Least favorite classes!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

101 to 150 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Monk doesn't have the focus, scattered among too many abilities and effects.

Summoner is the only other one I'm not fond of.

The rest of the classes I'm generally OK with. They may not be my first choices but I've played them at least once. (excepting the very new classes like Gunslinger etc. I haven't played those but I'm fine with the way they are written and will probably use them now and again.)


Divine casters. They just get to much balance wise.

Inquisitor , It's mechanically fine, but from a RP standpoint this guy just doesn't work for me. He roots out heretics to the faith, in an adventuring party full of people who worship other deities? That's dumber than ninjas in 13th century Italy.

Druids: full casters who tank like fighters and bring uber cheese like war trained dinosaurs to the table. It's easily the most powerful class in the game. Worse still, he summons, further clogging up the table.

Oracles and Clerics: Full ( armored) spellcasting, 2 good saves, med BAB on characters that only need 2 good ability stats. Not quite Druids, but close.

Summoners: they turn combats into Warhammer, blech.

Ninjas: it's a Prestige Class

Antipaladin: already had a Blackguard.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Fatespinner wrote:

#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.

This is a GM problem, not a player one. The GM has a final say over what a player can and cannot do. As a GM I would not have allowed it unless certain concessions where made by the player: such as not allowing that discovery till Alchemist 3 or higher, have the player look into finding the discovery, and/or try and find a 'reason' for that new 'arm'.

As for least favorite classes:

1. Summoner - I do not like the class because it could have been worked into some kind of archetype of the wizard instead of being its own.

2. Bard - I think the bard just needs to be reworked. Instead of the basic performances, it should have been a system like the alchemist discovery or rogue feats.

3. Prestige Classes - Yes, I know that it is not really a class but I feel that the 'basic' prestiage classes in the Core Rulebook and APG should be removed completely. Instead the current notion that prestige classes being determined within an individual campaign or focus (like the Living Monolith, etc.) should be embraced.


wow, am i the only person that actually LIKES the gunslinger? Playing one in Campaign currently and having a blast! Anyway for least favorite classes id have to go

Samurai, not that i have anything wrong with the concept, but i just think it should have just been an archetype. maybe even for different martial focused characters, cavalier archetype, a seperate fighter archetype with slightly different abilities etc.

and rogue, it seems to me and with the people i game with the ninja has nullified its existence.


Dragonsong wrote:
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?

It's more viking or celtic campaigns. Paladins would be out of place and while monks could be made to work, the setting does not provide a role that would require the monk class. Same thing with gunslingers and inquisitors.


@zagnabbit
Keep in mind that oracles are way weaker than clerics (and for starters have one good save not two).
And man i really wish you to never see a druid in 3.5, they were kings.


I know I said Bards were among my favorite, but they are also among my least favorite because, as written, its hard to get the image of a silly prancing boy out of my head. Bards should be James Bond AND Q all wrapped into one. I'd like to see skills be more worthwhile and for Bards to lose their spells. I'd like their Bardic Performance to be renamed Tactical Acumen or something of that sort and for them to handle Teamwork feats like Cavaliers. They should get the well-prepared feat as a class ability. Poison Use should be available to them.

Rogues: again because the skill system is so weak

Witch: why isn't this a wizard (or, better, sorcerer) archetype?


TOZ wrote:
Any class that prevents me from winning.

Finally, someone actually speaking his mind.

Flavor? rules? Too many hypocrisy, we all know what's it really about.

Respect

Shadow Lodge

1.) Just about every new class from the APG on, I really don't care for much. Would have been a 1,000 times better (in my opinion) as options for the exiting classes.

2.) Robe wearing b+~*#-Clerics. Play a religious Wizard and be done with it. Your nagging gets really old.

3.) The Asian themed Classes. Like with number one, would ave been better as options for either multilssing or options for existing classes.

Shadow Lodge

Beckett wrote:
1.) Just about every new class from the APG on, I really don't care for much. Would have been a 1,000 times better (in my opinion) as options for the exiting classes.

*brofist*

Silver Crusade

Dragonsong wrote:

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!)

Yup that's a fair point, as is Gorbacz's point (is it me or is this a bag of devouring double team...)

It's all about feel to me. I tend to like to spread my resources, a bit of this, a bit of that, I like versatility with my characters. Basically, I love the witch fluff, it's cool, but the mechanics are underwhelming. I can't see an option with Witches that does not rely on hexes and as the number of decent combat hexes can be counted on one hand that means that most witches go the Slumber/Misfortune/Fortune/Evil Eye/Cackle route. That's boring to me. I'd like to make a Witch that doesn't take any of those hexes but I don't see that as being effective.

That brings me to one of the things that makes or breaks a character class as far as I am concerned. If I dislike the central power of a class I dislike the class.

There are 4 classes that I think are spoiled by their central ability namely Bards, Alchemists, Summoners and Witches. I like the rest of these characters abilities but Bardic Performance, Bombs, Hexes and the Eidolon all suck.

Bards: I much prefer the Archaeologist take on the Bard, that's what the Bard should be, a scholar and swashbuckler, not a walking joke. Everything about the bard is fine except the bardic performance nonsense it is their most powerful ability but it is just laughable to think that in the middle of a battle a character reaches for their lute rather than their sword.

Alchemists: Bombs should not have got off the drawing board, they are stupid. Instead the Mutagens and Extracts should have been expanded and made more powerful. Really this class should have been made to use their mutagens and extracts to mould and transform their bodies in the style of the Hulk or Jekyll and Hyde. That would have been much cooler. The bomb thing is just a stupid idea that is less heroic fantasy and more Wile E. Coyote.

Witches: Hexes should have been integrated into a witches spell list and they should have got about 50 new spells revolving around curses and debuffs as opposed to the apology of a spell list they have at the moment. Their spell list just doesn't scream Witch to me (Unlike the Druid or Inquisitor) so they have just stuck a plaster over the class in the form of Hexes. If there were dozens of cool Hexes to choose then that would be slightly more OK but as it is their limited selection makes them dull.

Summoners: I HATE the Eidolon. A summoner should, y'know, SUMMON THINGS! Instead we get a horrible book keeping disaster in the form of an Eidolon and an apology of a spell list. Actually to be fair this class would annoy me less if they called it something other than a summoner. That really is my main gripe.

That's just my 2p and really as Dragonsong said this is all subjective. If we were all the same the game and in fact life itself, would be very dull. Dragonsong I respect your stance and graciously accept your offer to disagree as gentlemen and (in this case) players :)

This has made me want to make a non conventional Witch to see if it can be done. I will activate Hero Lab and see what I come up with :)

Shadow Lodge

I meant for #2 to come off a little more humorous than it did, I think. I'm not a fan of an even weaker Cleric, but I really don't care if that's what some people want.


Mechanically, pretty much all of the classes are fine, as far as what I don't like to PLAY I have to say that anything where I choose spells to prepare every day from a list, simply because it's a pain to try to plan ahead when I'm not sure what I'm planning for.

I also dislike the summoner because it's a lot of statblocks to carry, and monsters are more complex then they have to be IMO. Not to mention the eidolon is a monster of a mechanism. As far as the mechanics of the class goes it's fine, just too complex for my tastes.

I have an issue with the magus in that you are stuck trying to figure out how much DEX you should have, at level 13, you don't really need dex, but at level 1 you need a high dex, and level 7 you need a moderate dex, the issue I have with that is that it makes a player either have a hard time at low levels or have a less powerful character at high levels.

I don't like the flavor of the bard (but I love playing one) so I reflavor their bardic performance as a magical channeling of enhancement, and hand-wave the fact it's a perform check.


@Leo 1925
I remember the 3.5 Druid. Yet somehow in practice the PF version seems even more abusive to the other classes. I was lumping on the save bit with the Oracle, honestly I think the Oracle is fine but I'll echo another posters sentiment that the curses seem to be forgotten by level 4 or 5 as an inconvenience; especially haunted and tongues. I've yet to see lame taken.

I'd like to point out I like the Gunslinger class, I don't like the gun rules. A WIS based fighter able to pull off crazy movie stunts is cool. I don't have a problem with guns, just the weird mechanics. I find I dislike I lots of things about the weapon rules in general and the odd need to make guns either awesome or sucktastic is just a worse case scenario.


zagnabbit wrote:

@Leo 1925

I remember the 3.5 Druid. Yet somehow in practice the PF version seems even more abusive to the other classes. I was lumping on the save bit with the Oracle, honestly I think the Oracle is fine but I'll echo another posters sentiment that the curses seem to be forgotten by level 4 or 5 as an inconvenience; especially haunted and tongues. I've yet to see lame taken.

I'd like to point out I like the Gunslinger class, I don't like the gun rules. A WIS based fighter able to pull off crazy movie stunts is cool. I don't have a problem with guns, just the weird mechanics. I find I dislike I lots of things about the weapon rules in general and the odd need to make guns either awesome or sucktastic is just a worse case scenario.

I'd agree with the concept of the oracle: a sorcerer version of the cleric. If people don't like the oracle they should also disagree with the sorcerer.

Shadow Lodge

Bullette Point wrote:
If people don't like the oracle they should also disagree with the sorcerer.

Why? Sorcerers are a lot different than Wizards. Not so much with Clerics/Oracles, even in flavor. They can be, but they are very similar.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

1.) Summoner: Way too fiddly and as a GM not a fan of companion classes.

2.) Druid: Most overpowered class in 3.0, 3.5 and still way too good in PF. Also, companion class.

3.) Cleric: The concept never tickled my fancy. I don't have much affinity for religion, so that may be a factor. OTOH, the Paladin is one of my favorite classes, but that may be because he has to be a bastion of good, which is more a play on morality than religion.

4.) Cavalier: I think classes which have many mount-dependent features are kinda screwed in the dungeon-heavy environment of PF. OTOH, the Samurai is one of my new favorites, but he only has one class feature which supports his mounted combat style.


@Bullette Point
Spontaneous casting is not a problem; as a GM I prefer it for design ;as a player for simplicity. With the Oracle you get some great stuff; the trade off is a curse which is like a flaw that becomes an inconvenience in game that gets old for RP. With tongues everyone learns Aklo or whatever by lvl 4. With Haunted it becomes a constant schtick of moving chairs which is old by lvl 6. Blindness is cool but it just means you suck at range; this always goes with the battle heavy armor gag which makes you a monster by lvl8.

The issue is armored full casting with decent attack rating. This is a legacy of the heal-bot handicap. Once being the healer was a burden, feats didn't exist, cleric spell lists were mostly well healing; wands weren't craftable the weapon options weren't as open etc.. Now a cleric gets to do everything, his weaknesses are skills and a lack of heavy armor; that's nuts. I wouldn't change it, it's just off.

Really this only affects games when you get a god mode type or just a selfish knucklehead. The one who points out how awesome his char is. This guy wrecks game groups until he gets tossed.

Grand Lodge

I really would have to say my least favorite class is the cavalier, I've tried to really look it over and build one it just didn't work, I do however think the samurai made it a little more feasible, with regular feats instead of tactical feats, i though don't like the heavy reliance on the mounts ( unless say I could i don't know have a rhino or dino as a mount)

I do have to say i've played almost every other class... ( save the witch, and magus) I like them all currently i have a summoner, a paladin, 2 gunslingers (pistolero and a musketeer), a druid, and 2 monk ( master of many styles and a tetori monk)

so basically i have yet... and I stress as yet to found a niche for a Cavalier (and by default a Samurai) but until i do the Cavalier would be my least favorite class.


So wait, you are saying that the 3.5 druid who could shift into a 30 str bear, have a pet with better stats than the party's fighter, and then (in bear form) cast arcane-level offensive spells was just a little bit overpowered?

I shall forever remain in awe over the 3.5 samurai. It was so amazingly non functional that I still sometimes wonder if it was meant as a joke.


1; any vancian spellcaster. if i spent my whole life developing my magical gifts, why the hell do i have selective amnesia?

2; cavaliers; i like the concept of the knight, samurai or similar figure who serves his lord, i cannot stand the fact that they excessively depend on a mount in a dungeon heavy system.

3; Summoners. i love final fantasy, but these guys have too many mechanics to learn and they are the most frequently banned class.

Shadow Lodge

Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
1; any vancian spellcaster. if i spent my whole life developing my magical gifts, why the hell do i have selective amnesia?

People get too hung up on terminology. You're not 'forgetting' the spell, you've run out of bullets.


TOZ wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
1; any vancian spellcaster. if i spent my whole life developing my magical gifts, why the hell do i have selective amnesia?
People get too hung up on terminology. You're not 'forgetting' the spell, you've run out of bullets.

Or mana,however yawant to say it. You have cast thise spells before hand,but just hand em on pause until ya conplete the casting and unleash the power you have been holding all day.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
1; any vancian spellcaster. if i spent my whole life developing my magical gifts, why the hell do i have selective amnesia?
People get too hung up on terminology. You're not 'forgetting' the spell, you've run out of bullets.

Or mana,however yawant to say it. You have cast thise spells before hand,but just hand em on pause until ya conplete the casting and unleash the power you have been holding all day.

Vacian spellcasting is all about ressources management and planning. Some people like it, other don't.

Shadow Lodge

People just seem hung up on earlier edition phrasing. I couldn't find anywhere in the PRD where it said spells are forgotten when cast.


I often wonder why folks that hate ,what is a key part of the systems foundation play this system. Not a swip at anyone but I just do not understand.


seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I often wonder why folks that hate ,what is a key part of the systems foundation play this system. Not a swip at anyone but I just do not understand.

If I had to guess, I'd say convenience. There were a LOT of 3rd edition players available compared to other systems, so it was easier to get into and find people. The same can probably be said about PF, though I would have to guess there are fewer PF players than there were 3.5 (given the fact that some 3.5's stuck with 3.5 and some abandoned 3.X entirely for 4E.)


FallofCamelot wrote:
Bards: I much prefer the Archaeologist take on the Bard, that's what the Bard should be, a scholar and swashbuckler, not a walking joke. Everything about the bard is fine except the bardic performance nonsense it is their most powerful ability but it is just laughable to think that in the middle of a battle a character reaches for their lute rather than their sword.

Inspire Courage

Inspire Heroics

No lute required.

Shadow Lodge

Spellcasters of any type always were too much of a hassle for me to play before. Of course, that complexity is what gives them their power.

But for a lot of people, they just want a few options always available and management free. I had a player tell me that was exactly why he only played warlocks.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

1. Monk: Seem out of place in western-style fantasy. Very hard to picture hand to hand combat being effective against giants and dragons. Abilities to eclectic and unfocused. If they wanted an unarmed fighter, should have made it an alternate class or fighter archetype.

2. Rogue: Mechanics of sneak attack seem to oscillate between useless to overpowered. You can some up with some sneak attack combos that are ridiculously strong and sometimes the ability is utterly useless. I like the rogue conceptually, just hope they do something with sneak attack to make it a smoother, always useable ability not open to abuse like judgement or favored enemies.

Right now the Sap Master build is insane. Ninja with invisibility and a bow build is insane. Arcane Trickster can be extremely nasty. Sneak attack needs to be cleaned up.

3. Barbarian: Come and Get Me completely ruins encounters. It's a vastly overpowered ability. To deal with the ability I have to metagame as a DM or let all my encounters get destroyed easily. By the time the creature figures out it better stay out of reach the barbarian has already almost killed them with Come and Get Me Attacks or with regular attacks. Combine that with Superstition, Invulnerable Rager DR, magic items like ring of evasion and heavy fortification armor, and a huge number of hit points, and the barbarian becomes a class that vastly overshadows all other physical damage dealers save for perhaps the archer.

4. Dedicated archers: Designers let the archer get out of hand. Insane damage from long range. Easy targeting of invisibile creatures with seeking bow. Spells like instant enemy and hunter's eye. Archery working in conjunction with smite evil. Not to be insulting, but I seriously doubt the game designers thoroughly tested some of these combinations. High level archers can destroy the strongest of enemies alone from range. Very little chance for the rest of the party to even get involved if they are given a round to open up on a target. Makes a DM's job much, much harder.


Vinja89 wrote:

wow, am i the only person that actually LIKES the gunslinger? Playing one in Campaign currently and having a blast! Anyway for least favorite classes id have to go

Nope I love them though my house rules make the touch attack thing not nearly as irratating.


Everyone in this thread wrote:
He/She/They/It has/have no place in traditional Sword n' Sorcery fantasy genre.

Well it's gonna be the future soon,

I won't always be this way.
When the things that make me weak and strange
get engineered away.
It's gonna be the future soon,
never seen it quite so clear.
Because when my heart is breaking I can close my eyes; it's already here!

Shadow Lodge

You take that back! I've never claimed to play a traditional anything! :P


Guess I'm not a person..........?


Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

1; any vancian spellcaster. if i spent my whole life developing my magical gifts, why the hell do i have selective amnesia?

Actually it is 100% realistic and logical. I spent my whole life studying maths, industrial engineery and other topics. I can't remember most of the most complex things I learned. Of course if I spend an hour every day looking at my notes I will remember what I need to use that day (which isn't everything) for a while. The current rules for the wizard with limited spontaneous casting make perfect sense to me.

In any case it is why Pathfinder has got Wizards and Sorcerers and [other game] doesn't, Pathfinder respects players giving you tons of options, instead of imposing a single way to use magic or a single kind of playstyle to players.

Shadow Lodge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
1; any vancian spellcaster. if i spent my whole life developing my magical gifts, why the hell do i have selective amnesia?
People get too hung up on terminology. You're not 'forgetting' the spell, you've run out of bullets.

Or mana,however yawant to say it. You have cast thise spells before hand,but just hand em on pause until ya conplete the casting and unleash the power you have been holding all day.

Except all the "mana" in the world won't let you cast a spell that you didn't memorize that morning. Or you can still cast multiple 9th level spells, but be unable to cast a 1st level spell.

Shadow Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.

Except all the rocket grenades in the world won't let you fire that rifle you didn't load that morning. Or you can still fire multiple 40mm grenades, but be unable to fire a pistol.


1: Cavalier. Pure and simply because of flavour. Orders are a nice touch but as others have said the mounted focus yanks my chain. Could easily see some features of paladin and cavalier mixed for a european knightly class.
2: Magus. Nothing here grabs me, and if i multiclass with it i feel like i should have multiple multiclass disorder.
3: Assassin. Because i'm an old skool grognard and i want to start as one and have a percent chance to kill!
4: Wizard. Only becoz of the name. Wizards still wear dresses and wear pointy hats for me. I rename them mages and ignore the magus (see point 2, q.v.). (any adventurer, male or female, wearing a dress should receive armored spell failure and skill penalties akin to full plate!)
5: Shadowdancer. Really shallowly, only because the art is so bad. These guys are almost as KEWL as soulknives, yet the picture does it *no* justice.

I like the flavour of witches, but i really get the "Boring hex schtick". And speaking of APG when i read it initially i skipped inquisitor and alchemist as meh! On actually reading both i like the flavour of the mechanics, if not the execution. But remember folks, i crunch like a f@&ktard and am all about the flavour.


various people wrote:

seekerofshadowlight wrote:

TOZ wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:
1; any vancian spellcaster. if i spent my whole life developing my magical gifts, why the hell do i have selective amnesia?

People get too hung up on terminology. You're not 'forgetting' the spell, you've run out of bullets.
People just seem hung up on earlier edition phrasing. I couldn't find anywhere in the PRD where it said spells are forgotten when cast.

Or mana,however yawant to say it. You have cast thise spells before hand,but just hand em on pause until ya conplete the casting and unleash the power you have been holding all day.

Kthulhu wrote: Except all the "mana" in the world won't let you cast a spell that you didn't memorize that morning. Or you can still cast multiple 9th level spells, but be unable to cast a 1st level spell.

TOZ wrote: Except all the rocket grenades in the world won't let you fire that rifle you didn't load that morning. Or you can still fire multiple 40mm grenades, but be unable to fire a pistol.

+1. Thanks a lot TOZ. I always hated the term "vancian casting" because i couldn't understand the rationale as applied to the mechanics of the game. This is a perfect framework for understanding. Definitely not "fire and forget".


TOZ wrote:
People just seem hung up on earlier edition phrasing. I couldn't find anywhere in the PRD where it said spells are forgotten when cast.

Not to disagree with you, but, if spells aren't forgotten each day, then why is it, in the case that your spell book is lost, you can inscribe in a new spell book only the spells you haven't cast?

Shadow Lodge

Do you remember everything you've read in your college textbooks?

What about your high school textbooks?

I haven't read the books, but I don't think the spell system can be called 'Vancian' anymore.


Well I'll break mine into 2 categories: Aesthetic dislike and Mechanical dislike.

Mechanical:
Clerics - WAY too many good things and not nearly enough to keep them in check ... at all.

Druids - just as bad as clerics, AND they can shape-shift, AND they have a freakin' pet "insert something" following around ... wtf!?!?! No thanks. It's not even like a Familiar, either - you know, essentially weak and NOT for combat. No ... they can end up with a dire-tiger or worse. No ... just no.

Monks - MAD ... no class feature synergy .... 'nuff said.

Barbarians - "per rage" ability limitation that are negated at the highest levels later with the ULTIMATE meta-game construction EVER to see the light of day on a printed page. "Rage-on" / "Rage-off" looping as soon as no-fatigue comes into play for the barbarian end of rage effect. Lame, lame, LAME!!!

Summoner - accounting nightmare!

Cavalier - too bound to the mount.

Alchemist - just ... catastrophically disappointing. Probably could have been better treated as a wizard archetype or something.

Witch - better handled as a sorcerer archetype honestly.

Bards - their mechanics and concept are terrible. If you're going to up and "perform" mid-combat, it ought to be some epic-performance types of effects, not little stat boosts here and there. I mean, I'm talking like the Pied Piper kinds of effects. Play a few notes, perfectly tuned, and aimed at your zone of effect and those targets turn into your very own, personal marionettes to play with as YOU choose because your MUSIC is that damn good. I want to play Orpheus-level notes, man! I want to make gods weep at the sweet melodies of my music and let me resurrect the dead! I'm talking music so wonderful the soul comes RIGHT back into the body to hear the player's song. Instead ... we've got the existing Bards. Lame!

Aesthetics:
Monk - it just doesn't belong (note: this is despite my propensity for playing them). A more western-styled "monk" should have been there if that was the term used even WAY back in the day of 1e. It should have been a "this is Friar Tuck's class" sort of thing. The eastern concept? Should have called it a martial artists, or something like that.

Gunslinger - I actually like most of the mechanic bits, it's just not that bad. Thematically, though, it's not what I envision when I'm going for "swords & sorcery" in my game. It sooooo is not right for that and I can't really ignore the screeching brakes in my head even though it's pretty much fine mechanically.

Alchemist, Inquisitor, Witch, Oracle & Summoner - All of these things, IMO, really belong under the auspices of existing class archetypes. These things bring too much fiddly bits for NO WHERE NEAR enough pay-off for me.

Druid - there is already a "cleric" for connecting the idea of "I worship the god of X" in place. WHY does the person that worships the nature god get even MORE toys than the other types? It should just be like a specialty priest of "nature diety" and be done.

Bards - I hate these guys. Mostly because of mechanics, but even so ... I hate these guys because they don't represent any worthy archetype from tales and lore at ALL in terms of effect or role. Pied Piper, Orpheus - THOSE are bards to me, and this class can't come close to those characters, so what's the point? No thanks.

Shadow Lodge

The Speaker in Dreams wrote:

Well I'll break mine into 2 categories: Aesthetic dislike and Mechanical dislike.

Mechanical:
Clerics - WAY too many good things and not nearly enough to keep them in check ... at all.

A great many of those "good things" are either for the other players or needed to have the Cleric survive in order to do their job in keeping the other players having fun. So I disagree. I think they need a lot more abilities just for themselves.

The Speaker in Dreams wrote:

Druids - just as bad as clerics, AND they can shape-shift, AND they have a freakin' pet "insert something" following around ... wtf!?!?! No thanks. It's not even like a Familiar, either - you know, essentially weak and NOT for combat. No ... they can end up with a dire-tiger or worse. No ... just no.

. . .
Druid - there is already a "cleric" for connecting the idea of "I worship the god of X" in place. WHY does the person that worships the nature god get even MORE toys than the other types? It should just be like a specialty priest of "nature diety" and be done.

Again, this is so true. A big part of why I hate the Druid as a class/concept.

The Speaker in Dreams wrote:

Alchemist - just ... catastrophically disappointing. Probably could have been better treated as a wizard archetype or something.

Witch - better handled as a sorcerer archetype honestly.

I couldn't agree more. Honestly i feel this way for all the new classes, though I'd much prefere if they where options for multiple classes. I can honestly see a Witch as a Cleric/Oralcle/Sorcerer/Witch/Bard. So Feat Chains or Archtypes for each of these classes would have been amazing, rather than yet another class that does things completely within the perview of others, but they can't get. Makes me feel cheated for wanting to play the concept. Same with the Alchemist. Much rather have it as options for existing classes than a new class itself. Same with Summoner.

Shadow Lodge

IkeDoe wrote:
Shuriken Nekogami wrote:

1; any vancian spellcaster. if i spent my whole life developing my magical gifts, why the hell do i have selective amnesia?

Actually it is 100% realistic and logical. I spent my whole life studying maths, industrial engineery and other topics. I can't remember most of the most complex things I learned. Of course if I spend an hour every day looking at my notes I will remember what I need to use that day (which isn't everything) for a while. The current rules for the wizard with limited spontaneous casting make perfect sense to me.

That would almost make sense, except we are talking about the maths that "you" use and study every single day. Or the rifle you load and clean every single day. :)


Why do people have such a huge problem with playing Halfling and Gnome cavaliers? Mounted charges in dungeon corridors is no problem, your mount gets to throw in bite attacks, its allot of fun.

Sovereign Court

rat_ bastard wrote:
Why do people have such a huge problem with playing Halfling and Gnome cavaliers? Mounted charges in dungeon corridors is no problem, your mount gets to throw in bite attacks, its allot of fun.

I think part of it is the lousy mount options. If small characters could start with mounts that have some real potency or flavor at level 1 then a lot of the other issues with the class could be forgiven.

It's one of this grating issues for me, where as always spellcasters get a free pass in so many ways, but if the class is martial based then suddenly there is a clamp down in a myriad of ways out of some sense of theme or verisimilitude.

Player with Summoner: I've got this idea to play a character who rides around on an eidolon that looks like a dragon.

GM: Whatever floats your boat, the rules say it can look like whatever you want as long as it isn't too specific.

Player with Cavalier: GM, may I please have my halfling cavalier that has a velociraptor mount?

GM: No way! That would destroy the whole concept of my campaign! As the rules say, pick a pony or a wolf.

Player with Cavalier: [sobs]

GM: Look, if you can't bear to be without it then you can take the Beastmaster archetype. At seventh level you'll be able to get one. There are rumors of a "lost world" like island far from shore that you might be able to find by then.

Player with Cavalier: Oh thank you! Thank you Game Master!


The Speaker in Dreams wrote:

Well I'll break mine into 2 categories: Aesthetic dislike and Mechanical dislike.

Mechanical:
Clerics - WAY too many good things and not nearly enough to keep them in check ... at all.

Druids - just as bad as clerics, AND they can shape-shift, AND they have a freakin' pet "insert something" following around ... wtf!?!?! No thanks. It's not even like a Familiar, either - you know, essentially weak and NOT for combat. No ... they can end up with a dire-tiger or worse. No ... just no.

Monks - MAD ... no class feature synergy .... 'nuff said.

Barbarians - "per rage" ability limitation that are negated at the highest levels later with the ULTIMATE meta-game construction EVER to see the light of day on a printed page. "Rage-on" / "Rage-off" looping as soon as no-fatigue comes into play for the barbarian end of rage effect. Lame, lame, LAME!!!

Summoner - accounting nightmare!

Cavalier - too bound to the mount.

Alchemist - just ... catastrophically disappointing. Probably could have been better treated as a wizard archetype or something.

Witch - better handled as a sorcerer archetype honestly.

Bards - their mechanics and concept are terrible. If you're going to up and "perform" mid-combat, it ought to be some epic-performance types of effects, not little stat boosts here and there. I mean, I'm talking like the Pied Piper kinds of effects. Play a few notes, perfectly tuned, and aimed at your zone of effect and those targets turn into your very own, personal marionettes to play with as YOU choose because your MUSIC is that damn good. I want to play Orpheus-level notes, man! I want to make gods weep at the sweet melodies of my music and let me resurrect the dead! I'm talking music so wonderful the soul comes RIGHT back into the body to hear the player's song. Instead ... we've got the existing Bards. Lame!

Aesthetics:
Monk - it just doesn't belong (note: this is despite my propensity for playing them). A more western-styled "monk" should have been there if that was the term used...

Druids used the same cleric template in 2e. It didn't work - primarily due to inflexibility in the cleric class to represent different kinds of priests. That inflexibility still exists in the cleric class.

What I think needs to be done is get rid of the cleric class, make Perform and Healing skills the primary healing methods, create a Priest feat, make the rest of the spells that are worth keeping arcanist spells. Druid becomes a Sorcerer archetype, Paladin becomes a Fighter with the Priest feat. Create a system called 'faith' which allows someone with the Priest feat to do stuff like boost will saves in believers and consecrate ground and get bonuses in social skills against believers. This faith system would grant hero points whenever a believer or a priest did something risky which reflected their divine source's tennants.


Maddigan wrote:
3. Barbarian: Come and Get Me completely ruins encounters. It's a vastly overpowered ability. To deal with the ability I have to metagame as a DM or let all my encounters get destroyed easily. By the time the creature figures out it better stay out of reach the barbarian has already almost killed them with Come and Get Me Attacks or with regular attacks. Combine that with Superstition, Invulnerable Rager DR, magic items like ring of evasion and heavy fortification armor, and a huge number of hit points, and the barbarian becomes a class that vastly overshadows all other physical damage dealers save for perhaps the archer.

WAIT UNTIL BARBARIAN DISCOVER SPELL SUNDER. AM MAKE THINGS SUPERHILARIOUS AFTER THAT. THEN AM NOT EVEN ABLE TO STOP WITH MAZE.

AM OK THOUGH, BARBARIAN ALREADY BEST CLASS THERE AM.

Silver Crusade

Atarlost wrote:
FallofCamelot wrote:
Bards: I much prefer the Archaeologist take on the Bard, that's what the Bard should be, a scholar and swashbuckler, not a walking joke. Everything about the bard is fine except the bardic performance nonsense it is their most powerful ability but it is just laughable to think that in the middle of a battle a character reaches for their lute rather than their sword.

Inspire Courage

Inspire Heroics

No lute required.

Well aware of that. Still stupid.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Don't like Shakespeare, eh?

inspire competence

101 to 150 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.