vulnerable to charm and dominate animal spells, and in some tables to enemy handle animal checks. And while they don't disappear on their master's unconsciousness or shortly thereafter, they also often don't do anything after that happens either - and many times other party members are not allowed to controll them either.


I'd not so much remove a class, but I would make the master of many styles (MoMS) archetype unavailable for multi-class characters. Seriously, that level dip really riles me up the wrong way.

Alternatively, I'd fix the archetype to not be such an attractive dipping class.

5/5 5/55/55/5

David Bowles wrote:


You forgot all the extra help that druids can summon in.

I didn't forget it because I actually play druids, rather than theory craft it. Summoning in anything useful requires burning your highest or second highest spell slots: you can't do it every fight. So does turning fluffy into fluffy the terrible.

Damage reduction and flying will severly limit the summons help: flying DR almost stops it unless you burn a top level spell.


@ Finlanderboy and David Bowles: Even today they have body armor to stop modern bullets which are FAR more powerful than old black powder guns.

But getting of the logic train. This is more about balance. I believe the concept of guns to touch AC original came with the balancing factor about reloading speed. But with power creep and allowing multiple attacks in a round have made Firearms too powerful. The system wasn't originally designed to deal with firearms. The go to way to upgrade monsters as they get larger is just to increase the Natural armor. With guns bypassing this, none of the increasing larger monsters can compete.

I would agree they would need to be rebalanced, so with forcing them to hit normal AC(s), make bullets and gunpowder cheap. Problem solved.

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

Slacker2010 wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
Slacker2010 wrote:

Remove Gunslingers.

Or fix them by not allowing them to hit touch AC.

Guns should be adept at penetrating armor. Besides, if we get rid of gunslingers or their touch AC shenanigans, what will I template my NPCs with in home games with lots of pets?
Why should black powder guns be adapt at penetrating armor?

Guns are traditionally blamed for the disappearance of armor on the battlefield. I am sure there was a reason for that.

5/5 5/55/55/5

trollbill wrote:


Guns are traditionally blamed for the disappearance of armor on the battlefield. I am sure there was a reason for that.

Cost. Its not that armor didn't work, its that armor that worked was ridiculously expensive. Instead of putting someone in absurdly expensive armor, training them for their entire lives to wear that armor, cheap firearms and a peasant with 6 weeks of training suddenly became a viable army.

Pathfinder guns are

Expensive
Fast firing
Hard to use
Go right through the best armor

Historical guns were
Cheap
Slow to reload
Point and click.
Little better at penetrating good armor than armor piercing arrows.

War was, is, and probably will be, a matter of economics as much as effectiveness.

Liberty's Edge

Yeah, you pretty much need a blunderbuss at close range to go through full plate.

Silver Crusade 2/5

Slacker2010 wrote:

@ Finlanderboy and David Bowles: Even today they have body armor to stop modern bullets which are FAR more powerful than old black powder guns.

But getting of the logic train. This is more about balance. I believe the concept of guns to touch AC original came with the balancing factor about reloading speed. But with power creep and allowing multiple attacks in a round have made Firearms too powerful. The system wasn't originally designed to deal with firearms. The go to way to upgrade monsters as they get larger is just to increase the Natural armor. With guns bypassing this, none of the increasing larger monsters can compete.

I would agree they would need to be rebalanced, so with forcing them to hit normal AC(s), make bullets and gunpowder cheap. Problem solved.

Make more opponents that don't use the same old tired natural armor scheme. More touch AC, more miss chance. Give the NPCs a misfortune oracle. Something.

Silver Crusade 2/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
David Bowles wrote:


You forgot all the extra help that druids can summon in.

I didn't forget it because I actually play druids, rather than theory craft it. Summoning in anything useful requires burning your highest or second highest spell slots: you can't do it every fight. So does turning fluffy into fluffy the terrible.

Damage reduction and flying will severly limit the summons help: flying DR almost stops it unless you burn a top level spell.

I've seen druid players do this. It's not just theory. I've seen them with WAY more summons on the table than a PFS summoner can manage. There is power is preventing NPCs' movement by clogging the board. It also makes for turns that last as long as every one else's combined.

5/5 5/55/55/5

David Bowles wrote:
I've seen druid players do this. It's not just theory. I've seen them with WAY more summons on the table than a PFS summoner can manage. There is power is preventing NPCs' movement by clogging the board. It also makes for turns that last as long as every one else's combined.

How can they do more than a summoner? The summoner has just as many spells and gets a 1 round head start from the summon monster ability.


The summoner and gunslinger both have mechanics problems, but more important are the in-game effects.

The summoner simply slows things WAY down, in a game where combat is already dragged out to a tedious degree.

But the gunslinger loses out on tone and flavor. He doesn't belong in a medieval-fantasy game, and that's more important than any amount of mechanical issues. I vote gunslinger as the best class to drop.

Liberty's Edge

Any halfway competent player can drastically minimise the degree to which a Summoner slows things down. The things I worry about slowing games down are:
1. People showing up late.
2. People taking phone calls in the middle of the game.
3. That one guy who just started actually writing his character sheet a couple of minutes ago.
4. That one guy who feels he has to nitpick and ruleshark every little thing in the game.
5. When someone drops out of a Skype call and someone else has to take over their character, especially if they aren't familiar with the class/archetype.

If we have to ban something, can't we ban players who constantly do any the things above?

Silver Crusade 2/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
David Bowles wrote:
I've seen druid players do this. It's not just theory. I've seen them with WAY more summons on the table than a PFS summoner can manage. There is power is preventing NPCs' movement by clogging the board. It also makes for turns that last as long as every one else's combined.

How can they do more than a summoner? The summoner has just as many spells and gets a 1 round head start from the summon monster ability.

Summoners have zero additional monsters out unless they have selected the summon monster spell as one of their spells known. Druids can just load up on whatever and then summon a circus. Summoners also can't use their summon monster SLA while the eidolon is active. The druid can use everything they've got while the animal companion is active. In fact, the animal companions is never NOT active.

Druids are bad for summoning, but classes that get the animal companion bolted on for essentially free outclass both druids and summoners, imo. Cleric with an animal companion? They can channel, and summon monsters with the celestial template, AND have an animal companion AND cast cleric spells. Yeah.

Scarab Sages

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Calybos1 wrote:


But the gunslinger loses out on tone and flavor. He doesn't belong in a medieval-fantasy game, and that's more important than any amount of mechanical issues. I vote gunslinger as the best class to drop.

It's a good thing Pathfinder and Golarion isn't a medieval-fantasy game, then. It has renaissance 1600s level tech with magic bringing the effective civilization level to the 1800s.

There is post-revolution America (Andoran) and France (Galt), and novelist selling penny dreadfuls all over Ustalav. The Golden age of Piracy is alive an well in the Shackles. Belkyars in Africa (The Mwangi Expanse) provide the Slave Trade to Cheliax.

This is an age of exploration and change, and about as far away from medieval as you can get although there are some stolid traditionalist that still have Cavaliers that love to charge on horseback. Indeed, real life Calvary was still using lances well into the 1600s.

Perhaps you should get to know the world you are playing in.


Imbicatus wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:


But the gunslinger loses out on tone and flavor. He doesn't belong in a medieval-fantasy game, and that's more important than any amount of mechanical issues. I vote gunslinger as the best class to drop.

It's a good thing Pathfinder and Golarion isn't a medieval-fantasy game, then.

It is when I run it. Guns are bad, mmkay?

Scarab Sages

Calybos1 wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:


But the gunslinger loses out on tone and flavor. He doesn't belong in a medieval-fantasy game, and that's more important than any amount of mechanical issues. I vote gunslinger as the best class to drop.

It's a good thing Pathfinder and Golarion isn't a medieval-fantasy game, then.

It is when I run it. Guns are bad, mmkay?

Not at a PFS table.

Scarab Sages 1/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:

Well, they should have done something. I'm seeing less and less reason to play a barbarian now that there are bloodragers.

Once again, something new is invalidating something old.

=/

And barbarian was already one of the most powerful classes.


Imbicatus wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:


But the gunslinger loses out on tone and flavor. He doesn't belong in a medieval-fantasy game, and that's more important than any amount of mechanical issues. I vote gunslinger as the best class to drop.

It's a good thing Pathfinder and Golarion isn't a medieval-fantasy game, then.

It is when I run it. Guns are bad, mmkay?

Not at a PFS table.

Gosh, I guess I shoulda posted this on an opinion thread asking "what would you change about PFS," then... <looking up>

Silver Crusade 2/5

@Calybos1

I still think that the gunslinger issue could be addressed by more clever use of NPCs and less reliance on NPC natural armor bonuses. I understand your point, but just removing gunslingers does not change Golarian to a medieval setting.

Scarab Sages

Calybos1 wrote:


Gosh, I guess I shoulda posted this on an opinion thread asking "what would you change about PFS," then... <looking up>.

The thread was about classes, not the setting. Gunslingers as a class are a non-issue to me. I don't care that much for the mechanics of the class.

However guns are in the setting and the setting is not in any way "medieval."

Changing the setting is far beyond the scope of banning a class, and in the scope of the setting, there is no flavor reason for gunslingers to be gone.

301 to 350 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.