Least favorite classes!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

301 to 350 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

Blackborn wrote:
kyrt-ryder wrote:
I have to say I would see televised gaming sessions being a lot more along the lines of televised poker rather than sports.

I was probably joking, mostly.

To stay relevant, I'm disappointed by all the paladin-hate. I think they are one of the more flavorful classes, and when roleplayed correctly are quite a treat to DM. Obviously they cause trouble in the wrong parties, but a DM should never allow a LG character in a morally flexible party.

Also, it's disappointing to see all the disrespect for LG. Anyone can play CN: do whatever you want, no consequences. Don't even get me started on evil characters. LG is the toughest alignment to play (besides N, but N is a joke anyway), because it has the highest stakes and the most limitations. One could argue it's easy to make decisions as LG, and that may be so, but it's no easier than CN (when it comes to making decisions). CN has more options, but there are no personal stakes to any decision, whereas LG has fewer options, but the highest stakes.

Disagree entirely. Lawful good behavior is easy unless your DM goes out of his way to take advantage of you. Evil characters are far more difficult to play compellingly. It's easy to go the CE, "rape and pillage" type every other player will look askance at, but there's so much more ground to cover. Evil characters have their motivations in far more detail than good characters do, and have to consider moral choices in the context of outside factors. Being Lawful Good doesn't require much agony of decision in a standard D&D world with it's very sharply black and white creatures.

Evil characters have to decide what they want, what they're willing to do to get it, struggle with their desires vs. their friendships and so on. Plus, if they decide to go good or neutral, redemption stories are way more fascinating than fall ones.


Pedantic wrote:
Being Lawful Good doesn't require much agony of decision in a standard D&D world with it's very sharply black and white creatures.

I'm sorry that your DM's have placed you in sharply black and white settings.

I do agree that decision making is relatively easy for LG, CE, and CN; however, for the first two, the stakes are very high. Unless the DM is incredibly accommodating, a LG or CE character will quickly find themselves in trouble, and will have a difficult time surviving in a well-crafted setting.

Is there a master alignment thread? I'd like to continue this conversation there. I also have some questions for others DM's regarding N characters. I did a brief search but the most recent thread I found was last posted to in 2010.

Shadow Lodge

LG characters have the least amount of options to pursue, while CE characters have the most.

However, due to the paralysis of choice, it's FAR easier to play LG, unless you want more options.

The LG path is easy to see, most players just don't want to follow it.


Blackborn wrote:


As for my least favorite class, it is Fighter by far. It is the least imaginative, least flavorful, and easiest class to play. Obviously a character can be made flavorful by a player, but at its core it lacks any flavor whatsoever.

I don't like prepackaged flavor to begin with :P

It tends to remove the thought process from a lot of players. "Oh, I'm a Cleric, so that means I'm a clerical priest person-thingy of some god" sort of deal.


TOZ wrote:

LG characters have the least amount of options to pursue, while CE characters have the most.

However, due to the paralysis of choice, it's FAR easier to play LG, unless you want more options.

The LG path is easy to see, most players just don't want to follow it.

CE has more options than CN? That's simply not true.

I agree that in terms of decision-making, LG is easy to play. But in terms of survivability, it is the most difficult, along with CE.

Shadow Lodge

What options is CE barred from?


First I'd like to repeat: is there a master alignment thread? I did a brief search but the most recent thread I found was last posted to in 2010.

For the most part, I stick to Paizo's definitions, as I find they are consistent and logical.

Paizo wrote:
A chaotic evil character does what his greed, hatred, and lust for destruction drive him to do. He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable. If he is simply out for whatever he can get, he is ruthless and brutal. If he is committed to the spread of evil and chaos, he is even worse. Thankfully, his plans are haphazard, and any groups he joins or forms are likely to be poorly organized. Typically, chaotic evil people can be made to work together only by force, and their leader lasts only as long as he can thwart attempts to topple or assassinate him.

CE cannot scheme. CE cannot masquerade as other alignments. Those fall under the umbrellas as LE and NE. As such, CE will quickly be recognized as such by all but the most oblivious of PCs and NPCs. CE cannot do something opposed to his evil nature, whereas CN can do whatever it wants because it has no nature.


While working on that response how about a response to my recent post up there? I'm starting to think you don't love me anymore Blackborn, you ignored the last two content posts (and technically the very last post that was not content) in that other thread as well.

Aren't I good enough for you anymore!? :'(

lol

Shadow Lodge

Blackborn wrote:


CE cannot scheme. CE cannot masquerade as other alignments. Those fall under the umbrellas as LE and NE. As such, CE will quickly be recognized as such by all but the most oblivious of PCs and NPCs. CE cannot do something opposed to his evil nature, whereas CN can do whatever it wants because it has no nature.

I disagree.


As for you, kryt, fighters can be given flavor, as I said. I respect a player who can roleplay a compelling fighter. Mechanics-wise, though, they are still uninspiring, and the easiest to play. Most DM's campaigns are combat-centric, and fighters have the least problems in combat over the course of a campaign. Obviously they have trouble with certain types of foes, but ultimately it comes easily to them, and doesn't require much strategy or posturing. Personally, I run non-combat-centric campaigns, but whenever I'm not DM'ing I generally find myself annoyed with the fighter, who boasts at his battle prowess but is useless outside of it.


TOZ wrote:
Blackborn wrote:


CE cannot scheme. CE cannot masquerade as other alignments. Those fall under the umbrellas as LE and NE. As such, CE will quickly be recognized as such by all but the most oblivious of PCs and NPCs. CE cannot do something opposed to his evil nature, whereas CN can do whatever it wants because it has no nature.
I disagree.

C'mon. This is clearly a PC alignment discussion. Demons are outsiders with supernatural abilities and means beyond all but the most epic of PCs. Technically the standard zombie is "evil" but in reality it has no alignment. It's mindless and has nothing but the most primal of motivations (unless being controlled, of course).


1 person marked this as a favorite.

I have always despised the Bard ("The orcish horde is overrunning the town and slaughtering the innocent orphan children...what are we going to do?" "...well, let me get out my lute and play a jaunty tune!").

I was also so very disappointed in Paizo when they just HAD to appease all of the stupid, unimaginative gaijin otaku (99.999% percent of whom have never lived in Japan and know nothing about Japanese culture beyond what they get from their hentai) by rolling out lame versions of the Samurai (as a Cavalier archetype? Really? Couldn't even do some decent research...not even spring for the Cliff's Notes?) and the Ninja.

Let me break it down for you...want to be a Samurai? Play a Lawful Nuetral Fighter who's specialized in the Bastard Sword, and who's inextricably bound to do ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING, UP TO AND INCLUDING IMMEDIATE SUICIDE (or the slaughter of an entire building full of newborn babies) that their "daimyo" ("Lord") tells them to. There, you're a Samurai, and no new mechanics required.

Want to be a Ninja? Play a Rogue with an emphasis on the Disguise, Stealth, and Sense Motive skills who has an Asian-sounding name (no need for the fancy black suit, real shinobi never wore those, anyway). Abandon ALL emphasis on combat (a ninja who had to fight during a mission was considered an absolute failure), and there...you're a Ninja, with no new mechanics required.

The Gunslinger class was a good idea, it was just stupidly executed. Didn't really bother me, it just needed a total re-write, which was not difficult at all. Witches seemed overpowered at first, but that's only because the first person in my gaming group to play one is an incomparable genius. Looking over the rules, the class is fine, it's my player who's a dirty, conniving a$$hole...I'm actually very lucky to have that problem!

Shadow Lodge

Blackborn wrote:


C'mon. This is clearly a PC alignment discussion. Demons are outsiders with supernatural abilities and means beyond all but the most epic of PCs.

If an embodiment of the alignment can scheme and hide its true nature, I see no reason a mere mortal could not.


Blackborn wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Blackborn wrote:


CE cannot scheme. CE cannot masquerade as other alignments. Those fall under the umbrellas as LE and NE. As such, CE will quickly be recognized as such by all but the most oblivious of PCs and NPCs. CE cannot do something opposed to his evil nature, whereas CN can do whatever it wants because it has no nature.
I disagree.
C'mon. This is clearly a PC alignment discussion. Demons are outsiders with supernatural abilities and means beyond all but the most epic of PCs.

I believe the point being made, was that Chaotic Evil doesn't have to mean Psychotic Evil or Rampaging Evil. You can scheme and manipulate just as well as a Chaotic Evil person, whether you are Chaotic or Lawful runs a lot deeper than whether or not you are intelligent.


Actually it does mean those things, going by the Paizo definition. If you're scheming or manipulating, you're LE or NE. I'll quote again:

Paizo wrote:
He is vicious, arbitrarily violent, and unpredictable.

Regardless of whether the CE in question is out for personal gain or committed to the spread of evil, she is vicious, violent, and unpredictable. CE is not subtle.

Paizo wrote:
Thankfully, his plans are haphazard,

Even if CE tries to be scheming, he's not very good at it.

Where is the Alignment thread?


So..... alignment dictates Ability scores now? (Or versa vice)


Blackborn wrote:
Pedantic wrote:
Being Lawful Good doesn't require much agony of decision in a standard D&D world with it's very sharply black and white creatures.

I'm sorry that your DM's have placed you in sharply black and white settings.

I do agree that decision making is relatively easy for LG, CE, and CN; however, for the first two, the stakes are very high. Unless the DM is incredibly accommodating, a LG or CE character will quickly find themselves in trouble, and will have a difficult time surviving in a well-crafted setting.

Is there a master alignment thread? I'd like to continue this conversation there. I also have some questions for others DM's regarding N characters. I did a brief search but the most recent thread I found was last posted to in 2010.

Actually, I've been running a game that has a largely Evil party stuck trying to save the world. They've ended up being pretty ruthless to get things done. A few characters slid from LE to CE as they got more desperate, and there's been some interesting attempts to keep the only good character in the dark about some parts of plans to try to preserve his morality.

The oracle is keeping a secret diary of everything and planning to publish it if they succeed, sort of as an apology.


I basically dislike all non-magical combat-centric classes. Outside of combat they fail to overcome most challenges. They force DM's to be accommodating. Most combat-centric classes can't even recognize when an NPC is lying to them. The only thing they can do is fight. Furthermore they are easily duped, eluded, or outright used. I've had a player's fighter single-handedly slay his entire party after a simple Dominate Person, after which the wizard in control simply had the fighter walk off a cliff. It's even easier with illusions. I've had an entire Good party slaughter innocents while failing to recognize a simple illusion. Suffice to say, they were afterwards arrested, and executed. Campaign over.

Obviously it was the DM who allowed the characters in the first place. But should the DM have his story-telling limited because of this? No. The less combat-centric a campaign, the more freedom a DM has. Unfortunately, most players like to play combat-centric characters, and this leaves DM's in a difficult spot, unless they just like dungeon after dungeon with no world interaction or non-combat encounters.

*I should note that in both above examples not all the characters in party were combat-centric.

Liberty's Edge

Blackborn, your dislike appears to be min/maxed munchkins who blow their will-saves, not non-magical melee PCs per se.

Liberty's Edge

Alceste008 wrote:
Richard Leonhart wrote:

1. Cavalier - I don't like having a cow, horse.

2. Paladin - I've just seen them played as lawful stupid.

Man, you just nailed the first two.

1. Cavalier is a waste of space in otherwise a great book.
2. Paladin is the class of holier than thou fanatics playing lawful stupid.

You need to think outside the box. (My PFS paladin is a halfling rogue multiclass who uses a rapier and a bow, and my cavalier[samurai] impertinently rides his horse into buildings and sewers and lays about with dual wakizashis.)
Quote:

3. Wizard is just OP as can get at higher levels plus I really dislike the vacian magic system

4. Clerics everyone wants a healbot but no one likes playing one.

They're definitely a pain to play at low-level, wizards in particular -- you just never have enough to do. Clerics can at least tank like fighter. (I like Pathfinder clerics a lot more than D&D's, even if they no longer get Heavy Armor Proficiency.)


Blackborn wrote:

I basically dislike all non-magical combat-centric classes. Outside of combat they fail to overcome most challenges. They force DM's to be accommodating. Most combat-centric classes can't even recognize when an NPC is lying to them. The only thing they can do is fight. Furthermore they are easily duped, eluded, or outright used. I've had a player's fighter single-handedly slay his entire party after a simple Dominate Person, after which the wizard in control simply had the fighter walk off a cliff. It's even easier with illusions. I've had an entire Good party slaughter innocents while failing to recognize a simple illusion. Suffice to say, they were afterwards arrested, and executed. Campaign over.

Obviously it was the DM who allowed the characters in the first place. But should the DM have his story-telling limited because of this? No. The less combat-centric a campaign, the more freedom a DM has. Unfortunately, most players like to play combat-centric characters, and this leaves DM's in a difficult spot, unless they just like dungeon after dungeon with no world interaction or non-combat encounters.

*I should note that in both above examples not all the characters in party were combat-centric.

wow ... that's really uncharitable a stance to take as a GM. Everyone's there to have fun, no?

Why can't you tell the story with modifications as needed (such as spell choices unleashed by the BBEG's) for the good of the group. TPK sucks, especially from within the same party. It's even worse if you're not giving them any real outs in the situation.

If the GM is going to run around willy-nilly determined to make combat characters suck, then the GM needs to take responsibility when the melee characters suck. Laying that on the feet of the game, or the players is just nonsense.


Blackborn wrote:


CE cannot scheme. CE cannot masquerade as other alignments. Those fall under the umbrellas as LE and NE. As such, CE will quickly be recognized as such by all but the most oblivious of PCs and NPCs. CE cannot do something opposed to his evil nature, whereas CN can do whatever it wants because it has no nature.

The Joker. Are you sure about that?


Blackborn wrote:

I dream of the day when d20 sessions will be broadcast on television like sports. Commentators and everything.

Commentator 1: Looks like he's gonna Power Attack. He's gonna need a lot more than that, though.
<player rolls>
Commentator 2: What is it? I can't tell.
<snap to camera 3, revealing a natural 20>
Commentator 1: CRIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIITTTTTTTTTTTTTTTT

Umm PAX already does this through Penny Arcade TV, with a studio audience as the commentators.


Blackborn wrote:
TOZ wrote:
Blackborn wrote:


CE cannot scheme. CE cannot masquerade as other alignments. Those fall under the umbrellas as LE and NE. As such, CE will quickly be recognized as such by all but the most oblivious of PCs and NPCs. CE cannot do something opposed to his evil nature, whereas CN can do whatever it wants because it has no nature.
I disagree.
C'mon. This is clearly a PC alignment discussion. Demons are outsiders with supernatural abilities and means beyond all but the most epic of PCs. Technically the standard zombie is "evil" but in reality it has no alignment. It's mindless and has nothing but the most primal of motivations (unless being controlled, of course).

I wouldn't be so sure about that.

This is a good example of a scheming chaotic evil character (and possibly my favorite CE!)


I hate the player, not the game.


What's wrong with Alchemists? They get to throw a bottle that turns into a gelatinous cube. What's not to love?

Clerics - I've seen them played really well, but this is kind of rare. Part of the problem is that they get shoved onto beginners too often. But mostly I just kind of have a problem with the "Mommy's coming!" aspect of clerics, which is kind of hardwired into the class.


As a GM I've used every single class at some point against the PCs in my games and I honestly don't find anything wrong with the classes as a whole.

What I have found is that the players get frustrated when I devise a Class combination of NPCs that compliments the abilities of their fellow NPCs and then I'm left to wonder... "When we started this game, why didn't youu guys get together and talk about how your classes could have complimented each other."

A few things though...

The Summoner is a pain in the ass to keep up with.

The Oracle is a Divine Sorcerer, so I didn't really see the need for the handicap system that eventually becomes a boon.

People don't like Gunslingers, I get it. The only real problem I have is the whole reloading thing, but I solved that on my own.

Cavalier... yeah... the mount thing.

Witch? Widely useless, I don't use them much unless they compliment other NPCs.


Hartbaine wrote:

g.

Witch? Widely useless, I don't use them much unless they compliment other NPCs.

Woh, really? I find it one of the better made classes myself.


Quote:
Woh, really? I find it one of the better made classes myself.

Really, really.

Could just be play style, but even with their skill and abilities, I can usually fill the slot of a witch with a much more useful class that accomplishes much of the same effect I'm going for.

They do make for great villains though. I like sometimes tossing them in a with couple others and having a few crones cackle at the PCs while they lower them into a well filled with zombie-ninja sea bass with lasers mounted on their fore heads.

Aside from that, I find em kinda bland.


My only problem with the witch is something that wizards and sorcerer's actually suffer from some too -- a general lack of ability to actually finish an opponent off.


I really really like the witch. For experienced players you have unlimited magic abilities that are great out-of-combat, with a little imagination.
And especially for beginners, there are lots of abilities you don't have to roll. Just evil eye the ennemy, you are useful 9 times out of 10, it's done really fast, and you don't need to know much about mechanics. For spells, just do out of combat healing. It's not optimizing, but great for beginners.

But as this is about classes you dislike, to clarify about paladin I got quoted on: I'm not saying he can only be played lawful stupid, but it's like the dark side of the paladin, it's so much easier to play him like that, and I haven't seen him played anything but lawful stupid in real life. In forum discussions it's so much easier to find a good solution, but when you're in the hurry of roleplaying, you just run over traps to save the princess.

Grand Lodge

Blackborn wrote:
LG is the toughest alignment to play (besides N, but N is a joke anyway), because it has the highest stakes and the most limitations.

Why would N be so difficult to play? And why do you think it is a joke?

Liberty's Edge

TOZ wrote:
I play for the glory and adulation of the crowd.

Are you not entertained!


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
TOZ wrote:
I play for the glory and adulation of the crowd.
Are you not entertained!

Tell a joke.


Out of all of the classes I have actually played for pathfinder/3.5 (which is not many) I would have to say that the Alchemist was the least fun to play. It just seemed all over the place. The bad at least seems to have a common goal, support, the alchemist has no real focus to is all that useful. Yeah they seem to focus on self buff, but they are all over the place between spells and mutagens, both requiring preparation and actions, then you throw in ranged bomb attacks? Though in the end it wasn't all that bad.


Oddly enough, I hate wizards the most.

Largely, I dislike the fact that I find them to be the things most inhibiting the fun of playing games past say level 12 give or take. A fighter, even a druid or gunslinger or other high-damage class can certainly deal a lot of damage, but I tend to find it far simpler to create scary challenging monsters than I do to routinely block a wizard's bag of tricks when it comes to solving plots and playing god. Not to say it's impossible; a clever GM can do anything, but their progression of tools to solve problems and circumvent mortal and RP concerns gets out of hand faster than anyone else's.

Certainly sorcerers suffer this as well, along with witches and even clerics/summoners/druids, but for the most part the more limited spell selections and themes inhibit them a bit more than the same things do for wizards.

I would personally have much more fun running for or playing a party at 15th level if it was composed of 3-4 selected from fighter/ranger/paladin/alchemist/bard/rogue/monk/gunslinger/barbarian/oracl e/magus for example as none of those classes manage to fundamentally alter the way the game works to quite the degree that a wizard does.

Just a personal flavor opinion though, rather than one based in theorycrafting.


My least favorite classes.. Hmm.....

Geography!.... Wait... Wrong type of class....

Make that "any class that I am not currently playing during the course of a game"....

Oh...

And suicidal clerics... Which my group constantly seems to be filled with.


Drake_rocket wrote:

I would personally have much more fun running for or playing a party at 15th level if it was composed of 3-4 selected from fighter/ranger/paladin/alchemist/bard/rogue/monk/gunslinger/barbarian/oracl e/magus for example as none of those classes manage to fundamentally alter the way the game works to quite the degree that a wizard does.

Just a personal flavor opinion though, rather than one based in theorycrafting.

GM NEVER SEEN NON-CRAPPY BARBARIAN. GM BEG FOR WIZARDS TO COME BACK.


AM BARBARIAN wrote:
Drake_rocket wrote:

I would personally have much more fun running for or playing a party at 15th level if it was composed of 3-4 selected from fighter/ranger/paladin/alchemist/bard/rogue/monk/gunslinger/barbarian/oracl e/magus for example as none of those classes manage to fundamentally alter the way the game works to quite the degree that a wizard does.

Just a personal flavor opinion though, rather than one based in theorycrafting.

GM NEVER SEEN NON-CRAPPY BARBARIAN. GM BEG FOR WIZARDS TO COME BACK.

Well that's true. Barbarians can break the game by physically breaking the game world in half with their fury.


Drake_rocket wrote:
AM BARBARIAN wrote:
Drake_rocket wrote:

I would personally have much more fun running for or playing a party at 15th level if it was composed of 3-4 selected from fighter/ranger/paladin/alchemist/bard/rogue/monk/gunslinger/barbarian/oracl e/magus for example as none of those classes manage to fundamentally alter the way the game works to quite the degree that a wizard does.

Just a personal flavor opinion though, rather than one based in theorycrafting.

GM NEVER SEEN NON-CRAPPY BARBARIAN. GM BEG FOR WIZARDS TO COME BACK.
Well that's true. Barbarians can break the game by physically breaking the game world in half with their fury.

I have seen this happen....


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

I actually like summoners, but I also don't mind the mutable quality of the eidilons or running multiple "characters." I digress.

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*

In real life I could learn to wield a sword. I haven't, but the option is out there. I cannot learn to fly (without technology) or throw fireballs (without technology). Hence I have a preference of casters over non-casters. I prefer my fantasy to be stuff that doesn't really exist. But thats just me.

+1000


Core classes
#1) The Rogue: Cool idea, bad design. The Urban ranger and some of the Bard archetype has made this class obsolete, but then, now any class can find traps. Come to think of it, the Rogue has always sucked.
As for the Pathfinder rogue, A Man In Black sums it up pretty good:

The rogiue is a weak class:

A Man In Black wrote:


Anyway. Rogues are in kind of a weird place in Pathfinder, even moreso than in 3.5. They're not supposed to be as good at martial combat as...uh... all the other classes, so they aren't. What they get in return for this is out-of-combat problem-solving utility. Thing is, almost all (and indeed all, using non-core material) of this out-of-combat utility is redundant with other non-magical classes. That isn't even taking into account spellcasters, who by and large get more out-of-combat schticks, while having comparable or better in-combat schticks.

The rogue's schtick is skills and skills aren't very good. They certainly aren't good enough to explain why a class whose only real combat schtick is "stab a dude" is weaker at stabbing than pretty much everyone else. Skills are not only often nonfunctional (Diplomacy, original-version Stealth), they're also almost always hardcapped at what's "realistic" or "humanly possible" (Stealth again, all of the movement skills).

In return for this schtick, the rogue is worse at fighting. It's not just that the rogue is less capable and more-situational than a fighter, barbarian, or paladin: she's also weaker when it comes to wrecking some jerk than the ranger and (non-core) monk, who also rely on skill-based schticks (albeit skill-based schticks supplemented with class abilities), not to mention the alchemist, cleric, druid, and oracle. All of these classes have class abilities or spellcasting to do more than what's "humanly possible", and can still fight in addition to solving problems that don't require murder.

So yeah. I do think the rogue is a weak class. She's worse at fighting to be good at something that often isn't useful, and will often be overshadowed in her own specialty by someone else in the party.

I wish I knew how to fix it.

#2) The Cleric: Powerful but BORING. 2 skills per level, unsexy spell list, can't heal in battle effectively unless using heal or mass heal, and she gets nothing new once she get her 2nd domain ability. Give me the BETA-cleric. And still no good high level cleric spells. (At least not any good healing spells, protection spells or buff spells.) Clerics, the most unsexy spell list in the game. If Paizo had decided to give druids access to the healing domain, A LOT of people would switch to Druids.

#3) Fighter: I love the concept, but he is boring and can't keep up with barbarians, Ranger and barbarian. He has crappy skills, 2 skills per level, problem with saves and isn't even the best class out there when it comes to fighting. A Man In Black sums it up pretty good:

A Man In Black wrote:


Well duh. The fighter we have isn't very good at anything but murder, and even then his skillset is pretty limited.

Ultimat Combat could have fixet it, but didn't:

Fighter feats: 1
Paladin spells: 31
Ranger spells: 32
Wizard/ Sorcerer spells: 97

New classes:
#1) Gunslinger: Guns in D&D. I don't like it.
#2) Agree with Fatespinner: " 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.“

#3) Summoner. A messy class that is all over the play. Eidolon, The summons, über spells list that the bard would kill for. The Synthesist Summoner is just crazy broken. Or as Cartigan put it.

Cartigan wrote:


I called "Summoner makes no sense" when they started throwing around arbitrary rules exceptions in a failed attempt to balance it. A full on effort needs to be taken to redo it looking at what it can do with what it is allowed to do and change those as necessary while at the same time removing rules exceptions.

#) 4 VOP monk and the Cloistered Cleric are both crappy, but they don't really count do they?


Zark wrote:
#2) The Cleric: Powerful but BORING.

Cleric/healing classes have always been boring imo. I don't think there is anything you can do about it. They become interesting when they are pushed and controlled and manipulated by their deity or deity's follower's. That's about it.


I don't really mind the alchemist, summoner or gunslinger. What annoys me is the witch primarily, and after that, monk. Okay, I get the concept, they are shaolin badass... It would be fine as an exotic, extremely optional class that you could tell players was not for the current campaign... But as a base class??? Do we seriously need wuxia moves and drunken masters all the time? And witches, well, it's also a cute concept. Baba yaga, evil witches blah blah, but again, they annoy me to no end and they fudge the sensibilities of my campaigns. If female spellcasters are not particularly persecuted, the schtick falls flat. Through an entire campaign, that's a lot of nerves to walk on.

Shadow Lodge

Woo necromancy


I don't like Vancian magic. I've never liked Vancian magic. So, with the exception of the Witch-- which is my favorite class, Vance or no Vance-- all of the prepared casters are pretty low on my list.

But my special hate goes to the Gunslinger. I love guns, but I don't like the Grit mechanic or the Deeds that go with it, and I strongly believe that the Gunslinger should have been a Fighter archetype at most.

I'm not fond of the Ninja or the Samurai as well, not because I have a problem with Asian fantasy in my games, but because I don't think that these classes needed to be separated from their Rogue and Cavalier bases.


Fighters. They just bore me. That is all.


Any class that casts arcane magic, makes me not want to play them


Hmph. When I started, we played 1st edition. Fighters got more hit points for leveling, THAC0 did not improve every other level. So we rolled our d10 hps. And we never complained, you hear that??? We never complained!

Bah, kids these days...

Shadow Lodge

Bah, old timers these days, always going on about how they were too lazy to innovate. :)

301 to 350 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.