Least favorite classes!


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

251 to 300 of 405 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | next > last >>

EntrerisShadow wrote:

I hate Ninja/Samurai/anything Eastern. The monk I can handle, because nearly every culture at some point has had an equivalent. The Greeks gave us wrestling, the English Bartitsu, and in more recent times the Israelis Krav-Maga and the American Marine Corps developed their own martial arts program. (Although admittedly both are influenced by several eastern varieties of martial arts.) So with a tweak here and there I can make the monk fit the theme I want.

But there is no western equivalent to the Ninja or the Samurai. They're distinctly associated with Japanese culture. And like everything else in geekdom, there's an obnoxious assumption that anything Eastern is better. so the mechanics are written up to make it better, whether or not that makes any sense. The Ninja becomes a better rogue, the Samurai a better Cavalier. (In fairness, that's not saying a whole helluva lot.)

All of the weapons are better for no reason. The armor is better, even if it would technically be inferior. It drives me effing crazy. Some things in Asia were better, and yeah, they had pretty much invented the printing press when Europeans thought the devil made the sun go away every night, but none of that is ever going to make what is essentially the same sword do more damage.

Also the Gunslinger, but that's simply my bias against steampunk mixing with high fantasy. I like steampunk, but I like it in its own era, separate from magic and dragons. And the Gunslinger feels too much like somebody spilled a little steampunk in my high fantasy.

The Aldori swordlord in golarion are sort of a western smaurai. Honor obessed use a weapon that looks like a katana highgly skilled swordsmen so do you hate them too?


Darkwing Duck wrote:
When I flip through the rules and see Djin or Gelatinous Cubes or even the Druid and Bard, I'm struck by how very non-European the game is.

The druid and bard aren't European?

Shadow Lodge

Salamandyr wrote:
The druid and bard aren't European?

Not as portrayed in the game. They share the name with European druids and bards, and that's about it.


I lack any major dislike for classes, but they all have quirks that slightly bug me.

My least faves are all PrCs; mystic theurge, assassin, and loremaster.


TOZ wrote:
Salamandyr wrote:
The druid and bard aren't European?
Not as portrayed in the game. They share the name with European druids and bards, and that's about it.

They bear more resemblance to their European progenitors than any other in my opinion. But YMMV.

As far as I'm concerned, creating separate classes for regional archetypes like the samurai and ninja do more to reinforce "European-ness" of the base game than just having samurai and ninjas be fighters/cavaliers and rogues.

The Exchange

Darkwing Duck wrote:


If my earlier comment was unclear, look here

Hey DWD - you and I often butt heads on style and interpretation. But I have to thank you for that wiki entry. It is a brilliant and educational entry, and I much appreciate it.

thanks!


I dislike Paladins, because they get "Cause interminable alignment argument" as an at-will power. :-P

Liberty's Edge

I actually don't mind the eastern classes in Ultimate Combat:

-- The samurai is particularly well done (only version of the cavalier that isn't IMO lame), and not at all overpowered or underpowered relative to the core base classes; ninja is arguably stronger than base rogue, but forfeits free Evasion (which will chew up his HP in a hurry when enemy blasters are about). The eastern weapons and armor are just paste-on flavor; you don't really need any of it to be effective (my PFS ninja will have a fauchard polearm fighter).

Even the much-maligned Gunslinger isn't that bad -- they're just weird archers. Power-wise, they have nothing on a sorcerer. If they have a problem, it's that they're a "Weapon"-class like Arcane Archer, where everyone immediately knows your schtick, leaving little room for imagination.

Some of the feats in Ultimate Combat are more broken than the new classes.

Classes I hate (to play, as well as be playing with): summoning casters, whether they are summoners or druids or wizards. I'm sure other have their own recollections, but in my experience 99% of these fall into one of two camps: a) the disorganized players who bogs down the game because he doesn't have the stats for a hypogriff, and b) the ultra-munchkin power-gamer obsessed with DPR who intends to snow the table under an avalanche of multi-attacking monsters -- and all the other PCs are basically just side-show at any game he's in.


I do not care for the cleric or the druid. I feel they need a total rebuild. I also do not care for what they did to the samurai and the ninja, forcing something into a class build because it has an Asian name is bad design.

Liberty's Edge

seekerofshadowlight wrote:
I do not care for the cleric or the druid. I feel they need a total rebuild. I also do not care for what they did to the samurai and the ninja, forcing something into a class build because it has an Asian name is bad design.

I think I can agree with both of these.

Really, a spell-casting druid and a shape-shifting druid should be two versions of the same class with varying levels of each. As it is you can have a hummingbird that summons firestorms while your its t-rex pet keeps everyone's attention. (The caster version would get the pet, while the shape-shifter wouldn't need it.)

And I *hate* it when a class tries to force flavor down my throat. Even sorcerer bloodlines are left really vague, saying that they can come from all sort of non-blood-related things.

Don't get me wrong, it's nice to have a little flavor, just don't embed it so thoroughly its impossible to separate from the mechanics. If I want a barbarian that just gets that scary look on their face instead of yelling loudly, I'm going to do it, and the barbarian doesn't tell me I have to let out a battle-cry to rage or some-such.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
you, Darkwing - Fail on "suggestion" over mice by the rules - it can't do that

I never said anything with regards to suggestion over mice.

But, like jonnythm, I think you can build the character you want with a Sorcerer. There is even a Maestro bloodline.

To both you and johnnythm:

I agree, a sorcerer can approximate what I'm mentioning, but then, it can ONLY do that through 100% lateral thinking and approach to the concept. At it's core, it's still a "use magic" class, and at that it is pointedly D20-styled magic period.

It is not, at all, or by any measure, a bard as described under the bard's descriptive text. It doesn't have any of the other bardic features (like knowledge of many things, etc, etc, etc). It's a sorcerer PLAYING at being an epic-style bard that I would prefer existed. However, that's a kludge.

:shrugs:

That has nothing to do with the CLASS of bard pointedly NOT functioning like I would like it to function.

It's a functional work-around, at best, that you suggest. However, it guts the other pieces of the bard that *mostly* function just fine: countersong, and other sorts of things, etc.

Totally my view, but I want to see a Final Fantasy style "Edward" character in-game and playable. Singing notes/playing an instrument that can ACTUALLY harm and/or cause effects upon his targets. THAT, to me, is fully awesome and should be there with the class IF the class is to be included side by side with all of the other classes that have their own "schtick" so to speak. I (very aware of this being a "ME" issue here, fellas) am not satisfied, or calmed by having mechanics that belong to other classes properly sort of force-crafted onto the other class in order to make it function and give it a "thing" to work on.

If bards have magical "performance" skills, then I want to see that MECHANICALLY front and center defining the class. Kind of like Barbarians and their rage powers is what I would prefer to see with Bards and their performance abilities.

You craft on "mundane" magic the same as other casters, and I find it wanting because that's not "bard" to me. It's "mage" pure and simple. It's LAZY, really, and I am not a fan of it at all.

I have similar complaints for both Ranger and Paladin casting - it's an after-thought and pretty terrible all around. If there are clerics that *do* already commune w/the gods, then what is the point in allowing these non-casting primary types start casting? And then spells that are kind of worthless in effect and duration for the levels that they are granted ability TO cast in the first place. Nah. I'd rather see genuine effort put forth into further defining and developing the "ranger-ness" or "paladin-ness" of both classes rather than take a random add-on effect of another classes main feature.

By contrast, though, something like a Magus I can deal with. When IT gets casting added into it's class structure, it's ACTUALLY reinforcing the point and purpose of the class - NOT simply re-packaging existing features of other classes for lack of creative effort being put forth into designing the core of the classes abilities. (unlike the Ranger, Paladin, and Bard.)

Note: On the bard thing DWD, you mentioned "suggestion" when I wanted the Pied Piper specifically. That's where that came from.

Liberty's Edge

Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
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.
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.


The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
Darkwing Duck wrote:
The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
you, Darkwing - Fail on "suggestion" over mice by the rules - it can't do that

I never said anything with regards to suggestion over mice.

But, like jonnythm, I think you can build the character you want with a Sorcerer. There is even a Maestro bloodline.

To both you and johnnythm:

I agree, a sorcerer can approximate what I'm mentioning, but then, it can ONLY do that through 100% lateral thinking and approach to the concept. At it's core, it's still a "use magic" class, and at that it is pointedly D20-styled magic period.

It is not, at all, or by any measure, a bard as described under the bard's descriptive text. It doesn't have any of the other bardic features (like knowledge of many things, etc, etc, etc). It's a sorcerer PLAYING at being an epic-style bard that I would prefer existed. However, that's a kludge.

:shrugs:

That has nothing to do with the CLASS of bard pointedly NOT functioning like I would like it to function.

It's a functional work-around, at best, that you suggest. However, it guts the other pieces of the bard that *mostly* function just fine: countersong, and other sorts of things, etc.

Totally my view, but I want to see a Final Fantasy style "Edward" character in-game and playable. Singing notes/playing an instrument that can ACTUALLY harm and/or cause effects upon his targets. THAT, to me, is fully awesome and should be there with the class IF the class is to be included side by side with all of the other classes that have their own "schtick" so to speak. I (very aware of this being a "ME" issue here, fellas) am not satisfied, or calmed by having mechanics that belong to other classes properly sort of force-crafted onto the other class in order to make it function and give it a "thing" to work on.

If bards have magical "performance" skills, then I want to see that MECHANICALLY front and center defining the class. Kind of like Barbarians and their rage powers is what I would prefer to see...

I never replied to your Pied Piper comment. I scrolled back and checked.

The Maestro bloodline perfectly captures (and is intended to capture) the type of character you want. Calling something which is intended to capture a character concept a "kludge" because it does so is verging strongly into the Simpsons' comic book guy territory.


Why so many have seen lawful stupid paladins and i haven't? *sob*
I really want to have seen the paladins played in my group a little more holier than thou than they are played.


leo1925 wrote:

Why so many have seen lawful stupid paladins and i haven't? *sob*

I really want to have seen the paladins played in my group a little more holier than thou than they are played.

Once I had a player group that was "morally flexible" and they had a paladin in the party, his player turned tot he rest of the party and said "this is my spot and listen, I have no sense motive, if you are doing something wrong just lie to me, I have no reason to check you are my friends."

That character was brilliantly played, very helpful to the party and the party had no difficulty doing things because the paladin was more than willing to collect more firewood or tend to the horses.


Alceste008 wrote:
4. Clerics everyone wants a healbot but no one likes playing one.

I enjoyed playing an Oracle of Life in Council of Thieves. Had a great time.


Azten wrote:
Alceste008 wrote:
4. Clerics everyone wants a healbot but no one likes playing one.

I enjoyed playing an Oracle of Life in Council of Thieves. Had a great time.

I loved my Oracle of Life too. She was a healer extraordinairre and became the first target to kill over every other class including the wizard. If you couldn't take her out, you couldn't stop the party. She could heal through the most foul of damage ease. She could remove most conditions with a standard action at range. She was immune to many different types of attacks, that it was hard to slow her down. Great fun to be this glowing fiery elemental of life that kept on pumping out the heals.


I don't really picture bards as prancing boys.

A dancing bard I picture their Inspire Courage like stomp dancing.

Singing bards I picture as inspiring with fragments of a song that doesn't form into a full song until several rounds have passed. Each line of the song inspires the person to greater effect.

Instrument bards I picture using their weapons to tap a tune as they fight.

Oratory or Poet bards much like the singing bard.

Almost like a sporting event when a team's fans are chanting "DEFENSE...DEFENSE" or cheerleaders are pumping the crowd to cheer for their team to send them into a frenzy, save the bard can do it all by himself.


Paladin

Simply because it seems to draw the type of player that just wants to make the party work harder to do anything.

Or the type of player who likes the abilities, but doesn't realize there's a whole alignment and code of conduct that comes with it.


rat_ bastard wrote:
leo1925 wrote:

Why so many have seen lawful stupid paladins and i haven't? *sob*

I really want to have seen the paladins played in my group a little more holier than thou than they are played.

Once I had a player group that was "morally flexible" and they had a paladin in the party, his player turned tot he rest of the party and said "this is my spot and listen, I have no sense motive, if you are doing something wrong just lie to me, I have no reason to check you are my friends."

That character was brilliantly played, very helpful to the party and the party had no difficulty doing things because the paladin was more than willing to collect more firewood or tend to the horses.

I did a paladin as Andy Griffith once -- much fun.

That and a pimadin.

Grand Lodge

doctor_wu wrote:
The Aldori swordlord in golarion are sort of a western smaurai. Honor obessed use a weapon that looks like a katana highgly skilled swordsmen so do you hate them too?

To be honest the only thing I've ever used from Golarion is the deities. This isn't any like/dislike for the campaign setting on my part, it's just that the only books I can afford at the moment are the Core, Bestiary, and APG and I happened to have the Gods and Magic guide fall into my lap.

In any case, I don't necessarily hate it for the fact it has an Eastern feel. What I hate is that any time Eastern anything is introduced into a game, it's automatically superior. I wouldn't mind the eastern variety so much if it weren't just more fanservice to the anime and manga crowd.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
When I flip through the rules and see Djin or Gelatinous Cubes or even the Druid and Bard, I'm struck by how very non-European the game is.

I'll concede on the monsters. There are a lot of monsters with their mythology rooted in everything from the far east, to Jewish folklore, to H.P. Lovecraft and pulp science fiction novels. But the question wasn't about monsters. . . though I know I've heard more than a few complaints about all the Lovecraft in D&D/Pathfinder, as I've said before, it's not the variety that bothers me. Variety is good.

One thing that does confuse me, however, is your take that Druids and Bards are not European? I'll grant that the Druid can at times feel more quasi-Native American, but the Druidic tradition has its roots in Ireland and England. And the entire Bard class is based on The Pied Piper, a German folk tale. I think that definitely qualifies it as European.


See I saw bards being based on everything from the rhapsodies to the Irish bards (and fili), to the minstrel, skald, Scops and any other such cultural personage.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
I never replied to your Pied Piper comment. I scrolled back and checked.

Apologies. I confused you with TOZ.


i think the pathfinder druid is more pseudo Native American than it is celtic. i beleive it should have been named "Shaman". i once wanted to make an Orcish Druid/Barbarian named Hoodoo Woodoo Shoodo who transforms into an abyssal dire tiger and goes into a blood frenzy. i still do. i love the idea of being able to play a Native American Shaman wandering through Rennaiscance Italy.


EntrerisShadow wrote:
doctor_wu wrote:
The Aldori swordlord in golarion are sort of a western smaurai. Honor obessed use a weapon that looks like a katana highgly skilled swordsmen so do you hate them too?

To be honest the only thing I've ever used from Golarion is the deities. This isn't any like/dislike for the campaign setting on my part, it's just that the only books I can afford at the moment are the Core, Bestiary, and APG and I happened to have the Gods and Magic guide fall into my lap.

In any case, I don't necessarily hate it for the fact it has an Eastern feel. What I hate is that any time Eastern anything is introduced into a game, it's automatically superior. I wouldn't mind the eastern variety so much if it weren't just more fanservice to the anime and manga crowd.

Darkwing Duck wrote:
When I flip through the rules and see Djin or Gelatinous Cubes or even the Druid and Bard, I'm struck by how very non-European the game is.

I'll concede on the monsters. There are a lot of monsters with their mythology rooted in everything from the far east, to Jewish folklore, to H.P. Lovecraft and pulp science fiction novels. But the question wasn't about monsters. . . though I know I've heard more than a few complaints about all the Lovecraft in D&D/Pathfinder, as I've said before, it's not the variety that bothers me. Variety is good.

One thing that does confuse me, however, is your take that Druids and Bards are not European? I'll grant that the Druid can at times feel more quasi-Native American, but the Druidic tradition has its roots in Ireland and England. And the entire Bard class is based on The Pied Piper, a German folk tale. I think that definitely qualifies it as European.

Toz already answered the question you asked regarding Druids and Bards.


[Quote =The Speaker in Dreams] another post that's long

Socerer Buffs = bardic performance in flavor, who is to say that haste isn't bardic performance being used to enhance? There's nothing that says it CAN'T be. For that matter bull's strength, divine favor, rage, herosim, all these spells could be flavored as bardic performance, you could make ANY 9 level spell casting class into this, with just re flavoring. Sure you're not following the rules, and using that lateral thinking as you put it, but what's the problem with that?

I don't understand why, just because its name is different than what you want it to be, that you say that it's not the same.
Can't you just change its name? I apologize if you find this offensive, I try my best not to cause people to rage over the internet.


jonnythm wrote:
[Quote =The Speaker in Dreams] another post that's long

Socerer Buffs = bardic performance in flavor, who is to say that haste isn't bardic performance being used to enhance? There's nothing that says it CAN'T be. For that matter bull's strength, divine favor, rage, herosim, all these spells could be flavored as bardic performance, you could make ANY 9 level spell casting class into this, with just re flavoring. Sure you're not following the rules, and using that lateral thinking as you put it, but what's the problem with that?

I don't understand why, just because its name is different than what you want it to be, that you say that it's not the same.
Can't you just change its name? I apologize if you find this offensive, I try my best not to cause people to rage over the internet.

I've no problem with using a SORCERER to get at the effects I'm looking at - it's pretty neat and creative.

That's a separate issue from saying, "Bards do BARD stuff just fine" as I've been defining what I want to see Bards do.

The BARD class can NOT do this. The SORCERER class can (and is a decent approach), but then to accomplish what I want, I've had to jump class to approach it (and then I'm still not 100% satisfied with it because I'm not a fan of the way Magic pulls certain things off, and even likely makes the bard far more broad than what I'd intend his area of influence and effects to be centered around).

There's a difference there in what I'm saying about the 2 approaches.


The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
jonnythm wrote:
[Quote =The Speaker in Dreams] another post that's long

Socerer Buffs = bardic performance in flavor, who is to say that haste isn't bardic performance being used to enhance? There's nothing that says it CAN'T be. For that matter bull's strength, divine favor, rage, herosim, all these spells could be flavored as bardic performance, you could make ANY 9 level spell casting class into this, with just re flavoring. Sure you're not following the rules, and using that lateral thinking as you put it, but what's the problem with that?

I don't understand why, just because its name is different than what you want it to be, that you say that it's not the same.
Can't you just change its name? I apologize if you find this offensive, I try my best not to cause people to rage over the internet.

I've no problem with using a SORCERER to get at the effects I'm looking at - it's pretty neat and creative.

That's a separate issue from saying, "Bards do BARD stuff just fine" as I've been defining what I want to see Bards do.

The BARD class can NOT do this. The SORCERER class can (and is a decent approach), but then to accomplish what I want, I've had to jump class to approach it (and then I'm still not 100% satisfied with it because I'm not a fan of the way Magic pulls certain things off, and even likely makes the bard far more broad than what I'd intend his area of influence and effects to be centered around).

There's a difference there in what I'm saying about the 2 approaches.

My problem with your position is that if your character concept can be done with the sorcerer, then we don't need it to be possible with another class. That other class should focus on character concepts that can't be done another way.


Darkwing Duck wrote:
My problem with your position is that if your character concept can be done with the sorcerer, then we don't need it to be possible with another class. That other class should focus on character concepts that can't be done another way.

My problem with yours is a refusal to see alternative paths rather than re-fluffing entirely different classes to do the same.

Case in point: Rogue and Barbarian.

PF took what existed and changed them for the better by re-examining class roles and inspiration from sources that originally inspired the classes in the fist place.

3.5 had Rogues and Barbarians - both sucked pretty hard, IMO.

You can "re-fluff" sorcerer's to behave as Rogues or Barbarians (hell, there's even RAGE spells out there, too, and caster classes that let you rage-cast). Does that make the Rogue concept obsolete as a class? Or the Barbarian?

No - it means a SORCERER class can pretend, or play at masquerading as another class using his class features to approximate the effects of those other classes. Is this satisfying? No ... not to me (which has been my point).

PF took the boring/weak "Rogue" and created all kinds of interesting rogue-specific abilities and sprinkled them all over the class and additional supplemental works. They didn't eliminate a class and call it "redunant - class X can do that ... and MORE to boot!"

They did the same thing with the Barbarian - they made it interesting and flavorful by re-examining the role and sources of inspiration and pointedly NOT resorting to "casting" of any kind to make it happen.

I'm saying I would prefer a Bard to be "bard-y" in the same way that PF treated Rogues and Barbarians.

Why *my* preference is such a bug up your arse is beyond me to comprehend.

**simply not caring any more**


2 people marked this as a favorite.

Stuff like this is why I think a concept first, class second method is important.

Here's how it works:

Lay out your character concept but do not refer to any class name or ability, feat or anything mechanical in it. Describe it in nothing but in-character terms. For a short example:

"A stalwart soldier who is a competent and stoic leader."

There are many classes and options that could be described so. A fighter with a decent knowledge (history) rank might be the most plain version. It could be done as a cavalier with use of tactician feats, a bard whose inspiration is styled as tactical commands or a sensei monk. There are probably quite a few others as well.

Approach the concept by what you want it to do, not what pieces you want to build it from. You can figure out the materials needed once you have your goal.

RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32

I removed a post and the replies to it. Be civil, please.

Also, flag it and move on.


The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
a post about bards again

I think the problem isn't so much that the class can't do what you want so much as your concept for the class is different than other people's concept. You see the bard as a primary caster, we see it as a caster/fighter with a bunch of utility powers.

when we think bard we think this: http://media.photobucket.com/image/bard%2527s%20tale/puppyinpartyhat/the-ba rds-tale-developer-diary-vol-.jpg

or this:
http://images.wikia.com/dndawokenheroes/images/5/52/Half-Elf_Emissary.jpg

where as you're thinking this:
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/__KPDlTyWj3Y/S6q6YVxrQjI/AAAAAAAAAA4/c2xkzZbV6G4/s 1600/bards.jpg

As for your comparison, I don't think that we're asking you to have your sorcerer masquarade as a bard at all, I think we're trying to say the character concept you have is not one that fits with the mechanics of the class you're trying to fill the concept with.

I'm sure you can come up with a good archtype, variant, or whatever to transform the bard into your concept if you work with your GM (or are the GM for that matter). In the end all that matters is if people are having fun, so it's not really a bug up my arse what your preferences are.

Anyway, that's my take on it. Again, not trying to offend.


jonnythm wrote:
I think the problem isn't so much that the class can't do what you want so much as your concept for the class is different than other people's concept. You see the bard as a primary caster, we see it as a caster/fighter with a bunch of utility powers.

I think that is key there as if it is true then you've fully misunderstood my stance entirely, and we're talking past each other.

My concept of it is not a "caster" in the least. It's NOT a magic-wielding class. It's a PERFORMANCE ART wielding class and where we differ is in saying "you can re-fluff magic to mean performing" to pull off what I prefer.

I see it as a Performance/Fighter/Generalist overall would be the best way to put it.

I do not like "caster" applied to the Bard at all.

With the potential that PF let loose with Rogue Talents and Rage Powers, all I keep wanting is to finally get a bard that is 99% fueled by his Performance abilities (as he SHOULD HAVE BEEN since 1e).

That is the extent of my complaint and comments, really.

Question: What class do you not like?
Answer: *I* do not like the bards because they have never fit the mechanics with the fluff together nicely enough to fit *my* standards and expectations.

I'm quite aware of how divergent my own expectations are on that, and I have said so all along. What *I* want to see has never, mechanically, been represented at all. In any edition (not sure about 4th, but I would think 4th would come closest if anything, and I loathe 4th to no end, mind you).

:shrugs:

PF has the potential and layout to pull off what I'd like to see a bard capable of (ie: remove casting and replace it with heavy Performance-based abilities to add variability and depth to the class).

NOTE: I have no problems with the mechanics in place for the Bard class, though, as a Fighter/Mage hybrid. In that sense it's pretty good, however, if Fighter/Mage or Fighter/Caster is what you're after, then the Magus is a better fit for that type of play, and makes the Performance piece of the existing Bard class stand out at odds with the rest by comparison (since the Magus simply does that sort of thing much better).


The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
Roughly: "Bardic performance should be a unique mechanic and cover the entirety of effects bards can produce."

I have to agree here, to be honest. The closest thing that ever came out was the Seeker of the Song prestige class, and that was almost insultingly positioned next to the much more effective Sublime Chord. And, I suppose there's the bard masterpieces, but we all know that any alternative spell abilities must be strictly worse than spells. It's apparently a law of game design that was inherited all the way back from 3rd. I've always wanted a bard that didn't feel like he borrowing everyone else's shtick with some slightly reflavored trappings.

Admittedly, the bard only spells helped, but the recourse to the standard spell format just ruins the whole thing.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Least Favorite Classes (since this is about favorites, I'm talking about personal preference entirely here):
Wizard: Nothing wrong with them, I'm just bored with them and people talking about them all the time.

Alchemist: Their flavor's odd and I don't like seeing them incorporated into standard fantasy campaigns. They work for me for a steampunk setting but otherwise I'm not very interested in them.

Paladin: I like them better in Pathfinder, but they seem limited in scope/flavor to me.

Summoner: A pain to build, and what makes the class shine is a secondary creature, not the character themselves.

Oracle: I really WANT to like this class, as I love the concept, but I don't like a lot of mysteries and there are nowhere near enough curses (yes there are 3pps that have a bunch of curses, but it's always hard to know how well playtested 3pps are at a glance). I was incredibly disappointed that UM didn't have more curses.


Pedantic wrote:
The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
Roughly: "Bardic performance should be a unique mechanic and cover the entirety of effects bards can produce."

I have to agree here, to be honest. The closest thing that ever came out was the Seeker of the Song prestige class, and that was almost insultingly positioned next to the much more effective Sublime Chord. And, I suppose there's the bard masterpieces, but we all know that any alternative spell abilities must be strictly worse than spells. It's apparently a law of game design that was inherited all the way back from 3rd. I've always wanted a bard that didn't feel like he borrowing everyone else's shtick with some slightly reflavored trappings.

Admittedly, the bard only spells helped, but the recourse to the standard spell format just ruins the whole thing.

nothing says they must always remain here. We can even run a pet project through the suggestions/house rules forum to make exactly this. Since the bardic "casting" is being traded off whole sale, why couldn't similar, but pointedly rsstricted to in theme abilities be granted to them instead?

More fitting for a different thread, though.

:shrugs:


The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
Pedantic wrote:
The Speaker in Dreams wrote:
Roughly: "Bardic performance should be a unique mechanic and cover the entirety of effects bards can produce."

I have to agree here, to be honest. The closest thing that ever came out was the Seeker of the Song prestige class, and that was almost insultingly positioned next to the much more effective Sublime Chord. And, I suppose there's the bard masterpieces, but we all know that any alternative spell abilities must be strictly worse than spells. It's apparently a law of game design that was inherited all the way back from 3rd. I've always wanted a bard that didn't feel like he borrowing everyone else's shtick with some slightly reflavored trappings.

Admittedly, the bard only spells helped, but the recourse to the standard spell format just ruins the whole thing.

nothing says they must always remain here. We can even run a pet project through the suggestions/house rules forum to make exactly this. Since the bardic "casting" is being traded off whole sale, why couldn't similar, but pointedly rsstricted to in theme abilities be granted to them instead?

More fitting for a different thread, though.

:shrugs:

When I break down and start my own inevitable pet RPG project, I'll be right there. Meanwhile, I'm holding out vague hope that I'll merely have to pay someone to play the game I want to. :p


Fatespinner wrote:
Hatin' on s%%~...

I don't dislike any class. I would play them all and enjoy the roleplay. That's what we play this game for, right? The roleplay?

Shadow Lodge

I play for the glory and adulation of the crowd.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

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


I have to say I would see televised gaming sessions being a lot more along the lines of televised poker rather than sports.

Shadow Lodge

If it leads to electronic tabletop battlemats, I'm all for it.


TOZ wrote:
If it leads to electronic tabletop battlemats, I'm all for it.

Nonononono.

Holographic battle stadiums. Yugioh style.

Shadow Lodge

I was being conservative.


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.


Please tell me about Evil characters Blackborn.


Most players use an evil character as an excuse to do evil things. Obviously this is not a problem with the alignment itself. Still, evil alignments are easier than LG to play because an evil character can masquerade as good to achieve their ends and suffer no consequences, whereas an LG character cannot commit one evil act without consequences, much less masquerade as another alignment.

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.

251 to 300 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.