Least favorite classes!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

51 to 100 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
The Exchange

2 people marked this as a favorite.

(Oh! Oh! A chance to whine about classes? Here, let me go next!)

All PF classes are terrible. There should only be two classes: Totally The Main Character, which is a class only I get to play, and Whiny Little Less Important Character, which is a class that exists so that all the other players can sit at the table and admire how totally awesome my Main Character is because he can shoot death rays out of his dual-wielded katanas while he balances on clouds and kills gods with his teeth. Also, he rides a zombie T-rex even though he can fly, and has Force powers, time travel, and kung fu. I guess the rest of you guys can have some weapon proficiencies or something.

Liberty's Edge

Lincoln Hills wrote:

(Oh! Oh! A chance to whine about classes? Here, let me go next!)

All PF classes are terrible. There should only be two classes: Totally The Main Character, which is a class only I get to play, and Whiny Little Less Important Character, which is a class that exists so that all the other players can sit at the table and admire how totally awesome my Main Character is because he can shoot death rays out of his dual-wielded katanas while he balances on clouds and kills gods with his teeth. Also, he rides a zombie T-rex even though he can fly, and has Force powers, time travel, and kung fu. I guess the rest of you guys can have some weapon proficiencies or something.

Yeesh. That sounds like my 3.5 wizard.

The Exchange

Yeah, I loosely based it off of a few guys I've had the distinct displeasure of trying to game with. ;)


malhagor wrote:
Nerdrage Ooze wrote:
I dislike every class that is in any way connected with that ridiculous thing called "Europe". Really, how am I to take seriously some idiot in plate armor? Who's swinging some barbaric piece of metal only incidentally called "a sword"? European swords were a a pale shade of what glory Japanese smiths could bring forth with their katanas. It doesn't fit with my anime-inspired vision of fantasy at all, and I would really prefer for all those "western" elements to be excised forever. Sadly, there are far too many folks out there who are hung up on their outdated "sword and sorcery" ideas, or even worse, that Tolkien guy. Sheesh. Bring on my guns and katanas!
I am your nemesis. I dislike any oriental s$%!

You are both wrong, nothing is better than a old good iberian falcata that required two years to be made, any setting neglecting the glory of an ancient campaign is ridiculous, "medieval fantasy"??? BS!!! Slings, wooden shields, spears, short swords and more characters wearing tunics is all the game needs.

Note:
Add the Gunslinger to my list of dislikes. I don't mind the flavor, firearms were succesfully used in the Middle Ages in Europe and were massively used in the later years (just as Full Plates, that everybody seems to accept in their "medieval" games).
But, as someone said the rules for firearms are "hopelessly and stupidly complex", and the class looks like a XIX century pistolero, not the kind of gunslinger you would expect in a renaissance world, not even in a Napoleonic War.


1. Cavalier - I don't like having a cow, horse.
2. Paladin - I've just seen them played as lawful stupid.
3 Oracle - Don't know why, just never got around to it.
4. Magus - Not my cup of tea, not focused enough.

Btw. classes I like: alchemist, witch, wizard.

Silver Crusade

1) Witch: An entire class dedicated to spamming the same couple of abilities over and over, yawn.

2) Fighter: Worthless in any game that isn't all about the fighting. No skills=boring.

3) Summoners: Summoners should summon things, not mess around with a Final Fantasy XIII class feature.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Set wrote:
And Warrior? Why would anyone pay the same XP for a Fighter with no Fighter class features? Anytime I see some NPC listed in an adventure as a 'Warrior 3' I want to energy drain him and use those XP for a *real* class. I once saw one who was a 'Warrior 8' and I wanted to cry. 51,000 XP and you still haven't figured out Bravery +1 or Armor Training 1? Just die!

Not every soldier is a hero. I think they actually should have added another NPC class, an arcane equivalent to the adept.

Dark Archive

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
Not every soldier is a hero. I think they actually should have added another NPC class, an arcane equivalent to the adept.

I totally agree with that, actually. The Eberron Campaign Setting had a Magewright NPC 'wizard' and The Game Mechanics 'Temple Quarter' had the Adept split up into Divine Adepts and Arcane Adepts. Heck, over on Giants in the Playground, there's even a Keith Baker-designed 'druid adept' called the Gleaner.

Take the 2nd level Summon Familiar ability of the core Adept and replace it with a single Domain, for the Divine Adept, and with the Arcane Bond of a Wizard, for the Arcane Adept, and then tinker with the spell-list so that the Arcane Adept and the Divine Adept have different options, and it's pretty much a done deal.

Shadow Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Perry Snow wrote:

#1 Summoner - A fancy wizard

#2 Witch - Another fancy wizard
#3 Oracle - A fancy cleric
#4 Inquisitor - A fancy paladin
#5 Samurai - A fancy fighter
#6 Ninja - Another fancy fighter
#7 Cavalier - A fancy fighter with a mount
#8 Alchemist - A fancy fighter with bombs
#9 Gunslinger - A fancy fighter that violates the entire 'Sword & Sorcery' theme

Barbarian - fancy fighter with anger management issues

Bard - fancy rogue that's a dandy
Druid - fancy nature cleric
Monk - fancy unarmed fighter
Paladin - fancy fighter with a dip into cleric
Ranger - fancy fighter who likes camping
Wizard - nerdy sorcerer
Summoner - fancy wizard with a pet
Magus - fancy fighter/wizard multiclass


Paladin: Superior mechanics should not be balanced with roleplay constraints.

Antipaladin: Obligatory chaotic stupid is inexcusable. LE I could understand. Most paladins seem to fall along the lawful axis, few if any fall by moving towards chaos. Falling on both axis at once is also rare. Most paladins fall because law and good come into conflict and the antipaladin should have been built recognizing that if it was going to be built at all.

Rogue: Good skills don't justify uselessness in combat. Balancing the two spheres against each other just makes everyone playing rogue have less fun in combat. Unless the player enjoys sucking, but anyone can easily accomplish that by sabotaging their own stat array.

All 2+int skill/level classes for whom int isn't a casting stat: The opposite problem of the rogue. Being good in a fight doesn't justify being useless outside of one. Balancing combat against noncombat just divides the game in two with one set of players having fun at the noncombat stuff while the others have fun at combat.

Barbarian: Alignment restrictions suck.

Monk: See Barbarian.

Witch: All the spellbook vulnerability of the wizard, no ability to have a spare, no ability to store it in a dimensional space because it has to breathe, and it erases itself if they die and don't get resurrected within 24 hours. Who thought this was a good idea?

Summoner: lots of rule exceptions. How many months was it before people stopped assuming that every eidolon posted had accidentally broken the rules?

Okay, I think I'm done ranting. I think the Samurai and Ninja belong in a xian specific setting book along with all the asian weapons, but I don't think they shouldn't exist. Same for the gunslinger and Alkenstar.

Silver Crusade

Rogues don't suck. They are slightly less powerful than other classes but not to a degree that will make them useless.


Sorcerer

Anything that explicitly gets Katana proficiency

Sorcerer


1. Summoner (not because of flavor but because it's too complicated)
2. Ninjas (although i am re-fluffing and changing a couple of things so that rogues don't suck)
3. Samurais
4. Gunslingers and anyone with gun
5. I don't like the flavor of many many monks but there are a couple that i like


CORE + APG

1) Summoner
2) Alchemist

Rest is fine.

Include the ULTIMATES:

1) Summoner
2) Gunslinger
3) Alchemist

Shadow Lodge

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

I am not a big fan of purely martial characters (FIghter, cavalier, etc). They bore me.

Me: "I hit it with my sword."

next round;

I hit it with my sword.

Bla ... *unconscious*

oh god, this, i try to make characters that can do more than one thing. Granted with some feats you can have the fighter doing some combat maneuvers. The Barbarians rage powers let you do some neat stuff, but the whole 1/rage thing is a bit limiting...


Cavalier: That mount is useless most of the time. There's missing some archetype to kick that things off. And I'm not fan of those forced-teamwork feats. The character in itself is ok, but I don't like mounted character, and cavalier... is just done for that.

Gunsliger: This should never have existed. I'm playing Pathfinder in a medieval-fantasy setting, not some modern RPG.

Monks: Especially in pathfinder. It's the only class I hate more in PF than in 3.5. I don't like the ideal around the monk, and the Ki idea. I think it's a cool character for sure, but I can't support a class that make more effects than a wizard with his g+@ d#!n fists. Medusa Strike or Wrath, something like that, is something that just make me shiver about the absurdity of that class.

The Exchange

IkeDoe wrote:
...You are both wrong, nothing is better than a old good Iberian falcata that required two years to be made, any setting neglecting the glory of an ancient campaign is ridiculous, "medieval fantasy"??? BS!!! Slings, wooden shields, spears, short swords and more characters wearing tunics is all the game needs...

Bah! Modern decadence! I start my PCs out in the Old Stone Age, and by god if they want weapons better than fingernails or magic spells of any kind, they have to invent them themselves!

(Flashes back to an old Far Side where a bunch of cave men are staggering around wearing entire carcasses, and some slick salesman is up on a podium saying, "Yes, with the amazing new knife, you only have to wear the skins of those dead animals!")


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber

Gunslinger - I dont mind guns in my fantasy, or the gunslinger conceptually. But it was handcuffed to what I think are aweful firearms rules, and so it would be hard to find a class I want to play less.

Bard - Great class, but really I just dont like the fluff. The idea of performing in the middle of combat just seems silly to me, always will. And yes I know you can flavor it in different ways but in the end you are rolling a perform check so I cant shake the idea of the idiot with the lute in the midst of the street fight.

Monk - The class is too scattered, and its various abilities dont work well together leaving the whole thing feeling like something is missing.


Personally I hate the Inquisitor.

I am not saying it is a not an effective class I'm just saying that I dont think it was needed.

It is basically a Ranger/Cleric. I would have rather they fix the multiclass mechanic than spend time developing multi-class combas and base classes.

I hate the fact that the Inquisitor gets spells that general clerics should have access to and don't. I think the a 3/4 BAA class Divine class would be fine if the Cleric was actually a 1/2 BAA full caster and Inquisitor was filling in the Hybrid slot.

I just generally dont like the design or concept of the Inquisitor.

Silver Crusade

Heh,

Inquisitor, my favourite class.


FallofCamelot wrote:
1) Witch: An entire class dedicated to spamming the same couple of abilities over and over, yawn.

Just curious what makes the witch different from any other class in this regard?

the bard spams inspire haste good hope.

the wizard spams SoS and battle field controls

the druid wild shape pounces natural spell to spam buffs

the cleric spams buffs & spams channels spams smacking you in the face.

the feint rogue spams feint, acro to maneuver for flank, sneak attack.

the maneuver monk or fighter spams his maneuver or spams smacking you in the face.

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

I thought Witch is a Wizard-Cleric mashup with some additional little things...


FallofCamelot wrote:

Heh,

Inquisitor, my favourite class.

I will +1 that it just hits me where "i live" concepts wise to the point that in my own homebrew they may be the default clergy of certain gods.

Silver Crusade

Dragonsong wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
1) Witch: An entire class dedicated to spamming the same couple of abilities over and over, yawn.

Just curious what makes the witch different from any other class in this regard?

the bard spams inspire haste good hope.

the wizard spams SoS and battle field controls

the druid wild shape pounces natural spell to spam buffs

the cleric spams buffs & spams channels spams smacking you in the face.

the feint rogue spams feint, acro to maneuver for flank, sneak attack.

the maneuver monk or fighter spams his maneuver or spams smacking you in the face.

Variety and options basically.

A bard has other things to do (Suggestion, Blindness/Deafness, Confusion, Slow.) Plus you can play the character in a number of different ways (skill monkey, buffer, enchanter type).

There are a million different ways you can do Wizards and Sorcerers, same for Clerics. A Druid can concentrate on Wildshape, or summoning or their spells. there's a bunch of ways to do all this.

A witch pretty much has her hexes. This is because her spell list kinda sucks. Oh yes there are some good spells there but it's nowhere near the sheer awesomeness of the Wizard spell list. So in my experience most fights go like this:

Slumber
Slumber
Slumber
Slumber

Or

Evil Eye
Cackle
Evil Eye
Cackle
Evil Eye
Cackle

Boring.

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Well...for me a character that can cast heal, black testicles, greater teleport, baleful molyporph and resurrection is a pure victory over any abortive concepts such as Mystic Theurge, byt YMMV.


FallofCamelot wrote:
Dragonsong wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
1) Witch: An entire class dedicated to spamming the same couple of abilities over and over, yawn.

Just curious what makes the witch different from any other class in this regard?

the bard spams inspire haste good hope.

the wizard spams SoS and battle field controls

the druid wild shape pounces natural spell to spam buffs

the cleric spams buffs & spams channels spams smacking you in the face.

the feint rogue spams feint, acro to maneuver for flank, sneak attack.

the maneuver monk or fighter spams his maneuver or spams smacking you in the face.

Variety and options basically.

A bard has other things to do (Suggestion, Blindness/Deafness, Confusion, Slow.) Plus you can play the character in a number of different ways (skill monkey, buffer, enchanter type).

There are a million different ways you can do Wizards and Sorcerers, same for Clerics. A Druid can concentrate on Wildshape, or summoning or their spells. there's a bunch of ways to do all this.

But once you decide on which of those different ways to play the class you are in fact going to be spamming the same stuff over and over, I fail to see the difference.

Dont get me wrong you can not care for the witch but this game pretty much forces you in situation x to spam y, in situation a you do b, so i don't agree with your assessment in this case. It's OK we just disagree and that's totally OK (Do you hear that internet. Folks agreeing to disagree it can and should happen!)


FallofCamelot wrote:

Variety and options basically.

A bard has other things to do (Suggestion, Blindness/Deafness, Confusion, Slow.) Plus you can play the character in a number of different ways (skill monkey, buffer, enchanter type).

There are a million different ways you can do Wizards and Sorcerers, same for Clerics. A Druid can concentrate on Wildshape, or summoning or their spells. there's a bunch of ways to do all this.

A witch pretty much has her hexes. This is because her spell list kinda sucks. Oh yes there are some good spells there but it's nowhere near the sheer awesomeness of the Wizard spell list. So in my experience most fights go like this:

Slumber
Slumber
Slumber
Slumber

Or

Evil Eye
Cackle
Evil Eye
Cackle
Evil Eye
Cackle

Boring.

Hey.

The latter of the two totally goes Evil Eye Cackle Misfortune Cackle Evil Eye Cackle Evil Eye Cackle Fortune Cackle.

That's options like wh0a.


Gorbacz wrote:
I thought Witch is a Wizard-Cleric mashup with some additional little things...

Its more of a wizard/druid mash up with half the spell selection.


Fatespinner wrote:

As a counterpoint to this thread, let's talk about which classes you just don't care for. I'll start!

#1 - Summoner: I hate casters that summon stuff. It's an absolute nightmare to have all the various summonable monsters' statblocks available and, moreover, even more annoying to have the summoner's player spend half an hour declaring the movements and attacks of his upteen-thousand summoned minions. This is doubly problematic with the eidolon, as it has a mutable statblock and can be altered on the fly with evolution surge and similar spells. Ugh.

#2 - Alchemist: I just don't get this class. You hurl bombs at stuff. Okay, that's cool. And you maybe cast some primarily self-only buffs on the side. Yeah, you might make some helpful infusions for the party, but this class mostly buffs itself and blows things up. Mostly I see people taking a dip in this class for the extra tentacle attack it allows and then being a fighter and/or barbarian the rest of the way... which is a ridiculous visual, IMO.

#3 - Cavalier: For the same reason I don't like summoners, I don't like classes that rely heavily on an animal companion/mount to "do their thing." Sure, you don't NEED a mount to be a cavalier, but that seems to be a big part of their schtick. Without the mount around, cavaliers are just really weird fighters.

I will agree when a master summoner plays it sometimes feels like there is another DM playing. I like the alchemist because it's like a mad scientists that experiments with itself.


I don't like monks and paladins. It's not that I have any actual dislike against them, they just serve no purpose in the games I run.

Same goes for gunslinger and inquisitor.


Yora wrote:

I don't like monks and paladins. It's not that I have any actual dislike against them, they just serve no purpose in the games I run.

Same goes for gunslinger and inquisitor.

Can you elaborate on how they serve no purpose in the games you run?


As for classes I don't like I feel as if the cavalier, samurai, and rogue are pretty weak. It takes a certain kind of person to play a summoner and not waste a bunch of time. Before it's even their turn they need to decide on buffs, movement, types of attacks, and various other actions often for multiple characters. Some people are very bad at this and end up being a pain, others can micro manage well. The same is true for paladins, in order to play a paladin you need to follow your moral codes and not be a douchebag about it. It takes someone that knows how to reason and role play in order to play a paladin properly. I really wonder how many of you have had an alchemist cackle when throws bombs and threaten the enemies with grotesque surgeries. I kind of find it funny my top three favorite classes seem to be the top three most hated classes.


My least favorite would be the Cavalier.

I don't care much for the Inquisitor.

As for the NPC classes I can't stand the Adept, Warrior, and Commoner.


1) Gunslinger. Putting it in a book doesn't make it belong in the game.

2) Ninja

3) Samurai.

I'm not against the Ninja and Samurai mechanically just the flavor. I have no issue with someone scribbling Ninja on their sheet and then playing them as a rogue or whatever.. but black clad pajama wearing supermen have no place in what I consider to be the traditional settings of what I consider D&D.

The Witch though, I love. ;p go figure

-S

Silver Crusade

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Gorbacz wrote:
Well...for me a character that can cast heal, black testicles, greater teleport, baleful molyporph and resurrection is a pure victory over any abortive concepts such as Mystic Theurge, byt YMMV.

"a character that can cast heal, black testicles"

"heal, black testicles"

"black testicles"

Silver Crusade

Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Maxximilius wrote:
Gorbacz wrote:
Well...for me a character that can cast heal, black testicles, greater teleport, baleful molyporph and resurrection is a pure victory over any abortive concepts such as Mystic Theurge, byt YMMV.

"a character that can cast heal, black testicles"

"heal, black testicles"

"black testicles"

I always misspell it like that. :)


My least favorite are ninja, samurai, and to some extent monk. I have trouble fitting in asian themes in some of the games I run, but not all, so they are occassionally a pain (being the two are new, this is mostly an issue with monk). Also, I see there being no need what-so-ever for the samurai and the ninja. The rogue should have been straightened out, and ninja should have been just an archetype. The samurai should have just been a concept (maybe a couple archetypes) that is representable through different classes. But instead we wind up with a very anime inspired ninja, and a very "traditional" inspired samurai. Honestly those two are a huge strike against Paizo in my book, huge on the scale of the Green Ronin sale a few years ago. I'm still a die hard fan of Paizo, but UC was the first book on the rule book subscription I opted out for (got the PDF instead), and from now on I'm very careful about what I pick up from them.

Out of the APG I would say my least favorite is the cavalier. I love the concept, but I just don't see it working out well in the games I run, which are generally Paizo's APs. The horse in a dungeon issue.

As for core, I have issues with the barbarian, in that I want to create savage warriors who don't have hormonal issues, and honestly think the rage mechanic should have been a feat tree. I liked Arcana Evolved martial classes a lot better, in that there was a heavily armored warrior, and a lightly armored warrior. I think that aproach should have been taken, but we have to have backwards compatability, don't we?

The druid has some of the same issues as the cavalier in my opinion, and I just have issue with the plate male wearing, great sword weilding ape concept. Most of the stuff I've complained about is something I don't like, but will allow in my games as I understand my biasis shouldn't infringe on my player's enjoyment of the game. But honestly if I had someone show up with a druid and their weapon soldier ape...I don't think I could bring myself to let it in.

As for NPC classes, my least favorite is commoner. Sense the advent of agriculture society has breed people to be specialists, so why on earth are farmers not considered Experts? commoner is probably the one class that just straight up doesn't exist in my world.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

As a player, until recently, I never played fighters. Just couldn't get a good grasp of a character theme with enough good options. However, since learning scythes are trip weapons, I've been wanting to play a tripping/intimidation scythe wielder- imagine the potential bad-assery you can get there, Wielding a frost scythe or something and dressing up in black robes atop your armor like the grim reaper "Death has come for you! There is No Escape! Bwhahahah!" A little bit hokey, but hey, it's a powerful/fun concept, and more rp potential and combat options than just hitting stuff.

However, most of the time I GM, so my player preferences are a bit moot. As a gm, I have less of a fondness for wizards, simply because of the spellbook issue. It can be a pain for me designing every wizard's spellbook (sorcerers are a lot easier since they have less spells and don't have to prepare them). And one particular hang-up I'll admit I've had in the past is a little bit of anxiety with the arcane spell-list and how much havoc one can potentially wreak with them (though fortunately I'm getting better about it).

Shadow Lodge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Any class that prevents me from winning.


1. Summoner: Eidolon, no thanks.

2. Alchemist: bad experience when introduced in game, not keen on seeing another one anytime soon.

3. Gunslinger: not in my game at this point thanks.

Of course I rely on the excellent players in our gaming group to change my mind on any of the above. (Except for gunslinger, I'm just not ready for firearms in the campaign setting. Sorry boys.)

Sovereign Court

Summoner - It's a trifecta of awfulness. Summoning mucks up combat too much, the eidelon is a twitching pile of Velveta, and Final Fantasy is just plain badwrongfun to me. It pushes the game far too deep into explicit high fantasy land.

Gunslinger - I fully endorse guns, and conceptually having a deft "stunt" class is something I also happily want to see, but the final design was a tragic waste of paper and ink. It was a "split the baby in half" settlement with the gun-control crowd unfortunately.

Inquisitor - The idea is great, but the execution is just too much of a hodgepodge of class abilities. It just doesn't come together for me.

Cavalier - too wedded to it's mount. Not enough mount options. Teamwork feats just don't deliver enough oomph.

Overall I've become dissatisfied with the place of pets in the system. It's not modular enough and makes it virtually impossible, sans the horrors of the leadership feat, for other classes to have a pet or a mount that scales with level.


I've never enjoyed monks or rogues for some inexplicable reason. Fortunately, my group has one guy whose favorite class is rogue and another who loves to play monks.

I'm leery of the summoner because of all the extra bookkeeping the eidolon requires, but that's more just me being too lazy to learn it than it is anything else really.


For me it is the Rogue class that I don't like. I should say I don't like the Rogue Class for 20 levels. The rogue is great for multiclassing though.

Another class I don't like is the Oracle. I really don't like the curses. Seems everyone always takes the haunted Oracle or tongues. The curse get kind of forgotten about over time. Kind of harder to do that with other curses but how many times do you just forget the language barrier with the Tongues curse for example.


Monks, because of the way they spit all over other people's narratives.

Ninjas, for similar reasons to monks, though as far as I can tell, not to the same extent.

Fighters, because...man, 10 years and they still have no skills, no resistance to every "take my character away from me" trick the DM can pull, and their archetypes take away what versatility they do have in exchange for making them even more wedded to one, easily defeated schtick. Oh, and the two weapon archetype is objectively worse for two weapon fighters than the no archetype fighter alone.

But mostly, I hate monks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I completely agree on the Summoner. With very few exceptions, it just kills the game flow completely. Also, we have six players in our group, at least two of them play only fighters or melee types. So if someone summons monsters, they are generally useless. The highest level monster a druid/conjurer/summoner can summon just don't stack up against a PC fighter or other melee type. By the time they get in there, the battle's almost over. The eidolon might be effective, but it's still filling a role that several other PCs are already filling. We're much better off with a spellcaster who blasts/buffs/heals/battlefield controls.

Actually, in the past, if someone really wanted to summon monsters, I made them have the stats at hand before we started play that night. Also, I required that when the used a specific spell, they got the same monsters all the time. It actually led to some decent roleplaying, as we had one wizard who summoned a pair of dire wolves, Hansel and Gretel, every time. She got to know them, and so did the rest of the party.

Other unfavorable classes - most of the onces from the APG. Alchemist is fun, especially if he's a gnome, and Cavalier can work in an adventure like Kingmaker, but the rest seem a bit.. off. For all of it's faults, 3.5 had better alternate classes - i.e. Warlord, Warlock, Beguiler... I do admit that had they still been available for Paizo to do, they would probably have done a much better job with them.

Liberty's Edge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
voska66 wrote:

For me it is the Rogue class that I don't like. I should say I don't like the Rogue Class for 20 levels. The rogue is great for multiclassing though.

Another class I don't like is the Oracle. I really don't like the curses. Seems everyone always takes the haunted Oracle or tongues. The curse get kind of forgotten about over time. Kind of harder to do that with other curses but how many times do you just forget the language barrier with the Tongues curse for example.

Boy do I have a story to tell you about an oracle with Deaf...

Let's just say, when all your spells are silent by default, you're small size, have a racial bonus to stealth and dexterity, and put extra points into dex... well, you can hit people with some interesting spells before they know you're there. Being able to cast silence helps the stealth a bit as well.

(For extra credit: Silence an enemy caster. They get a penalty to notice you throwing a silenced rock in since they can't hear it, probably equal to the "deaf" perception check modifier, making it easier to get it in there as a "sniping" attack.)

I'm actually the only one to play an Oracle thus far, and my group has gone through at least 5 sets of characters since the APG came out (we tend to die out at around level 7). I admit that some curses are weaker than others, but the benefits provided are also weaker. Maybe your players just lack the cojones to play something more extreme.


If were talking about 3.5, then I didn't like most of the "new" classes they added after the base 11. I did like the Spirit shaman though and thought the Dragon shaman was okay. But of all the classes that came from the horrors of 3.0/3.5 was the Warlock,talk about one of the cheesiest and most horribly designed pieces of crap classes ever.


Cavalier: reminds me of the Knight [3.5] utter, utter Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Alchemists: Bomb - yawn, bomb - yawn...

Summoner: Not required, period.

Gunslinger: No, no, no guns in Pathfinder, no, just stop yourselves.


Any kind of class that goes for a Zookeeper/Clubbing build.

Summoner, Conjurer, Nature's Ally Druid and so on and so forth. It's even worse if they skill up Handle Animal and get some wardogs, wargoats, warrats, warpigs and what have you. Sprinkle on a certain feat, and I consider weaving in Starfall mk2 into the campaign to prevent people (including myself, I do play a druid afterall) from trying to take up so much time in combat, leveling and all that jazz.

Honorable mention: Monk. MAD and can't say I have ever come up with/seen a Monk personality I'd like to play.


Cleric - Just never liked the class. From a game mechanic look their fine, but it never made sense to me from a flavor stand point that all the various gods/goddess/powers that be all have pretty much the same chain mail clad servant.

Monk - Boring

Ninja and Samurai - just don't fit my vision of the game.

Used to feel the same way about the Gunslinger and Alchemist, but I have decided to use Eberron as my next game setting, and will be redoing it as a steampunk style setting, and I see both of those classes fitting in nicely.
"Holy C*&$, that Warforged has gatling guns mounted on its arms."

Summoning classes. I love playing them, and like the flavor of the summoner, but I will concede if the table is full of people and/or the person playing it is not prepared, then summoning will bring a table to screeching grinding halt.

51 to 100 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / Least favorite classes! All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.