What classes could your campaign do without?


Homebrew and House Rules

51 to 100 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>

2 people marked this as a favorite.

I banned ninja and samurai, both for the same two reasons: I detest "fanboi" crap, and there's really no need for either class to have ever even been written. They already both existed in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook: Rogue and Fighter. Simply put, they were pandering and extraneous. I am currently banning guns and the Gunslinger class, not because I don't like them, but because Paizo totally screwed the pooch when executing both. (Super Genius, on the other hand, is in the process of nailing gun rules with expert proficiency in their Anachronistic Adventurers series. Once their rules are fully-formed, I will be using those, rather than the train-wreck that is the Paizo rule-set.)

I have carefully read the rules for Synthesist Summoner, then I read the threads concerning the class, and I honestly cannot understand what's so confusing about its mechanics. Seems pretty straight-forward to me. That's not to say the IDEA isn't kind of silly...it is, but the mechanics are sound enough. It MIGHT be possible to make the case that a Master Summoner is over-powered (depending on the campaign, really...I tend to run tough-ass games, so my players tend to welcome the help), but the only reason for a Master Summoner to be slowing down game-play is if its player isn't doing his homework. If you have a player who wants to run an MS, make sure he's got his creatures statted out before hand, and make sure it's a player who understands combat, movement, actions, etc...in other words, the only people who should not be allowed to play an MS are novice players. The archetype really shouldn't be a problem for experienced players or DM's.

Dark Archive

I'd probably only ban the Gunslinger (although I might allow it if the touch attack rule changed to a 'flat-footed, but can't be used to sneak attack, due to the poor accuracy of primitive firearms' rule, if someone really wanted to give it a shot) and the Synthesist Summoner (because A) the rules skeer me, and B) it feels thematically arse-backwards, like a Binder turned inside out, with the channeled outsider worn on the outside, instead of bound on the inside, making it feel less 'magical' and more 'gamist,' if that makes any sense to anyone not me).


Greatbear wrote:

Now that we have 20-odd classes from Paizo plus dozens from 3rd party publishers, it seems to me that not every class is needed for every campaign. What classes don't fit in your campaign?

For example, I'm building a campaign world with a wild west theme. Firearms are common and advanced (revolvers, rifles, and shotguns). This has a number of implications for many of the classes.

Take the fighter. In our real world, armor was obsolete long before the late 19th century. While my campaign is not based on actual history, the prevalence of guns does make armor less advantageous. Armor training is therefore, not as useful class ability for what is already widely regarded as a weak class. Thus, in my campaign, the fighter will probably be dropped with the gunslinger taking over its role.

The next one is the cleric. Everyone has an opinion on this class. Put me among those that dislike like it. The druid, inquisitor, and oracle are, in my opinion, far more interesting for the role of priest-type characters.

So those are probably out. On the fence are the paladin and cavalier. Obviously, cavalry has a role in a western-themed campaign, but I'll probably have to emphasize archetypes that are less dependent on heavy armor.

Also on the fence are the Asian-themed classes (monk, ninja, and samurai). Most people probably don't think about ninjas in the west, but perhaps they could be "exotic" classes brought from people who migrated from a land that is more Eastern in flavor, much like many Chinese immigrants came to the US to work on the railroad.

So, what about your campaigns? Have you looked at any classes and thought, "This just doesn't fit"?

I ban some classes, alchemist, summoner and inquisitor. Since I run low magic games, I keep the magic classes relatively simple and try to avoid op classes that get too much.


ohako wrote:

I'm running a campaign right now using Core, the APG, and Varisia: Birthplace of Legends (which I don't think anybody has looked at)

so, classes excluded

summoner (too mechanically obnoxious for my group)
magus (with the exception of the kapenia dancer, weirdly)
gunslinger (although eventually I'm going to have a 'what magic items are for sale in town program, and if I roll a magic gun, meh I'll roll with with)
ninja
samurai

1-3, good choices for exclusion.


5 people marked this as a favorite.
Greatbear wrote:
I think Lemmy does have a point, though. Lots of people don't like the summoner. Is not liking the mechanics of a class enough reason to exclude it?

The feeling I get is that people ban the Summoner because...

1. The player makes an Eidolon which is in error and out performs everything.

2. The player hasn't got the forethought to actually print/prep his summons and spends 20 minutes flicking through books scribbling down what they do slowing up play.

None of which is a problem with the class or mechanics


Mage Evolving wrote:

While I love playing them. I think the monk could go bye-bye.

"If we only had a monk we wouldn't be in this situation" Said no gamer ever.

Having to fight unarmed and unarmored, Wizard, Cleric, etc couldn't prepare and the spontaneous casters spell known lists are full of useless things?

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Haladir wrote:


2) I don't like the flavor of the alchemist class. I think an alchemist should be primarily an NPC class that spends most of his-or-her time in a lab. I don't see the alchemist as somebody throwing bombs or always playing "Dr Jekyll / Mr. Hyde".

3) I really don't like the summoner class at all. It's far too complicated, and bogs down the game. Plus, the flavor is wrong for my world.

2) I think you can blame the movies "Van Helsing" and "League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" for the alchemist.

3) It's a valid point, most worlds got along just fine without the Summoner and it can be a good deal of hassle to adjudicate.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Elbe-el wrote:

I banned ninja and samurai, both for the same two reasons: I detest "fanboi" crap, and there's really no need for either class to have ever even been written. They already both existed in the Pathfinder Core Rulebook: Rogue and Fighter. Simply put, they were pandering and extraneous. I am currently banning guns and the Gunslinger class, not because I don't like them, but because Paizo totally screwed the pooch when executing both. (Super Genius, on the other hand, is in the process of nailing gun rules with expert proficiency in their Anachronistic Adventurers series. Once their rules are fully-formed, I will be using those, rather than the train-wreck that is the Paizo rule-set.)

The "Fanboi" thing sounded a bit childish IMHO.

And what is the problem with Gunslinger? Guns are vs Touch AC? This is accurate on real guns, they made armors useless for centuries.


I don't know why people keep complaining that the (standard) summoner bogs down the game. Wouldn't a druid or ranger with a pet slow things down just as much? I don't hear about those classes getting banned for slowing things down...


Matrix Dragon wrote:
I don't know why people keep complaining that the (standard) summoner bogs down the game. Wouldn't a druid or ranger with a pet slow things down just as much? I don't hear about those classes getting banned for slowing things down...

Animal Companions and Familiars come pre-stated, eidolons don't and can change almost completely every levels, etc...

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Matrix Dragon wrote:
I don't know why people keep complaining that the (standard) summoner bogs down the game. Wouldn't a druid or ranger with a pet slow things down just as much? I don't hear about those classes getting banned for slowing things down...

The issue with summoners is that they are one of the classes that needs going over with a fine tooth comb... repeatedly. Frequently with illegal eidolon builds. And not all worlds are appropriate dishes for the ersatz flavor that summoners bring to the game.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Belle Mythix wrote:


And what is the problem with Gunslinger? Guns are vs Touch AC? This is accurate on real guns, they made armors useless for centuries.

Some people like the whole knight in shining armor, magic sword thing. Gunpowder is just starting down the path to the grimy realities of real combat. Sort of antithetical to the whole "magic" bit, imo of course. And mechanically, having a class built around a system allowing you to bypass one of the major features in the game (armor) as a matter of course is a bad idea.


R_Chance wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:


And what is the problem with Gunslinger? Guns are vs Touch AC? This is accurate on real guns, they made armors useless for centuries.
Some people like the whole knight in shining armor, magic sword thing. Gunpowder is just starting down the path to the grimy realities of real combat. Sort of antithetical to the whole "magic" bit, imo of course. And mechanically, having a class built around a system allowing you to bypass one of the major features in the game (armor) as a matter of course is a bad idea.

yeah, the gods forbid someone step on the Wizard toes, and guns, bullets and powders are free.


Slightly off topic, but I would love to try a campaign where the players can only select from the four iconic base classes but are challenged to fluff them into what ever they wanted to play. It would be interesting to me to see what they would come up with.

Anyway, back to your conversation...

Sczarni

Our group tends to be full of people who found one class they liked years ago and hesitate to play anything else. Banning classes has never been necessary.

The only class I would outright ban is the alchemist. We've all played with the guy who just loves to throw around fire spells and doesn't care if his AOE takes out an ally. Alchemist gets "kill your ally in the splash damage" at level 1 as a class ability, and a bonus on it equal to his primary casting stat. Never mind that his "spellcasting" is basically four pages of exceptions to the rules for normal prepared spellcasters despite working almost exactly like them in practice.


I take classes out depending on the world I am running.
I don't like limiting my players too much, mainly I do it to fit the fluff, crunch can always be worked around.


Belle Mythix wrote:


R_Chance wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:


And what is the problem with Gunslinger? Guns are vs Touch AC? This is accurate on real guns, they made armors useless for centuries.

Some people like the whole knight in shining armor, magic sword thing. Gunpowder is just starting down the path to the grimy realities of real combat. Sort of antithetical to the whole "magic" bit, imo of course. And mechanically, having a class built around a system allowing you to bypass one of the major features in the game (armor) as a matter of course is a bad idea.

yeah, the gods forbid someone step on the Wizard toes, and guns, bullets and powders are free.

It's not about the cost of ammo, although at 1 gp a bullet, plus powder, I don't see it breaking the bank. It's about a new weapon and the class designed to use it that renders one of the pillars of the game (armor) useless. And of course those PCs are so dirt poor they can't afford guns or ammo... wait WBL... yeah. The guns do more to Fighters than to casters in any event. If anybodies toes are stepped on they're probably wearing armor. I guess that's good.

Then there is the intrusion of something as mundane as guns / gunpowder into a fantasy game. Next up grenades, petards, mortars, cannons. My pseudo-medieval magical battlefield just changed. Some settings that's fine, others not so much. If I was doing a pirate themed setting or old west or Three Musketeers I'd love firearms. I think a 30 Years War (H. Beam Piper's Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen comes to mind) with magic might be interesting. Really. If I was doing that, the Gunslinger class would be pretty much standard and Fighters would be carrying pikes or halberds and dumping heavier armor. But, I'm not doing that. I have a 40 year old homebrew fantasy setting that doesn't include gunpowder. And I'd like my Fighters armor to be useful against weapons.

So, in the end it's about setting. I think mixing firearms into a setting in which armored Fighters are a standard is a mistake.


R_Chance wrote:


It's not about the cost of ammo, although at 1 gp a bullet, plus powder, I don't see it breaking the bank. It's about a new weapon and the class designed to use it that renders one of the pillars of the game (armor) useless. And of course those PCs are so dirt poor they can't afford guns or ammo... wait WBL... yeah. The guns do more to Fighters than to casters in any event. If anybodies toes are stepped on they're probably wearing armor. I guess that's good.

Then there is the intrusion of something as mundane as guns / gunpowder into a fantasy game. Next up grenades, petards, mortars, cannons. My pseudo-medieval magical battlefield just changed. Some settings that's fine, others not so much. If I was doing a pirate themed setting or old west or Three Musketeers I'd love firearms. I think a 30 Years War (H. Beam Piper's Lord Kalvan of Otherwhen comes to mind) with magic might be interesting. Really. If I was doing that, the Gunslinger class would be pretty much standard and Fighters would be carrying pikes or halberds and dumping heavier armor. But, I'm not doing that. I have a 40 year old homebrew fantasy setting that doesn't include gunpowder. And I'd like my Fighters armor to be useful against weapons.

So, in the end it's about setting. I think mixing firearms into a setting in which armored Fighters...

Make sense, I just wish people would stop screaming "Gunslingers break realism" when there are magical stuff going around, but it can break the setting (that is something else)...


Belle Mythix wrote:


Make sense, I just wish people would stop screaming "Gunslingers break realism" when there are magical stuff going around, but it can break the setting (that is something else)...

More like it breaks fantasy, or at least classic swords and spells type fantasy. That leaves a lot of other types, but I wouldn't include it with the "traditional" fantasy. And, personally I think the Gunslinger pushes the Fighter further back on the bus...


R_Chance wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:


Make sense, I just wish people would stop screaming "Gunslingers break realism" when there are magical stuff going around, but it can break the setting (that is something else)...
More like it breaks fantasy, or at least classic swords and spells type fantasy. That leaves a lot of other types, but I wouldn't include it with the "traditional" fantasy. And, personally I think the Gunslinger pushes the Fighter further back on the bus...

That's more due to how people see the Fighter...

People would raise more eyebrows at a lvl 20 Fighter chokeslaming a medium dragon than they would at a level 10 wizard one-shoting a great-wyrm.

Liberty's Edge

2 people marked this as a favorite.

Personally, I love the alchemist. Mad scientist characters are tons of fun.


Belle Mythix wrote:


That's more due to how people see the Fighter...

People would raise more eyebrows at a lvl 20 Fighter chokeslaming a medium dragon than they would at a level 10 wizard one-shoting a great-wyrm.

True. But Fighters are the "Batman" of the Pathfinder universe. Wizards are "Superman". Everyone expects Superman to do the impossible. Batman just does the extraordinarily difficult. Making Batman, imo, the greater hero :)

Dark Archive

Gunslingers and Summoners for mechanical reasons.
Maybe rogues, considering how bad they are in the niche they are supposed to fill.


Gunslingers are out because I don't have the book.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

I created my homebrew world to accommodate for the existence of the core classes, so it would be hard to do without them since I worked to make sure they'd all fit in.

When the base classes were released, I had to think about whether they fit in with the world or not or whether I would allow them.

Cavalier is easy. There are code bound people who ride horses in my world--in fact, there's a nation that really prides itself on its cavalry so the addition of that class actually filled a niche that was to a degree missing.

The spellcasters and special gimmick/weapon classes are harder. Inquisitors work well--I needed some sneaky or skill based priests and they fit fine.

I don't allow gunslingers simply because firearms don't exist in my world -- the chemical reaction gunpowder makes just doesn't work; I want to focus on a world where magic is the major destructive force for mass damage, and that's all there is to it. I don't allow alchemists for a similar reason; while their abilities are more fluffable to something else, I don't like the bomb mechanic, which is unfortunately key to the class (at least its standard version, not sure about how all the archetypes work). There are "alchemists" in my world in the sense of people who sit in their workshops and brew alchemist's fire and antitoxin, but not a volatile form of alchemy that competes with magic -- again want to focus on a world where magic etc etc etc. On a mechanical level, I also don't like how alchemists compete with bards and rogues.

Oracles are hard because I actually like the idea of the class, but many of the mysteries really don't suit my pantheon, and I want all divine power in my world sourced by my pantheon. Or rather, some mysteries suit some gods but often it's like -- 6 mysteries suit one god, none suit another, etc. So it's either homebrew mysteries which takes a lot of work. So I'm inclined to leave them out unless their mechanics would really suit a very specific PC or NPC concept. Also, there's another matter of -- if I've got clerics, druids, and then also inquisitors, paladins, rangers, how many damn divine casters do I need? Divinely gifted servants of the gods are rare, and while I like the class again, I don't like having a billion options for what are supposed to be a very very small percentage of the population.

With witches and summoners and magi, the dilemma of "how many casters do I need" also again comes into play. Arcane magic is not uncommon, but how many ways do I need to have people be able to use it (in addition to wizards, sorcerers, and bards being default)? Witches with their patrons also stymie me how to work that into my world--not sure how that would work in my world's paradigm. I've thought about using them though for NPCs/savage races; where civilized races train their mages in magic academies (wizards), "savages" have traditions of hedge magic which could result in a different way of casting (witches). So not sure on that one--and not sure if could convince players, well it's okay for NPCs to have this class but not you. Would have to be all or nothing.

Summoners--conjuration and planar travel itself are unusual, so I don't like the idea of people walking around just pulling out their best friend from another plane whenever they like (that and the mechanics are a bloody nightmare to keep straight, so I pretty much don't use the class on that alone).

Magi honestly would probably fit at least if I worked at it, but I just don't personally like the mechanics. I'd started writing up my own warrior-caster to fit the particular flavor of my world and if I wanted that kind of character in the world I'd probably test out the homebrewed class than use magi.

Sczarni

Goth Guru wrote:
Gunslingers are out because I don't have the book.

Same here. All we've got is the Core and the APG, so no Gunslingers, no Magi, no Ninjas.

But not playing a class because you don't have the book it's in is a whole different scenario than having the book and still banning the class.

Grand Lodge

R_Chance wrote:

I'd like my Fighters armor to be useful against weapons.

So, in the end it's about setting. I think mixing firearms into a setting in which armored Fighters are a standard is a mistake.

If one were inclined to add firearms into a game and still wanted armor to be viable, one could always use the "Armor as Damage Reduction" rule...

I'm not saying you specifically R_Chance, because (as you know) I am aware of the specifics of your setting. I'm just tossing this out there for those that may want an option that allows for the use of firearms yet still retains the usefulness and viability of armor at the same time...


My homebrew campaign has a few verboten classes; most significant is the wizard, since the PCs are rebels in an empire where arcane magic is strictly controlled, so none of them would have access to spellbooks.

This choice was partly motivated by my growing frustration with wizards. They're fine mechanically, but at higher levels their sheer volume of spells becomes awkward for players to manage. I've had players record, memorize, and cast spells...and only then bother to look up their specific details. They can't keep track of the range, duration, etc. of all the spells they're flinging around, so it falls to the GM (me) to look it all up.

I expect the same would go for magus and summoner, but no one in my campaigns ever expressed any interest in playing them.

(Oh yeah, paladins are also out, but that's more a matter of campaign world flavour (standard dark-and-gritty).)


Gunslingers, Samurai, Ninja, Godlings, and Dragon Riders.


i would prefer that players have access to the class they desire to play, on the condition that everything is approved on a case by case basis, that i see a reason for the character to be involved in the adventure, and that the player come up with a wishlist of desired endgame items for that character not counting the big 6.


Summoners: becuase the mechanics is too convoluted to worry about them.

Gunslinger: I do not like they ignore normal armor but i could allow them if the player have a good character concept.


Nicos wrote:
Gunslinger: I do not like they ignore normal armor but i could allow them if the player have a good character concept.

I only really find them OP if you're allowing advanced firearms... Cause 20 ft range on touch attacks with a d8 x4 with a 5% chance of breaking/exploding in their face isn't too powerful even with all the tricks they can do.

Summoners though, while I don't disallow them but I do recommend my players stay away from them. Mostly cause we aren't super PF/3.X edition savy and I think that in general summoners require more work than a traditional player can handle. If one thinks he can take on such an class though... That's on them.


I've been tempted, from time to time, to make a campaign around the following classes:

Fighter
Barbarian
Ranger
Rogue
Inquisitor
Sorcerer
Witch

In a world where permanent item crafting is damned rare, and usually involves human sacrifice. No expendable magic items other than potions exist..and only Witches get that ability as a class effect.

Spellcasting where anyone can see you starts with 'people running away' and usually ends with "Hordes of villagers want to impale you."

I might even use the E6 subset of rules for it.


summoners I can gladly play without.

And everything else that takes longer as usual to play. (strongly dependant on the player of course)

p.s. and every single prestige class, either I have to know way in advance to make a single player quest, or there is no "prestige" in it.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

AdAstraGames wrote:

I've been tempted, from time to time, to make a campaign around the following classes:

Fighter
Barbarian
Ranger
Rogue
Inquisitor
Sorcerer
Witch

In a world where permanent item crafting is damned rare, and usually involves human sacrifice. No expendable magic items other than potions exist..and only Witches get that ability as a class effect.

That could be interesting.

On the topic of designing a campaign around classes, I've wanted to design a low magic steampunk game (with a zombie apocalypse in it to boot) that would use fighter, barbarian, cavalier, ranger (skirmisher or trapper), rogue, inquisitor, alchemist, gunslinger, monk, and maybe bard.


Belle Mythix wrote:
R_Chance wrote:
Belle Mythix wrote:


And what is the problem with Gunslinger? Guns are vs Touch AC? This is accurate on real guns, they made armors useless for centuries.
Some people like the whole knight in shining armor, magic sword thing. Gunpowder is just starting down the path to the grimy realities of real combat. Sort of antithetical to the whole "magic" bit, imo of course. And mechanically, having a class built around a system allowing you to bypass one of the major features in the game (armor) as a matter of course is a bad idea.
yeah, the gods forbid someone step on the Wizard toes, and guns, bullets and powders are free.

Guns are not being introduced into the real world. Add protection from arrows as a feature on some armors and bucklers and munchkins will drop it. With the protection regenerating daily, and the high demand, it should be expensive.

Silver Crusade

Whatever people choose not to play in my run, they will have to make do withouth.


On armour and bullets going through them like paper, needing only to "touch".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proofing_%28armour%29


First things first, understand who owns the campaign...everything else will fall into place.

As ever,
ACE


A friend wants to buy the book with the Ninja in it. What's it called?

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

Goth Guru wrote:
A friend wants to buy the book with the Ninja in it. What's it called?

Ultimate Combat.

And here's the Ninja writeup for your reference.


I actually like all classes, potential balance issues not withstanding, (since i tend to play with players with only a loose grip on the rules, and on how to optimize a build, balance isn't much of an issue anyway).
The ones i would dismiss soonest are alchemist and gunslinger but only in a lower-tech campaign that hasn't seen the extensive use of weaponized alchemy or any guns at all.

I once ran a short dinosaur age campaign (which accordingly had all the core races completely replaced with dinosaur-time themed homebrew races) in which I disallowed several classes which were indicative of a too far advanced civilization, to fit into the setting: gunslinger, wizard, alchemist, magus and even clerics.


I could do without the ninja, samurai and pretty much all the archetypes.

Except the Skirnir, they're pretty cool.


wraithstrike wrote:
A class is just a bag of mechanics you choose from to build a concept so every class is useful. You can always change the flavor for how a class works.

This. Others in the thread have echoed these sentiments, and I would like to as well.

The only real reason to ban a class is bad mechanics... and if you have a vision in mind, sometimes it only takes a moment or two to make those work.

My group rarely, if ever, plays clerics. Nobody cares for them. It doesn't make them banned. We also had a member play a ninja in a fantasy European only setting. How? you might ask... He was just a rogue with a killer for hire theme. It fit right in with some of the ongoing intrigue.


While I'm okay using all of them, I've definitely thought that the number could be trimmed dramatically.

I've thought about going with all spontaneous casters (sorcerers and oracles and bards) and limit practiced casters to NPCs. It creates a dramatically different feel for a campaign when all casters are born to their magic rather than the product of study or intense prayer. The core problem being the need to revise some of the classes like paladins that have spell prep as part of the class abilities.

I rarely use Cavaliers that much simply because mounts tend to be a major pain in the ass, I have no real problems with gunslingers beyond them being mechanically poor.

Rogue has a lot of mechanical issues but backstabbing the ninja and taking some of it's stuff kinda gives them a new lease on life.


theacemu wrote:
First things first, understand who owns the campaign...everything else will fall into place.

So who's supposed to own the campaign? There are different (and equally valid) views on that subject, the most common being that "everyone" own the campaign (or "no one", depending if you like your glass half-full or half-empty), and I'm not sure how this helps other than suggesting a consensus on the campaign and material used.

I do believe that it is the DM's responsibility to propose a campaign theme and ruleset (which may or may not include housrules or limited access to core and accessories) - be it DM's preference or players' request - and make sure that everyone is on board with it.


I'm not fond of Gunsligners for thematic reasons and typically don't use Asian aesthetics and concepts, but I have nothing against Ninja and Samurai per se.

I'm also not a fan of Inquisitors, Summoners and Alchemist for thematic and mechanical reasons. I would likely not post them as "available" classes in the campaign, but probably wouldn't refuse a player from playing one (as a one-of-a-kind concept).

More often than not, I'll suggest a theme restricting available PC classes to about half or three quarters of those in core and supplements, but should a player suggest a "prohibited" class while respecting the theme, I wouldn't object.

Sometimes options and diversity is the way to go, some other times, a strong game focus can give better results.


Laurefindel wrote:
Sometimes options and diversity is the way to go, some other times, a strong game focus can give better results.

Agreed, 100%. One of the best campaigns, if not the best campaign I ever ran (according to my players) was an all drow game with emphasis on house intrigue (internal and external).

I've had good results with both diverse and focused campaigns.


Greatbear wrote:

Now that we have 20-odd classes from Paizo plus dozens from 3rd party publishers, it seems to me that not every class is needed for every campaign. What classes don't fit in your campaign?

For example, I'm building a campaign world with a wild west theme. Firearms are common and advanced (revolvers, rifles, and shotguns). This has a number of implications for many of the classes.

Take the fighter. In our real world, armor was obsolete long before the late 19th century. While my campaign is not based on actual history, the prevalence of guns does make armor less advantageous. Armor training is therefore, not as useful class ability for what is already widely regarded as a weak class. Thus, in my campaign, the fighter will probably be dropped with the gunslinger taking over its role.

The next one is the cleric. Everyone has an opinion on this class. Put me among those that dislike like it. The druid, inquisitor, and oracle are, in my opinion, far more interesting for the role of priest-type characters.

So those are probably out. On the fence are the paladin and cavalier. Obviously, cavalry has a role in a western-themed campaign, but I'll probably have to emphasize archetypes that are less dependent on heavy armor.

Also on the fence are the Asian-themed classes (monk, ninja, and samurai). Most people probably don't think about ninjas in the west, but perhaps they could be "exotic" classes brought from people who migrated from a land that is more Eastern in flavor, much like many Chinese immigrants came to the US to work on the railroad.

So, what about your campaigns? Have you looked at any classes and thought, "This just doesn't fit"?

I disagree with the idea that any fantasy setting must somehow have analogues of places in the world. I.E. that there must be analogues of the Middle- and Far East on Golarion, and that they are also to the east (and southeast) of the Inner Sea. I dislike in principle the cultural flavor of the Samurai and Ninja classes, but I would not be bothered by a player who wanted to play one of these classes as a character that fit the flavor of the setting--that is, without trying to roleplay that your character hails from some distant and exotic culture and has to stick out like a sore thumb among the locals.

Of course, players will most enjoy what campaign settings that mimic what is familiar and what will seem nostalgic, so this trend of copycatting the real world will probably continue.

In my opinion, the best approach to dealing with classes you don't like or may not fit in your game is to recognize them for what they are: they are just bags of special powers that help define how a character approaches the task of dealing with life's problems and bad situations, whether it's as a ranger, alchemist, paladin, gunslinger, barbarian, professional assassin (ninja), martial artist (monk), or soldier of honor (samurai).

Two good examples of having cultural trappings stripped away are the Bard and Druid classes. The real-world origins of these character concepts don't really matter and may not be found in your average D&D-derived campaign setting except in the vaguest of ways (professional storytellers, worshippers of nature). I also hated that all Barbarians formerly had to begin play as illiterates; this was also cultural assumptions bleeding into the game where it didn't need to be. I am glad to see that Pathfinder fixed that.

So the only real concern you should have is whether a class's mechanical design is at odds with the flavor of the game setting you are trying to create (e.g. gunslingers in a bronze-age setting, or paladins & anti-paladins in a game explicitly lacking an alignment system).


Pathfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Adventure Path Subscriber

Gunslinger and Summoners, because I think their mechanics suck.

I am also uncomfortable with the questions the Gunslinger raises. If this technology spreads, will Golarion still be recognizable in a hundred years? Think about how our world has changed in the last three hundred years.

And the Summoner's amorphous cthulhoid eidolons make me for some reason deeply uncomfortable.

51 to 100 of 167 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / Homebrew and House Rules / What classes could your campaign do without? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.