What 8 Classes Would You Keep?


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Liberty's Edge

DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Honestly I'd probably replace the Oracle with the Psion or a homebrewed Pathfinderization of the Green Ronin Psychic.

That's fair. I'd still be really tempted to go with a 'tribal' spellcaster as a counterpart to the Barbarian, though.


Bard, Cleric, Druid, Fighter, Ranger, Rogue, Sorcerer, Wizard

You can build well over 90% of fantasy character concepts with these classes, especially when multi-classing.

Liberty's Edge

Based on the previous list, her's a rough count (I just searched class names and then eliminated ones that weren't part of a list...I probably miscounted slightly somewhere, and definitely missed anything horribly misspelled) of the classes as they currently stand:

Bard - 51 votes
Barbarian - 44 votes
Sorcerer - 38 votes
Oracle - 33 votes
Alchemist - 32 votes
Inquisitor - 30 votes
Cleric - 28 votes
Ranger - 27 votes
Magus - 26 votes
Druid - 26 votes
Fighter - 26 votes
Slayer - 24 votes
Paladin - 22 votes
Wizard - 21 votes
Witch - 20 votes
Monk - 16 votes
Rogue - 16 votes
Ninja - 14 votes
Arcanist - 13 votes
Brawler - 11 votes
Cavalier - 10 votes
Investigator - 7 vote
Shaman - 6 votes
Warpriest - 6 vote
Summoner - 5 votes
Bloodrager - 5 votes
Gunslinger - 5 votes
Hunter - 5 vote
Samurai - 3 vote
Swashbuckler - 2 vote

This is obviously a bit misleading in some ways since in this sort of thing many classes are mutually exclusive (few choose Sorcerer and Wizard, for example). And even more so because the ACG isn't quite out yet. Redoing this a month from now, I'd expect the ACG class numbers to all go up quite a bit.

Paizo Employee

Deadmanwalking wrote:
This is obviously a bit misleading in some ways since in this sort of thing many classes are mutually exclusive (few choose Sorcerer and Wizard, for example). And even more so because the ACG isn't quite out yet. Redoing this a month from now, I'd expect the ACG class numbers to all go up quite a bit.

Interesting to see bard in the lead, though!

It's also interesting that people seem to share my opinion on spontaneous vs. "Vancian" casting. Which makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

Cheers!
Landon

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Honestly I'd probably replace the Oracle with the Psion or a homebrewed Pathfinderization of the Green Ronin Psychic.

I was just re-reading that one last night. I've no idea how I'd deal with the Strain concept (since I don't like that as a balancing metric), but the feats + skills + check design of psychic powers was really neat.

Grand Lodge

Landon Winkler wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
This is obviously a bit misleading in some ways since in this sort of thing many classes are mutually exclusive (few choose Sorcerer and Wizard, for example). And even more so because the ACG isn't quite out yet. Redoing this a month from now, I'd expect the ACG class numbers to all go up quite a bit.

Interesting to see bard in the lead, though!

It's also interesting that people seem to share my opinion on spontaneous vs. "Vancian" casting. Which makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

Cheers!
Landon

I'm not surprised. Bards are a love or hate it class, with far more lovers than haters. (Not in my group, though. Ugh . . . just try suggesting a Bard is a better option than a Rogue and watch the sparks fly.) So you may see plenty of bard hate, but they're outnumbered 2:1.

Now I am somewhat surprised by how high Fighter got on the list, considering even most people I know that like the Fighter prefer Barbarians and Rangers.

As a semi-aside, this list has inspired me to try out a game with limited classes. Keeping it in the Tier 3 camp make a balanced party without having one player crush it or another run around like a useless git due to poor planning.


EntrerisShadow wrote:
Keeping it in the Tier 3 camp make a balanced party without having one player crush it or another run around like a useless git due to poor planning.

Is there a class tier list posted anywhere?

I'll chip in:
-Fighter (houseruled to catch up with the Ranger)
-Bard
-Rogue (includes Ninja)
-Ranger
-Inquisitor
-Paladin
-Monk
-Cavalier (includes Samurai)

-Matt

Liberty's Edge

EntrerisShadow wrote:
I'm not surprised. Bards are a love or hate it class, with far more lovers than haters. (Not in my group, though. Ugh . . . just try suggesting a Bard is a better option than a Rogue and watch the sparks fly.) So you may see plenty of bard hate, but they're outnumbered 2:1.

Yeah, I was gratified to see my favorite Classes (Barbarian and Bard) in the lead, but not especially surprised.

EntrerisShadow wrote:
Now I am somewhat surprised by how high Fighter got on the list, considering even most people I know that like the Fighter prefer Barbarians and Rangers.

A lot of the Fighter choices were as part of the 'old school' list of Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard. Obviously not all, but something like a third or fourth of them. So it kinda got grandfathered in to some degree.

EntrerisShadow wrote:
As a semi-aside, this list has inspired me to try out a game with limited classes. Keeping it in the Tier 3 camp make a balanced party without having one player crush it or another run around like a useless git due to poor planning.

Yeah, I'm tempted myself, though I don't know when or if I'll go through with it, or with precisely what list.

Shadow Lodge

EntrerisShadow wrote:


Now I am somewhat surprised by how high Fighter got on the list, considering even most people I know that like the Fighter prefer Barbarians and Rangers.

With a fighter, you can make a "Caviler" or "Barbarian" or "Ranger" without the need for those classes, perhaps not exactly, but something that "feels" like one of those.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kerney wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:


Now I am somewhat surprised by how high Fighter got on the list, considering even most people I know that like the Fighter prefer Barbarians and Rangers.

With a fighter, you can make a "Caviler" or "Barbarian" or "Ranger" without the need for those classes, perhaps not exactly, but something that "feels" like one of those.

Yes, but you won't be nearly as good as any of them.


Hmmm

Fighter, Wizard, Cleric, Rogue, Druid, Monk, Druid, Magus.

I am a fan of the classics for the most part. I think almost every other class could have just been some kind of archetype of the classics.


FancyZergling wrote:
If you could choose only 8 Pathfinder classes to keep, what 8 Would they be and why?

Assuming zero archetypes:

Cleric, Sorcerer, Ranger, Psion, Psychic Warrior, Bard, Inquisitor, Magus.

With archetypes, I might want to have the alchemist in there instead of the Magus. When Path of War comes out, the Ranger might be replaced.


EntrerisShadow wrote:
Now I am somewhat surprised by how high Fighter got on the list, considering even most people I know that like the Fighter prefer Barbarians and Rangers.

Apart from the Grognard-factor (a term I use with affection) that Deadmanwalking mentioned, there's also the fact that the fighter is very modular and has very little specific flavour - traits that are hugely attractive when you're working with a sharply limited list of classes to make many different character concepts.

Because of all the bonus feats the fighter can do a decent job of just about any approach to combat - archery, crossbows, grappling, maneuver master, switch hitter, spear chucker, sword and board, swashbuckler, duelist, polearm enthusiast, greatsword wielder etc.

While I love the barbarian and the paladin to bits, I'd have a hard time making either work well as a duelist or switch hitter.

P.S. I can't help but feel bad for the rogue. He's getting beaten by the slayer, a rogue hybrid class that hasn't even been published yet.


Landon Winkler wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
This is obviously a bit misleading in some ways since in this sort of thing many classes are mutually exclusive (few choose Sorcerer and Wizard, for example). And even more so because the ACG isn't quite out yet. Redoing this a month from now, I'd expect the ACG class numbers to all go up quite a bit.

Interesting to see bard in the lead, though!

It's also interesting that people seem to share my opinion on spontaneous vs. "Vancian" casting. Which makes me feel warm and fuzzy.

Cheers!
Landon

I prefer spontaneous casting to "Vancian," I just don't like the way it was implemented in 3.X/Pathfinder.

There are also conceptual classes that I would include, but not they way they were done for Pathfinder (Magus being a big one there).


Why 8 classes?

Ranger, Oracle, Wizard, Inquisitor, Druid, Alchemist, Barbarian, Monk.

ACG will probably change this quite a bit. I wanted a rogue type class, just couldn't justify it.

Grand Lodge

Mattastrophic wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:
Keeping it in the Tier 3 camp make a balanced party without having one player crush it or another run around like a useless git due to poor planning.

Is there a class tier list posted anywhere?

I'll chip in:
-Fighter (houseruled to catch up with the Ranger)
-Bard
-Rogue (includes Ninja)
-Ranger
-Inquisitor
-Paladin
-Monk
-Cavalier (includes Samurai)

-Matt

There was a pretty in-depth discussion of it here.

From what I could tell the classes usually labeled tier 3 were like Paladin, Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Magus, Hunter, Barbarian. Pretty much anything with 6 levels of spellcasting made it here (aside from the Summoner which was Tier 2 or possibly Tier 1 depending on who you asked.)


Hmmm...

I would say: (In order of my like for them)
1) Alchemist
2) Oracle
3) Bard
4) Gunslinger
5) Arcanist
6) Inquisitor
7) Barbarian
8) Cavalier

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Set wrote:
DM_aka_Dudemeister wrote:
Honestly I'd probably replace the Oracle with the Psion or a homebrewed Pathfinderization of the Green Ronin Psychic.

I was just re-reading that one last night. I've no idea how I'd deal with the Strain concept (since I don't like that as a balancing metric), but the feats + skills + check design of psychic powers was really neat.

I'd replace the Strain mechanic with the Psionic Focus mechanic from 3.5 Psionics/Dreamscarred Press.

So a character has three states:

Psychically Unfocused: Psychic abilities are limited to effects similar to 0-level spells (Move Object 5 pounds or less etc).

Psychically Focused: Allows a character to maintain psychic powers, let's say you have Psychic Shield, it remains active as long as your Psychic focus is active. While Psychically focused there are some powers that can be activated to a lesser value (probably half).

Expend Focus: This is for offensive powers, or for some extra bang for your buck. If you want to send out the full brunt of your telekinetic power, or telepathically control a person you're going to expend your psychic focus to do so.

Regaining Focus would be a Full-Round Action, but could become a Standard Action with a DC 20 Concentration Check, Move Action at DC 25, Swift at DC 30 and Free at DC 35. Basically using action economy to deal with Strain.

...

I've been thinking about this for a while and used a system similar to this when I ran a homebrewed Mass Effect game a while back. I might even publish it if I get around to fixing the language to be readable beyond my own personal notes.


EntrerisShadow wrote:

There was a pretty in-depth discussion of it here.

From what I could tell the classes usually labeled tier 3 were like Paladin, Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Magus, Hunter, Barbarian. Pretty much anything with 6 levels of spellcasting made it here (aside from the Summoner which was Tier 2 or possibly Tier 1 depending on who you asked.)

Thanks for the link. That discussion is a bit of a mess, though. There's also the problem of "splat or no-splat?" which was there in the 3.5 version of the tier list as well. When you assume that every character has full access to everything ever printed, there are going to be issues.

Anyways... am I the only one who left all the full-casters off his list?

-Matt

Liberty's Edge

Mattastrophic wrote:
Anyways... am I the only one who left all the full-casters off his list?

Depends on which list. My low-magic list left them off, for example. But the issue with doing this is that it really changes the basic nature of the game (which is sorta predicated on full casters being a thing). It might well make for a better game in many ways...but it's also a very different game from standard Pathfinder, which is why many people wouldn't do that.

Liberty's Edge

Kudaku wrote:

Apart from the Grognard-factor (a term I use with affection) that Deadmanwalking mentioned, there's also the fact that the fighter is very modular and has very little specific flavour - traits that are hugely attractive when you're working with a sharply limited list of classes to make many different character concepts.

Because of all the bonus feats the fighter can do a decent job of just about any approach to combat - archery, crossbows, grappling, maneuver master, switch hitter, spear chucker, sword and board, swashbuckler, duelist, polearm enthusiast, greatsword wielder etc.

While I love the barbarian and the paladin to bits, I'd have a hard time making either work well as a duelist or switch hitter.

This is true, and I'd agree that it's a factor in Fighter getting picked a lot. However, it's also all true of the Slayer, which is just a much better Class in several ways. I'd expect Fighter to be one of the Classes whose numbers would go down a lot if we re-did this in a couple of months.

Kudaku wrote:
P.S. I can't help but feel bad for the rogue. He's getting beaten by the slayer, a rogue hybrid class that hasn't even been published yet.

That's because the Slayer is amazing. Especially for something like this. Conceptually, you can use it to make good versions of most Ranger builds, almost all Rogue builds, and any Fighter build that doesn't involve Heavy Armor (as well as a few that do). All while being effective mechanically. There's a reason it's by far the highest ranked ACG class...


Mattastrophic wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

There was a pretty in-depth discussion of it here.

From what I could tell the classes usually labeled tier 3 were like Paladin, Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Magus, Hunter, Barbarian. Pretty much anything with 6 levels of spellcasting made it here (aside from the Summoner which was Tier 2 or possibly Tier 1 depending on who you asked.)

Thanks for the link. That discussion is a bit of a mess, though. There's also the problem of "splat or no-splat?" which was there in the 3.5 version of the tier list as well. When you assume that every character has full access to everything ever printed, there are going to be issues.

Anyways... am I the only one who left all the full-casters off his list?

-Matt

No full casters on my list.

Grand Lodge

Mattastrophic wrote:
EntrerisShadow wrote:

There was a pretty in-depth discussion of it here.

From what I could tell the classes usually labeled tier 3 were like Paladin, Bard, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Warpriest, Magus, Hunter, Barbarian. Pretty much anything with 6 levels of spellcasting made it here (aside from the Summoner which was Tier 2 or possibly Tier 1 depending on who you asked.)

Thanks for the link. That discussion is a bit of a mess, though. There's also the problem of "splat or no-splat?" which was there in the 3.5 version of the tier list as well. When you assume that every character has full access to everything ever printed, there are going to be issues.

Anyways... am I the only one who left all the full-casters off his list?

-Matt

I very nearly did - in fact, I think the only full caster to make it on my list was the Sorcerer. But ultimately that was because casters are just too big a part of the game to me, and Sorcerers are slightly more balanced than a Wizard imho. But truthfully, I might consider replacing Sorcerer with Hunter for balance - without the broken Druids or Summoners around to steal their thunder, the Hunter is a pretty solid class.


I don't understand Ranger being in the top eight. If you want to get it down to basics you can just play a 2/3 Fighter, 1/3 Druid and pretty much have a Ranger. So why is Ranger outranking Fighter and Druid? *shrugs*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Arikiel wrote:
I don't understand Ranger being in the top eight. If you want to get it down to basics you can just play a 2/3 Fighter, 1/3 Druid and pretty much have a Ranger. So why is Ranger outranking Fighter and Druid? *shrugs*

6 + Int skill points, combat feats you don't have to qualify for, full BAB, an animal companion, and a smattering of spells, some of which are unique to the ranger, probably makes up most of the reasons. That many skill points on a full BAB character allows for a reasonably skillful individual without having to put too many points into Intelligence, combat styles allow getting into some feat chains that would normally be difficult to manage without having higher base stats or taking feats you consider to be pointless. Favored enemy can be pretty handy too, and eventually you get spells that let you make anything your favored enemy...


IF I had my choices for only 8 they would be the classic four of course...so

Fighter (been here since the beginning, just so useful at defining so many different warrior types).

Cleric (similar to Fighter, but on the divine)

Wizard (as the other two above...but more on the arcane front).

Then the Thief, though not as original as the top three, still one of the core four rounding out what most consider to be the essentials of the RPG.

Next I'd probably choose the Monk...as we need that hand to hand type brawler with that orient but not orient type feel.

Next would be the Ranger...as so many people love rangers...probably wouldn't be smart to leave it out.

Then the Paladin for the same reasons as the Ranger...

And finally, the Druid.

Sorry, like Bards...but compared to the ones above, a singing guy just isn't as classic to the game as the ones I listed above in my opinion.


Arikiel wrote:
I don't understand Ranger being in the top eight. If you want to get it down to basics you can just play a 2/3 Fighter, 1/3 Druid and pretty much have a Ranger. So why is Ranger outranking Fighter and Druid? *shrugs*

A lot of people consider the fighter to be underpowered, and the ranger to be the best man (excepting perhaps the new slayer) for the stealthy, skilled, light armor assassin.


That's a pretty arbitrary request, but why not? Except I'd only have 6:

  • Fighter
  • Rogue
  • Bard
  • Cleric
  • Druid
  • Wizard

The other classes would be implemented via class archetypes, multiclass archetypes, alternate class features, or feat chains.

Honestly, though, I'd rather ditch classes entirely. Why pigeonhole?


blahpers wrote:

That's a pretty arbitrary request, but why not? Except I'd only have 6:

  • Fighter
  • Rogue
  • Bard
  • Cleric
  • Druid
  • Wizard

The other classes would be implemented via class archetypes, multiclass archetypes, alternate class features, or feat chains.

Honestly, though, I'd rather ditch classes entirely. Why pigeonhole?

Can we play heroes? :D


Thomas Long 175 wrote:
Arikiel wrote:
I don't understand Ranger being in the top eight. If you want to get it down to basics you can just play a 2/3 Fighter, 1/3 Druid and pretty much have a Ranger. So why is Ranger outranking Fighter and Druid? *shrugs*
A lot of people consider the fighter to be underpowered, and the ranger to be the best man (excepting perhaps the new slayer) for the stealthy, skilled, light armor assassin.

The reason I had him on my list over the fighter and Druid is as follows:

- The Ranger also has bonus feats for certain combat styles, so it would adequately replace that part of the fighter
- The Ranger is probably the most flexible of all 4 core full BAB classes with the most skills, and a spell list there to enhance his abilities or be traded out in archetypes. Barbarians are one trick ponies (Combat! Smash!), and Paladins have lots of fiddly alignment hangups.
- Druids are a class that, as a DM, I find incredibly hard to motivate into action. They're all neutral in some regard, and don't have much of a need for worldly treasures compared to most other people in general. Rangers have some of that divine/nature flavor without all the trouble.
- Druid are a bit too powerful for my tastes, too.


Just 8 classes, huh? Okay, here are my picks:

Slayer: THE definitive martial class of Pathfinder. Most concepts that can be realized with a rogue or a fighter can be realized with a Slayer. Not all of them, of course, but the Slayer's versatile, so he gets the nod.

Brawler: Our punchy character. Represents some more stand-and-fight concepts more than the Slayer does.

Swashbuckler: The last of our frontline classes. Handles the dextrous warrior and gunslinger-type characters equally well.

Investigator: I like the idea of an alchemy-focused class, and the Investigator seems more conducive to building a heroic PC than "I have a tentacle growing out of my back" Alchemist.

Magus: Gishes are popular enough that they deserve a slot, I think.

Inquisitor: A divine gish. Also fits the idea of a dedicated supernatural monster hunter, which works out well.

Wizard: Our full spellcaster class. It's not fantasy without wizards.

Oracle: Our divine spellcaster. Choosing it because I like its flavor better than the Cleric.

This suite of classes leads to an interesting setup where Arcane Magic is prepared and Divine Magic is spontaneous. Kind of cool.

Anyway, I also had a "Core 9" idea. It's sorta based on the way 4e structured classes: you've got a role, and you've got a power source. So if you don't like that, I guess don't look?

Core 9 Idea:
The way these classes are set up would indicate a high-magic world, so no non-spellcasting classes. Everyone's got magic; that's just the way this particular world is.

The three power sources are Arcane Magic (using magic through your own power), Divine Magic (using magic through a divine intermediary), and Primal Magic (using the magic of spirits). The three roles are warrior (hit dudes in face), rogue (skills and such), and mage (full-on magic). So what we end up with is:

Bloodrager: Arcane Warrior (Should be simple enough to understand)

Bard: Arcane Rogue (Bard fits the rogue role better than the Skald does)

Arcanist: Arcane Mage (It was between the Wizard and the Arcanist, since there are already two charisma-based Arcane Classes. I personally like the idea that in this particular world, Arcane Magic is more flexible than other kinds of magic, so it was the Arcanist that stayed).

Paladin: Divine Warrior (Though I'd personally loosen the alignment restrictions, similar to the Champion of the the Faith Warpriest Archetype.)

Inquisitor: Divine Rogue (Definitely more skill-oriented than the Warpriest)

Cleric: Divine Mage (It was between the Cleric and the Oracle. Decided to go Cleric)

Ranger: Primal Warrior (Again, a no-brainer)

Hunter: Primal Rogue (It has as many skill points as the Ranger, but a stronger spellcasting focus means that I think the Hunter fits in this role pretty well)

Shaman: Primal Mage (It was either Shaman or Druid. I like the Shaman's focus on communing with Spirits, so I went with it.)


FancyZergling wrote:
WatersLethe wrote:
I'd like to answer the question but I'm too busy wondering... Why 8?
Just an arbitrary number that popped into my head. I guess an even more interesting question would be 4 classes... but it stands! Just random number that came into my head.

Four is too easy.

Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Rogue

Eight
Fighter
Cleric
Wizard
Rogue
Barbarian
Druid
Sorcerer
Bard


My Eight:

Alchemist
Magus
Inquisitor
Bard
Arcanist
Slayer
Brawler
Cleric

Paizo Employee Design Manager

After reviewing the ACG, I think I've revised my earlier list. My new 8 "have to have them" classes would be -

Arcanist- It fills pretty much any iconic concept you can come up with using either the Wizard or Sorcerer, and it's a bit easier to build and play than either, so this is our new full arcane caster.

Barbarian- I think you need at least two full BAB martial classes to really embody all of those concepts, and barbarian is a shoe-in since it covers a lot of classic tropes, and has nice original ideas.

Bard- Illusionist, musician, magical skill monkey, and great buffer, pretty much has to be here.

Cavalier- I'd feel a little bit better about this one filling the other half of the martial component if it were a little more like the Paladin, or vice versa. Since it's solid and doesn't have alignment restrictions, it gets the spot.

Hunter- Great class, well-balanced, can stand in for both the Ranger and Druid concepts in a given name. This is the new nature based core class for me.

Investigator- Capable of fulfilling most concepts currently embodied by the Alchemist and Rogue, this is the new "non-magical" skill-monkey standard I would want in my abridged game.

Oracle- The first half of our healing-proficient classes, I just think the Oracle is more flavorful and appropriate than the standard Cleric.

Witch - The other healing-proficient class, the Witch covers everything from the class ic witch trope to cloistered priests and makes a great fit in the top 8.

I'd really like an unarmed archetype for the Investigator to round this out.

Liberty's Edge

Why no Slayer? I'd replace Cavalier with it going by the logic you state.

Paizo Employee Design Manager

Deadmanwalking wrote:
Why no Slayer? I'd replace Cavalier with it going by the logic you state.

Part of it is probably that I'm letting flavor override mechanics in my head. The other part would be that I have a hard time shoe-horning the mechanics of the Slayer into the knightly concepts the Cavalier/Paladin cover, and I'd like one of my core 8 classes to have heavy armor by default.

Liberty's Edge

Ssalarn wrote:
Deadmanwalking wrote:
Why no Slayer? I'd replace Cavalier with it going by the logic you state.
Part of it is probably that I'm letting flavor override mechanics in my head. The other part would be that I have a hard time shoe-horning the mechanics of the Slayer into the knightly concepts the Cavalier/Paladin cover, and I'd like one of my core 8 classes to have heavy armor by default.

That makes sense. I was just going with the whole 'Need two full BAB classes, need them to contrast with each other.' thing. Going by that, Slayer makes a great counterpoint to Barbarian, IMO.

Grand Lodge

After seeing so many people choose it, I have to ask: Am I the only person who feels like the "Original" Core 4 is probably the worst lineup you could choose?

Fighter - Super, super weak.
Cleric - Superpowered fighter. (Plus dozens of other possibilities.)
Rogue - Fighter looks strong by comparison.
Wizard - Narrative god.

I'm surprised so many people want to keep them.


EntrerisShadow wrote:

After seeing so many people choose it, I have to ask: Am I the only person who feels like the "Original" Core 4 is probably the worst lineup you could choose?

Fighter - Super, super weak.
Cleric - Superpowered fighter. (Plus dozens of other possibilities.)
Rogue - Fighter looks strong by comparison.
Wizard - Narrative god.

I'm surprised so many people want to keep them.

Actually, if you notice only the cleric made it into the top 8 by the votes and only barely. Fighter needs 2 votes to replace ranger as 8th slot. Wizard needs 7 votes to even hit 8th slots and rogue needs 12 as of last counting.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.

Well, of those I only included Cleric...which is sorta only a problem as compared to Fighter and Rogue. And Ssalarn included none of them. So...yeah, some other people clearly agree with you, but tradition is strong.


Cleric, Fighter, Rogue, Wizard
Oracle, Paladin, Bard, sorc.

Dark Archive

Only 8? Ouch. Still, an interesting question.

I think I'd go with:

1. Alchemist. It's one of the most flavorful and fun-to-play classes. It also fills its own niche.

2. Oracle. I definitely want a divine caster of some sort on the list, and while I like the Cleric, the Oracle's mysteries are more flavorful and interesting. Therefore, the Oracle is getting spot number two.

3. Sorcerer. Similar to the above, I want an arcane caster of some sort on the list. The Sorcerer's bloodlines manage to beat out the less-flavorful Wizard similar to how the Oracle defeated the Cleric above.

4. Bard. I want some sort of stealth/skill class on the list. Rogue is mechanically terrible; Ninja is better than Rogue but not terribly mechanically-supported across products. I think I'm just going to have to roll with the stealth/skill role being taken over by Bards and Alchemists, which is disappointing, but at least leaves two more-fun classes as options. The Slayer might be the best stand-in for the role, but it hasn't been around long enough for me to be fully familiar with it / comfortable picking it yet. I may end up throwing it on the pile if I come back to this at a later point.

5. Barbarian. I want a melee class on the list. Barbarian is the most mechanically impressive of those, and it manages to bring at least some flavor to the table with rage powers. I dislike that it's alignment-locked and would remove that if I had the option here, but I'm willing to take it regardless.

6. Monk. Pretty much to serve as the alignment-balance to the Barbarian above. Again, I'd remove the alignment restriction on both were that an option. Pummeling Style, Crane Wing, and Zen Archer make me feel less guilty including it mechanics-wise than I might have been at one point.

I am left at an interesting point here where I have the classes I most-want-in in and am left with a lot of choices. I like the Witch and Summoner the most flavor-wise out of the remaining classes. Inquisitor and Magus could be solid additions to the currently sort-of-lacking melee boat. Cleric and Wizard are general staples that could be added on, though they lack the special spark of flavor with the Oracle and Sorcerer already in. We still lack a 'generic' melee or skill class, but I'm reluctant to include the Fighter and Rogue; Cavalier is a better option in some ways, but it'd mean assuming that mounts were key to a core class and having to design adventures with them in mind. Ranger as the solution, then, maybe? The presence of the Alchemist and Bard is leading to a slight imbalance towards arcane magic over divine magic, which sort of suggests that the Inquisitor, Cleric, or Druid might be a helpful addition.

7. Witch. I'm picking it mostly for flavor/fun with a smattering of choosing it because it offers another class that casts healing.

8. Summoner. Not the most standard pick, but I think I'm going with it on account of enjoying the class / its flavor so much. It's probably the most likely to be replaced with the Slayer once I become more comfortable with the Slayer (though I might swap out both Barbarian and Monk instead due to the alignment-restriction issue).


Fighter because of the versatility.
Champion from Arcana Evolved because he covers paladin, ranger, antipaladin and cavalier.
Rogue for an urban sneaky type.
Monk because he represents an entirely different philosophy of melee.
Shaman because I like the line between arcane and divine blurry, and because spirits are a cool storytelling element.
Sorcerer and Oracle because magic should be mysterious, untamed and maybe even unwanted.
Alchemist to have an intelligence based caster. His style and flavour can't be recreated by any other class.

My personal favourites are bard, witch and druid. I was tempted to replace rogue with bard, but thought it would be good to have balance in numbers between casters and martials.

Grand Lodge

Zhayne wrote:

Paizo Only (and no real knowledge of ACG):

Oracle, Sorcerer, Fighter, Ninja, Alchemist, Inquisitor, Bard, Alchemist

I really like this list, except that I favor Wizard instead of sorcerer, Cleric instead of Oracle, and despite the versatility of Alchemists, I don't think they need two of the slots so I keep one and sub Ranger in for the second.


I would choose 4. For Tradition Game. Classes can multi-class.

Fighter = (Figher/Rogue = Ranger), (Fighter/Cleric = Paladin)
Cleric = (Cleric/Sorcerer = Druid),
Rogue = (Rogue/Sorcer = Bard)
Sorcerer =

Why i would not choose:

Bard = destroyer the need for Rogue.
Druid = To many abilitys, takes away from cleric
Ranger = lessen need for Fighter.
Barbarian = lessen need for Fighter, is culture not class.
Paladin = Not needed, Alignment restriction does not work, lesson need for Fighter.
Wizard = no longer needed with Sorcerer, have stated out naked without spellbook, in to many games to every play Wizard again. The whole, need special inks at low levels for 100 gold per spell level, was also a big turn off at low levels, when i had 10 gp to my name :(

.........

The only Class other than the basic 4, that i think stand out by itself, would be Monk. As far as adding something the other do not. For a Far-Eastern Feel.

Monk = ( Monk/Fighter = Samurai) ( Monk/Sorcerer = Wenjen), (Monk/Rogue = Ninja), (Monk/Cleric = Mystic).


So, you resurrect a thread from several months ago, to ignore the stated topic (pick 8, not 4).

Cool

Liberty's Edge

Wizard, meatshield, meatshield, meatshield, meatshield, meatshield, meatshield, and meatshield.

Silver Crusade

It's a necro, but with the ACG out, this seems like it could be fun.

Alchemist: Here's the 'aggressive' skill user, the one who's more offensively orientated and knows how to cause damage. It beats out the Rogue in a lot of key ways while accomplishing the same thing as a 'smart' character.

Bard: The 'defensive' skill character, more supportive and able to work with a group. It's the 'charismatic' skill character, the social devil that is so popular.

Arcanist: I personally like the slower progression for spells, and it has all the flavor that arcane casters need, making it a catch all for just about any arcane concept.

Cleric: I hate to say 'iconic', but this is a class that just works for what you need it to do. It's as blank a slate as possible, and just makes everything flow better.

Barbarian: Mechanically superior to most of its competitors, it's a hard call between this and the ranger, but Barbs are non magical, making them the best everyman (if you can reflavor rage as combat focus).

Magus: The mage knight to me is new school iconic, and the Magus does a great job of allowing it to start working from the second you start playing the game, which is really nice.

Warpriest: I love me a non alignment locked paladin, and this does the job well enough, although I'd probably pick a non aligned paladin before this.

Slayer: Honestly it just seemed like the best that was left, but it's non magical, and some people love that flavor, which makes sense.

With just these classes, I could see playing a very fun game.


Inquisitor -Make an Archetype to reintroduce the Warpriest
Fighter -Make an Archetype to cover the Paladin
Cleric -Archetype covers the Oracle
Arcanist -With an archetype to cover the Witch
Bard -An archetype to remake the Magus and one to build an Alchemist
Bloodrager -With an Archetype that removes casting
Druid -With an archetype that changes divine to arcane casting, and makes the Druid's animal companion into a summoned helper
Ninja -To cover the pure faithless skills aspect of gameplay


I'd probably have to go with:

Alchemist: Can't get enough of this class. So much to do with it.

Arcanist: In my opinion the most fun full caster. Exploits + Wizard spell list makes for fun play.

Bard: I feel like this class is a sign of a wider game than your regular action-simulator game, where everything is about killing. The Bard doesn't do fighting very good, it's (almost) everything else within the game that it does well.

Barbarian/Bloodrager: These get a tie. Strong combat, fun roleplay.

Cleric: My second favourit full caster. So many paths to go with this class; Buffing, Debuffing, Healing, Melee Damage, Ranged Damage and even Blasting can be done.

Inquisitor: Cuz it's awesome. Can be a frontline fighter or an assasin, with magic!

Slayer: A combat focused rogue done right. I would put the rogue here if it was better. I also prefer it way over fighter and ranger when it comes to full BAB 10HD none-magic users.

101 to 150 of 176 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / What 8 Classes Would You Keep? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.