The Many Classes of Pathfinder


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

So I was just sitting here thinking about all the classes of Pathfinder and whatever happened to the basic 4, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Thief (That's right I said Thief!) With all these new and exciting classes that cover much of the basic 4 plus more its hard to justify your standard classes. That's not to say many people don't play them and you can OP this class or that one. I'm not knocking anyone's style of play or choices or the new school or old.

I just think that archtypes could be integrated more into the basics. I used to think man why not just make more feats if someone wants to be a polearm wielding fighter just give him the feats that's a polearm master gets. It kind of made sense to me and still does in many cases but then like a bolt of lightning (just the 5d6 kind I'm not that good yet.) Why don't they still have the basic 4 but then allow players to pick class abilities that would allow them to replace things which is all most archtypes do anyway, remove ability A and add ability B. Rather then give it set name and the choices picked for the players if all abilities are equal or close to (you can still combo pack weaker class abilities) just give a tree type system to the classes allowing you to design your class. I know it has holes this is just a rant of random thought in my head at this time.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Two of the 4 were fundamentally flawed in a way archetypes and Feats were unable to fix, which is what happened to Fighter and Rogue.

Wizard and Cleric are still two of the most powerful classes in the game so I'm not sure what you're talking about.


It would certainly negate the horrific class list bloat that third edition and 3.5 suffered from near the end, and that Pathfinder appears to be slowly acquiring. I actually agree with you, mostly. I think that archetypes was just a fantastic idea and works SO well for new types of characters that a normal class wouldn't cover. I'm not sure they'd be able to entirely change a class enough that it becomes something totally different, though - a fighter to a barbarian or paladin, for example. That being said, if such a system was to be viable, yes please. I would love it and play it for sure.


If you think of Pathfinder as a kind of big PC ability tree, then classes are just a shorthand why of prescribing certain abilities that thematically belong together and more or less balance with other ability packages. Archetypes just modify that prescription.

But I think getting rid of classes would be a mistake. It's already intimidating enough when I look at the list of feats in the CRB (not to mention all the other rule books). I don't want to have to pick every single ability for my character from scratch. And if I did, I suppose I would just scratch that itch by designing my own homebrew classes and archetypes.


I mean yes archtypes are just the abilities in a package. I guess the thought for me is I'd like to pick an choose to make my character unique to the idea in my own head. Also Rynjin it has nothing to do with being a powerful class just the mix of choices.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Lost Ohioian wrote:
I mean yes archtypes are just the abilities in a package. I guess the thought for me is I'd like to pick an choose to make my character unique to the idea in my own head. Also Rynjin it has nothing to do with being a powerful class just the mix of choices.

I don't see any appreciable advantage to having various classes as archetypes over having various classes as classes.

New classes have more potential for unique mechanics. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you want.


Ok example say I make a 1st level Paladin. At 3rd level I take shared defenses and drop Mercy as per the divine defender archtype. At 4th I take Channel Positive Energy As per Hospitaler archtype and drop the normal channel positive energy. Thast just a random example as to the page I opened up in the APG.


3 people marked this as a favorite.

Part of the problem I feel about balance is that trading out isn't a always an equal trade. the archetypes overall are balanced, but the budget is used differently. The Hospitaler is balanced because of the reduced smite evil, which means that it's two other changes are "strictly better" than what they are replacing. So if you were to have an open list and just chose those two but didn't chose the reduced smite evil you'd have "a better paladin" then normal.


The archetypes are presented as a list of separate individual modifications that each replace an individual class feature, but that's misleading and irrelevant. You have to take the whole package, and you can't swap the individual elements out. For example, Knife Master (rogue) has its best bit not matched to losing anything.

Otherwise, picking and choosing exactly what you want from a huge range of options just means that the game becomes dominated by theorycrafters, and dabblers who want to try interesting combinations end up with trap options and crippled characters.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Lost Ohioian wrote:

So I was just sitting here thinking about all the classes of Pathfinder and whatever happened to the basic 4, Fighter, Cleric, Wizard and Thief (That's right I said Thief!) With all these new and exciting classes that cover much of the basic 4 plus more its hard to justify your standard classes. That's not to say many people don't play them and you can OP this class or that one. I'm not knocking anyone's style of play or choices or the new school or old.

I just think that archtypes could be integrated more into the basics. I used to think man why not just make more feats if someone wants to be a polearm wielding fighter just give him the feats that's a polearm master gets. It kind of made sense to me and still does in many cases but then like a bolt of lightning (just the 5d6 kind I'm not that good yet.) Why don't they still have the basic 4 but then allow players to pick class abilities that would allow them to replace things which is all most archtypes do anyway, remove ability A and add ability B. Rather then give it set name and the choices picked for the players if all abilities are equal or close to (you can still combo pack weaker class abilities) just give a tree type system to the classes allowing you to design your class. I know it has holes this is just a rant of random thought in my head at this time.

Part of the conundrum about just making more feats and stuff for the fighter is that it further divides up and narrows what a fighter can do whereas the wizard and the cleric can change their abilities at whim. In addition, feats and the like can often complicate or take away things that a character might have been reasonably able to do otherwise had it not been for that feat etc. There's also a lot of baggage in the feat system with prerequisite feats that don't always make sense (Combat Expertise being a common one.)

As previously mentioned, wizards and clerics are still top of the heap in versatility and therefore power. They get new spells in every book, and the wizard especially has gotten a lot of love. (Check out the discoveries in Ultimate Magic and the archetypes in the Advanced Class Guide.)

As for the fighter and rogue/thief/whatever, we'll see how they do with Pathfinder Unchained. They've been the sources for some very vehement, even antagonistic arguments from the fans. There's a strong push from a segment for needing revisions even before all this additional stuff came out (reaching back into 3.0 and maybe even before). However, there's also pushback on how these classes shouldn't be changed. I imagine certain voices can be assuaged by additional options for other stuff for a while, but eventually they'd need to find a way to address those critical of the status quo. Thus, I'd imagine it takes a bit of tiptoeing to please both camps.

TheBlackPlague wrote:
It would certainly negate the horrific class list bloat that third edition and 3.5 suffered from near the end, and that Pathfinder appears to be slowly acquiring. I actually agree with you, mostly. I think that archetypes was just a fantastic idea and works SO well for new types of characters that a normal class wouldn't cover. I'm not sure they'd be able to entirely change a class enough that it becomes something totally different, though - a fighter to a barbarian or paladin, for example. That being said, if such a system was to be viable, yes please. I would love it and play it for sure.

But there would still be the same amount of material. Maybe in a different form but it'd still be there in some form or another. Whether it be prestige classes, base classes, class features, feats, spells etc. something will always be there in the form of mechanics unless there's a big change on how the game is approached.


I disagree. Why are wizards the strongest class? Because of the sheer number of spells they have and their uses. Again I'm going to stress this isn't a fighter thing all of the main classes have new abilities in ever new book that is released clerics and wizards included.

The argument that balance is found inside the archtype should not fly either if an ability is replaced from a new one they should be of the same strength and if they aren't then that isn't a balanced archtype class anyway and is either favored because its stronger or disregarded because its "broken".

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber
Lost Ohioian wrote:
I mean yes archtypes are just the abilities in a package. I guess the thought for me is I'd like to pick an choose to make my character unique to the idea in my own head. Also Rynjin it has nothing to do with being a powerful class just the mix of choices.

Every choice added takes away from the characters. Every new feat is either never taken or hedges out some other feat. Every archetype released locks abilities away from every other character who might have wanted to try that. An trick you might have tried with GM permission is now locked away unless you have paid for it.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

With those four classes, Fighter has a niche. Now, everyone fights.


Knife Master does not have a single skill that there isn't a trade off for. I'm going to assume you mean the d8 sneak damage with daggers but theygo down to a d4 with all other weapons.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lost Ohioian wrote:
Knife Master does not have a single skill that there isn't a trade off for. I'm going to assume you mean the d8 sneak damage with daggers but theygo down to a d4 with all other weapons.

the d8 sneak attack has no tradeoff. It isn't swapped out for another ability. Internally is has a limitation, but this is actually what is called a 'false tradeoff': that is, a downside that is not relevant. You'll always be using daggers as a knife master.


Lost Ohioian wrote:


The argument that balance is found inside the archtype should not fly either if an ability is replaced from a new one they should be of the same strength and if they aren't then that isn't a balanced archtype class anyway and is either favored because its stronger or disregarded because its "broken".

Well should or shouldn't it does. The hospitaler paladin has a reduced smite evil. FOR NOTHING. If we just look at it. Now at forth it gets the separate channel energy pool. I look at this as part of the compensation for the reduced smite. instead of your lv4 extra use, you can channel without using lay on hands. So I feel this archetype is quite balanced, it's different than the base paladin, but I wouldn't say it's overall stronger or weaker, an emphasis on healing instead of smiting. But if it had the more healing and full smiting it'd be my pick every time.

another example of this is the brawler fighter, it's weapon training works for all it's levels but only trades out the first two. It's balanced because it's limited to only close, and that it trades the higher weapon training away. But if you were to keep those you could double dip on the training and get both.


The main gripe I have with the Hospitaler is that its Channel is WORSE. Seems like it'd make more sense to have reduced Smite for full Channel, not reduced Smite for reduced Channel.


The perk is you have good in fight healing with your lay on hands, and then you have a pretty good out of fight healing, channel energy. And since it has it's own pool you get more healing out of it. It's not bad if you're wanting to not buy many wands of cure light.


It's not bad (I have a Hospitaler right now...not that I've gotten any use out of that ability since we're level 1), just odd to me.


I've nerve understood the theory craft of the wizard 'awesome sauce'
as a DM they are the easiest class to kill (well all of the non armored casters are) at lower levels.

Wizards are only good at high levels because it's incredibly rare they survive to BE high levels.
there SHOULD be some trade off for the ones who actually manage to make it there.

When a group stops adventuring the minute Fizban expends his one damage spell and his shield wears off… well heck all the character classes front loaded weaknesses are mitigated and moot.

but otherwise a wizard spends the first part of his career whimpering and cowering behind bushes once his zapper is out of batteries, which happens pretty quick.

Players don't want to be "bored" by traps anymore, which makes rogues semi useless with half the intent of their character.

It's not that fighters and rogues are weak, it's that play styles and written adventure content has changed to accommodate said play style.


So you see nothing poorly designed with the fact that "half the intent of a class" is based around one type of hazard (and not a particularly dangerous one overall) in a game full of them?


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:
So you see nothing poorly designed with the fact that "half the intent of a class" is based around one type of hazard (and not a particularly dangerous one overall) in a game full of them?

the entire character class is inherited from a portion of the game where play style was VERY VERY dangerous WITHOUT a thief.

In fact even WITH a thief, a 10 foot pole and 50 feet of rope, everyone was in constant peril.

When people want to play the game like a computer game instead, with rest stops, save points and re-powers… the two character classes that were designed to not require such things are going to look slantedly weaker.

Whens the last time anyone has played where their low level wizard was prevented from memorizing spells because of more than one random monster attack in the middle of the night… or maybe even got killed IN one of those random monster attacks, probably because he dint have spells to do anything with?
"I throw my dart at it" wheee!

no one plays like that anymore, its "you sleep, regain your spells and let's keep playing"
if someone does play like that they are a "bad GM who hates wizards"

put your full casters in a bubble world full of feathers and no traps and they look awesome.
mean while the guy who is meant to survive the long march to castle death land (the fighter) and the guy who is meant to get to the other side of the pit of despair (the rogue) look pretty lame when, there is nothing for them to do.

truthfully wizards etc come into their own around 7-10th level.
Rogues and Fighters are based on character class concepts from a game who's levels got close to topping out around 10th, originally.

The game/play style has changed is all I'm saying.

Play in a campaign with slow level progression, and timed plot where unlimited rests aren't feasible, and you're harried by monsters ins the scary wild, and the dungeons are lit reed with traps and obstacles….. and all of the sudden playing a wizard (especially when it's your third of fourth wizard you've had to roll up) SUCKS.
it's completely different paradigm.


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Yes, it is.

Whoever designed the PF version of the Rogue and Fighter didn't get the memo. The game has changed, they have not.

And that's why they're poorly designed. Saying they're fine because they work if you revert game assumptions back to pre-PF assumptions is missing the point.

In PF, traps are not dangerous, so "trap dudebro" is not a necessary role.

In PF, almost every class but Fighter has some sort of resource they need to replenish. So, yes, when everyone is out of resources they will wish to rest (though in many case, running out of said resources merely drops those classes to the Fighter's base level anyway).

Though I don't know why you're harping on the Wizard in any case. The Rogue and Fighter don't come out smelling like roses compared to any class. Even pre-Slayer (which fills both of their roles superior to either), Fighter was not the only one who could survive a long campaign and the Roue was not the only one who could...yeah I have no adequate proper description for that overly flowery description for what little the Rogue does, so moving on.

They're poorly designed because other classes do their thing better, and because their role wasn't even necessary to be filled in Core when other classes could either do it better (Pally, Ranger, Barbarian in Fighter's case) or it wasn't needed at all (why bring a Rogue along for the express purpose of disarming traps when you can bypass them in other ways?).

Classes shouldn't "inherit" design paradigms from previous editions. That's poor design when, as you so aptly put it, the paradigm has changed.


Rynjin wrote:

Yes, it is.

Whoever designed the PF version of the Rogue and Fighter didn't get the memo. The game has changed, they have not.

And that's why they're poorly designed. Saying they're fine because they work if you revert game assumptions back to pre-PF assumptions is missing the point.

In PF, traps are not dangerous, so "trap dudebro" is not a necessary role.

In PF, almost every class but Fighter has some sort of resource they need to replenish. So, yes, when everyone is out of resources they will wish to rest (though in many case, running out of said resources merely drops those classes to the Fighter's base level anyway).

Though I don't know why you're harping on the Wizard in any case. The Rogue and Fighter don't come out smelling like roses compared to any class. Even pre-Slayer (which fills both of their roles superior to either), Fighter was not the only one who could survive a long campaign and the Roue was not the only one who could...yeah I have no adequate proper description for that overly flowery description for what little the Rogue does, so moving on.

They're poorly designed because other classes do their thing better, and because their role wasn't even necessary to be filled in Core when other classes could either do it better (Pally, Ranger, Barbarian in Fighter's case) or it wasn't needed at all (why bring a Rogue along for the express purpose of disarming traps when you can bypass them in other ways?).

Classes shouldn't "inherit" design paradigms from previous editions. That's poor design when, as you so aptly put it, the paradigm has changed.

The PF rogue/fighter were basically sacred cowed in the beginning of PF during the "backwards compatible days"

Cleric was made decidedly better… Wizard and Sorc were given d6 HP (something I didn't think was a good idea at all)
fighter was given a few nicer things and more regular feat access and i don't recall rogue changing much… but essentially they are what they always have been since the birth of the game genre.

In that sense, Jason Bulhman didn't 'Design' them as they were merely a slightly altered conversion.

The initial interest in pathfinder was that the core rules were actually just a variation on existing 3.5…and you can use ALL your 3.5 that you still have not he shelf.

I think now, what six years later? no one really does that anymore.
I know I don't.

Heck it's been so long I forgot the actual differences between 3.5 and PF. (i remember skills being a big change)

I Played and participated heavily in the Fighter Class Beta Playtesting,
I loved my fighter for the Second darkness AP (which was the new AP at the time)

he was useful and a pivotal character in most confrontation the party had (sword and board either, with eventually 43 AC with fought TWF with shield master and longsword)

our other characters were a rogue/shadow dancer played by my wife,
a cleric and an eldritch knight…i can't recall what his original full BAB class was, but it might have been barbarian.

all of that using the beta rules.


I have no clue what the PF beta was like, so I can't comment on what may have been different.

I will say that the Fighter isn't in as bad of a position as the Rogue. A Fighter can be viable, and still does great damage and has decent survivability when it comes to taking or avoiding damage from weapons.

It's just that as you say it's kind of designed around being the only class that goes all day...when what that really means is he doesn't have any resources to burn to help him out of tight spots, and doesn't help when everyone else is resting anyway, as well as being "Guy who fights and nothing else", when other classes are "uy who fights and does other stuff".

The Fighter isn't absolutely horrid like the Rogue is, and is still a valid choice for certain builds (mainly one s that take a bajillion Feats to pull off in a timely fashion).

It just has the misfortune of being chained to that backwards compatibility when many other classes are not. It's definitely the best of the worst classes. I'm hoping Unchained has some serious Fighter love.


Rynjin wrote:

I have no clue what the PF beta was like, so I can't comment on what may have been different.

I will say that the Fighter isn't in as bad of a position as the Rogue. A Fighter can be viable, and still does great damage and has decent survivability when it comes to taking or avoiding damage from weapons.

It's just that as you say it's kind of designed around being the only class that goes all day...when what that really means is he doesn't have any resources to burn to help him out of tight spots, and doesn't help when everyone else is resting anyway, as well as being "Guy who fights and nothing else", when other classes are "uy who fights and does other stuff".

The Fighter isn't absolutely horrid like the Rogue is, and is still a valid choice for certain builds (mainly one s that take a bajillion Feats to pull off in a timely fashion).

It just has the misfortune of being chained to that backwards compatibility when many other classes are not. It's definitely the best of the worst classes. I'm hoping Unchained has some serious Fighter love.

beta didn't change much going into CRB a few feats disappeared (overhead chop and backswing IIRC)

Ranger isn't as great as people make it out. Everyone expects to have all metagamey stuff… "I need to know what monsters we will fight so I can choose them as enemies"

A fighter? I don't care what it is, I kill it.

a fighter can just PLAY, Rangers, Paladins, and full casters need to be PLAYED TO… when things don't go their way, according to their strengths they kinda suck.

The rogue is mostly the same way. when you don't have a table full of whiners who want the game to revolve around their choices of character classes…rogue and fighter are actually quite useful in their genericness. that IS their feature.

and for the record, I usually play at least once a year (used to be more often) at a core only table…. and then you will ALWAYS find a rogue PC sitting at it.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I'm pretty sure someone on the boards ran the numbers for paladin versus fighter and the paladin won hands-down. And that was against nothing that forced a save and nothing that was evil. The paladin just used full BAB, Lay on Hands, and spells to be in all ways better than a fighter. A ranger without favored enemy still has full BAB, spells, and about half as many free feats as the fighter, but they come with the benefit of not needing to meet prereqs. Which is better, Shield Master at 6 and less feats or Shield Master at 11? Again, no favored enemy or favored terrain. The fighter won on damage on that one (again, with no favored enemy or terrain), but not by enough for the 4 sp/level and other actual class features it doesn't have. And that's excluding Instant Enemy.

Additionally, every player guide to APs I've seen tell a player what good favored enemies and terrains probably are. Most DMing guides I've seen suggest the same, to tell the player what good favored enemies/favored terrain would be. That's because your player would like to feel like their class features have a purpose.

So other than your party being evil or the DM actively avoiding your favored enemy (undead and outsider (evil) probably always come up) I can't see how paladins and rangers have to be "PLAYED TO". They're both full BAB, 2 good saves, minor spellcasting (and full access to their list). What part of that is so much weaker than the fighter they need to be catered to?


Bob Bob Bob wrote:

I'm pretty sure someone on the boards ran the numbers for paladin versus fighter and the paladin won hands-down. And that was against nothing that forced a save and nothing that was evil. The paladin just used full BAB, Lay on Hands, and spells to be in all ways better than a fighter. A ranger without favored enemy still has full BAB, spells, and about half as many free feats as the fighter, but they come with the benefit of not needing to meet prereqs. Which is better, Shield Master at 6 and less feats or Shield Master at 11? Again, no favored enemy or favored terrain. The fighter won on damage on that one (again, with no favored enemy or terrain), but not by enough for the 4 sp/level and other actual class features it doesn't have. And that's excluding Instant Enemy.

Additionally, every player guide to APs I've seen tell a player what good favored enemies and terrains probably are. Most DMing guides I've seen suggest the same, to tell the player what good favored enemies/favored terrain would be. That's because your player would like to feel like their class features have a purpose.

So other than your party being evil or the DM actively avoiding your favored enemy (undead and outsider (evil) probably always come up) I can't see how paladins and rangers have to be "PLAYED TO". They're both full BAB, 2 good saves, minor spellcasting (and full access to their list). What part of that is so much weaker than the fighter they need to be catered to?

there's real life playing and then there's theory crafting.

I just got done a few weeks ago, or rather simply left a thread right here on this board going on about how the rangers favored enemy and terrain were no good and should be re written, because it's not fair if they have to fight non favored enemies or go to non favored terrain.

seriously, if you search you can find it.

rangers can't get AC as high as fighters, Ive never had a fighter have problems meet prereqs for their feats.
there are several feats rangers can't get and they only need to not meet prereqs of a certain list of limited feats.

Like I said, In actual gaming at actual tables…no the paladin and ranger DO not win hands down, unless you are actively fighting their specifically stylized enemies.

As I said before the Fighter and Rogue and Generalized character classes THAT IS one of their features.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Pendagast wrote:
Rynjin wrote:
So you see nothing poorly designed with the fact that "half the intent of a class" is based around one type of hazard (and not a particularly dangerous one overall) in a game full of them?

the entire character class is inherited from a portion of the game where play style was VERY VERY dangerous WITHOUT a thief.

In fact even WITH a thief, a 10 foot pole and 50 feet of rope, everyone was in constant peril.

When people want to play the game like a computer game instead, with rest stops, save points and re-powers… the two character classes that were designed to not require such things are going to look slantedly weaker.

Whens the last time anyone has played where their low level wizard was prevented from memorizing spells because of more than one random monster attack in the middle of the night… or maybe even got killed IN one of those random monster attacks, probably because he dint have spells to do anything with?
"I throw my dart at it" wheee!

no one plays like that anymore, its "you sleep, regain your spells and let's keep playing"
if someone does play like that they are a "bad GM who hates wizards"

put your full casters in a bubble world full of feathers and no traps and they look awesome.
mean while the guy who is meant to survive the long march to castle death land (the fighter) and the guy who is meant to get to the other side of the pit of despair (the rogue) look pretty lame when, there is nothing for them to do.

truthfully wizards etc come into their own around 7-10th level.
Rogues and Fighters are based on character class concepts from a game who's levels got close to topping out around 10th, originally.

The game/play style has changed is all I'm saying.

Play in a campaign with slow level progression, and timed plot where unlimited rests aren't feasible, and you're harried by monsters ins the scary wild, and the dungeons are lit reed with traps and obstacles….. and all of the sudden playing a wizard (especially when it's your third of fourth...

Actually, the impression I receive from playing in older editions and retroclones is that if you're low-level characters of any kind and having to rely directly on class abilities, you're already at a disadvantage and something may have gone wrong. EVERYONE at low levels stinks class ability wise. (the percentage chance for succeeding as a thief is very low until you get to high level, every body has a decent chance of getting low hit points, and spells are a rare commodity I only use them as a last resort). Note that I'm not complaining about this; I'm just making a point that a lot of it to me seems like you have to rely on various skullduggery and shenanigans that are independent of class abilities.

You are right in that the playstyle changes (though I'll have to agree to disagree with your generalities and character judgements on how it's changed), but so too do the rules change to try to accommodate the changing playstyles. In the switch to 3.X from earlier editions, for many people, casters from the beginning seemed to have received more and the fighter and the rogue seem to in retrospect have lagged behind.

Because 3.X tried to open up half of the game (the later half of the 20 level progression), rogues and fighters being designing from a Non-3e ethos that assumes level 7-10 cap is likely an indication that they could use some revisiting (at least in the eyes of a significant number of players/gms). Especially in a game system made things easier for casters.

PF/3.X is a game that often assumes a more heavy dependence on character abilities and using them in the right ways. If a significantly people find a hole in the power gap between the classes with a game that assumes a dependence upon the mechanics as a basis for play and tries to define itself by something of a built-in balance between the classes, then that can present relatively large problem to the system's mission statements.

That being said, if PF core only (or anything else, for that matter) works for you in whatever playstyle you're using, that's good and you should keep doing that. There are likely many folks who might agree with you. Many other people who come to their tables with different expectations and different understandings of the game will likely have different experiences. They may want some changes to be made to fulfill a playstyle that the game seems to be trying to allow for. The conundrum that Paizo faces is allowing for multiple playstyles, which I imagine is why they're putting their fixes into an optional supplement. So it seems to me like they're aiming for allow those folks who are thinking "it's not broke, so why fix it?" and those who think "I think this record player is playing funny; something inside needs fixing" can be relatively happy.


These forums only give a snapshot of the thoughts and opinions of how Pathfinder is played. A large amount of people who play Pathfinder are not present on these forums.

I have played roleplaying games for 25 years without once consulting a forum. And the vast majority of people I have played roleplaying games with have done the same.

@Dreampsion you have an intelligent, refreshing, sober and rational way of looking at things, provides hope for the future of roleplaying games. Totally agree 'absolutes' in most cases divides people instead of bringing them together and gets in the way of comprehension.


Pendagast wrote:

I've nerve understood the theory craft of the wizard 'awesome sauce'

as a DM they are the easiest class to kill (well all of the non armored casters are) at lower levels.

Everything is easy to kill at low level. One crit from an orc warrior ends most PC's at level 1 because hit points, and even attack bonus are virtually the same.

By the time there is a decent separation a decent player is not that easy to kill. The art in not dying as a wizard/sorc is to not let them get to you. Hiding in the back is a good way to not die. Of course there are always possible ambushes but those are not the norm in most games.


Pendagast wrote:
Bob Bob Bob wrote:

I'm pretty sure someone on the boards ran the numbers for paladin versus fighter and the paladin won hands-down. And that was against nothing that forced a save and nothing that was evil. The paladin just used full BAB, Lay on Hands, and spells to be in all ways better than a fighter. A ranger without favored enemy still has full BAB, spells, and about half as many free feats as the fighter, but they come with the benefit of not needing to meet prereqs. Which is better, Shield Master at 6 and less feats or Shield Master at 11? Again, no favored enemy or favored terrain. The fighter won on damage on that one (again, with no favored enemy or terrain), but not by enough for the 4 sp/level and other actual class features it doesn't have. And that's excluding Instant Enemy.

Additionally, every player guide to APs I've seen tell a player what good favored enemies and terrains probably are. Most DMing guides I've seen suggest the same, to tell the player what good favored enemies/favored terrain would be. That's because your player would like to feel like their class features have a purpose.

So other than your party being evil or the DM actively avoiding your favored enemy (undead and outsider (evil) probably always come up) I can't see how paladins and rangers have to be "PLAYED TO". They're both full BAB, 2 good saves, minor spellcasting (and full access to their list). What part of that is so much weaker than the fighter they need to be catered to?

there's real life playing and then there's theory crafting.

I just got done a few weeks ago, or rather simply left a thread right here on this board going on about how the rangers favored enemy and terrain were no good and should be re written, because it's not fair if they have to fight non favored enemies or go to non favored terrain.

seriously, if you search you can find it.

rangers can't get AC as high as fighters, Ive never had a fighter have problems meet prereqs for their feats.
there are several feats rangers...

I never had these problems as a ranger, and if you as a ranger go off on some quest you can't deal with then that is not being realistic. You recommend your other ranger buddy instead. To make a real life reference you don't send in the software engineer to network security if he has no skill with it.

So the options are to be give the player some options, but dont tell them exactly which monster will show up the most or have the party look for a more compatible ranger at least to start the adventure off with. After that it is up to them to guess how which FE to pick.

As for paladins most enemies are evil anyway, since that is the nature of the game, so he does not even need to be told "there will be bad guys".

As for prereqs that is a player problem since I have never a ranger have problems meeting prereqs either. At best this is anecdotal evidence. As for the player complaining about never meeting his favored enemy that could be a table, GM, or player issue.


Morzadian wrote:

These forums only give a snapshot of the thoughts and opinions of how Pathfinder is played. A large amount of people who play Pathfinder are not present on these forums.

Did you know that in order to get accurate survey results, you only need to interview a very small percentage of people? It is a pretty cool statistic phenomenon imo

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Pathfinder Accessories Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

That assumes these forums are representative. I would question that assumption. I doubt many casual gamers are taking part in the arcane discussions here. Thus you get the view of the hardcore, which is not representative.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

How is "We took a paladin, pitted him against some random monsters from the bestiary (but only the ones that can't force a save and are not evil) and figured out how quickly he'd kill them and how much they'd hurt him in return" theorycrafting? I mean, sure, they used percentages and averages, but that's because rolling actual dice can only tell us how well those dice were rolled, nothing else. If the paladin gets a natural 20 does it mean he's automatically better than the fighter, or did he just roll lucky?

Rangers lose exactly 3 armor against a fighter by virtue of using a breastplate instead of plate mail. In return they start with higher max Dex and get to make it mithral to move at full speed in it and have a max Dex equal to what a full Armor Training level 15 fighter in full plate has. I suppose the fighter can also make his armor mithral for at most 2 more max Dex, but it's a big investment for little return by that point.

What feats can't rangers get? Inner Sea Combat has blown the list wide open. Want the Whip Line? Calistria's got your back. Iomedae's got Bodyguard and In Harm's Way. Mantis God will get you Double Slice and Two-weapon Rend. Snap Shot shows up somewhere. If the problem is that they can only pick them with their bonus feats... and? They can just make sure to choose ones they wouldn't otherwise qualify for as the bonus feats.

Look, it's not that hard. Make a paladin and a fighter. Use the same stat array even. The paladin will, by default, have better saves, the same health, the same attack bonus, and the same damage. The fighter might have better AC if he uses a tower shield, but then he has a worse attack bonus. The only advantage he has is one combat feat, which is probably best spent on something he was going to take anyway so he can take Iron Will with his normal feat. Congrats, now he has the same Will save as the paladin! At level 1 he can blow his only class feature on pulling even with the paladin. Unless the opponent is evil. Then the paladin wins.

At level 2 the paladin gets Lay on Hands for an effective 1d6 extra health a day. Still same attack bonus and damage and AC. This is assuming 10 charisma, it can be worse but eventually the Paladin will gain, effectively, a free pool of healing each day. If they have a positive charisma, there's a nice +X bonus to all saves. So now definitely better saves. In return the fighter gets... another combat feat! Too bad the save feats aren't combat feats. Which feat is worth +Cha to all saves? The one that does exist requires second level divine spells, 5 ranks of knowledge religion, and the blessings, mystery, or domain class feature. Also not a combat feat.

I can keep this up, but at all points the paladin should have equal or better saves and health, and in most circumstances similar attack bonus, damage, and AC. How is "I can heal myself and have better saves, the only thing you have over me is a single combat feat" not a win? By fourth level the fighter's combat feat and armor training is competing with immunity to fear, disease, and the ability to swift action heal fatigue, shaken, or sickened. Oh, and spells. 6th level is weapon training and another feat vs another mercy (this time for dazed, diseased, or staggered) and the ability to give their weapon +1 for minutes/level. So that feat better be similar to the ability to cure disease with a touch.


pally and fighter won't have the same stats and if they do than that pally isn't going to have the charisma to cast spells. So that would also mean divine grace is a no bonus (charisma based again.) Lay on hands Charisma based. They cant have the same stats. Simply by saying that you have put the fighter behind the 8ball so to speak. Use the standard fantasy stat system and where all numbers are equal than show me which is better.


Blakmane wrote:
Lost Ohioian wrote:
Knife Master does not have a single skill that there isn't a trade off for. I'm going to assume you mean the d8 sneak damage with daggers but theygo down to a d4 with all other weapons.

the d8 sneak attack has no tradeoff. It isn't swapped out for another ability. Internally is has a limitation, but this is actually what is called a 'false tradeoff': that is, a downside that is not relevant. You'll always be using daggers as a knife master.

So the trade off is if you use a d4 damage weapon we make your sneak (situational) do d8 instead of d6 but if you use anything else d4 sneak. That is a trade off so a normal rogue using short sword D6+d6(sneak) or d4+d8 (sneak), which is better?


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Paul Watson wrote:
That assumes these forums are representative. I would question that assumption. I doubt many casual gamers are taking part in the arcane discussions here. Thus you get the view of the hardcore, which is not representative.

Ah but there's more people on here who have a deeper understanding of the rules (and thus are likely making less mistakes), which makes them a better representation of what the game is like when you are getting the rules right.

I'd rather have a smaller sample of people who are more likely to know the rules of a game, then a larger sample of people who are less likely to know the rules of a game. Since the smaller sample of people who are more likely to know the rules of the game will get you feedback on Pathfinder, versus some feedback on Pathfinder and some feedback on GaryFinder and some feedback on SaraFinder, and some feedback on... well you get the idea.


The post above shows how the player's mind has changed. In old school gaming a player would play a class because it sounded cool. Players today tend to play a class based upon what they can get from it. I have read the posts in here and I see several valid points. But the one item that I do not see people discussing is the restrictions a paladin has versus a fighter. And bear in mind, I am new to Pathfinder Core and know virtually nothing of the other rulebooks, but have played role playing games for 20+ years.

I see no mention of the alignment restriction of the paladin or their very strict code of conduct. These are key items that can be used against a paladin player, but not so much a fighter. All mentions above are how a paladin is mechanically better than a fighter, but it comes with some very restrictive fluff so to speak. For example, here is the climatic showdown with the big baddie. He has a good npc under his control who is attacking the party. What does the paladin do? By his code, he should avoid attacking the controlled npc even though he may be the deadliest enemy in the encounter. Or the big baddie is fighting the party, but off to the side one of his henchmen is escaping with an innocent citizen. What does the paladin do? Does he leave the citizen to be carried off while he remains with the party to try and defeat the big baddie? As a fighter, they would have no code that would compel them either way.

Another example, say an area is under martial law. The baron is not evil but is very strict and oppressive for the betterment of his lands in a time of crisis. His rule is just and he is not harming his subjects, just very strict. Would a paladin work to overthrow him? I think not since his rule is just and his laws are just especially if his people determined martial law was necessary. A fighter on the other hand would have no qualms about working to overthrow the baron unless of course he was lawful good as well. Just my two cents.


I just keep on using deadly traps...regardless of party configuration.
No one has been "Bored" by them yet :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
wally.west wrote:

The post above shows how the player's mind has changed. In old school gaming a player would play a class because it sounded cool. Players today tend to play a class based upon what they can get from it. I have read the posts in here and I see several valid points. But the one item that I do not see people discussing is the restrictions a paladin has versus a fighter. And bear in mind, I am new to Pathfinder Core and know virtually nothing of the other rulebooks, but have played role playing games for 20+ years.

Another example, say an area is under martial law. The baron is not evil but is very strict and oppressive for the betterment of his lands in a time of crisis. His rule is just and he is not harming his subjects, just very strict. Would a paladin work to overthrow him? I think not since his rule is just and his laws are just especially if his people determined martial law was necessary. A fighter on the other hand would have no qualms about working to overthrow the baron unless of course he was lawful good as well. Just my two cents.

Because I can play a "Charming Thief with equally quick wit and blade who grew up tough on the streets, but hides a heart of a gold" regardless of whether my class is Alchemist, Bard, Investigator, Oracle, Ranger, Slayer, or Sorcerer. A class is not a character description, it's only your abilities. My Charming Thief could easily be any one of those classes.

The problem I find "old school players" have is that they can't roleplay character, only a role. They don't come up with "Charming Thief with equally quick wit and blade who grew up tough on the streets, but hides a heart of a gold", they say "I want to play a Rogue.", thus the only class that can fill this role the Rogue. That is not good roleplaying.

As to the Paladin's Code, that's because the Paladin's Code is frankly to open to interpretation. My Paladins would be well in the right to cut down the Baron in the dead of the night, or lead a rebellion, because it made sense in Order of the Stick, so it makes sense here.


Paul Watson wrote:
That assumes these forums are representative. I would question that assumption. I doubt many casual gamers are taking part in the arcane discussions here. Thus you get the view of the hardcore, which is not representative.

Some of the groups I have GM'd for are the "not hardcore" groups so even without showing up they get representation.


wally.west wrote:

The post above shows how the player's mind has changed. In old school gaming a player would play a class because it sounded cool. Players today tend to play a class based upon what they can get from it. I have read the posts in here and I see several valid points. But the one item that I do not see people discussing is the restrictions a paladin has versus a fighter. And bear in mind, I am new to Pathfinder Core and know virtually nothing of the other rulebooks, but have played role playing games for 20+ years.

I have played with people who played 1st ed D&D. Just like a new gamer now they are more likely to want to choose the mechanically effective choice once they know better.

Every time I play a new system I sucked because how the game describes something is not how it plays out. Once I make the 2nd character I make adjustments.

If the GM fudges dice and/or forces your option to work then you don't have to adjust, but other than that you will likely adjust because nobody wants to fail or be dead.

As for the paladin restrictions they will vary by table depending on how much of hard stance the GM puts into what the book says.

Unless the paladin murders someone(may or may not apply to monsters such as goblins) in cold blood there is likely to be some debate on how valid it is for a GM to remove his powers.


wraithstrike wrote:
Pendagast wrote:

I've nerve understood the theory craft of the wizard 'awesome sauce'

as a DM they are the easiest class to kill (well all of the non armored casters are) at lower levels.

Everything is easy to kill at low level. One crit from an orc warrior ends most PC's at level 1 because hit points, and even attack bonus are virtually the same.

By the time there is a decent separation a decent player is not that easy to kill. The art in not dying as a wizard/sorc is to not let them get to you. Hiding in the back is a good way to not die. Of course there are always possible ambushes but those are not the norm in most games.

well that IS a built in draw back to wizard/sorc/etc.

don't die before you are useful for more than one combat.
the trade off, as it has always been since the game was invented, is that at high level the wizard is more powerful, but he still needed fighter mooks to keep the groupies off.

The disparity in "what is my fighter for" came when the ridiculousness of allowing pew pew pew acrobatic rolls and move while casting came along.
Original rules set didn't allow for such things.
Wizard lovers cried.
Devs delivered… now everyone pisses on the fighter because he sucks…
Umm HELLO… put the full caster back where he was, instead of having an actions arms race.

fighters used to be able to attack multiple times in a round, and casters could only cast once… they changed that too..

Action economy/ rules changes etc… keeping moving goal posts and it changes a lot of things ( I also for example doing like where they have gone with a hundreds and hundreds of hit points in the game…. /I remember when 68 was ALOT)

Liberty's Edge

There was arguments and discussions about the pros and cons of classes before third edition. The difference is that know with the internet, forums and social media it's easier to see and find usually in one place. I disliked playing the Paladin in second edition. As I was not a fan of class and alignment restrictions as well as the required stat scores for the class. If one was lucky to get good dice rolls or a lenient DM good luck rolling up a Paladin. Ranger as well ye they had imo reasonable requirements. Discussions and sometimes arguments were had back and forth. To say that old school gamers hold to a higher standard when it came to the rpg is simply not true. We discuss and argued then. We do now.

I used to hate the Fighter and Rogue. I prefer classes that offer something new at every level. Fighter in 2E had the best to hit and damage and saves. As well as being able to get followers. The most pout of weapon proficencies as well. Now it's all good to get more feats. They are not any unique ones. Any class can take most of the feats except for Fighter only ones. Not only that they don't even scale like spells. DodGe is a +1 to AC that's every exciting right there.

Even the Rogue in 2E had abilites that were unique to the class. Unlike in third where with multiclassing one can still make a decent Rogue. In 2E it was hard to do. It was almost impossible to match a single classed Rogue imo. Sneak Attack also is not that great of a mechanic. Unless one has either a ranged sneak attack build or a certain build with the right feats it's easy to take out the Rogue imo. In my games Rogue don't get ignored when I'm the DM. Even the Talents are either okay, too situational or simply not worth taking. At least the Fighter feats are useful all the time. I'm playing a Archeologist Bard archtype. I can't take many of the Rogue talents. I don't have sneak attack do talents related to that are out. I don't have a ninja ki pool.

Neither is a completely useless class. Both are playable. Yet if given a choice. I rather play the other melee classes instead of a Fighter. A Bard with a level dip in Rogue. Or the Archeologist archtype.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:


Because I can play a "Charming Thief with equally quick wit and blade who grew up tough on the streets, but hides a heart of a gold" regardless of whether my class is Alchemist, Bard, Investigator, Oracle, Ranger, Slayer, or Sorcerer. A class is not a character description, it's only your abilities. My Charming Thief could easily be any one of those classes.

The problem I find "old school players" have is that they can't roleplay character, only a role. They don't come up with "Charming Thief with equally quick wit and blade who grew up tough on the streets, but hides a heart of a gold", they say "I want to play a Rogue.", thus the only class that can fill this role the Rogue. That is not good roleplaying.

As to the Paladin's Code, that's because the Paladin's Code is frankly to open to interpretation. My Paladins would be well in the right to cut down the Baron in the dead of the night, or lead a rebellion, because it made...

I personally find that story matters over mechanics. If I am going to play a paladin, I am doing it because I have a great idea of a character who has the wisdom and the desire to be a paladin, but lacks the charisma to be truly effective at it. The character will continue to strive to be the epitome of what it means to be a paladin, but will be flawed. He will stumble and there will be times when his paladin abilities will fail him, but he will continue on. To me that is a great paladin, not one who chose all the right archetypes, feats etc. that will ensure victory in combat. Combat is a side effect of role playing not why I role play. I have no problem with mechanic heavy games though I prefer lighter games.I like options for my games and characters, but when I start to think about how many attacks I get a round, number of bonuses to attacks, and damage per attack instead of how I interact with the world, then it is time for me to move on.

I have several friends that I used to play with back in 2nd Edition and a little bit of 3rd Edition. I recently got back in touch with them and was looking to play again. I had offered them 5th Edition to try. They said they were playing Pathfinder. I replied cool and they asked if I would like to join their game. We continued talking and he began telling me about his character. And as he talked, all I kept hearing him mention was how many attacks he made a round, how much damage he did each hit, and how high his armor class was. Never once did he mention what his character's story was. That told me all I needed to know. My old friends' game may be awesome for them, but it was not something that I would want to play in. To each their own.

I just think that sometimes the role playing gets lost in all the options and rules stating what my character can and cannot do. I get it, with organized play and society play at shops and such a rule is needed for about everything so all the player's understand. I just feel that sometimes all the rules do not enhance the story but hinder it by painting a GM into a corner.


Pendagast wrote:


there's real life playing and

No, there isn't. Because pathfinder is a fantasy game in which players imagine nonexistent things happening in a fictional world. There is nothing 'real life' about pathfinder. There is no magic in real life.

Everything in pathfinder is imaginary. There are no 'real' pathfinder games.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
wally.west wrote:
Anzyr wrote:


The problem I find "old school players" have is that they can't roleplay character, only a role. They don't come up with "Charming Thief with equally quick wit and blade who grew up tough on the streets, but hides a heart of a gold", they say "I want to play a Rogue.", thus the only class that can fill this role the Rogue. That is not good roleplaying.

I personally find that story matters over mechanics. If I am going to play a paladin, I am doing it because I have a great idea of a character who has the wisdom and the desire to be a paladin, but lacks the charisma to be truly effective at it. The character will continue to strive to be the epitome of what it means to be a paladin, but will be flawed. He will stumble and there will be times when his paladin abilities will fail him, but he will continue on. To me that is a great paladin, not one who chose all the right archetypes, feats etc. that will ensure victory in combat.

None of that tells me literally anything about your character other then "Is a Paladin." And that's the problem. Your character isn't actually a character that you can roleplay. It's a class. So thank you for sort of proving my point.

"Steel-tempered soldier turned fist of justice, with hard eyes and a harder stance against evil who can call on divine powers." Now that's a character. And it could be a Cleric, Inquisitor, Paladin, Oracle, Shaman or Warpriest. A class is not a character, it's just a collection of abilities. Pick the set of abilities that actually fits your concept, and don't limit your concept to "Is a Paladin." and I think you'll improve your roleplaying abilities.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
"Steel-tempered soldier turned fist of justice, with hard eyes and a harder stance against evil who can call on divine powers." Now that's a character. And it could be a Cleric, Inquisitor, Paladin, Oracle, Shaman or Warpriest. A class is not a character, it's just a collection of abilities. Pick the set of abilities that actually fits your concept, and don't limit your concept to "Is a Paladin." and I think you'll improve your roleplaying abilities.

You could even play it as a fighter. "Divine powers" don't have to be flashy. Any fighter of high-ish level is pretty supernatural. Who says the ability to cut demons to ribbons with steel doesn't have some divine influence?


Exactly! Because everything in that description is about *WHO* the character is, rather then a trying to shoehorn the character into a particular class. And hey, Rangers are pretty good at hunting Demons to!

1 to 50 of 83 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Many Classes of Pathfinder All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.