Are there really only a handful of good classes to pick from?


Advice

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>

From what I've seen the only "good" classes are Rogue,Wizard,Fighter (maybe monk), and Bard. Every other class just seems to get thrown away as useless. Is this just the internet being the internet or is it really true that these four classes are the only ones worth picking?

Scarab Sages

11 people marked this as a favorite.

Not sure if serious....


9 people marked this as a favorite.

Uuhhhhh....?

I'm totally lost here. Are you reading the same internet I am or did I time travel to April 1st?


This is not true, and I would be interested in discovering where you got this idea. Could you link to some threads?

Sovereign Court

Hardly.... but I care more about the cool factor then the power factor. But Druid alone tops all those 4 IMHO, and they are hardly the only class to do so.

Class is just a starting point anyway.


I'm not sure where these discussions are taking place, but many of the classes are considered far from useless, while rogue and fighter are usually considered of much less use in these discussions.

As with anything on the internet, take it with a half-ton of salt and realize that if you ask 10 gamers their opinions you'll get 15 answers.


I'm new to the game and built a BFS and a lore oracle and all I hear about them is that wizards are so good that oracles and clerics are pointless and that a BFS should be smart or dexterous or might as well be a barbarian or not played at all. My friend who's been playing for a while now has stated that until UC came out most classes were pretty bad and not worth playing. And I started a thread about maxing out a lore oracle and got ranted on about how if your character isn't combat oriented then you shouldn't play it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Kaim wrote:
I'm new to the game and built a BFS and a lore oracle and all I hear about them is that wizards are so good that oracles and clerics are pointless and that a BFS should be smart or dexterous or might as well be a barbarian or not played at all. My friend who's been playing for a while now has stated that until UC came out most classes were pretty bad and not worth playing. And I started a thread about maxing out a lore oracle and got ranted on about how if your character isn't combat oriented then you shouldn't play it.

Your friend is a power gamer. There's nothing inherently wrong with that style, but it's not the only way to play.

Pathfinder isn't like a videogame, in that most (good) gamemasters will adjust the power level to their group's effectiveness.

Fighters are not very versatile, but they're easily the best class for a beginner, not because of their power level, but their simplicity. There's a lot for a newbie to learn at once, so it's good to start with something simple.

The classes all have different ceiling levels of power and versatility depending on level, but they all have at least one niche they do well in.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Sounds like your random encounter rolls on the tables for real life and the Internet have come up with a few Troll encounters.

Ignore them. Play the class which matches your character concept. If you're having fun playing a character, you're doing it right.

Oracles and clerics are not pointless. And there's a big difference between being combat oriented (great if that floats your boat) and being able to contribute in combat (which is useful for everyone in the party).


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Kaim wrote:
From what I've seen the only "good" classes are Rogue,Wizard,Fighter (maybe monk), and Bard. Every other class just seems to get thrown away as useless. Is this just the internet being the internet or is it really true that these four classes are the only ones worth picking?

Rogue, monk and fighter are the three weakest classes in PF.


knightnday wrote:

I'm not sure where these discussions are taking place, but many of the classes are considered far from useless, while rogue and fighter are usually considered of much less use in these discussions.

As with anything on the internet, take it with a half-ton of salt and realize that if you ask 10 gamers their opinions you'll get 15 answers.

Fair enough, I've been hearing that skills are more or less trumped by combat abilities.

http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2sd2e?How-can-I-max-my-haunted-lore-oracles

i built this character and figured that since I was a lore oracle I wouldn't need any combat stuff seeing as they focus on knowledges and not much more.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Rogue, fighter, and monk are the three worst classes. And I say this as someone who loves to play fighters, rogues, and monks. Fighters are only useful in combat, rogues are generally only useful outside of combat, and monks just suck. Specific archetypes do help the monk, but in general they suck - both in and out of combat. Every other class is useful both in and out of combat, some more than others depending on the build.

Going away from an optimization point of view, every class can be full of flavor and make an interesting character to play - and that is what should matter the most.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

ALL classes NEED something useful to do for combat, this is why the Rogue is considered so bad, it had a hard time being useful in a fight.

Most players like to do something out of combat, this is why the fighter is perceived poorly, it can hit things or hit things.

Your oracle wouldn't be difficult to tweek just a little bit and have it be useful in a fight.


Apocryphile wrote:

Sounds like your random encounter rolls on the tables for real life and the Internet have come up with a few Troll encounters.

Ignore them. Play the class which matches your character concept. If you're having fun playing a character, you're doing it right.

Oracles and clerics are not pointless. And there's a big difference between being combat oriented (great if that floats your boat) and being able to contribute in combat (which is useful for everyone in the party).

From what I heard oracles are mostly pointless battle wise, which I'm fine with. But do I really have to be combat oriented at all? Because my oracle isn't actually built for more than just his knowledge checks and being a desna fanatic with a mythic story line.

Scarab Sages

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Oracles are one of the strongest classes in the game, and depending on mystery can out-fight fighters while still having 9th level casting.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaim wrote:
From what I've seen the only "good" classes are Rogue,Wizard,Fighter (maybe monk), and Bard. Every other class just seems to get thrown away as useless. Is this just the internet being the internet or is it really true that these four classes are the only ones worth picking?

OK, I'll bite.

I'll assume this is a real question and not a troll, but that means I'm also assuming you read about one post by one uniformed guy on the internet, because if you had read, oh, say, just a dozen internet posts on any forum, you would have found:

Rogue: considered one of the worst classes due to limited use and having so many other classes do everything the rogue does, but better.
Wizard: considered one of the best classes because at high level, a wizard can solve every problem and trivialize a whole campaign.
Fighter: Considered very one-dimensional, good at fighting, bad at EVERYTHING else and very easy for certain monsters to eliminate or ignore in an encounter.
Monk: Same as fighter, but also not good at combat, possibly salvageable by taking one or two Archetypes that arguably make it only about as good as a fighter.
Bard: Considered a pretty good class if you like social situations or being the support guy while everyone else gets things done. Very versatile but not very "good" (powerful) on its own merits.

I won't go into the list of all the other "good" classes that are clearly "better" than everything on your list except wizard because that list is probably more than half of the character classes in the game.


Kaim wrote:
Apocryphile wrote:

Sounds like your random encounter rolls on the tables for real life and the Internet have come up with a few Troll encounters.

Ignore them. Play the class which matches your character concept. If you're having fun playing a character, you're doing it right.

Oracles and clerics are not pointless. And there's a big difference between being combat oriented (great if that floats your boat) and being able to contribute in combat (which is useful for everyone in the party).

From what I heard oracles are mostly pointless battle wise, which I'm fine with. But do I really have to be combat oriented at all? Because my oracle isn't actually built for more than just his knowledge checks and being a desna fanatic with a mythic story line.

There's only three options for combat that you can focus on for any given character:

1) kill things good
2) help others kill things good
3) control the field

As an oracle, you generally won't be focusing on 1). This means that you should focus on 2) and/or 3). How do you do this? With your huge selection of spells! You can do 2) with buffing spells; increase your allies ability scores or give them other bonuses to AC, attack, or damage based on the spell OR wth debuffing spells that make your enemies weaker. . You can do 3) by summoning monsters, creating walls, creating pits, etc...

Since you're an oracle and you have a limited number of spells known, you should pick spells that can help you in a wide variety of situations. Check out some of the oracle guides for which spells are the most useful and versatile.


Pathfinder is like 60% to 80% a combat game. Being useless in combat will make you useless a lot of the time. And it's quite easy for an oracle to be useful in combat.


DM_Blake wrote:
Kaim wrote:
From what I've seen the only "good" classes are Rogue,Wizard,Fighter (maybe monk), and Bard. Every other class just seems to get thrown away as useless. Is this just the internet being the internet or is it really true that these four classes are the only ones worth picking?

OK, I'll bite.

I'll assume this is a real question and not a troll, but that means I'm also assuming you read about one post by one uniformed guy on the internet, because if you had read, oh, say, just a dozen internet posts on any forum, you would have found:

Rogue: considered one of the worst classes due to limited use and having so many other classes do everything the rogue does, but better.
Wizard: considered one of the best classes because at high level, a wizard can solve every problem and trivialize a whole campaign.
Fighter: Considered very one-dimensional, good at fighting, bad at EVERYTHING else and very easy for certain monsters to eliminate or ignore in an encounter.
Monk: Same as fighter, but also not good at combat, possibly salvageable by taking one or two Archetypes that arguably make it only about as good as a fighter.
Bard: Considered a pretty good class if you like social situations or being the support guy while everyone else gets things done. Very versatile but not very "good" (powerful) on its own merits.

I won't go into the list of all the other "good" classes that are clearly "better" than everything on your list except wizard because that list is probably more than half of the character classes in the game.

so what I'm getting out of this is that rogues are not any good even with unchained and are unnecessary in the party, what other classes are trapfinders from lvl1 and better at everything rogues do? This is the stuff I want to find out before I play in an actual campaign and pick a class to really use.


bookrat wrote:
Kaim wrote:
Apocryphile wrote:

Sounds like your random encounter rolls on the tables for real life and the Internet have come up with a few Troll encounters.

Ignore them. Play the class which matches your character concept. If you're having fun playing a character, you're doing it right.

Oracles and clerics are not pointless. And there's a big difference between being combat oriented (great if that floats your boat) and being able to contribute in combat (which is useful for everyone in the party).

From what I heard oracles are mostly pointless battle wise, which I'm fine with. But do I really have to be combat oriented at all? Because my oracle isn't actually built for more than just his knowledge checks and being a desna fanatic with a mythic story line.

There's only three options for combat that you can focus on for any given character:

1) kill things good
2) help others kill things good
3) control the field

As an oracle, you generally won't be focusing on 1). This means that you should focus on 2) and/or 3). How do you do this? With your huge selection of spells! You can do 2) with buffing spells; increase your allies ability scores or give them other bonuses to AC, attack, or damage based on the spell OR wth debuffing spells that make your enemies weaker. . You can do 3) by summoning monsters, creating walls, creating pits, etc...

Since you're an oracle and you have a limited number of spells known, you should pick spells that can help you in a wide variety of situations. Check out some of the oracle guides for which spells are the most useful and versatile.

according to the wizard in my party, "wizards are better than oracles at aiding and buffing" should I just concentrate on de-buffing the enemy and nothing else? Besides healing which I was then told is "pointless" compared to buffing

Grand Lodge

Slayer for Combat, Talent for Traps at 2nd level
Investigator for Skills, traps online at 1st

Also, EVERYONE is a trap finder with the mummy's mask campaign trait. However, trapfinding is VERY situational. I, as a GM, will leave traps off to a large extent unless there is specifically someone who deals with traps.


Kaim wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Kaim wrote:
From what I've seen the only "good" classes are Rogue,Wizard,Fighter (maybe monk), and Bard. Every other class just seems to get thrown away as useless. Is this just the internet being the internet or is it really true that these four classes are the only ones worth picking?

OK, I'll bite.

I'll assume this is a real question and not a troll, but that means I'm also assuming you read about one post by one uniformed guy on the internet, because if you had read, oh, say, just a dozen internet posts on any forum, you would have found:

Rogue: considered one of the worst classes due to limited use and having so many other classes do everything the rogue does, but better.
Wizard: considered one of the best classes because at high level, a wizard can solve every problem and trivialize a whole campaign.
Fighter: Considered very one-dimensional, good at fighting, bad at EVERYTHING else and very easy for certain monsters to eliminate or ignore in an encounter.
Monk: Same as fighter, but also not good at combat, possibly salvageable by taking one or two Archetypes that arguably make it only about as good as a fighter.
Bard: Considered a pretty good class if you like social situations or being the support guy while everyone else gets things done. Very versatile but not very "good" (powerful) on its own merits.

I won't go into the list of all the other "good" classes that are clearly "better" than everything on your list except wizard because that list is probably more than half of the character classes in the game.

so what I'm getting out of this is that rogues are not any good even with unchained and are unnecessary in the party, what other classes are trapfinders from lvl1 and better at everything rogues do? This is the stuff I want to find out before I play in an actual campaign and pick a class to really use.

Trapfinders from level 1? You are looking at this the wrong way. The issue is more that trapfinding isn't very valuable. Trapfinding itself is a very very minor buff to perception checks to notice and siable traps at that level. Even assuming class skill bonus (+3) and Trapfinding (+1), a WIS based caster is sitting at a +5 thanks to a 20 in a WIS. Furthermore, traps tend to be binary in PF. You trigger trap, you take X damage. Then, you calmly pull out your wand of CLW and top yourself off and move on.

Generally speaking the following classes are more valuable uses of a party slot then a Rogue and also get trapfinding or an alternative: Alchemists, Bards, Inquisitors, Investigators, Oracles, Rangers, Slayers, Sorcerers. That's not extensive, Wizards can beat Rogues as well, as can Shamans (Wisdom in the Flesh - Disable Device!), along with a few other classes.


Kaim wrote:
bookrat wrote:
Kaim wrote:
Apocryphile wrote:

Sounds like your random encounter rolls on the tables for real life and the Internet have come up with a few Troll encounters.

Ignore them. Play the class which matches your character concept. If you're having fun playing a character, you're doing it right.

Oracles and clerics are not pointless. And there's a big difference between being combat oriented (great if that floats your boat) and being able to contribute in combat (which is useful for everyone in the party).

From what I heard oracles are mostly pointless battle wise, which I'm fine with. But do I really have to be combat oriented at all? Because my oracle isn't actually built for more than just his knowledge checks and being a desna fanatic with a mythic story line.

There's only three options for combat that you can focus on for any given character:

1) kill things good
2) help others kill things good
3) control the field

As an oracle, you generally won't be focusing on 1). This means that you should focus on 2) and/or 3). How do you do this? With your huge selection of spells! You can do 2) with buffing spells; increase your allies ability scores or give them other bonuses to AC, attack, or damage based on the spell OR wth debuffing spells that make your enemies weaker. . You can do 3) by summoning monsters, creating walls, creating pits, etc...

Since you're an oracle and you have a limited number of spells known, you should pick spells that can help you in a wide variety of situations. Check out some of the oracle guides for which spells are the most useful and versatile.

according to the wizard in my party, "wizards are better than oracles at aiding and buffing" should I just concentrate on de-buffing the enemy and nothing else? Besides healing which I was then told is "pointless" compared to buffing

Outside of a few exceptions (Heal spell, an ally about to hit dying), in combat healing tends to be extremely subpar. However, Oracle has access to useful debuffs and buffs that are valuable contributions to any party.

Grand Lodge

Additionally, wizards are better at Blasting, then oracles. Other then that, it can be a toss up, based on who has better system mastery.

As you are new, the wizard likely has a little more system mastery. Do not worry, it will come in time.


Kaim wrote:
DM_Blake wrote:
Kaim wrote:
From what I've seen the only "good" classes are Rogue,Wizard,Fighter (maybe monk), and Bard. Every other class just seems to get thrown away as useless. Is this just the internet being the internet or is it really true that these four classes are the only ones worth picking?

OK, I'll bite.

I'll assume this is a real question and not a troll, but that means I'm also assuming you read about one post by one uniformed guy on the internet, because if you had read, oh, say, just a dozen internet posts on any forum, you would have found:

Rogue: considered one of the worst classes due to limited use and having so many other classes do everything the rogue does, but better.
Wizard: considered one of the best classes because at high level, a wizard can solve every problem and trivialize a whole campaign.
Fighter: Considered very one-dimensional, good at fighting, bad at EVERYTHING else and very easy for certain monsters to eliminate or ignore in an encounter.
Monk: Same as fighter, but also not good at combat, possibly salvageable by taking one or two Archetypes that arguably make it only about as good as a fighter.
Bard: Considered a pretty good class if you like social situations or being the support guy while everyone else gets things done. Very versatile but not very "good" (powerful) on its own merits.

I won't go into the list of all the other "good" classes that are clearly "better" than everything on your list except wizard because that list is probably more than half of the character classes in the game.

so what I'm getting out of this is that rogues are not any good even with unchained and are unnecessary in the party, what other classes are trapfinders from lvl1 and better at everything rogues do? This is the stuff I want to find out before I play in an actual campaign and pick a class to really use.

Unchained makes them usable.

Here, how about you tell use what you want to do, and we can help give you classes that fit that. If you want to run your Lore Oracle, cool, we'll tell you the tweaks to get it combat ready.


So traps aren't made to kill just lightly wound? Could I get a wand of cure light wounds with my starting wealth?

@dafydd

Can i pick mummy's mask or do I actually have to play that campaign?


Kaim wrote:


according to the wizard in my party, "wizards are better than oracles at aiding and buffing" should I just concentrate on de-buffing the enemy and nothing else? Besides healing which I was then told is "pointless" compared to buffing

I would avoid thinking in absolutes. Being less than the best does not make one useless.

Find a style you want to play, but do remember that combat is a major part of the game. Lore Oracles can be fun. You have the ability to find out what is going on in the game, and allow your team to prepare ahead of time. Pick up the Sidestep Secret revelation to help you in combat. Lore Keeper gives you a big boost on knowledge checks.

Spells like Command and Murderous Command are powerful ways of dealing with low level enemies. The Summon Monster spells are endlessly useful for the creative player.

Or become a crafter or magic items. The Focused Trance revelation gives you a +20 bonus on your spellcraft check (ask your DM on this one). Really, you have lots of options.

Yes, a wizard will be a stronger god than you will be at level 20. Who cares?


Kaim wrote:

So traps aren't made to kill just lightly wound? Could I get a wand of cure light wounds with my starting wealth?

@dafydd

Can i pick mummy's mask or do I actually have to play that campaign?

Most traps do not deal enough damage to kill someone in one hit, so they are evidently just meant to wound. While you cannot afford a Wand of CLW at level 1, it should be the very first item that your party pools it's gold to purchase. Though there are some traps that are save or die, these are also binary in that you either make the save and the trap is useless, or you fail and die. That being said the save DCs on those tend to be low.

RPG Superstar Season 9 Top 16

As others have mentioned, combat is a significant portion of the game, because you're playing an adventurer.

Your character may be great at lore, but there's a reason he's facing dangers instead of staying at the university/library/temple. He has to be able to face those challenges.

That's the big thing to realize I think. Your character actively seeks adventure, and thus, danger.


Dafydd wrote:

Additionally, wizards are better at Blasting, then oracles. Other then that, it can be a toss up, based on who has better system mastery.

As you are new, the wizard likely has a little more system mastery. Do not worry, it will come in time.

I thought blaster wizards were considered bad because evocation is bad or is it not as nerfed as my friend says?


Kaim wrote:
Dafydd wrote:

Additionally, wizards are better at Blasting, then oracles. Other then that, it can be a toss up, based on who has better system mastery.

As you are new, the wizard likely has a little more system mastery. Do not worry, it will come in time.

I thought blaster wizards were considered bad because evocation is bad or is it not as nerfed as my friend says?

They aren't considered bad per se. They are considered inefficient. If you have a bunch of meatshields that can only contribute damage, it's more efficient to buff them and debuff the enemies. Unless they are very poorly optimized, this is a more efficient of dealing damage to enemies. Ideally, a single well placed buff, or debuff can allow your meatshields to clean up an entire encounter, which would have otherwise cost you several blasting spells to achieve a similar result.


Evocation is one of the "weaker" wizards as you're just doing damage instead of "better" things. But a Evocation can work.


I'm still not sure if you're naive to the system or just trolling. Traps are meant to deal quite a lot of damage, but usually stop short of killing most characters. A wand of cure light wounds doesn't heal for much, but used several times will fully heal even someone near death.

Generally - read the "guide to the class guides" on these forums. Google "the forge of combat" by TarkXT, which will inform you tactically. Any character should have a combat role and an out-of-combat role. Find your roles and be good at them, ideally complimenting the rest of the party.


Anzyr wrote:
Kaim wrote:

So traps aren't made to kill just lightly wound? Could I get a wand of cure light wounds with my starting wealth?

@dafydd

Can i pick mummy's mask or do I actually have to play that campaign?

Most traps do not deal enough damage to kill someone in one hit, so they are evidently just meant to wound. While you cannot afford a Wand of CLW at level 1, it should be the very first item that your party pools it's gold to purchase. Though there are some traps that are save or die, these are also binary in that you either make the save and the trap is useless, or you fail and die. That being said the save DCs on those tend to be low.

well damn, I thought that traps were some big scary thing because the dc to perceive and disable is usually 20-30 and the dc to half damage or avoid is usually like a 20. And to add a light note to this thread one of my friends saw me on this thread and was like "why do you need to fight? Why not convince a bunch of people to fight for you with your diplomacy?"


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber
Kaim wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Kaim wrote:

So traps aren't made to kill just lightly wound? Could I get a wand of cure light wounds with my starting wealth?

@dafydd

Can i pick mummy's mask or do I actually have to play that campaign?

Most traps do not deal enough damage to kill someone in one hit, so they are evidently just meant to wound. While you cannot afford a Wand of CLW at level 1, it should be the very first item that your party pools it's gold to purchase. Though there are some traps that are save or die, these are also binary in that you either make the save and the trap is useless, or you fail and die. That being said the save DCs on those tend to be low.
well damn, I thought that traps were some big scary thing because the dc to perceive and disable is usually 20-30 and the dc to half damage or avoid is usually like a 20. And to add a light note to this thread one of my friends saw me on this thread and was like "why do you need to fight? Why not convince a bunch of people to fight for you with your diplomacy?"

traps are a bad game mechanic, they're designed to simply waste your resoruces, there's nothing else but a black and white DC fail or pass. if you notice the trap, go around, if you don't notice the trap then heal up afterwards, it doesn't mean much so long as you have a wand of CLW.

you want a good cheap trap finding solution, get some donkeys and push them in front of the party.


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Your friend sounds like someone who likes to pretend he knows a lot about the game, but really doesn't.

Those people are funny.

From what you've said he's just parroting things he's seen on the forums out of context and without any real understanding as to WHY a thing is the way it is. He doesn't know WHY Wizards are incredibly powerful, or Evocation is considered less powerful than other schools, or that healing in combat is generally inefficient, just that a bunch off people said that so it mst be true.


4 people marked this as a favorite.
Chess Pwn wrote:
60% to 80% a combat

You poor sap. Get a GM that isn't running a hack'n'slash diablo-clone.

Sovereign Court

Traps are generally only nasty if they go off during and/or just before a combat encounter. Admittedly - they can then be very nasty. If your front-line fighter & pali both get dropped to the bottom of a 30ft hole just before a dozen goblins jump out from behind a secret door - things will get dicey (pun intended).

Of note though - kind of unfortunately in my opinion - traps in APs/modules rarely seem to work that way. It's one reason that Rise of the Goblin Guild is one of my favorite modules. The traps themselves aren't much, and the combat encounters themselves are easy - but they mix them together to be a threat.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Barathos wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
60% to 80% a combat
You poor sap. Get a GM that isn't running a hack'n'slash diablo-clone.

Uh, if you aren't at least 60% combat, why aren't you playing FATE instead? Seriously, if your game isn't mostly combat, you've chosen the wrong system to play.


Corvino wrote:

I'm still not sure if you're naive to the system or just trolling. Traps are meant to deal quite a lot of damage, but usually stop short of killing most characters. A wand of cure light wounds doesn't heal for much, but used several times will fully heal even someone near death.

Generally - read the "guide to the class guides" on these forums. Google "the forge of combat" by TarkXT, which will inform you tactically. Any character should have a combat role and an out-of-combat role. Find your roles and be good at them, ideally complimenting the rest of the party.

first off, I'll look those up. Secondly, I have already stated that I am NEW TO THE GAME hence my naivety and less than usual amount of knowledge.


Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

I agree, i only use traps during encounters.

Grand Lodge

Kaim wrote:
Dafydd wrote:

Additionally, wizards are better at Blasting, then oracles. Other then that, it can be a toss up, based on who has better system mastery.

As you are new, the wizard likely has a little more system mastery. Do not worry, it will come in time.

I thought blaster wizards were considered bad because evocation is bad or is it not as nerfed as my friend says?

Well, yes and no. Blasting, 90% of the time, is not as good as a same level buff or debuff. That said, if you wanted to compete in blasting, the wizard has the advantage just because the arcane lists have slightly better direct damage spells available to it.

But that is a competition no one really wins as the options are just not as good, usually.

A side note to keep in mind when comparing a wizard and an oracle. It is not just a divine/arcane divide but a prepared/spontaneous comparison too. In other words, Wizard will get his next level spells 1 level before you. Small difference at level 1-2 and levels 18-20, but in between there...

Sovereign Court

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Bandw2 wrote:
I agree, i only use traps during encounters.

They're much more interesting that way. And it makes a rogue with trap-spotter quite handy. (not required - but handy)


Anzyr wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
60% to 80% a combat
You poor sap. Get a GM that isn't running a hack'n'slash diablo-clone.
Uh, if you aren't at least 60% combat, why aren't you playing FATE instead? I hate this "combat isn't real roleplay." gibberish. Seriously, if you game isn't mostly combat, you've chosen the wrong system.

I was under the assumption that as a non-video game rpg it would be more like a role playing game than a combat game, which is why I picked a lore oracle instead of one specifically for buffs and debuffing


Kaim wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
60% to 80% a combat
You poor sap. Get a GM that isn't running a hack'n'slash diablo-clone.
Uh, if you aren't at least 60% combat, why aren't you playing FATE instead? I hate this "combat isn't real roleplay." gibberish. Seriously, if you game isn't mostly combat, you've chosen the wrong system.
I was under the assumption that as a non-video game rpg it would be more like a role playing game than a combat game, which is why I picked a lore oracle instead of one specifically for buffs and debuffing

Nope. There's a reason 80+% of the book is dedicated to combat.

Scarab Sages

Kaim wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
60% to 80% a combat
You poor sap. Get a GM that isn't running a hack'n'slash diablo-clone.
Uh, if you aren't at least 60% combat, why aren't you playing FATE instead? I hate this "combat isn't real roleplay." gibberish. Seriously, if you game isn't mostly combat, you've chosen the wrong system.
I was under the assumption that as a non-video game rpg it would be more like a role playing game than a combat game, which is why I picked a lore oracle instead of one specifically for buffs and debuffing

On of the most useful things a lore oracle can to is make knowledge checks about an enemy, which will let you know what the creatures weaknesses are.

Knowing if something has DR, will damage you when you attack it, or is weak to fire but immune to cold are all very useful in combat, and can be done as a non-action, allowing you to use your standard action to cast spells or attack.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Lost Omens Subscriber

this thread is whack yo.

only a matter of time before people start arguing over the power level of wizards versus a tier 10 mythic rogue or something.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kaim wrote:
Anzyr wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
60% to 80% a combat
You poor sap. Get a GM that isn't running a hack'n'slash diablo-clone.
Uh, if you aren't at least 60% combat, why aren't you playing FATE instead? I hate this "combat isn't real roleplay." gibberish. Seriously, if you game isn't mostly combat, you've chosen the wrong system.
I was under the assumption that as a non-video game rpg it would be more like a role playing game than a combat game, which is why I picked a lore oracle instead of one specifically for buffs and debuffing

As a lore oracle you still have the oracle spell list. It's really easy for any oracle to be useful in combat. This is a role playing game. You're role playing people who go and get into fights, and then there are mechanics for how to handle the fights. This isn't just a story game (unless the GM makes it just a story game). Video game or non-video game the RPG parts are the same. There's a main story and lots of fighting to complete the story.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Anzyr wrote:
Barathos wrote:
Chess Pwn wrote:
60% to 80% a combat
You poor sap. Get a GM that isn't running a hack'n'slash diablo-clone.
Uh, if you aren't at least 60% combat, why aren't you playing FATE instead? Seriously, if your game isn't mostly combat, you've chosen the wrong system to play.

Hadn't heard of Fate, got into Pathfinder because it's free, easy to find players and its populated forums make it easy to learn. I might consider checking fate out.

What are you doing in your games that you get >60% combat? I'm probably doing like 12.5% combat, 29.17% skills, 29.16% adventure, 29.17% RP. You do random, plotless encounters, right?

Know a good fate forum?

Anzyr wrote:
Nope. There's a reason 80+% of the book is dedicated to combat.

It's because you don't need rules for RP.

1 to 50 of 100 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Advice / Are there really only a handful of good classes to pick from? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.