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


Pathfinder Society

401 to 450 of 453 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge 4/5

Prethen wrote:
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.

Remember that it was competing against the Gunslinger and Summoner for brokenness.

Grand Lodge 4/5

TOZ wrote:
Prethen wrote:
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.
Remember that it was competing against the Gunslinger and Summoner for brokenness.

Given that he didn't expect the Summoner, I'm not sure that statement means anything real to him.

Silver Crusade 4/5

I see rumors that supposedly Paizo is coming out with some sort of defense against bullets and/or the Gunslinger. But, for something like over 150 scenarios and modules, isn't this sort of like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted?

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Prethen wrote:
I see rumors that supposedly Paizo is coming out with some sort of defense against bullets and/or the Gunslinger. But, for something like over 150 scenarios and modules, isn't this sort of like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted?

Well, are there another 150 horses in the barn?

Scarab Sages

Prethen wrote:
I see rumors that supposedly Paizo is coming out with some sort of defense against bullets and/or the Gunslinger. But, for something like over 150 scenarios and modules, isn't this sort of like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted?

I see it like inventing the flak jacket / bulletproof vest after guns invalidated weating heavy armor in the real world. Guns are emerging and are very uncommon outside of Alkenstar. It took a little bit of time for everyone else to come up with an enchantment that counters firearms. With magic, It took 5 years on Golarion. That's better than 400 years in the real world.

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

Prethen wrote:
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.

I apologize for my misunderstanding, I was basing my assumption off the title.

"IF THERE WAS ONE CLASS YOU'D WISH PAIZO TO DROP FROM PFS LEGALITY, WHICH ONE WOULD IT BE AND WHY?"

I think that anytime you ask people what they wish, they mention lofty and nigh-unreachable things like world peace or an end to hunger. They aren't expect to explain how they would achieve these goals, just that they'd like them to happen. Similarly, having a thread where folks are asked what they'd like banned in PFS then being asked to defend their choice is odd to me. People shouldn't need to explain how their wishes work—that's why they are wishes. We're all just blowing hot air here, talking about things we wish were different so our feathers don't get so ruffled.

Only glabrezus really care about the finer points.

Silver Crusade 4/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Prethen wrote:
I see rumors that supposedly Paizo is coming out with some sort of defense against bullets and/or the Gunslinger. But, for something like over 150 scenarios and modules, isn't this sort of like shutting the barn door after the horse has bolted?
Well, are there another 150 horses in the barn?

Unless rules change, I don't see how this will help with the "remaining horses". I can't imagine every NPC at every tier will now be wearing flak jackets, yet that class will permeate everything and everywhere.

4/5 *

4 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't want to see any classes banned in PFS. I want to see GMs and players given the ability, the training, and the moral authority to successfully deal with game-wrecking combinations at the table. Not by nerfing legal characters, but by working together to ensure that the entire group can contribute, and are having fun. (And, by extension, that Gms are trained to have fun in ways that don't exclude the PCs having fun, and vice versa.)

I have, in my time as a GM, dealt with the typical maximized-empowered-shocking grasp-keen-black-blade-scimitar magi, the infinite-free-action-musket-master gunslinger, the large-sized-pounce-kitty-improved-precise-shot-ranger, the obscuring mist storm druid, and various incarnations of monks, always-go-firsts, and unhittable characters. In most cases, if the rest of the party is unable to do anything and is not having fun, I will stop the game at an appropriate point, and we will have a brief discussion of the issue. Often, that's all it takes for a player who is completely outmatching everything to pull her punches a bit. [If the party *is* having fun letting someone else do all the fighting, then great - more time for roleplaying!]

The key to dealing with this issue is to recognize it early (like in the first combat) and deal with it up front and immediately, in a non-confrontational way. GMs need to feel that they have the backing of the campaign rules and campaign leadership to address these issues for the enjoyment of the other players. I have always felt that campaign leadership would back me in cases like this, but the wording in the Guide is vague enough that not every GM may feel that way.

The culture of the game has become very players-vs-GM, with I'm sure bad examples on both sides of the equation. THAT is what needs to change.

4/5 *

2 people marked this as a favorite.

This is a great model for folks who want to have optimized PCs but still play well in a group. I am not left-handed!

Silver Crusade 4/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:

I don't want to see any classes banned in PFS. I want to see GMs and players given the ability, the training, and the moral authority to successfully deal with game-wrecking combinations at the table. Not by nerfing legal characters, but by working together to ensure that the entire group can contribute, and are having fun. (And, by extension, that Gms are trained to have fun in ways that don't exclude the PCs having fun, and vice versa.)

I have, in my time as a GM, dealt with the typical maximized-empowered-shocking grasp-keen-black-blade-scimitar magi, the infinite-free-action-musket-master gunslinger, the large-sized-pounce-kitty-improved-precise-shot-ranger, the obscuring mist storm druid, and various incarnations of monks, always-go-firsts, and unhittable characters. In most cases, if the rest of the party is unable to do anything and is not having fun, I will stop the game at an appropriate point, and we will have a brief discussion of the issue. Often, that's all it takes for a player who is completely outmatching everything to pull her punches a bit. [If the party *is* having fun letting someone else do all the fighting, then great - more time for roleplaying!]

The key to dealing with this issue is to recognize it early (like in the first combat) and deal with it up front and immediately, in a non-confrontational way. GMs need to feel that they have the backing of the campaign rules and campaign leadership to address these issues for the enjoyment of the other players. I have always felt that campaign leadership would back me in cases like this, but the wording in the Guide is vague enough that not every GM may feel that way.

The culture of the game has become very players-vs-GM, with I'm sure bad examples on both sides of the equation. THAT is what needs to change.

I have nothing against what you're saying, but (and I could be wrong), I think you're missing the point of my statement. Basically, the (or some or many) players will do whatever they CAN do to overpower a scenario BECAUSE THEY CAN. The one class in question here, is easily optimized and immediately ready to do just that. How can that be corrected by diplomatic moves between the players and the GM? I know of one player who will join tables and ask other players if their character should refrain from using both barrels. I think that's absurd to do and "unrealistic" for play. I'm of the opinion, let the players unleash whatever power they have. Even as a GM I recognize this as being totally fair given the rules and the parameters in which we play.

Shadow Lodge 5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I want to see GMs and players given the ability, the training, and the moral authority to successfully deal with game-wrecking combinations at the table. Not by nerfing legal characters, but by working together to ensure that the entire group can contribute, and are having fun.

This is a terrible idea. There is no place in this thread for a sensible comment such as this.

Back to ranting everyone!

Silver Crusade 4/5

Walter Sheppard wrote:
Prethen wrote:
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.

I apologize for my misunderstanding, I was basing my assumption off the title.

"IF THERE WAS ONE CLASS YOU'D WISH PAIZO TO DROP FROM PFS LEGALITY, WHICH ONE WOULD IT BE AND WHY?"

I think that anytime you ask people what they wish, they mention lofty and nigh-unreachable things like world peace or an end to hunger. They aren't expect to explain how they would achieve these goals, just that they'd like them to happen. Similarly, having a thread where folks are asked what they'd like banned in PFS then being asked to defend their choice is odd to me. People shouldn't need to explain how their wishes work—that's why they are wishes. We're all just blowing hot air here, talking about things we wish were different so our feathers don't get so ruffled.

Only glabrezus really care about the finer points.

Walter, in a word yes, you're correct. I can see why the thread has the appearance for soliciting rants. Again, not quite my intention. This thread was created for two reasons. Selfishly, I wanted to learn from other GM experiences what they were seeing at their tables and maybe I was not quite "interpreting" my experiences correctly (maybe I just needed to embrace my inner machine gunner). Two, I wanted to see if there was a common thread of classes that stood out as being in that overpowered arena from the get-go and what others thoughts were on it.

Silver Crusade 2/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:

I don't want to see any classes banned in PFS. I want to see GMs and players given the ability, the training, and the moral authority to successfully deal with game-wrecking combinations at the table. Not by nerfing legal characters, but by working together to ensure that the entire group can contribute, and are having fun. (And, by extension, that Gms are trained to have fun in ways that don't exclude the PCs having fun, and vice versa.)

I have, in my time as a GM, dealt with the typical maximized-empowered-shocking grasp-keen-black-blade-scimitar magi, the infinite-free-action-musket-master gunslinger, the large-sized-pounce-kitty-improved-precise-shot-ranger, the obscuring mist storm druid, and various incarnations of monks, always-go-firsts, and unhittable characters. In most cases, if the rest of the party is unable to do anything and is not having fun, I will stop the game at an appropriate point, and we will have a brief discussion of the issue. Often, that's all it takes for a player who is completely outmatching everything to pull her punches a bit. [If the party *is* having fun letting someone else do all the fighting, then great - more time for roleplaying!]

The key to dealing with this issue is to recognize it early (like in the first combat) and deal with it up front and immediately, in a non-confrontational way. GMs need to feel that they have the backing of the campaign rules and campaign leadership to address these issues for the enjoyment of the other players. I have always felt that campaign leadership would back me in cases like this, but the wording in the Guide is vague enough that not every GM may feel that way.

The culture of the game has become very players-vs-GM, with I'm sure bad examples on both sides of the equation. THAT is what needs to change.

At least unhittable PCs usually let other PCs do something. Usually. Although with a lot of PFS NPCs, being "unhittable" is not a very hard task.

3/5

GM Lamplighter wrote:
This is a great model for folks who want to have optimized PCs but still play well in a group. I am not left-handed!

The problem with this method is that risk-aversion often kicks in at the first whiff of danger, and the actually-right-handed PC ends up unleashing hell when he or she does not actually need to.

And then, of course, there are the players who hold back and end up being patronizing to the rest of the table.

-Matt

Silver Crusade 2/5

"The problem with this method is that risk-aversion all-too-often kicks in"

PFS is all about risk-aversion quite frequently. Especially with an unknown GM or a known PC-griefer. Ideally, PC-griefer GMs' NPCs get zero actions. At least, that's the thinking.

Shadow Lodge

Prethen wrote:
I know of one player who will join tables and ask other players if their character should refrain from using both barrels.

I have a gunslinger/paladin PC. I rolled him up fairly early in my organized play tenure. I purchased him a double-barreled pistol.

I've only used the double barrel ability thus far in only two scenarios out of 20+ played. Normally I don't even seek permissive use from fellow PCs as I know how broken it can be.

In case #1, the PC was able to completely kill an "nigh unkillable hazard" on his own in a single round (a shemhazian demon with 250+ damage while he was only level 9). In case #2, it was a misrun Silver Tarn scenario where we ended up with multiple big bad end bosses and it was a necessary evil (good?) to avoid a TPK.

The gunslinger is not alone in breaking a scenario, but sadly if maximized it is a class that can ruin the fun of others at the table. Because PFS is a community game, it's best run when everyone gets an equal share of the spotlight.

In good, well-designed games (I'm talking board games mostly), the rules set up a framework where everyone is getting an equal share of spotlight.

There's literally probably only a dozen or so tweaks to how the games runs in organized play that would impart a massive leap ahead in improving the framework and eliminating the need to have these "frank GM/player spotlight sharing discussions" at periodic intervals.

The hobby attracts a lot of folks who don't have a tabletop background, but do have an MMO raiding background, where it is legitimately important that they find the best way to maximize individual DPR to improve everyone's experience (by not collectively dying to digital bosses and running back from graveyards over and over and over - and over).

I suppose a single paragraph in the guide to organized play that highlights how players should follow a code of conduct of sharing the spotlight could gain a lot of mileage. GMs could take their printed copy of the guide, with that paragraph highlighted and silently slide it over to the players in question. Good people may nod, smile and look back at their GM and say: "Got it. Enough said."

Regardless, improving the raw framework by tweaking the edge cases that disrupt the overall power curve would help tremendously in making this a better social/community game.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Prethen wrote:


Unless rules change, I don't see how this will help with the "remaining horses". I can't imagine every NPC at every tier will now be wearing flak jackets, yet that class will permeate everything and everywhere.

I think its an armor enchant, so you'll see some people with it. If they let it work on amulets of natural armor too that would help with the broadside of a barn dragons.

Silver Crusade 2/5

I don't think the counter to firearms should be a way to revalidate the tired, old natural armor crutch that pets and monsters lean on. Firearms should own targets relying on straight armor. That's the niche of firearms. I don't think that should change.

3/5

there are several spells that help deal with firearms (including one that makes gunpowder explode in the gun), as well as other things that help get around them, including deflect arrows (or as I like to call it, catching bullets with his teeth!).

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

I don't hold much hope for the upcoming protection vs. gunslingers to help protect anyone at the table from gunslinger players used to demanding everyone's attention.

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.

ALL targets rely on strait armor and natural armor. Thats the problem. Its the majority of virtually everyone's armor class. Take it out and peoples to hit modifier alone passes the AC without too much trouble.

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

It's all good Prethren. Miscommunication is the root of all problems, or something like that.

Personally, I've not seen any substantial issues with the current classes we have. Yes, some classes are easier to abuse than others (and they have been listed above), but the root of the issue isn't that these classes are permitted. All issues I have witnessed are derivative of problematic players.

This isn't to say that such players are lost causes; some of my most active participants are people that have characters with class X, Y, or Z. They just know how to throttle that "OPness" back a bit. It's when someone has a one of these characters and doesn't throttle down their Schick that I've seen other players become upset.

I roll my eyes when I see people that have that janky, cookie-cutter X, Y, or Z build, but hey—they're having fun. Who am I to judge that? So as long as they don't abuse those builds to spoil the experience for my other players, we won't have a problem. If they do, it falls to me as an organizer and VO to have a conversation with that person, and explain to them how others are viewing their table presence.

It doesn't matter how awesome your build is, or how much your DPR is. Bottom line: if you're _____, ____, or do ____ with it, you'll have difficulty finding anyone that's willing to play with you.

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

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kyle Baird wrote:
I don't hold much hope for the upcoming protection vs. gunslingers to help protect anyone at the table from gunslinger players used to demanding everyone's attention.

"Watch me do this!"

5/5 5/55/55/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
GM Lamplighter wrote:
I want to see GMs and players given the ability, the training, and the moral authority to successfully deal with game-wrecking combinations at the table. Not by nerfing legal characters, but by working together to ensure that the entire group can contribute, and are having fun. (And, by extension, that Gms are trained to have fun in ways that don't exclude the PCs having fun, and vice versa.)

This is an impossible standard.

Everyone has their own idea of what effective means. What you're asking is for the DM to impartially, constantly and fairly set that bar, often accross incomparable standards, on the shifting sands of characters levels, scenarios, die rolls, and personal preferences.

Silver Crusade 2/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:

ALL targets rely on strait armor and natural armor. Thats the problem. Its the majority of virtually everyone's armor class. Take it out and peoples to hit modifier alone passes the AC without too much trouble.

That's not entirely true. I've built PCs around miss chance. At higher levels, miss chance is more effective than AC in many circumstances.

Shadow Lodge

Kyle Baird wrote:
I don't hold much hope for the upcoming protection vs. gunslingers to help protect anyone at the table from gunslinger players used to demanding everyone's attention.

The writing's on the wall, boys!

Time to roll up that may-gee-eye... or an al-key-mest.

We gots t' get our big damagin' touch attacks on lest we lose that thar spotlight and let our skin get colder than a winter day here in South Andoran.

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

BigNorseWolf wrote:
If they let it work on amulets of natural armor too that would help with the broadside of a barn dragons.

Hooray for Bullitproof Monks!

5/5

David Bowles wrote:
At higher levels, miss chance is more effective than AC in many circumstances.

QFT. mirror image, displacement, fog clouds, etc are all better options.

5/5 5/55/55/5

David Bowles wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

ALL targets rely on strait armor and natural armor. Thats the problem. Its the majority of virtually everyone's armor class. Take it out and peoples to hit modifier alone passes the AC without too much trouble.

That's not entirely true. I've built PCs around miss chance. At higher levels, miss chance is more effective than AC in many circumstances.

I was careful to say armor class rather than damage mitigation for that reason.

Grand Lodge 4/5

Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path, Pathfinder Accessories, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I knew a 12th level monk who used a ring of blink to survive with a 10 AC.

Shadow Lodge

FWIW, the gunslinger isn't that far off from the alchemist on getting major mileage for their DPR from touch attacks.

I recall playing a Kyle Baird scenario at the 10-11 subtier with a dragon in it that was being set up to be a scary final encounter. I remember the concern on the faces of many of our party members as it employed its first round of written tactics.

I also then remember when the alchemist clicked some boots of speed together and with fast bombs killed it in a single full attack sequence.

I felt bad for the GM, who was certainly looking forward to running an exciting finale for the night. I leaned over and told him that it was okay that despite the BBEG being immediately rendered deep into the negatives that he go ahead and still roll out a full round of attacks or breath on my PC as a form of "death throes".

I just don't know if this is just a matter about talking to players about self control at the table, either. Sometimes you just don't realize your character is going to obliterate an enemy when you declare your attacks while playing certain PCs. Gunslingers, alchemists, barbarians, magi, sup'd-up eidolons, archers, paladins all have the ability to steal a lot of spotlight in a night.

Sometimes I wish critical hits inflicted a condition (like a movement speed penalty, or a hit penalty) versus doing 3X or 4X damage. That would do a lot for organized play in not only preventing spikey PC deaths and widely different experiences, but also preventing folks who drove an hour or more to their monthly game day from being denied a chance to act in initiative when a fight or series of fights with single opponents ends prematurely to an alpha strike or confirmed critical hit.

*

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

The title said ONE class. You must choose: 01110000 01101001 01110010 01100001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01101111 01110010 00100000 01101110 01101001 01101110 01101010 01100001?

5/5

wakedown wrote:
I also then remember when the alchemist clicked some boots of speed together and with fast bombs killed it in a single full attack sequence.

That's pretty impressive given that the BBEG has displacement at high tier.

Sovereign Court

Curaigh wrote:
Walter Sheppard wrote:
I think all classes that use vowels or consonants in their name should be banned in PFS.
The title said ONE class. You must choose: 01110000 01101001 01110010 01100001 01110100 01100101 00100000 01101111 01110010 00100000 01101110 01101001 01101110 01101010 01100001?

pirate or ninja?

(man, I am such a nerd)

3/5

BigNorseWolf wrote:
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.

I love how the easier comment was defended, but the other ignored.

Shadow Lodge

Kyle Baird wrote:
That's pretty impressive given that the BBEG has displacement at high tier.

Yeah, but you know the type I'm sure. Improved TWF, rapid shot. Used the first round where the "OMG!" thing happens to the party to drink targeted bomb admixture along with being part of a few players that d-door'd. A bard was inspiring I believe. Lucky rolls on the displacement to do about 250 damage or so IIRC. Worst case, he would've needed another round if the 50/50 rolls weren't going his way. I recall running a recent scenario at the end of Season 5 where the players I was GM'ing couldn't catch a lucky break with concealment, and the 50/50 odds foiled them about ten times in a row.

The player's a good guy, he wasn't trying to "steal the spotlight" and I think was as surprised as the rest of us at what he accomplished since I wager that character was a good amount of GM credit.

Anyway, my point was largely that an alchemist is often as impressive as a gunslinger in terms of damage capability against touch attacks, so I don't know if the gunslinger using touch attacks as a mechanism is enough justification to hit them with a ban-hammer.

5/5

So instead of talking to the dragon, it shows up and the players start throwing bombs.

Whoever said Pathfinders weren't murderhobos...

5/5

1 person marked this as a favorite.
wakedown wrote:
Anyway, my point was largely that an alchemist is often as impressive as a gunslinger in terms of damage capability against touch attacks

Often for only one, possibly two encounters. Gunslingers are only slowed down by their willingness to spend a few gold.

Shadow Lodge

Kyle Baird wrote:
Often for only one, possibly two encounters. Gunslingers are only slowed down by their willingness to spend a few gold.

At level 11 (the example I posted), the alchemist in question is still able to lob ~1000 damage worth of bombs. That's usually more than enough for the majority of PFS scenarios.

For a home game/module/AP with a daily encounter budget that can hit 8-10 encounters, the nova is less common. I'm personally used to playing RPGs where the average adventuring day meant 8-10 fights (barring Kingmaker). PFS is the first organized play setting I've invested any major time into and there's an unseen hand guiding players towards alpha-strike/nova style PCs to take advantage of the certainty in the budget of # of expected fights per day.

"Wait? We've had 3 fights already today and are about to go down a staircase? Hold on a second..."

*Character begins using wand/spells to cast shield, displacement and a number of other buffs*

"Okay, let's go down..."

More scenarios need to employ mechanics where distance/time passes from this point to make such tactics more of a gamble than a certainty. That could restore some more balance to the force.

Or perhaps something like the scenario(s) we're discussing employed but in a little more detail... The sheet at the end of a part 1 could have you write down the resources you've spent or have remaining - i.e. the # of channels, bombs, smites, rage rounds, etc. And then when you play part 2, you start from this state of drained resources.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Kyle Baird wrote:

So instead of talking to the dragon, it shows up and the players start throwing bombs.

Whoever said Pathfinders weren't murderhobos...

were killed before they could finish the deni

Liberty's Edge

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.

Anyway, on with the rants!

I, for one, don't understand why anyone would seek to prohibit discussion in a forum discussion.


BigNorseWolf wrote:
Kyle Baird wrote:

So instead of talking to the dragon, it shows up and the players start throwing bombs.

Whoever said Pathfinders weren't murderhobos...

were killed before they could finish the deni

Did the alchemist at least utter the words, "STAND BACK, I'M GOING TO TRY SCIENCE!"

-j

Grand Lodge

Honestly Gunslingers are fine. It's the horrible gun rules that are the problem. Why Paizo insisted on hard locking the guns before writing the class that uses them will forever be a mystery.

Shadow Lodge 2/5

I'd lose ninjas because they're never around when you need them and always gone when they kill the guy you were just talking to before you finish the conversation. :P


Myles Crocker wrote:
I'm torn between the summoner and the gunslinger.

I feel the same way but would vote summoner. Gunslingers can wreck bosses. Summoners can ruin entire encounters. The gunslinger killing one dude doesn't take away, much, from another player's fun. A summoner taking a long time and filling the battlefield with walls of fur is another story.

Silver Crusade 2/5

"A summoner taking a long time and filling the battlefield with walls of fur is another story"

Except that druids can actually do this in PFS, and summoners can't.

5/5 5/55/55/5

Nothing stops a summoner from casting summon monster the old fashioned way.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nothing stops a summoner from casting summon monster the old fashioned way.

You mean apart from their limited spell slots and that an unbuffed Eidolon is basically a bad Barbarian?

There's a lot less stopping a conjuration wizard from casting Summon Monster the old fashioned way.

Silver Crusade 2/5

PrinceRaven wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Nothing stops a summoner from casting summon monster the old fashioned way.

You mean apart from their limited spell slots and that an unbuffed Eidolon is basically a bad Barbarian?

There's a lot less stopping a conjuration wizard from casting Summon Monster the old fashioned way.

But even then, they'll never even touch the druid's ability to put out summons. I know this, because my summoner HAS summon monster as a spell he knows. The 6-level casters just don't have nearly the spell payload of 9-levels.

2/5

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Prethen wrote:
I'm curious to see what various GM's who have different amounts of time of experience. I'm guessing newer GM's might have different opinions than more veteran ones.

Actually I haven't had a serious issue with any class that would make me want to use the Hammer of Banning. In fact I'd allow more of them (mainly archetypes) in the game.

The only issue if I'm thinking about power is relative power between characters in a given party. With all the options for customization as well as the variety in playstyles in the player-base it's very easy to have a disparity.

401 to 450 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.