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


Pathfinder Society

351 to 400 of 453 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
5/5 5/55/55/5

David Bowles wrote:

@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.

There aren't enough other sources of armor for it to matter.

Come on bulletproof enchant..


Oh, there's mechanical changes that are needed too, don't get me wrong. An honorless, cowardly gunslinger shouldn't have a d10 for hit dice like someone who actually fights for a living; he should NEVER be able to target touch AC, obviously; and so on.

But having Clint Eastwood chomping a cigar in amongst my sword-wielding elves and dwarves defending the castle is just disgusting. (shudder)

Paizo Employee Design Manager

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.

I rarely see druids summoning in combat (despite the fact that they get spontaneous conversion) primarily because 1 round is a lot of time where you can get punched in the face and lose the spell completely. Compared to Summoners who can drop a critter on the field immediately and still have a move action to scamper away...

Also, the "archers can do just as much damage as the most optimized gunslinger" is just flat out untrue. A highly optimized Gunsilnger can stomp all over an archer in the dpr game and then shoot him in the back of the head for good measure. Also, consider that we're talking about PFS, and I have yet to see a single scenario or AP where the archer's greater range mattered at all. A 12th level dwarven Gunslinger (Pistolero), the definition of "highly optimized Gunslinger", can crank out 10 attacks before being buffed with his last iterative still having 60% or better chance to hit. He also performs better overall because he doesn't need to split his attack and damage stats like an archer, so you generally end up with better saves, better AC, and better utility. The Zen Archer is probably the only class that can compare for saves, defenses, and utility, but still loses out in the damage department.

Grand Lodge 4/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Calybos1 wrote:
An honorless, cowardly gunslinger shouldn't have a d10 for hit dice

...the hell?

Scarab Sages 1/5

Ssalarn wrote:
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.

I rarely see druids summoning in combat (despite the fact that they get spontaneous conversion) primarily because 1 round is a lot of time where you can get punched in the face and lose the spell completely. Compared to Summoners who can drop a critter on the field immediately and still have a move action to scamper away...

Only if they are walking around with no eidolon.

Silver Crusade 2/5

"I rarely see druids summoning in combat (despite the fact that they get spontaneous conversion) primarily because 1 round is a lot of time where you can get punched in the face and lose the spell completely. Compared to Summoners who can drop a critter on the field immediately and still have a move action to scamper away..."

Summoners can't do that with their Eidolon active. The archetype that could got banned. I have seen a full-round summons interrupted once by NPCs. Once. And I have many, many PCs. The NPCs almost always lack the action efficiency necessary to make their way to the back of the party just to punch some caster casting some full-round spell.

And don't forget that the summoner's SLA caps at ONE summons. So if the summoner even wants to be as remotely as competent as a druid, they have to burn their limited spell slots on it. And miss out on the spells that people are complaining about.

Scarab Sages

Calybos1 wrote:

Oh, there's mechanical changes that are needed too, don't get me wrong. An honorless, cowardly gunslinger shouldn't have a d10 for hit dice like someone who actually fights for a living; he should NEVER be able to target touch AC, obviously; and so on.

But having Clint Eastwood chomping a cigar in amongst my sword-wielding elves and dwarves defending the castle is just disgusting. (shudder)

How is a gunslinger any more honorless or cowardly than an Archery focused Ranger who also a d10 hit dice? He can also do more damage than a gunslinger despite targeting normal ac.

I see it more as Blackbeard lighting up the Redcoats with a brace of pistols, or a group of Musketeers lobbing a volley before the enemies close and they draw rapiers.


That would be GREAT for a Renaissance-era game! In fact, there is such a game, one of my favorites; 7th Sea, from Alderac Games. A fantastically fun system with great setting notes and simple, innovative mechanics. I highly recommend it.

Liberty's Edge 1/5 Venture-Agent, Australia—NSW—Bondi Junction

So if the Gunslinger is so bad for PFS play BUT it seems that to be this 'bad' it is dependent on being a Pistollero why not take a page from the Summoners PFS restrictions (no Master Summoners or Symbiots) and say - sorry no Pistollero in PFS.
Alternatively if it isn't even the Pistolerro that is the problem but rather the 2 barrelled weapon that is the issue then state that a Pistollero uses a pistol and not a double pistol for PFS. Or make it an advanced firearm and instantly take it out of the equation.

Look the main reason that people see Gunslingers as abusive or unliked is due to the hyper optimised double pistol/rapid fire/2 weapon firing munchkins that ruined it for everyone (and thats before we took into account weapon chords and gloves of holding, prehensile tails, familiars of reloading etc etc)- limit it to one gun firing per turn if you have to in PFS.

The other thing that seems prevalent in Gunslinger/Western lore is whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - ie there is always some other gunslinger trying to prove (s)he is the best. Make yourself too well known as a buzzsaw of bullets and some other guy or gal will one day shoot you in the back just because they want the rep of being the guy that killed ...

Grand Lodge 4/5

Nikolaus Athas wrote:

So if the Gunslinger is so bad for PFS play BUT it seems that to be this 'bad' it is dependent on being a Pistollero why not take a page from the Summoners PFS restrictions (no Master Summoners or Symbiots) and say - sorry no Pistollero in PFS.

Alternatively if it isn't even the Pistolerro that is the problem but rather the 2 barrelled weapon that is the issue then state that a Pistollero uses a pistol and not a double pistol for PFS. Or make it an advanced firearm and instantly take it out of the equation.

Look the main reason that people see Gunslingers as abusive or unliked is due to the hyper optimised double pistol/rapid fire/2 weapon firing munchkins that ruined it for everyone (and thats before we took into account weapon chords and gloves of holding, prehensile tails, familiars of reloading etc etc)- limit it to one gun firing per turn if you have to in PFS.

The other thing that seems prevalent in Gunslinger/Western lore is whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander - ie there is always some other gunslinger trying to prove (s)he is the best. Make yourself too well known as a buzzsaw of bullets and some other guy or gal will one day shoot you in the back just because they want the rep of being the guy that killed ...

Like I've said before. Make firing BOTH barrels of a double barrel weapon a standard action. (Like a free Vital strike) it's potent but no longer encounter breaking.

Silver Crusade 2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Calybos1 wrote:

That would be GREAT for a Renaissance-era game! In fact, there is such a game, one of my favorites; 7th Sea, from Alderac Games. A fantastically fun system with great setting notes and simple, innovative mechanics. I highly recommend it.

Pathfinder IS a Renaissance-era game. The evidence for this is pretty overwhelming.

3/5

Actually, I think of Golarion as more of a sandbox setting than anything else. It doesn't have a single true "earth parallel" setting, but more like several ongoing ones from different time periods that seem to shake hands and make friends. It combines a HUGE variety of genres and locales, including:

a zombie apocalypse [Geb]

a british expedition into darkest Africa [Mwangi]

a post apocalyptic setting featuring a crash landed alien ship that occasionally spews forth robotic monstrosities [Numeria]

an industrial age/steampunk nation that produces fantastic inventions, including firearms, airships, and clockwork devices [Alkenstar]

an intricate setting that simulates the various nations of Asia [Tian Xia]

a conan style nation filled with mountain barbarians who wage a guerilla war with their magic-obsessed neighbors [the lands of the linorm kings/lands of the mammoth lords]

a horror setting filled with the classic monsters of story and myth [Ustalov]

and many more that I'm sure I'm missing.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Calybos1 wrote:

Oh, there's mechanical changes that are needed too, don't get me wrong. An honorless, cowardly gunslinger shouldn't have a d10 for hit dice like someone who actually fights for a living; he should NEVER be able to target touch AC, obviously; and so on.

But having Clint Eastwood chomping a cigar in amongst my sword-wielding elves and dwarves defending the castle is just disgusting. (shudder)

Let me quote someone else for a rebuttal.

Auren "Rin" Cloudstrider wrote:
Cranky Dog wrote:

My opinion on genre mixes in Golarion:

If we can have Maasai warriors wandering around with cell phones, or genuine Mongolian yurts with satellite dishes in real life, then stuff like Numeria doesn't even faze me as unbelievable.

Pathfinder is a system where Medieval French Knights Run Around with Renaissance Era Plate Armor, Worship Greek Gods, and Wield Persian scimitars, where a native american shaman clad in hides of beasts of the sahara desert and transform into prehistoric dinosaurs, where modern japanese schoolgirls wield a tokugawa era daisho and wear black kabuki stage hand pajamas, where an old man in robes can demasculate the universe by verbally solving complex mathematics while performing gangster gestures, where an anemic little loligoth can be so skilled at puppetry she can make the gods her servants, where cowboys from the wild west wield firearms from the 17th century, and shoot highly advanced robots with modern rounds, all banding together to fight brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, collossal fire breathing flying reptiles, pale sparkly emo teenagers, and reanimated corpses.

Please tell me again how gunslingers don't belong in this kind of "medieval" setting.

I restate my point: banning gunslingers from PFS because someone doesn't like guns in their fantasy is not the way to go. Banning, restricting, or modifying them because of mechanical reasons is fine.

Shadow Lodge 4/5

For you. Clearly for many others it is.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Neongelion wrote:
Please tell me again how gunslingers don't belong in this kind of "medieval" setting.

If the pistol was a fire and forget weapon, or if you shot the musket once and then had to bayonette, maybe. But asit is you have a six shooter or a gatlin gun. Mechanically it fires faster than a hunting rifle from d 20 modern. You're looking at very late 1800s tech, not reniasance.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Neongelion wrote:
Please tell me again how gunslingers don't belong in this kind of "medieval" setting.
If the pistol was a fire and forget weapon, or if you shot the musket once and then had to bayonette, maybe. But asit is you have a six shooter or a gatlin gun. Mechanically it fires faster than a hunting rifle from d 20 modern. You're looking at very late 1800s tech, not reniasance.

I don't deny that, but that's the charm of them to me. Anyone can shoot a gun, but gunslingers can use them in ways that is the stuff of legend. Course, you might say "more like the stuff of breaking realism"...when gunslingers are right beside barbarians who can literally eat magic, I don't see them as any more unrealistic than anything else in Golarion. Mechanically speaking, of course, they're absurd, and I wouldn't mind a nerf to certain aspects of them for PFS play.

I still see no reason why they should be banned on flavor alone, which is what Calybos seems to want to happen.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Its not that fast firing gun breaks realism, its that it IS realistic.. for a completely different time. Renaissance is one thing, wild west is something else.

Scarab Sages

Who is shooting a revolver in PFS? There are no advanced firearms in the campaign.


BigNorseWolf wrote:

Its not that fast firing gun breaks realism, its that it IS realistic.. for a completely different time. Renaissance is one thing, wild west is something else.

Er, I don't think people were able to reload muskets every six seconds. Or flintlock pistols for that matter.

But then, Golarion guns are different from Earth guns, and probably so is their black powder. That's how I justify it anyway.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Imbicatus wrote:
Who is shooting a revolver in PFS? There are no advanced firearms in the campaign.

The gunslingers playing Yosemite sam with two pistols. The explanation that they are black powder pistols doesn't last long against the mechanics or narrative role that they play. A black powder pistol for a pirate was either an opening shot or a powerful ace up your sleeve, not something you fire off 6 times in 6 seconds. The only place "Oh, its a black powder pistols, its really slow to reload, really!" comes up is in the book. If it doesn't play out that way at the table, i don't buy it.

3/5

These games are meant to be over the top. A level 5 monk beingable to jump 12 feet straight up is pretty silly too.

To get specific about something and discount the others is pretty silly.

Liberty's Edge

This is a game in which a Wizard is able to generate enough energy to turn a frog into a dragon, why are we complaining about guns?

3/5

PrinceRaven wrote:
This is a game in which a Wizard is able to generate enough energy to turn a frog into a dragon, why are we complaining about guns?

good point but you are spell like or supernatural abilities with extraordinary.

Thats why i compared the monks high jump(ex) to the grit(ex) abilities.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I just think there needs to be a couple new defenses introduced against guns. Even fickle winds is not really that effective.

3/5

David Bowles wrote:
I just think there needs to be a couple new defenses introduced against guns. Even fickle winds is not really that effective.

How about hydraulic push?

Silver Crusade 2/5

It doesn't mention fire arms. Are you referring to the soaked condition?

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
David Bowles wrote:
I just think there needs to be a couple new defenses introduced against guns. Even fickle winds is not really that effective.

At the PaizoCon Banquet, they mentioned that new defenses against guns were coming. I don't remember for sure where, but I think they will be in the ACG.

Silver Crusade 2/5

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I vote for a Dune-shield. Only the slow blade will penetrate :) It also makes Numerian laser-users think twice.

3/5

David Bowles wrote:


It doesn't mention fire arms. Are you referring to the soaked condition?

black powder becomes useless when exposed to water. Gettign soaked with water could wreck a charge

David Bowles wrote:
I vote for a Dune-shield. Only the slow blade will penetrate :) It also makes Numerian laser-users think twice.

Would they both blow up though?

Silver Crusade 2/5

Finlanderboy wrote:
David Bowles wrote:


It doesn't mention fire arms. Are you referring to the soaked condition?

black powder becomes useless when exposed to water. Gettign soaked with water could wreck a charge

David Bowles wrote:
I vote for a Dune-shield. Only the slow blade will penetrate :) It also makes Numerian laser-users think twice.
Would they both blow up though?

Yeah. Like an atomic :)

5/5 5/55/55/5

PrinceRaven wrote:
This is a game in which a Wizard is able to generate enough energy to turn a frog into a dragon, why are we complaining about guns?

One is fantasy, one is functionally western.

Liberty's Edge

... And?

Neongelion wrote:
Pathfinder is a system where Medieval French Knights Run Around with Renaissance Era Plate Armor, Worship Greek Gods, and Wield Persian scimitars, where a native american shaman clad in hides of beasts of the sahara desert and transform into prehistoric dinosaurs, where modern japanese schoolgirls wield a tokugawa era daisho and wear black kabuki stage hand pajamas, where an old man in robes can demasculate the universe by verbally solving complex mathematics while performing gangster gestures, where an anemic little loligoth can be so skilled at puppetry she can make the gods her servants, where cowboys from the wild west wield firearms from the 17th century, and shoot highly advanced robots with modern rounds, all banding together to fight brain eating space aliens, sentient jello, collossal fire breathing flying reptiles, pale sparkly emo teenagers, and reanimated corpses.


Imbicatus wrote:
You have a point, but the rogue would be much better off taking Chill Touch than vanish. Vanish will allow a single sneak attack. Chill touch will allow several rounds of touch attack sneak attacks per casting. (snip)

Okay, I am curious about this one. How does chill touch grant lots of sneak attacks? I see nothing in the spell's description about denying DEX, or concealment, or any of that kind of stuff.

Chill touch

I am about to start to play a rogue and would love to know how this works.

Peet

Scarab Sages

Peet wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
You have a point, but the rogue would be much better off taking Chill Touch than vanish. Vanish will allow a single sneak attack. Chill touch will allow several rounds of touch attack sneak attacks per casting. (snip)

Okay, I am curious about this one. How does chill touch grant lots of sneak attacks? I see nothing in the spell's description about denying DEX, or concealment, or any of that kind of stuff.

Chill touch

I am about to start to play a rogue and would love to know how this works.

Peet

it grants touch attacks. If you are flanking, feinting, have gang up, whatever, those attacks are sneak attacks. Chill touch does nothing to set up the sneak attacks, but does fix the accuracy problem that rogues have, which is more important.

Sovereign Court

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Imbicatus wrote:
Who is shooting a revolver in PFS? There are no advanced firearms in the campaign.

The gunslingers playing Yosemite sam with two pistols. The explanation that they are black powder pistols doesn't last long against the mechanics or narrative role that they play. A black powder pistol for a pirate was either an opening shot or a powerful ace up your sleeve, not something you fire off 6 times in 6 seconds. The only place "Oh, its a black powder pistols, its really slow to reload, really!" comes up is in the book. If it doesn't play out that way at the table, i don't buy it.

Well - I know that blackbeard was known to use his pistols a lot. Then again - that's because he went into battle with six or ten of them stashed about his person, dropping the fired pistols as he went.


Tone arguments are every bit as valid as mechanics arguments (if not more so). If a player doesn't want a given class messing up the tone of the game, he has every right to say he wants it gone.

You can't just offer "It's in the system, so it's automatically tone-appropriate" as a rebuttal.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Prinx Raven:

And medieval and Renaissance are close enough together to still be the same genre of fantasy. In fact simply moving from the city to the country would have these two kinds of civilizations living side by side without much change.

Scarab Sages

Calybos1 wrote:

Tone arguments are every bit as valid as mechanics arguments (if not more so). If a player doesn't want a given class messing up the tone of the game, he has every right to say he wants it gone.

You can't just offer "It's in the system, so it's automatically tone-appropriate" as a rebuttal.

In the tone of the official setting, it is appropriate. Like it or not, Golarion is not Middle Earth, Mystara, Oerth, Krynn, or Faerun. PFS is set in Golarion and Golarion is a post-renaissance age of imperialism world with magic.

If you want to change the tone of the world in home games, feel free. But for organized play, it's set in the world as written.

Sovereign Court

Imbicatus wrote:
Calybos1 wrote:

Tone arguments are every bit as valid as mechanics arguments (if not more so). If a player doesn't want a given class messing up the tone of the game, he has every right to say he wants it gone.

You can't just offer "It's in the system, so it's automatically tone-appropriate" as a rebuttal.

In the tone of the official setting, it is appropriate. Like it or not, Golarion is not Middle Earth, Mystara, Oerth, Krynn, or Faerun. PFS is set in Golarion and Golarion is a post-renaissance age of imperialism world with magic.

If you want to change the tone of the world in home games, feel free. But for organized play, it's set in the world as written.

You are correct - but I thought that this was a thread for people to complain about CHANGES to that world that they wanted. It's a rant thread. Don't complain because you don't like the way some people rant.

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

1 person marked this as a favorite.

This is a rant thread.

3/5

please no meta rants about ranting.

Liberty's Edge 2/5

It is somewhat comical that in a thread designed for people to name what class(es) they feel should be removed, that has no bearing beyond individual likes or dislikes, that some folks are so wedded to a class that they feel obligated to come and "defend" their inclusion in the game.

Missing the point of the thread folks! And really, this isn't some Developer Poll with any potential impact, just a bunch of personal opinions, and honestly the counter arguments being tossed out there are often the kind that are less likely to sway someone's opinions and in fact might serve to make someone dislike a class even more.

Anyway, on with the rants!

Shadow Lodge 4/5 5/5 RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 8

3 people marked this as a favorite.

I think all classes that use vowels or consonants in their name should be banned in PFS.

Silver Crusade 4/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:
This is a rant thread.

No...this was not intended to be a ban-all-classes-I-hate Rant Thread.

In fact, I originally put this thread in the GM forum specifically for a reason. You'll see in my original post, that I'm posing the question primarily to GM's.

As a player and GM myself, I'm seeing certain "patterns" and recurring situations with certain classes. I realize just about any class can be super-optimized. But, I was thinking that perhaps there are at least a couple classes where they are a wee bit too optimized out of the gate and get overpowered from there. Maybe I'm wrong. Hence the reason for my original question.

Silver Crusade 2/5

" I realize just about any class can be super-optimized."

This is why I don't think there's any single good answer to this. Of course, that begs the question why, as a GM, do you care if a PC is super-optimized? There's not really anything you can do about it.

That being said, I have been using it as a rant thread. My apologies. But animal companions and hyper-optimized non-pet classes are about tied in my anecdotal experience for ruining scenarios. Summoners are in 4th or 5th place. Anecdotally, of course.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Walter Sheppard wrote:
I think all classes that use vowels or consonants in their name should be banned in PFS.

I agree. There should be no classes. We should all be playing characters based on our real life selves. So what if 99% of us wouldn't make it through The Confirmation, it's not like this is some sort of escapist fantasy.

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

Fomsie wrote:

It is somewhat comical that in a thread designed for people to name what class(es) they feel should be removed, that has no bearing beyond individual likes or dislikes, that some folks are so wedded to a class that they feel obligated to come and "defend" their inclusion in the game.

Missing the point of the thread folks! And really, this isn't some Developer Poll with any potential impact, just a bunch of personal opinions, and honestly the counter arguments being tossed out there are often the kind that are less likely to sway someone's opinions and in fact might serve to make someone dislike a class even more.

Perhaps some people are concerned that developers are reading this thread none-the-less.

Shadow Lodge *

Pathfinder Maps, Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Starfinder Superscriber
Walter Sheppard wrote:
I think all classes that use vowels or consonants in their name should be banned in PFS.

Don't stop there. !'!@' is the most overpowered class yet.

3/5

Prethen wrote:
I was thinking that perhaps there are at least a couple classes where they are a wee bit too optimized out of the gate and get overpowered from there. Maybe I'm wrong.

No, you're absolutely right, Prethen. It appears those classes (pre-Advanced Class Guide) are the Summoner and the Gunslinger, and I wholeheartedly agree.

-Matt

Silver Crusade 4/5

Mattastrophic wrote:
Prethen wrote:
I was thinking that perhaps there are at least a couple classes where they are a wee bit too optimized out of the gate and get overpowered from there. Maybe I'm wrong.

No, you're absolutely right, Prethen. It appears those classes (pre-Advanced Class Guide) are the Summoner and the Gunslinger, and I wholeheartedly agree.

-Matt

I didn't realize the number of people who felt that way about the Summoner but I have an understanding of why and I respect that.

The Gunslinger is an obvious choice and I've witnessed the results on multiple scenarios. And, I agree with others that for flavor I don't think the class belongs in fantasy RPG. But, it looks like it's here to stay so I'll get used to it and I've already started to. It is a bit unnerving when brutalizing touch AC attacks come out of the player like a Gatling gun.

The one surprise from this thread is that the Magus didn't rise to the top. In my experiences, I've seen the Magus come up as the #2 decimater of scenarios just behind the Gunslinger.

351 to 400 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.