Rogue, fighter, monk all bore me to death and I find them lacking. Straight martials that don't get nice things are boring and I'm not a fan of it.
Clerics of anything but the ideal kill me on the inside to play. I also think the complete lack of class features beyond channel and domains is boring. Spells are great, but channel and domains are boring and aren't very modular.
Inquisitors I dislike because 3/4 BAB and fake full BAB for a frontliner is awful to me, and I think their teamwork feats are meh.
Gunslinger makes me feel like a one trick pony.
Paladin's I'd never play RAW, that code is awful and I've never had a DM who won't go out of their way to make life hard when all I want is a casual weekend.
Cavalier and Samurai I think have the wrong focus in life.
Ranger bores me but its not lacking quiet as much. RAW I hate the limited list of pets.
I hate the oracle fluff and how awful most of the revelations can be. The entry fee of a broken leg or blindness is also a big no.
So basically you only like humans, and only because you haven't made up some silly stereotype you think you HAVE to play for them yet?Races i will never touch
Halfling; Elijah Wood's Whining Ruined both Frodo from the LotR movies and the entire flipper movie for me. leaving halflings with a bad taste in my mouth.
Gnome; are they tinker dwarves? are they fairies? are they comedical? i don't know, but their humour makes no sense in most campaigns, most of it being based on such modern concepts as sports (Gnome Punting), Compensation issues, gibberish, or being defeated by a midget with obnoxious rainbow hair.
Dwarf; Short, Stocky, Bearded, Scottish Accent, Really Bad Axe Puns, even worse Beard Puns, always has the Surname "Axebeard", always has an Axe for every occasion
Goblin; essentially a bad episode of Looney Toons
Half Orc/Orc; giant green skinned man in a loin cloth with a giant axe is the standard. it has been a steriotype for over 3 decades that won't go. i like my Onispawn or Angelkin barbarian a lot better.
Elf; remember that prissy useless blonde who keeps complsining about her aching feet? that is an elf. tall, scrawny, blonde, and so easy to kill they they might as well be useless if the DM doesn't coddle them. the best way to play them is as OMG, spoiled brats who depend on others to help them because they cannot contribute on their own. tieflings make far better wizards due to the increase in survivability and utility. a prehensile tail for scroll grabbing far outweighs +2 to concentration.
the races i like better than humans are
Sylph
Oread
Aasimaar (Including Blood of Angels Variants)
Tiefling (Including Blood of Fiends Variants)
Fetchling
Suli
Ifrit
Undine
Samsaran
Changeling
Nagaji
Elans (Dreamscarred Psionics Race)
Karasu Tengu
Humans of specific ethnicities
if allowed to played monsters
i'd rush straight to the Advanced Vampiric Nymph.
Half Orc/Orc; giant green skinned man in a loin cloth with a giant axe is the standard. it has been a steriotype for over 3 decades that won't go. i like my Onispawn or Angelkin barbarian a lot better.
Unless the GM restricts the races to the core rulebook (as mine has)
http://i144.photobucket.com/albums/r188/buddahcjcc/Cohen_zps02910917.jpg
My barbarian, Half-Orc, Armored Hulk, full plate. At least I know Im not a stereotype lol
now, that might make me consider playing a half orc.
Jigoku Shoujo gave me the urge to play a witch and i made the elf more palletable through an Enma Ai reskin makeover.
Yeah but that still doesn't answer my question really.
Why are you saying "I dislike all these races because of my own made up fluff for them"?
And yeah, I'm pretty sure most people would like to have the Advanced and Vampire templates too.
For me, the only reason stereotypes exist is for me to urinate all over 'em. On those very rare occasions I play a core race (The tolkien 4 and their spinoffs), I intentionally tweak the stereotypes, and sometimes just ignore it completely.
Yeah but that still doesn't answer my question really.
Why are you saying "I dislike all these races because of my own made up fluff for them"?
And yeah, I'm pretty sure most people would like to have the Advanced and Vampire templates too.
i'd only do it in a CR10+ monster game.
i dislike them because of frequent steriotypes i witnessed and pieced together among frequent use by other players of my groups, multiple groups to be exact, and preconcieved notions derived from movies, and DMs using bad interpretations of the setting books.
for example, i had a guy named Aaron whose elves were all vain and useless blondes and all his gnomes made bad puns. when he played a goblin, it was like watching looney toons the way he disrupted the party
halflings i disliked because of Elijah Wood playing Frodo from the LotR movie, i would have been more willing to play a halfling if we had a better actor play Frodo and not make him so whiny and useless. he could at least contribute enough to earn his keep, and i mean more than wearing a ring on a chain and having to be saved. so it's Elijah Wood i dislike more than halflings, but every time i read the halfling stats, that actor is imprinted on my mind.
i cannot touch a gnome, elf, or goblin without a heavy amount of reskinning and rewriting the words on the sheet because those 3 races remind me so badly of the repeated imprint of Aaron's antagonistic roleplay
Dwarves, are mostly cosmetic, dale doesn't do a bad job of an Axebeard, but other Axebeards i witnessed, had taken the scottish accent and the use of scottish words up to 11. sounding like Sean Connery. but i don't personally like playing short, stocky, muscular people with long and thick beards. especially since i like to RP a bunch of Moe blobs and dwarves fail at that.
I, personally, think each of the classes have a particular niche they each fill very well. Both in terms of fluff and crunch. The only one I don't fully get is the Witch, but I don't really like debuff classes as much.
Also, I find that anything other than the core races, tieflings, aasimir, and suli are unfit for PCs in a standard campaign. They seem way too snowflake to me and are really only good for notable NPCs.
Regarding stereotypes and cliches. It has almost gotten to the point where the stereotype is to avoid stereotype to the point that all attempts to "re-imagine" the races and classes seems half-baked or contrived. At best we see an interesting take on a race or class, and at worst we see a "fite da powah, yo" mentality that looks juvenile.
If we're talking races, I won't play "ugly" races or furry races. Human is fine. Half-elf is fine. Popular depictions of elves are kind of horsey to me, but I could tolerate one if I could change that. There's no way I'd ever be one of the little races either, including Dwarf.
I guess I'd be anything that looks pretty much human (most of the planetouched types, like Undines and Aasimars or even Merfolk), plus I'd play Tiefling chicks since they basically look like Draenei.
I, personally, think each of the classes have a particular niche they each fill very well. Both in terms of fluff and crunch. The only one I don't fully get is the Witch, but I don't really like debuff classes as much.
Also, I find that anything other than the core races, tieflings, aasimir, and suli are unfit for PCs in a standard campaign. They seem way too snowflake to me and are really only good for notable NPCs.
Regarding stereotypes and cliches. It has almost gotten to the point where the stereotype is to avoid stereotype to the point that all attempts to "re-imagine" the races and classes seems half-baked or contrived. At best we see an interesting take on a race or class, and at worst we see a "fite da powah, yo" mentality that looks juvenile.
the following races i consider no more Snowflaky than a Half Elf or s Half Orc due to their ability to pass off as human derived from being a mostly human crossbreed.
Aasimaar
Tiefling
Fetchling
Suli
Undine
Ifrit
Sylph
Oread.
all 8 of these races are no more exotic than a half elf or half orc. they can be turned into snowflakes by means of using their planar heritage as the base, but if you use the humanoid base, the worst you get is an odd eyecolor or haircolor. there is no rule saying Ifrits have to have horns, that Undines have to be blue, nor that Oreads have to be made of stone.
other races that can pass of as human enough are
Dhampir
Samsaran
Changeling
these 11 races don't have to be any more snowflaky than a half elf are half orc, unless you totally play up the descriptions given by the concept art which are heavily based on their nonhuman heritage. if you focus on the human genes being dominant, which makes sense since the genes could be buried in seemingly normal humans for generations. a more human appearance would fit these races.
the freakish Oread, Ifrit, Undine, Sylph, and Fetchling descriptions given in bestiary 2 and the advanced race guide would be more fitting for the appropriate half elemental than an odd human mutation.
Lawful good paladin. I invariably slide into a self-centered, materialistic sod---but only with paladins. I can play a lawful good monk or a lawful good eldritch knight (operating under a paladin-style code of conduct, no less) without missing a beat.
Barbarian. I can only do uncouth and surly for a limited amount of time. My manners invariably assert themselves.
Alchemist, gunslinger, magus: don't know enough about how they work.
Summoner: too much book-keeping (and I tend to avoid summoning creatures with other caster types for that same reason).
If we're talking races, I won't play "ugly" races or furry races. Human is fine. Half-elf is fine. Popular depictions of elves are kind of horsey to me, but I could tolerate one if I could change that. There's no way I'd ever be one of the little races either, including Dwarf.
I guess I'd be anything that looks pretty much human (most of the planetouched types, like Undines and Aasimars or even Merfolk), plus I'd play Tiefling chicks since they basically look like Draenei.
all 8 of the planetouched types look human, unless you use descriptions or alternate features that betray their human appearance.
Samsaran, Changelings, and Dhampirs also look human.
Bard - I dont want to be OK at everything. A little focus is good imo. The class just doesn't shine at anything I would be interested in.
Cavalier - Seems to be a poor mans Paladin. Also too mount dependent imo.
Samurai - The class is just meh.
Gunslinger - Cheesy and doesn't fit into my personal view of fantasy unless its heavy Steampunk.
Non-casters, basically. Even a quarter-caster like the Paladin is stretching it.
If we're talking races, I won't play "ugly" races or furry races. Human is fine. Half-elf is fine. Popular depictions of elves are kind of horsey to me, but I could tolerate one if I could change that. There's no way I'd ever be one of the little races either, including Dwarf.
I guess I'd be anything that looks pretty much human (most of the planetouched types, like Undines and Aasimars or even Merfolk), plus I'd play Tiefling chicks since they basically look like Draenei.
all 8 of the planetouched types look human, unless you use descriptions or alternate features that betray their human appearance.
Samsaran, Changelings, and Dhampirs also look human.
Yep, and I'd be fine with them. I think the art for Tieflings is a bit more extreme, generally involving horns and hooves and tails--they even have prehensile tails as a feat. I actually like that and am ok with it, but they're definitely not portrayed as just a palette swap human the way, say, Aasimar typically are.
Every picture I found of Ifrits or Oreads had fire/rock hair. Pass. Meanwhile, Sylphs and Undines were just pretty people, so they're good. I can't even tell Suli's aren't people, so that's another plus. I actively like the Samsaran's appearance, and Changelings look good, I just don't love the hag backstory Pathfinder gave them.
Dhampyrs are fine looking, but, vampires--eh. I'm really picky.
I had usually played rogues, monks, and combat focused partial casters. I could make them pretty hardcore at doing a couple things, but now I've found the joy of full casting classes and I doubt I'll ever go back.
eh. I'm really picky.
Could be worse, personally, I only play humans. I've done assimar twice(for story reasons), and I've done goliath's an edition ago, but I just don't like playing anything but Humans. I've always thought its a weird taste in a fantasy game.
If we're talking races, I won't play "ugly" races or furry races. Human is fine. Half-elf is fine. Popular depictions of elves are kind of horsey to me, but I could tolerate one if I could change that. There's no way I'd ever be one of the little races either, including Dwarf.
I guess I'd be anything that looks pretty much human (most of the planetouched types, like Undines and Aasimars or even Merfolk), plus I'd play Tiefling chicks since they basically look like Draenei.
all 8 of the planetouched types look human, unless you use descriptions or alternate features that betray their human appearance.
Samsaran, Changelings, and Dhampirs also look human.
Yep, and I'd be fine with them. I think the art for Tieflings is a bit more extreme, generally involving horns and hooves and tails--they even have prehensile tails as a feat. I actually like that and am ok with it, but they're definitely not portrayed as just a palette swap human the way, say, Aasimar typically are.
Every picture I found of Ifrits or Oreads had fire/rock hair. Pass. Meanwhile, Sylphs and Undines were just pretty people, so they're good. I can't even tell Suli's aren't people, so that's another plus. I actively like the Samsaran's appearance, and Changelings look good, I just don't love the hag backstory Pathfinder gave them.
Dhampyrs are fine looking, but, vampires--eh. I'm really picky.
the Tieflings, Ifrits, Fetchlings, and Oreads in paizo's images, are the ones with a stronger extraplanar heritage. but one with a stronger human heritage, you wouldn't be able to tell from a sylph, undine, or aasimaar.
i remember for a short time, playing a fetchling that looked not too different from a little half elf girl with mostly human features. but she was a fetchling with human, nymph, and celestial heritages.
i also remember playing an Ifrit you couldn't really tell from a human, maybe mistaken for a changeling, she was a fair skinned blonde with one blue eye and one hazel eye
and i remember playing a male oread whom had skin pale as limestome, long hair green as jade, and eyes purple as amethyst. he was a bishonen who wore breastplate over a robe and carried a massive stone sword.
the most abnormal i played a tiefling, was a small framed red haired girl with human features with miniature bat-wings protruding from her back that she bound beneath her shirt with a bandeau and a long and slender yet sharp tipped and prehensile tail that she concealed beneath a long skirt. unless her skirt was intentionally lifted or she were stripped nude, she could pass herself off as human. she had no horns nor hooves. having a human head/cranial structure and human feet.
I think I probably would play every class given the time. But I do not really like druids, gunslingers, casting rangers and bards.
Druids: I do not like the nature fluff.
Gunslingers: I dispise the gun mechanic in PF.
Castingbards: I would prefer an archetypes that replaces the spellcasting.Bards....
I know to cast spells cause I am really smart and spend a lot of years studying it - said the wizard
The magic of my ancestors run through my veins - said the sorcerer
I am the mortal vessel of my deity´s power - said the cleric.
I know how to use magic cause... I sing /dance /speak really well...
The bard class is solid mechanically, the fluff is terrible though, IMHO.
it's not that a bard's magic is because they know how to sing and dance really well.
a bard's magic is closer to a sorcerers in a sense.
by years of perfecting their desired performances, that training, gave them a magical spark, akin to that of a sorcerous bloodline. at first, their performances blurred the line slightly, granting supernatural inspiration, they then learned to work this inspiration into a series of related mental effects. through the magic of the stage, they mastered illusion, going from con artist to proper magician, through mastering puppetry, they learned to pull the strings of the human mind, through the power of wordplay, dance, or lyrics, they learned to inspire their allies to work harder.
in a sense, they are theater sorcerers.
Sounds cooler and more magical than "Sorcerers can use magic because their momma f##*ed a <Fill in the blank>".
Will likely never play
- Gunslinger: I don't mind guns in fantasy here and there but I can't stand paizo's gun mechanics
- Ranger: favored enemy is unacceptably situational and I don't like them getting spells
- Samurai: if I want to play a samurai he won't be tied to a mount
May play eventually but not a first choice
- Summoner: not a fan of pet based classes and this is the most pet based of pet based classes
- Oracle: every time I try to make one I just end up making a cleric *shrug*
- Inquisitor: ditto. I get it, divine skill monkey. I even like that it exists but I can just never get into it.
- Bard: the fluff is full on bad.
All the other base classes I'll happily give a go.
- Torger
You are saying what I basically said. "bard can use magic cause they spend alot of time practicing how to sing/dance/speak".I think I probably would play every class given the time. But I do not really like druids, gunslingers, casting rangers and bards.
Druids: I do not like the nature fluff.
Gunslingers: I dispise the gun mechanic in PF.
Castingbards: I would prefer an archetypes that replaces the spellcasting.Bards....
I know to cast spells cause I am really smart and spend a lot of years studying it - said the wizard
The magic of my ancestors run through my veins - said the sorcerer
I am the mortal vessel of my deity´s power - said the cleric.
I know how to use magic cause... I sing /dance /speak really well...
The bard class is solid mechanically, the fluff is terrible though, IMHO.
it's not that a bard's magic is because they know how to sing and dance really well.
a bard's magic is closer to a sorcerers in a sense.
by years of perfecting their desired performances, that training, gave them a magical spark, akin to that of a sorcerous bloodline. at first, their performances blurred the line slightly, granting supernatural inspiration, they then learned to work this inspiration into a series of related mental effects. through the magic of the stage, they mastered illusion, going from con artist to proper magician, through mastering puppetry, they learned to pull the strings of the human mind, through the power of wordplay, dance, or lyrics, they learned to inspire their allies to work harder.
in a sense, they are theater sorcerers.
it is no more ridiculous than learning magic by means of reading books and solving complex math problems.
it is the art counterpart to the wizard's science.
Well, to be fair, fluff is mutable. I'd have no problems saying my bard or sorcerer learned his spells out of a book ... he just learned a different technique than the wizardly 'fire and forget'. And we must also remember that Oratory is a perform skill, so instead of singing or dancing, you can give inspiring speeches and motivational pep talks.
there should be a full BAB class that trains so highly in all forms of martial weapon based combat that it gains at will supernatural powers in combat keyed off it's physical attributes.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
That's what the Fighter SHOULD be. Or at least have really cool EX powers.
But alas...
That's what the Fighter SHOULD be. Or at least have really cool EX powers.
But alas...
that is my point.
I'm not fond of classes with pets myself. (Rangers, Druids, etc.)
I do like playing summon-focused Wizards/ Clerics, but I'm not so hot on the Summoner. I adore the Master Summoner archetype as a concept (shifting focus from the eidolon to the summoned creatures) but I really wish it dropped the eidolon entirely instead of gimping it to the point that I'll never summon it anyway.
When I play a class with a pet, it feels like I'm playing one and a half characters. The pet isn't a full character, it's a class feature like spells or weapon training. However, since it's a living thing, you have to treat it well- no using it to "detect traps" by running into them. At least, I never did that. Not to mention having to choose whether to equip it or not. And if your pet dies yes it's a good opportunity for poignant character development, but at the same time the mechanics allow you to spawn a new one after just one day.
I don't really use Leadership either (because I don't want to be stereotyped as a munchkin) but I do prefer the way it is handled. Your cohort(s) and followers are NPCs. The GM picks them, chooses how they act, chooses whether they stay or leave if you piss them off.
Its a shame, because I'd really like the Magus if there was a spontaneous casting variant. Same with the Druid.
I don't know if anyone has mentioned these, but if your GM is OK with a bit of non-Paizo in the game, then you should look at Super Genius Game's Cabalist archetype for the Magus and the old D&D Spontaneous Casting Variant Rules for the Druid.
I'm the same as other people - I have trouble coping with non-Spontaneous casters. I have played a Cleric, but that was before the Oracle. I tended to keep the same spell list and not switch it up when we needed something a bit different. I actually quite like several Wizard archetypes, so I'm a bit sad at that, but...
Other than that I tend to play anything and everything. I'm quite happy to re-flavour things at a pinch. But I tend to play a lot of third party stuff. Honestly, the character I'm most likely to play is one you've probably never heard of...and now I sound like the hipster of roleplaying. Thank goodness for the swearing filter, or I'd be cussing like a sailor.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Races I wouldn't play...
I'm not fond of dwarves. Nothing against them, I just don't want to play one. Otherwise, anything goes, and the stereotypes can go out of the window!
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Cavalier/Samurai is the one class I don't care about. Any material made for them is just page filler for me. They are boring, pointless and, from whzt I have seen, considerably underpowered.
I love the concept of Fighters: the badass normal. The guy who prevails through discipline and bravery alone. But, as cool as its supposed concept is, its mechanics are terrible, and they end up having very few options. In combat, all they do is full-attack round after round, because other options become ineffective sooner or later, and out of combat... well, they just suck.
As as much as I love the idea behind the class, Fighters are too boring and too limited, IMO. So I won't e playing one of them without a few houserules...
Last but not least, Rogues. Like Fighters, they have a cool concept, but nothing unique and very few in-combat options. I'll play a Monk before I play a Rogue. Besides, they are too easily replaced and most of their Rogue Talents are either boring, ineffective or both.
I am generally not interested in 1/2 BAB classes - no wizards, summoners, witches, sorcerers.
Plus I don't like mechanics and style of the summoner
Fighters: not enough skill points, horrible saves; could imagine a dwarven fighter, though.
Rogues: seems to be too weak mechanically
could imagine playing a fighter/rogue (about 50/50 of each class)
I prefer not to play any of the classes without using the Gestalt rules.
After having to play a Magus by RAW for PFS, I don't want to play any class that doesn't get everything it needs to make it effective as a class.
hehe not as op as most of the high rollers around here would try to suggest/beat over head with misinformation.
The Cavalier is too hitched on its mount for me. I might be able to come up with a small one, so he can take it into more confined spaces. Without the mount, the class could be rather interesting.
The Cleric is boring. Maybe one of the archetypes would suit me better, like the Crusader, or the Cloistered Cleric (without Diminished Spellcasting, because WTF?)
The Druid, because it's not what I think Druids should be, i.e. people of knowledge, not demi-shapeshifters with a pet (I know the pet is optional, but still). I could imagine playing a Menhir Savant, though.
Personally, I'd replace wildshape and maybe the pet with some abilities akin to those of the 3.5 Archivist, which help the party to identify and defeat opponents. There are spells for shapeshifting.
I'll play anything once, but the rogue is my least favourite. (For reasons I listed in an older thread on the subject.)
|
Gunslinger...well...except under certain circumstances. It's just not the feel I like...guns only mix in fantasy in limited ways...for me. I can get into dwarves with guns...a little...or gnomes. *shrug*.
My 'western-style' fantasy always has a dash of the far east...so I can see the Asian-themed, complete with fluff...or a reskin.
I'd be interested in a cavalier, given the right...'knightly'...campaign. Not so much, otherwise.
Fighter (unless made an archer or multiclassed)
Barbarian
Ranger (melee)
Monk
Cavalier
Gunslinger
Ninja (it shouldn't be a class imho, just a rogue archetype)
Samurai (same, cavalier or fighter archetype)
Most of these classes are boring to play for me.
Summoner has an interesting concept, but how it was done it unnecessarily complex and tends to be abused on a regular basis, at least in my experience.
Oh, and by the way what the game really lacks is a variant class for paladin without having to be LG, but still linked to a deity.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
the most abnormal i played a tiefling, was a small framed red haired girl with human features with miniature bat-wings protruding from her back that she bound beneath her shirt with a bandeau and a long and slender yet sharp tipped and prehensile tail that she concealed beneath a long skirt. unless her skirt was intentionally lifted or she were stripped nude, she could pass herself off as human. she had no horns nor hooves. having a human head/cranial structure and human feet.
You are basically giving a portrait of Majin Etna from the Disgaea videogame series :)
Anything that either transforms into something else, like Druids, or things with pets, like the Summoner (or, again, the Druid). I guess Druids are at the bottom of my list.
Monks are not much of a fancy of mine as presented, but I can accept a western repurposing in the way of a brawler or pugilist. I like eastern culture, but I really dislike the whole ninja/shaolin monk/ki flavour.
Finally, the Cavalier. I just can't find the class inspiring or interesting and the mechanics seem a tad dull to me (that said, I have a player with a Cavalier in my current game that makes it appear quite fun).
Regarding races, I've never played a dwarf. I think I dislike the beards.
Cavalier/Samurai: I don't like being stuck on a mount and I don't find lances a particularly fun weapon concept.
Gunslinger: Not a big fan of guns in a fantasy game.
Magus: There's just something about them. I can't put my finger on it though.
Summoner: I can only say "I summon a thing" so many times, no matter how awesome the eidolon may be.
|
So, it's not a class per se, but "Pretty much any idiot who uses a crossbow" since crossbows are just terrible.
Although I'm actually running a Crossbowman right now to try and prove that it's workable..... But it's more of a "I've played everything and my characters are usually a little bit above the power curve compared to the other players, so I'm intentionally playing something terrible" kind of thing.