I played 3.5e for a few years, mostly in Living Greyhawk and Living Arcanis. I've played Pathfinder for a few months. I must not be terribly intelligent or bright, because I can't figure out how some classes are inherently better than others. Apparently there are only certain classes which, according to some people, are complete wastes of time, and if someone were to want to play one, then these people would just refuse to play with the offender.
I don't get it. How does the rogue suck? How does the monk suck? Why does the paladin suck? I tried looking in the archives and got overloaded. The posts I read didn't cite reasons.
Please, tell me exactly why, in your opinion, these classes are so bad they shouldn't be included in the game -- and how you would fix them. And please, don't limit it to just the paladin, rogue, and monk. If you think any class is subpar, please, give a shout out -- and be sure to tell us how you would fix this inequity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
First Paladins don't suck, they are a beast. I think people hate on rogues because of the Bard archetype Archaeologist can do everything a rogue can, except sneak attack but they get great spells. It really does make rogues a little obsolete. Finally Monks.....hmm how to not start a flame war over this class. I think they are a good class, but they are very MAD. That is a reason many have hate for the class. It is a hard class to min-max, but a fun class to play at the end of the day.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
All classes are sucky in a vacuum...
All classes excel in a vacuum...
No class works well without the support of other classes...
Pathfinder is a co-operative game...
Class inequality is built in, take it away and you have a different game...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
This post does a good job of explaining why monks are bad at melee - they're worse at actually hitting their targets than even a Rogue (without Sneak Attack) or a Bard in melee.
Monks also don't actually fulfill the role the book claims they do. They're supposed to excel at "taking advantage of enemy vulnerabilities", but no class feature lets them do this - on the contrary, they actually are worse at bypassing damage reduction than weapon-users. They're supposed to excel at "aiding allies wherever they are needed most", but again, no monk class feature actually involves aiding allies.
The only thing monks really do are good touch AC and saves, so maybe they're meant to tank - but they have no way of drawing aggro, and with their pitiful offensive abilities, enemies will usually just ignore them.
Basically, they don't have any particular role in the party and are bad at the few things they do.
I've played a monk and it sometimes felt like being a spectator.
All classes are sucky in a vacuum...
All classes excel in a vacuum...
No class works well without the support of other classes...
Pathfinder is a co-operative game...
Class inequality is built in, take it away and you have a different game...
Monks are bad at supporting other classes and are bad even when supported by other classes. This isn't "lolnonspellcasters" - I enjoy Fighters and Barbarians just fine - it's "seriously, the monk doesn't do anything and isn't fun to play".
A lot of people complain about Rogues, but I don't mind being a Rogue because it at least has a specific role to fulfill, I get to have fun with lots of skill points for social and sneaky situations, and I can still contribute to combat by working with my team to get sneak-attacks in. Do I have the DPR of a tricked-out Fighter? No, but I don't need to, because I fill a nice niche and am still competent. Monks don't fill any niche and aren't competent at what they attempt to do; that's not a fundamental aspect of the game, that's just poor design on this class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Its not that you aren't bright or intelligent. Each class has its strengths and weaknesses. With all the game mechanics, it comes down to a matter of personal preference. What makes certain classes seem to be useless in the eyes of some players can be attributed to that, personal preference. On top of that, it also is a matter of optimization. Certain classes like the monk, harder to optimize because they depend on a range of ability scores for maximum optimization. On top of that, they can't wear armor so to some gamers, its a valuable magic item slot which can't be used. On the numbers, their AC bonus from wisdom will not equal something like a set of full plate. There is also the feel of their bab being moderate, unarmed being not powerful enough. However, if you are playing a monk in a campaign which varies the environment, weather and is somewhat like a movie, their strengths come out.
With the rogue, so feel their damage is not good enough and they are fragile(d6 hit die and all). Their attack bonus isn't great etc. Rogues get alot of skills each level but with spellcasters, skills are irrelevant so on and so forth. Defensive abilities like evasion nd uncanny dodge are overlooked.
With the paladin, the class really has trouble against anything with damage reduction but is not of evil alignment. The problem with the paladin is that they have very few smites, defensive abilites like immunity to disease and fear are overlooked because those are minor and insignificant.
The list of so called "useless classes" and reasons for them will run on. The examples I've listed are the 3.5 versions. I've played them and have yet to find any of them useless. There isn't really any tweaking needed to be done for the base classes. They each can be really good at what they do but each has its weakness. My advice would be to continue playing the game.(pathfinder or/and 3.5) What works for you may not work for others. Get a feel of certain classes you find really cool.For example, I have known some gamers who find the 3.5 samurai really cool. Seen them play the class and play it really well. I find the 3.5 ninja class really solid. I played one in a really rough and gritty campaign. It worked out well. DnD is a numbers game but be careful you don't become too over zealous on the numbers and turn it into a tabletop version of world of warcraft.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins are fantastic. They make amazing "tanks" who are still able to dish out a considerable amount of damage against most foes.
Rogues are their skill points. Sneak attack, as a source of consistent damage output, pales in comparison to most other martial classes. Even if your rogue is able to CONSTANTLY get sneak attack, at best you end up staying even with the greatsword-wielding power attacker, but you've got way fewer hit points and (usually) a lower armor class, so you end up getting smashed easier.
The best way (in my opinion) to "fix" rogues would be to do any one of three different things:
1.) Give them full BAB. If they're a martial class, make them martial. Let them get their two-weapon fighting chain as fast as possible and make reliable attack routines.
2.) Upgrade Sneak Attack to d10s, but remove the "flanking" caveat. This makes rogues the master of the ambush. Catch a target off-guard or, better yet, blind him? You shank the CRAP out of them. Rogues shouldn't be about fighting fair, they should be about winning. (Spells like greater invisibility would need to be adapted to prevent this from getting seriously out of hand.)
3.) Give them a lot more survivability. Either by increasing HP, giving a passive armor bonus (like monks), or some innate abilities that just make them less of an easy mark in melee.
Monks are weak because of their multiple ability dependency. I have a very simple fix for monks: Add WIS modifier to unarmed damage. This lets them remove the focus from STR and focus on JUST DEX and WIS. They're never going to outdamage a greatsword-wielding fighter, but a base improvement in their unarmed damage along with their considerable repertoire of combat maneuvers and high defenses lets them fill a useful role in most parties.
Commoners suck.
Also, to the OP: use the Search function and look how such treads end up. This is gonna likely end up as a mash up of Monk Thread and Caster/Martial Disparity, and at the end you won't be feeling well about this.
This. Well, not quite. I like Commoners. As for the rest of it:
@John-Andre: I sent you a PM to give you a heads-up.
Honestly, I dont understand the hate on rogues. The TWF rogue in the group I GM regularly dishes out as much damage as the Greatsword weilding paladin. I'd love to see an Archaeologist do that.
- Gauss
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Honestly, I dont understand the hate on rogues. The rogue in the group I GM regularly dishes out as much damage as the paladin.
Unless the paladin is fighting something with Smite Evil active, this doesn't surprise me at all. Paladins are generally the lowest damage of all the full BAB classes, unless they're fighting an evil outsider, dragon, or undead. Then things can get crazy.
Now, the real question is: When the paladin and rogue flank a monster, who does the monster attack? The heavily armored, self-healing, d10 hit die paladin? Or the soft, dealing-the-same-damage-and-being-a-threat rogue in leather armor with a mediocre armor class and no ability to self-heal?
If the monster is swinging at the paladin, it's obviously stupid and deserves its fate.
In the group I am GMing (level 10):
The rogue has about the same AC the paladin does.
Paladin: plate(+9), +1dex, no shield (Two-handed weapon) = AC20 before armor enhancement, deflection, insight, and natural armor bonuses.
Rogue: mithral chain shirt(+4), +6dex, no shield (two-weapon fighting) = AC20 before armor enhancement, deflection, insight, and natural armor bonuses.
Both have about +2 or +3 enhancement on their respective armors.
Natural Armor is being provided by the cleric (Defense subdomain, Barkskin). Everyone has purchased a pearl of power II and 1/3 of a Rod of Extend (shared item) in order to get 200minutes of +4 Barkskin each.
Both the Rogue and the Paladin have a +1 insight bonus (Ioun Stone).
Both of them have about a +1deflection bonus normally. The rogue can get up to +2 (PFE/PFC) while the paladin can get up to +5 (Smite Evil)
The rogue is small size (+1attack, +1AC) due to Permanent Reduce Person.
So yes, in the end the paladin winds up with a +2 AC bonus over the rogue. However the rogue is far from defenseless.
They are both pushing a 30AC consistently. Since the rogue does not have to be out of position keeping the rogue healthy is not that big a problem.
As for weapons: The paladin has a +3weapon while the rogue has 2 +2weapons (+1 with Agile vs the paladin's +1 with Holy).
The rogue has Gangup and due to that often has flanking bonuses even if nobody else does. Note: The cleric is using a longspear to threaten even if she is not attacking.
Ultimately: The rogue will have about a +7BAB, +1magic, +1size, +6dex, +2flank, +1weapon focus (Dagger), -2TWF = +16/+16/+11/+11
The paladin has about a +10BAB, +1magic, +6str, -3Power Attack = +17/+9(Furious Focus on first attack).
Damage for the rogue is 1d3+1magic+1trait+7dex+5d6sneak attack = 28.5avg or 1d3+1magic+1trait+3offhand+5d6sneak attack = 24.5avg
Damage for the paladin is 2d6+1magic+2d6holy+9str+9power attack = 33average.
Honestly, yes, a fighter can do more damage than a paladin. Yes, the paladin can use Smite evil and bump up that damage A LOT (+5attack, +10damage). Still, the Rogue is far from being a waste of space.
- Gauss
Edit: Sidenote, I am running Council of Thieves.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't get it. How does the rogue suck? How does the monk suck? Why does the paladin suck? I tried looking in the archives and got overloaded. The posts I read didn't cite reasons.
First the rogue: He has two party roles, face and scout. Face is the role of the front man, in the rogues case he has the skills to 'know the right people' on the street, people you can go to in order to sell loot and pick up a few bargains that 'fell off the back of a cart'. The rogue is king in an urban setting. His other role is as scout, he gets ahead of the party, finds and disarms traps, tells them what's coming. In combat he has a nice little ace in the hole, sneak attack.
So why is the rogue weak? Well, the scout role can be done by other classes as well as the rogue - rangers are particularly good at it, so are bards. Bards can do the face role better than anyone. Basically, it's not that the rogue can't do his role, it's that other classes can do it as well. A ranger brings an animal companion to the party, and can fight better than the rogue without needing to flank to do it. A couple of spells can scout ahead as easy as the rogue can and a lot less hazardously.
All that said, a rogue can bring something to the party, and a well-thought-out rogue can be lethal in a fight. 'Fixing' the rogue is a case of improving the rogue talents -fortunately, some of the ninja powers go a long way to doing that.
Second the monk: others have already mentioned this, but the monk's role is basically one he can't do. The monk can scout, but not as well as other classes. He can fight, but not very effectively. He is brilliant defensively but you have to work like crazy to make him effective at doing anything to anyone.
Worse, while other classes can do the rogue's roles as well as the rogue, in the monk's case they can do those things better. You can even make a better unarmed fighter from another combat class than you can from the monk - sad, but true. If you want to fix the monk take a look at this for some ideas, rather than give you a list.
Third, the paladin: The paladin is perhaps the strongest melee class. Smite evil is AWESOME and he can heal too! Seriously, the paladin should be kicking ass and stomping over any evil-aligned creature he bangs into. All you need to run a paladin are two good stats - charisma, and either dexterity (if you TWF or use archery) or strength (for any kind of fighting).
In all honesty, the rogue and the monk are widely considered the weakest classes in the game, while paladin's rock. What's more to the point is how you play the characters, and what they do. Play any class to his strengths, and you are good.
John-Andre: Ultimately Rogues who are specialized in combat require a lot of feats/talents to do the kind of damage that the Martial classes do almost naturally.
The paladin in my group has only a few major combat feats. She really doesn't need that many to really dish it out. (Especially not in CoT.)
Meanwhile, the rogue has to go into a very specific build to even come close to dishing out the same kind of damage. That build is very nearly a single choice build. Oh well. :)
- Gauss
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
Well fighters are sub-par because they have ability to fly, and you can't fight what you can reach.
I played 3.5e for a few years, mostly in Living Greyhawk and Living Arcanis. I've played Pathfinder for a few months. I must not be terribly intelligent or bright, because I can't figure out how some classes are inherently better than others. Apparently there are only certain classes which, according to some people, are complete wastes of time, and if someone were to want to play one, then these people would just refuse to play with the offender.
I don't get it. How does the rogue suck? How does the monk suck? Why does the paladin suck? I tried looking in the archives and got overloaded. The posts I read didn't cite reasons.
Please, tell me exactly why, in your opinion, these classes are so bad they shouldn't be included in the game -- and how you would fix them. And please, don't limit it to just the paladin, rogue, and monk. If you think any class is subpar, please, give a shout out -- and be sure to tell us how you would fix this inequity.
Thought on this a bit, and I'll throw in.
The class is only the beginning, what about your ability scores, your equipment including magic items that may offer generic stat beefs or truly increase your char's potential, what of your feats, your tactics and in what situations will you dominate with your char? Each char is a class and so much more.
Spellcasters are often held to be stronger than non-spellcasters but they want shorter days in dungeons or battlefiels, or they run out of spells (unless playing a 3.5 warlock). A rogue can slit the throat of an unaware spellcaster, if an assassin they force a save vs death. A monk has trouble using flurry and speed, but there are feats for movement, and there is the stealth and high initiative option, stealth up until you can flurry an opponent put them on the back foot! For monks, they can really work the grapple, trip or disarm, which won't always work, but was stronger in 3.5 compared to pathfinder. So the changing of rules also makes some builds weaker.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
Most important thing to remember:
It's a role-playing game. Optimizing can be fun at times, but you should play the class that best embodies the character concept you have in mind, not the strongest class. A lot of us here run the Paizo Adventure Paths, and a lot of us play in regular PFS games. Trust me, nothing I've seen even comes close to requiring a heavily optimized party to get through.
And geez, I never would have thought that the FIGHTer was going to be better at FIGHTing than the rogue. Seriously, I don't even know what you people expect.
Preach it brother Martryn!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A monk has trouble using flurry and speed, but there are feats for movement, and there is the stealth and high initiative option, stealth up until you can flurry an opponent put them on the back foot!
Oh, good, so I can accept that monks suck at doing their thing (whatever it was ever supposed to be), have them try to do a rogue's thing instead (except without any of the rogue's class features like Trapfinding that make them good at what they do), and then still do worse than a rogue at it due to the absence of the Sneak Attack bonus damage that rewards catching enemies flat-footed with stealth in the first place.
If I wanted to play a rogue in the first place, why did I choose to play a monk instead and then try to build it as an inferior rogue? In fact, since anyone with decent dexterity can put points into stealth to sneak up and full-attack with exactly the same effect, this barely has anything to do with the monk class at all.
Most important thing to remember:
It's a role-playing game. Optimizing can be fun at times, but you should play the class that best embodies the character concept you have in mind, not the strongest class. A lot of us here run the Paizo Adventure Paths, and a lot of us play in regular PFS games. Trust me, nothing I've seen even comes close to requiring a heavily optimized party to get through.
Oh, I never had any trouble getting through as a monk. Monks are good at not dying if a TPK isn't happening. I was excellent at standing there during combat while my allies who could actually do damage mopped the enemies up, and standing there out of combat while my allies with skills like Diplomacy moved us forward toward the next combat. Getting through was never an issue. Actually contributing to the party was.
The main point against´the paladin is his Code of Conduct, which many see as "The Paladin must FALL!! MWAHAHAHAHA!!!", as well as the stereotype of "Paladins are all strict fanatical bigots!".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
No class sucks. It is the players ability to build the character that causes them to be lack luster.
Monks yes they require a lot of work. That work can be accomplished before level 5-6 based on the campaign. Now Magic Items are harder to use on the Monk, but again there are simple solutions. Albeit a good GM can go along way when it comes to the weapon issue.
One bonus the monks have as well the increasing unarmed damage. They can run, stealth, dance, or whatever else they want to do up to the enemy and punch them for a lot more damage than most Manufactured weapons! No need for the foe to be flat-footed. The monk's abilities might seem like a mix and match of unrelated abilities on paper as does the Bard. When in the hands of someone who knows what to do and when they become powerful. Though bards are easier to use.
They can run, stealth, dance, or whatever else they want to do up to the enemy and punch them for a lot more damage than most Manufactured weapons!
Technically, this is true. Statistically, most manufactured weapons int he game world aren't even Masterwork, let alone magically enhanced in any way.
They can run, stealth, dance, or whatever else they want to do up to the enemy and punch them for a lot more damage than most Manufactured weapons!Technically, this is true. Statistically, most manufactured weapons int he game world aren't even Masterwork, let alone magically enhanced in any way.
I am willing to admit though monks are hard as hell to make powerful at levels higher than 10. Though I have found that Suli if available mitigate some of the problems. Brass knuckles and dual cestus work well when made magical. Also a Monk with a Magical Temple Sword shouldn't be shrugged off either. Though using handwraps like the ones in DDO works as well (priced as a club, uses the wielder's unarmed damage and requires 1 minute to remove and another minute to put on).
of course the last one is a houserule.
|
My main irritation with the monk is the class features that just don't really gel. It's a class that's immensely focused on Full Attacks and on moving around a lot, but with no way to combine those two. Barbarians eventually get Pounce, monks really feel the lack of it.
Abundant Step is a Move Action, so you can't actually use it to set up Flurry. There's the Dimensional Agility chain of feats, but it's extremely hard to get into as a monk, because you get Abundant Step too late to buy it efficiently with feats. The easiest way to get is it probably to take a level of Wizard(Conjurer(Teleportation)) in order to qualify earlier for Dimensional Agility and start on that path. That's pretty nasty.
It's not that monks are so weak they're unplayable, but it's just really IRRITATING that the class abilities seem almost to contradict each other.
That said, there are circumstances for the monk to shine. Difficult environments where speed matters, armor penalty hurts and so forth, is where the not-burdened monk does a nice job. Also, in areas where you get frisked a lot. Cities with no clear lines of sight are also doable.
And there's the archetypes. Some of them really make the monk work; Sohei is particularly impressive. It's a serious contender for best mounted-theme classes.
---
Rogues: it's simple. Other classes have been poaching the rogue's abilities (Vivisectionist, Archaeologist), and while other classes powered up in PF, the rogue stayed mostly the same.
A rogue may be useful and valuable in a campaign where sneaking, scouting, spying, diplomacy, intrigue and all are important. But they're not so much better at it than the competitor/poacher classes. So you can enjoy doing it as a rogue, but if you picked another class suited to the job, you'd get more.
---
Paladins: I think the central frustrations are about "what does the paladin code have to say about that" and "if it Detects Evil, should/can/must I kill it?" "Why doesn't Detect Evil detect all evil?"
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
A clever monk drinks poison in the middle of combat, thus bringing Diamond Body into play when it would otherwise not help.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins I feel it is more of most people play them as the Overzealous Idiots... and most GMs ignore it and move on which annoys the other players.
Monks it is more of they move into position with a quick strike then follow up with the full assault. I will also agree the archetypes really shine for a Monk.
Rogues... well Rogues absolutely are a class that is like a Monk.
Rogues and Monks are meant for Optimization they are meant for fun. The Monk is meant to fulfill that childhood Martial Artist dream people had/have and the Rogue is meant to be the skilled ne'er-do-well/street rat that a lot of fantasy novel characters fall into. Or even the Bilbo Baggins style characters.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
A clever monk drinks poison in the middle of combat, thus bringing Diamond Body into play when it would otherwise not help.
You would be surprised... I have an entire dungeon module made that is filled with poisons. Literally, one enemy out of a level 15 dungeon doesn't have poison. It has a disease.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
People seem to forget that the monk is almost automatically the best at two-weapon fighting. He doesn't have to waste anything on feats, doesn't need a high dex, and doesn't even need to have weapons out to do it.
Oh, I never had any trouble getting through as a monk. Monks are good at not dying if a TPK isn't happening. I was excellent at standing there during combat while my allies who could actually do damage mopped the enemies up, and standing there out of combat while my allies with skills like Diplomacy moved us forward toward the next combat. Getting through was never an issue. Actually contributing to the party was.
You, apparently, just aren't good at building characters. If your tactics in battle were to stand in one place moping because you couldn't figure out how to handle everything the monk is capable of, no wonder you weren't doing damage.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
If you don't know, don't go looking.
If it doesn't come up in your game, it isn't a problem.
but they have no way of drawing aggro
Seriously, go play WoW or something... this does it for me, I'm outta here...
People seem to forget that the monk is almost automatically the best at two-weapon fighting. He doesn't have to waste anything on feats, doesn't need a high dex, and doesn't even need to have weapons out to do it.
You know I have made over 20 monks of varying types... but I never thought to make a TWF focused Monk... I hardly ever even thought of Flurry of Blows til you mentioned this.
@LazarX: I agree wholeheartedly to your assessment. Luckily my players all learned that ability.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I played 3.5e for a few years, mostly in Living Greyhawk and Living Arcanis. I've played Pathfinder for a few months. I must not be terribly intelligent or bright, because I can't figure out how some classes are inherently better than others. Apparently there are only certain classes which, according to some people, are complete wastes of time, and if someone were to want to play one, then these people would just refuse to play with the offender.
I don't get it. How does the rogue suck? How does the monk suck? Why does the paladin suck? I tried looking in the archives and got overloaded. The posts I read didn't cite reasons.
Please, tell me exactly why, in your opinion, these classes are so bad they shouldn't be included in the game -- and how you would fix them. And please, don't limit it to just the paladin, rogue, and monk. If you think any class is subpar, please, give a shout out -- and be sure to tell us how you would fix this inequity.
It is all a matter of opinion. I don't think any characters are "broken" or sucky. They all have their +'s and -'s. I love playing each of them. What some consider "broken" is only because they don't meet what they want to do with their character, so you know what, don't play that character.
People want "balance" well then only have one character type who can do everything - oh wait, that's a single player video game.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Paladins: I think the central frustrations are about "what does the paladin code have to say about that" and "if it Detects Evil, should/can/must I kill it?" "Why doesn't Detect Evil detect all evil?"
Anyone playing a paladin should consider picking up Faiths of Purity. Really goes into the different way to play paladins of different deities.
Paladins of Torag are capable of lying and torturing if it protects "his people". They don't accept surrender, and are cool with "scattering the families" of their enemies. Paladins of Shelyn, on the other hand, almost always accept surrenders. Paladins of Sarenrae don't fight fair when the fight isn't fair, while paladins of Iomedae "suffer death before dishonor".
Really some helpful insights to prevent people from playing lawful stupid.
Classes don't suck. It's messageboards that suck if you're going to set your gaming compass by them. As they're generally populated by the vocal or cranky set of the gaming population.
...
I resemble that remark.
A monk has trouble using flurry and speed, but there are feats for movement, and there is the stealth and high initiative option, stealth up until you can flurry an opponent put them on the back foot!Oh, good, so I can accept that monks suck at doing their thing (whatever it was ever supposed to be), have them try to do a rogue's thing instead (except without any of the rogue's class features like Trapfinding that make them good at what they do), and then still do worse than a rogue at it due to the absence of the Sneak Attack bonus damage that rewards catching enemies flat-footed with stealth in the first place.
If I wanted to play a rogue in the first place, why did I choose to play a monk instead and then try to build it as an inferior rogue? In fact, since anyone with decent dexterity can put points into stealth to sneak up and full-attack with exactly the same effect, this barely has anything to do with the monk class at all.
Oh, I never had any trouble getting through as a monk. Monks are good at not dying if a TPK isn't happening. I was excellent at standing there during combat while my allies who could actually do damage mopped the enemies up, and standing there out of combat while my allies with skills like Diplomacy moved us forward toward the next combat. Getting through was never an issue. Actually contributing to the party was.Most important thing to remember:
It's a role-playing game. Optimizing can be fun at times, but you should play the class that best embodies the character concept you have in mind, not the strongest class. A lot of us here run the Paizo Adventure Paths, and a lot of us play in regular PFS games. Trust me, nothing I've seen even comes close to requiring a heavily optimized party to get through.
Yes, but the rogue doesn't have the same resistances as the monk, and going a monk doesn't preclude a stealth build. Combine them if you want, it doesn't have to be either or.
Monks are also good at escaping if a tpk is in the works. Those saves, that speed, the pathfinder ki abilities like the ac boost, yeah, monks can have great survivability, but aren't so good at taking greatswords to the head in a face to face battle.
Sometimes a class seems sub-par... but maybe you(or I) just misunderstood its role in the party...
Take the Oracle for Example... We were playing last year in a Kingmaker Campaign and the Party needed a Cleric... but I decided to try an Oracle..
I picked a Dwarf (the Dwarf was Originally a Cleric of Gorum... Dwarves get +2 to WIS + COn... -2 to CHR)..
now Oracles primary stat is CHR... but its ok... I still had a 13 in CHR... but I needed STR,CON and I did the BATTLE ORACLE (makes sense for the Gorum Diety)..
I didn't have to worry about memorizing Spells... but I only had like 6 different Spells to choose from...
My first combat I get leveled drained twice by a Wight-Carn or some undead crap... and I cannot Heal burst the party (they are mad).. and my spell selection meant I did not take the 2nd level Lesser Restoration..
I love Playing Dwarven Clerics... but Dwarven Oracles?.. My first Oracle experience might seem sub-par.. but its biased because I had a badluck first try with them..
No class can beat me...I'm Invisible Fog!
Classes don't suck. It's messageboards that suck if you're going to set your gaming compass by them. As they're generally populated by the vocal or cranky set of the gaming population.
You'll find that the classes that "suck" according to the message boards are the one's that can't be played idiot fashion. Monks and Rogues share that quality. A fighter just has to go up and hit things, a wizard can cast his cookie cutter spells from anywhere, but the monk and rogue actually have to think on their feet constantly to bring their assets into play. Many players don't have or develop this ability, so for them, these classes. "suck".
And so they come to the boards here, let things like fighter DPR numbers go into their heads, and vent their frustrations out on crusades and threads on things on "how this and this sucks".
These two classes don't suck. But it does take more player effort to realize their potential. That's not a fault of the class, it's an aspect of the roles they play.
I agree with you, especially about the DPR obsession and the dislike of thinking on your feet, the challenge of needing to be adaptable. Instead wanting to making it a massive numbers game where what has the highest numbers is best, and what doesn't is weak/broken/sucky/wrong.
A clever monk drinks poison in the middle of combat, thus bringing Diamond Body into play when it would otherwise not help.
In a poison heavy setting like dungeons, underground, against poison using lizardfolk/goblin tribes or Sargava and the Mwangi expanse, poison immunity can be brilliant. Seen rogues and spellcasters fall to poison, but a pure monk at the level for that ability? Nope.
Don't oracles get Cure or Inflict spells added to their list of spells known for free?
Dwarven oracles tend to suffer at lower levels especially with a point buy. Though a lot of Race/Class combos are like that. Such as the Halfling 2-Handed Barbarian(or even Fighter)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
My big problem with rogue is the poor quality of the rogue talents. Lots of them are once per day when the ability they grant just isn't that good anyway. The only reason seems to be so that spellcasters are always more useful - it's like the designers intentionally decided that rogue talents would never be as useful as a spell that could be gained at the same level.
There are certainly some useful ones, but a good chunk of them are so situational or useless as to be kinda insulting. Take Master of Disguise, for example:
Master of Disguise (Ex)Prerequisite: Advanced talents
Benefit: Once per day, a rogue with this talent gains a +10 bonus on a single Disguise check.
This is a class ability that rogues get at 10th+, when caster classes are getting game-changing 5th level spells like Teleport and Overland Flight. Rogues get... a +10 to Disguise rolls. Once per day. A spellcaster got Disguise Self nine levels ago! At 1st level! And the bonus to Disguise is only a side effect of that spell.
The other issue with the rogue is that skills are easier to be good at in Pathfinder. It's only a +3 difference between a class skill and a cross-class skill. That's significant at 1st, but decreases in importance pretty quickly. This makes rogues less important because skills are what they're supposed to be good at (along with being sneak-attack glass cannons, which I'm fine with).
Honestly, I dont understand the hate on rogues. The TWF rogue in the group I GM regularly dishes out as much damage as the Greatsword weilding paladin. I'd love to see an Archaeologist do that.
- Gauss
Totally agree. Usually the rogue has always flourished in most games I have Ran/Played in. Honestly they had a much worse time in 3.5 when Undead couldn't be crit(SA).
As for the rest of the classes:
Paladin is a beast as others have said. Horrid in 3.5. Awsomesausce in PF.
Fighter was also improved. It's a great class now. It has some crazy good Archetypes now.
Rogue is and always has been fine imo.
Monk has issues. Very MAD. Item Starved. Hit issues. Half the class is based on mobility while you have to stand still to do the main class feature... Flurry. The devs have stated they are going to "fix" the class at some point so that alone tells you it needs a bit something.
Ranger is great. Whether you are a Switch hitter or a straight archer the ranger has plenty of options.
Cleric wasn't changed much other then the Channel, which I like. It only gets medium armor proficiency and there is no Divine Metamagic anymore so I suppose it was nerfed. Over all though its the same class from 3.5.
Wizard was nerfed somewhat simply because there are less spells, and less prestige class options. But a wizard is strong either way.
Sorceror is about the same as the wizard exept they added the wonderful bloodlines. Very flavourful imo.
Barbarian is improved like the paladin and Fighter. Rages are now measured in rounds instead of uses per day, so its easier to keep a reserve of Rage for hard fights without wasting rage on easier fights. Add in the Rage powers and you have a very nice class.
Bard I never really played much, but I have heard it is slightly nerfed. My Eyeball test though sayes not much has changed and there are some very cool looking archetypes.
As for the classes added since then.
Witch - About on par with a Wizard
Magus - Pretty powerful hybrid Wizard/Fighter.
Summoner - Probably a bit Overpowered.
Alchemist - Same as Summoner
Gunslinger - Same as Summoner
Ninja - A better Rogue.
Samurai - Meh
Cavalier - Meh
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The problem with the alignment system was revealed to me in another thread on the Advice Messageboards.
People think the Alignment Descriptions are set in stone AND most people look at them from a Modern day Christianized view. They feel if you are X then you must act Y.
Like most people view slavery as wrong. Yet historically it was accepted Worldwide until America changed. Most people think Murder should be punished severely regardless of the reasons, but to do that every soldier in the army would have to be punished.
To a Christian I might seem CE, to someone close to me I might seem NG, to a stranger I barely met I might seem LN.
It all is a matter of perspective.
Now then I will step off my soapbox now and get back on topic.
Monks: I agree with the pounce thing.
Rogues & Paladins: is a PIPNIC (Problem In Player Not In Class) problem.
Clerics can still use Metamagic feats IIRC.
You forgot Druid.
Wizards don't have as many spells or PrCs. Ut they now get School Powers and no longer completely lose their opposed schools.
|
|
When I said that paladin alignment was a problem, what I meant was that the constant arguing about it is a drawback to the class. If you and the GM can agree on how the paladin's alignment works, then you're fine. So that's why I think the paladin is an okay class, it just needs an adult talk now and then.
I wonder, if you change the Monk so that you can Flurry as a Standard Action (so never as a Charge), wouldn't that solve most problems? All the mobility powers suddenly work, even Abundant Step, but the feel is way different than a barbarian.