Biggest Complaints about Base Classes

[The Leaping Gnome]

Out of curiosity, what are your biggest complaints about the base classes?

I've always found rogues underpowered, but I think Cheapy offered a more viable option than sneak attack:

Cheapy's Sneak Attack Replacement

I've seen a number of threads talking about "fixing" monks or fighters as well, and was wondering what people thought was "wrong" with these classes.

I'd also be interested to see people's least favorite classes and why (fluff and/or crunch).

[Marthian]

I don't see anything wrong with any of the classes

My opinion:

Alchemists can be pretty nasty.

Barbarians smash stuff up good

Bards are more support-based, and have AWESOME buffs

Cavaliers get a lot of cool things. And actually use Teamwork feats.

Clerics are a party's best friend

Druids can be nasty with spells, wildshape, and animal companions

Fighters get so many feats, and can also consistently do lots of damage.

Gunslingers can do lots of damage, and don't (shouldn't) leave your GM upset due to range (The archer's 500 feet away, the gunslinger is generally. Right. There. 20 feet. Away.)

Inquisitors are those awesome monster hunters (from what I can tell.)

Magi (Maguses, whatever) are not only cool concept-wise, but they hurt... And I mean it. Also, I don't see them as glass cannons, my Dervish Dancing Magus beats the living snot out of enemies with or without spells (I love you, keen scimitar.)

Monks practically get TWF for free, get nice damage with their fists, fast movement, and built right, even has better AC than his armored pals.

Ninjas are cool concept wise, can be made for a variety of tasks, and also are pretty scary if you can't see them and they do Invisible Blade (Something's stabbing me, and I don't know what!)

Oracles are awesome too with their various abilities, and the curses make for interesting gameplay and RP.

Paladins can smite for lots, keep healing themselves, and have spells. Seems to be rather hard to kill later levels.

Rangers are pretty good (although I never heard complaints about Rangers.)

Rogues, if done right, can be VERY lethal (or very Non-lethal, you silly sap you.)

Samurais are cool as well, what with their challenges and access to nasty Asian weapons.

Sorcerers get all kinds of cool stuff (also Dragon Disciple is nice.)

Summoners can do so much stuff I'm not even sure where to start...

Witches... As someone else said, who else gets to throw up swarms, then proceed to laugh about it? And subsequently benefit from laughing about it? Hexes are AWESOME!

Wizards, well... They do everything.

[Atarlost]

An invitation to pick nits? Why thank you!

Spoiler:

Alchemists: Mutagens should be strictly optional. They only make sense for the madboy alchemist. The classical alchemist isn't about self transmutation. Druid and Ranger pets are optional now and I think mutagen should be similar.

Barbarians: I hate almost everything about their fluff. I hate the supernatural power creep on one of only four traditionally extraordinary PC classes.

Bards: Nothing really wrong with bards.

Cavalier: Fear of squeezing penalties really hurts this class. I'd pull out the charging bonuses for something useful whether on foot or on hoof so it doesn't feel like you're losing half your class abilities when you go underground. The alternate class gives up what most draws me to the Cavalier.

Clerics: Still too close to a must have for next day condition removal. Not terribly exciting either. An encounter with eg. ability drain that's recoverable with a Cleric can be an expedition ender without. If the encounter is built to need a cleric and you don't have one you're screwed if anyone fails a save against a permanent effect. If it's not the cleric didn't need to be playing a cleric.

Druids: Doesn't quite substitute for a cleric because of delayed access to some important spells. Like restoration.

Fighters: Close. Very gear hungry though.

Gunslingers: Close. If only that wonderful grit mechanic weren't tied exclusively to firearms it would be a potential generalist rather than a charge range archery specialist.

Inquisitors: I haven't studied the spell list in enough depth to have an opinion.

Magi: This is not the gish I was looking for. Too much focus on touch range spells with scimitars.

Monks: I'm not going t rehash the monk. Suffice to say it's at odds with itself at a design level and hamstrung by gear dependency even worse than the fighter.

Oracles: Cute. Has to pay spells known to get status fixers and is a level behind Clerics.

Paladins: The honor code. It pushes people towards lawful stupid play and is an invitation to the GM to screw you over. The alternate class is worse, though. The only alignment worse than lawful stupid is chaotic stupid.

Rangers: Nothing wrong with Rangers

Rogues: They exist to solve a problem that in turn exists to give full employment to rogues. They're also traditionally seen as a license to play chaotic neutral as chaotic evil. The alternate class doesn't even do a rogue's job anymore.

Sorcerers: They're punished three ways for not wanting to put up with antiquated vancian casting. They get delayed access, terribly limited spells known, and have slow metamagic. And their casting stat sucks. It wouldn't be so bad to be charisma based if they had enough base skill points to make use of it. If the wizard isn't too powerful to allow in the game the Sorcerer is just being gratuitously punished for having a player that doesn't like the Dying Earth concept of magic.

Summoners: Complicated eidolon rules, overpowered summon monster SLA, one archetype gets to cheat on point buy... Just say cheese.

Witches: All eggs in one basket spell storage. If you have a nice GM that's not an issue. If you don't you're hosed. Hexes are great, but don't make up for losing your spells to area of effect damage because they're in a creature not an object that only risks damage if you fumble your reflex roll. Gygax forbid you go up against enemies that know and are willing to exploit your weakness.

Wizards: They do everything. In a social game that's not a good thing.

[The Leaping Gnome]

@ Marthian:

I agree with you for the most part, but people still complain about classes (some classes more than others).

I disagree about clerics being the party's best friend. They're nice to have around in case you're dealing with outsiders or undead, and sure they are the best healers in the game (aside from maybe a life oracle), but healing takes actions and isn't really a decent combat option unless you are desperate. Personally, I think bards are the party's best friend; they make everyone else better, and in a pinch they can fill any roll that needs filling.

I also understand some of the complaints I've heard about monks; they have a ton of mobility based special abilities, but their main special attack (flurry of blows) forces them to stand still. If I recall correctly, there is an archetype (or two) addresses these issues.

Rogues still need a lot of fine-tuning to be lethal; it takes very specific builds to get near the fighter in damage output, which (I think) was supposed to be their thing in 3.5. So I understand complaints about them.

The inquisitor is the only other class I have much issue with. I personally hate teamwork feats; each one is basically half a feat for the price of one, as they are useless if someone else doesn't drop a feat on them, they usually need specific conditions to be used, and the effects tend to be less than amazing. The solo tactics ability might shore up some of these weaknesses, but the flavor is all wrong; "I work alone; so could you stand over there and help me flank that enemy? No, just stand there. That's good, thanks." I think a ranger's weapon style feats would be more appropriate for the inquisitor. Once again, there is an archetype (or two) that offers a option(s) to replace these.

I suppose that I should also mention that I hate the flavor of the bard. I love the class, but the fluff is just so poofy. A lot of people view bards as a joke and I don't blame them; singing/dancing/playing music in the middle of combat is just so... lame.

[Gorbacz]

Monks are too powerful.
Wizards are too weak.

;-)

[The Leaping Gnome]

How so, Gorbacz?

[Tiny Coffee Golem]

Gorbacz wrote:

Monks are too powerful.

;-)

**SLAP**

[Gorbacz]

Sorry :P

[Cheapy]

The Leaping Gnome wrote:

I suppose that I should also mention that I hate the flavor of the bard. I love the class, but the fluff is just so poofy. A lot of people view bards as a joke and I don't blame them; singing/dancing/playing music in the middle of combat is just so... lame.

You're thinking of the 3.5 bard. The PF bard is only singy/dancy/playing-musicy if he wants to be. Distraction, Countersong, and Versatile Performance are the only things about the bard that do anything with the Perform skill.

[Thomas LeBlanc]

I feel combat and weapon proficiencies are too standard across the classes. I like how the bard, cleric, druid, monk, rogue, and wizard mix it up a bit and don't just have boring simple or martial proficiencies.

Why is an inquisitor or ranger not proficient with a lasso, mancatcher, or net to capture their prey/target? I feel adding a martial or exotic weapon could serve to spice up a few of the classes. I like how certain races count exotic weapons as martial.

EDIT: I also hate summoners!

[The Leaping Gnome]

How do you explain all the other bardic performances then, Cheapy? Distraction, countersong, etc. may be the only ones that specify you make Perform checks, but the Core Rulebook says:

Bardic Performance wrote:

A bard is trained to use the Perform skill to create magical effects on those around him, including himself if desired.

I did play a half-orc bard once that I claimed was a war-chanter. I gave him Perform (chanting) just to escape the goofy singing connotations. It made him feel more "dark-culty" as well, which was fun.

[The Leaping Gnome]

Thomas LeBlanc wrote:

EDIT: I also hate summoners!

Haha, I don't hate summoners, but they do suffer from some serious design issues.